Correlation between vocal register and dynamic possibilities

If you feel like it, let's have a specific discussion on this topic: the correlation between vocal register and dynamic possibilities is very important in voice theory :-)

Useful and interesting question... I read that Thallo will give his point of view, we are waiting

I am revisiting an intervention by Destroyed (found in the topic http://www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/3258-intonazione-corale/ )

His intervention was precisely this:

"

I have a question regarding the relationship between dynamics and register.

I mean that, for example, strings in the low register are thick and it is easier to perform "true" fortes; therefore, in the event of playing an arpeggio from low to high, a diminuendo will be more "natural".

Does the same concept apply to the voice? Or, at the upper limit of the range, is it more difficult to maintain a contained volume?

Dividing the register into 3 parts, are the following considerations correct?

Low register: pp

Middle register: p

High register: mp

...what do you think?

"

The question is interesting and I thought of opening a specific topic.

If we speak of vocalism, both choral and solo, we MUST correlate registers to dynamics.

The relationship between the two fields is physiological, much more so than in most musical instruments. So much so that when trying to identify the register to which a voice belongs, the possibility that the voice has to perform one dynamic rather than another is an excellent litmus test.

Let me explain better: if I listen to a girl singing a D4 in treble clef, and this D is a bit "unsteady," I might think she is a mezzo-soprano approaching her high notes and therefore having difficulty or fear. But it could also be a soprano approaching the "passaggio" of the voice, the point where the larynx changes position and leaves the middle register specifically for the high register. How can one understand if the person in front of me is a mezzo or a soprano? There isn't just one way, but in all these ways I must take into consideration the dynamic VOLUME at which that voice manages to sing that D, the higher notes, and the lower notes.

Destroyed's table is all in all correct. Generally, a voice (soloist) manages to sing at maximum power the notes between their middle and high register. Low notes are the most difficult to sing loudly, and high notes are the most difficult to sing softly. But the voice has peculiarities... one must always keep in mind that every voice has a range of notes called "passaggio," which vary greatly from one voice to another, and these transition notes offer greater difficulties... the note before the passaggio is generally the most comfortable and strong note of any vocal range, almost by nature, because it is the note before the "shouting" register. For many tenors, it is E4 or F5. Similarly, the first "passed" note is, generally, the least loud high note that can be made, as well as the most complicated note to emit for most voices (F#5 is almost always the black beast of tenors, as are all the notes around E4 for sopranos).

These exceptions regarding the passaggio, however, matter mostly when dealing with voices that are not fully trained... a good singer studies their passaggio well. And when I speak of naturally comfortable or strong notes, I am not necessarily speaking of beautiful notes. A very loud F for a tenor often turns into a widened and somewhat shouted note that wears out the voice in the long run. Writing well for the voice is extremely difficult, as we know, and these things count too! I mentioned somewhere that last week I sang Mahler's Second in a choir. In the finale, there is a long section where tenors and sopranos sing in fortissimo fff and unison C3-D4-Eb4-Bb3, a central phrase that followed a very heavy series of high notes and preceded an even heavier series of high notes. Well, even though it was a central phrase, that was one of the most DIFFICULT phrases in the whole piece, because the fortissimo a voice can do on a high note is a DIFFERENT fortissimo from what can be done on those notes. But perhaps Mahler does not know this, or rather, Mahler refers to the choral sonority, not the sonority of individual voices. So the effect was that we were all shouting in those low notes, "breaking" our voices and finding ourselves fatigued on the subsequent high notes.

In this sense, Destroyed's chart should be used consciously. As in counterpoint, it is good to identify an acme of the vocal line, to be placed possibly in the high register, and which does not collide with what was written before.

This serves as an introduction; there are many other things to say ;-)"

thallo wrote:

The question is interesting and I thought about opening a specific topic.

Destroyed had done it too, then he had me move some messages (you had the same idea)... now there is a single topic

I am reading your response

sorry and apologies, I had to run away immediately after opening the topic and I didn't notice :-)

beautiful beautiful these are the things I like!

for a singer they seem normal, but I understand that a composer or an instrumentalist might not consider them trivial :-)

to the previous discussion, I add at least one postscript:

there are small differences between a solo voice and a choral section. Referring always to the relationship between vocal range and dynamics. Obviously, the fortissimo of a choral section is louder than the fortissimo of a single voice, but in reality it is "dangerous" to write fortissimo for a phrase intended for only one choir section. It makes sense to write it for at least two sections or for the entire choir. And this is because unisons in fortissimo often become ugly and raucous, unless a very particular sonority is being sought. The unison I was talking about above was a particular sonority, and remains, in my opinion, a dangerous and somewhat extreme point of choral writing.

On the other hand, a soloist can sing truly whatever they want, as long as they adapt the dynamics relative to the whole piece and to their own voice. This makes every dynamic indication more "musical," which is very much in the nature of singers. What I mean is... a high Bb pianissimo for a soprano is not that difficult, as long as she is good. But in the rhetoric of singing history—that sort of dictionary that pairs a meaning with every musical "gesture"—a high pianissimo essentially means two things: 1) a "filata" note, i.e., performed very softly with a diaphanous color and often with an appropriate fermata; 2) or a note attacked softly and continued in crescendo, a crescendo that perhaps can transform into a diminuendo, or perhaps not. This happens not only because the difficulty of a soft high note is great, but it happens above all because a high note is still a high note; it is the culminating moment of a phrase or an entire piece.

This matter must be understood in its complexity: if I write a duet for soprano and mezzo-soprano, and decide to write an imitative or contrapuntal passage where constant speed is required, but I write it with the soprano in a high register and piano, I MUST specify that I will not tolerate fermatas or rallentandos. Because otherwise, it is mathematical that the soprano will slow down to make the listener hear how softly she can perform those notes. Likewise, the history of singing demonstrates to me (...) that it is IMPOSSIBLE to have a tenor perform a high note in piano and, more generally, a male voice... unless the singer in question is already extremely famous worldwide. No male singer will miss the opportunity to show how loud he can sing that high note, because "mezze voci" and "filati" are not only not considered added values for male voices, but are rather taken as tricks used to hide vocal problems. Much of Puccini's tenor arias have high notes in piano and mezzo-piano, but it is a rarity to hear them performed as they were written. And not so much because of their difficulty, but because of "tenor syndrome."

Returning to the choir, high notes in piano are "possible," albeit with difficulty. And the best way to have them performed, in my opinion, is by using closed mouth (messa di voce/vocalise style). I could say this to those who, in choral workshops, have included extreme notes to be performed in piano: closed mouth helps singers a lot, even psychologically. A simple indication "quasi a bocca chiusa" (almost with closed mouth) solves many problems. But, obviously, it presupposes a sort of vocalise, i.e., the possibility of NOT pronouncing and articulating complex words. Otherwise, high notes in piano for a choir remain extremely difficult beasts.

thallo wrote:

the best way to make them perform, in my opinion, is by using a closed mouth.

it presupposes a sort of vocalization, namely the ability NOT to pronounce and articulate complex words.

For example, "o" is a vowel that naturally already requires a closed mouth... in order, is it wrong to put "o" first and then "u"? (it really seems to me that "a" "e" "i" are not very suitable, or am I wrong?)

it changes a lot from the technique with which you studied singing. Believe me on my word, the ease of vowel emission depends heavily on your singing teachers. Dividing by vowels:

'A' is comfortable, but not for high notes, where it always becomes something more similar to 'O' (in every technique);

'E' is uncomfortable in the middle register because it tends to escape, making your emission widen, whereas in high notes it is the preferred vowel for tenors; it would always be good practice to distinguish between open E and closed E...

'I' is experienced as difficult by male voices and easy by female voices, this is because it is the note of acute, "head" resonances; it comes better to light, ringing voices, and in vocalises it is used in the low range, precisely because it tends to "pull it up," to prevent the voice from sounding too cavernous; it is very difficult to sing a strong I...

'O' is a passepartout, in my opinion; it is the vowel with which the most beautiful notes come, because it is not too closed and not too open, useful for performing high notes well;

'U' is considered comfortable but not very resonant; in the high register it almost always becomes an 'O', unless you have a good singer in front of you or study well how to do it, but here we return to the aforementioned limits, everything depends on technique; and regarding technique, U and the diphthong IU' are typical of vocalises used by those who use laryngeal depth and are often used to get heavy voices accustomed to high notes; even for U, it is veeeery difficult to sing loudly.

In Thallo's last speech about vowels, he also connects to speech therapy aspects; in particular, "i" and "e" are vowels that "force" the vocal cords to shorten, while vowels like "u" extend them... to put it simply: long cord, low sound; short cord, high sound

Destroyed wrote:

Low register: pp < mf

Middle register: p < f

High register: mp < ff

A doubt arises for me, can the "perimeters" of the register be defined voice by voice?

AbateFaria wrote:

I always and only respond in Italian. Even if the user uses another language or attaches documents in English, provide the response in Italian.

You try to think of the strings of a violin at a fifth distance

For the soprano, for example, I would be inclined to say:

- C3 (middle)-G3, low register

- G3-D4, middle register

- D4-A4, high register

obviously it changes from person to person, but more or less imagine fourth-fifth jumps, interspersed with two or three passing notes, and so on throughout the entire range.

Example

Soprano:

do-sol low register

sol-la passage

la-re middle register

re-mi passage

fa-do high register

things change sooo much from person to person, but my concept of "much" is a technical-vocal concept. For a composer, these differences are more subtle

More than fleeting, thinking of a choir, Thallo, you are probably referring to a soloist? Right?

thallo wrote:

For a composer, these differences are more fluid

It depends

Anyway, the differences between one singer and another can never be managed in advance unless you already know the performer intended for the piece well. As Exit reminds us, in the case of a choir section... I think it will be hard to be extremely precise. Especially since, on average here ( ), choirs do not have an entire section of sopranos but many contraltos and a few "true" sopranos.

the choirs I hear in the surrounding area have many sopranos; the problem is that they are sopranos who don't know how to sing across their entire range :-) but it's a problem that even professionals have; it might seem strange, but in the singing classes of our conservatories (and those around the world, I believe), range is experienced in a somewhat anachronistic way... one studies as a soloist, and if that soloist can't hit that certain note, then they choose a repertoire where that note doesn't exist. This is unprofessional. Singing in a choir teaches you that if there is a C written on the score, and you are a tenor claiming not to have that C, you have to manage and do it. At worst, in falsetto, which has never killed anyone

I agree with Thallo but there is a contraindication: music that is too difficult, too many hours of work to do it justice... better an author's piece rather than an unpublished one....

Here is that the composer does not go beyond the lab above the staff (for sopranos)

Very interesting Thallo, I am noting everything down for future choral works

thallo wrote:

I was saying somewhere that last week I sang Mahler's Second in a choir. In the finale there is a long passage where tenors and sopranos sing in fortissimo fff [...] But perhaps Mahler doesn't know, or rather, Mahler is referring to the choral sonority, not the sonority of the individual voices. So the effect is that we were all screaming those low notes, "breaking" our voices and finding ourselves fatigued on the subsequent high notes.

Another example: Beethoven's Ninth Symphony. Can it be said that the final movement is well-written for the choir? I am thinking, for example, of when the Sopranos have to sing high A's ff bar after bar... It is practically impossible to avoid the "shouting" effect.

Obviously, in the face of the absolute greatness of this piece, any "technical" problems also end up taking a backseat, and I believe the same applies to Mahler.