sjf1967
-
Posts
328 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by sjf1967
-
-
Yes - but in my experience, it is often the parents who have more of a problem with commitment. I am not criticising such parents out-of-hand, here - I do understand that we all work hard in this country and that there are precious few moments each week in which families can do things together (or visit relatives, etc.); however, I am also amazed at how little some parents seem to grasp with regard to what we are trying to do and the effort - and commitment - needed to achieve this.
Well, this may have worked for that particular parish. However, it depends on what one is attempting to achieve - and how high sights are set.
I am concerned when I hear people talk of certain types of church music as 'elitist' or 'high-brow' - there is currently in our society, far too much evidence of 'dumbing-down'. Sadly, this attitude has also made inroads into mainstream church music for many years.
It has often been my experience that if one tells a child that something is boring, or old-fashioned, the child will then usually be influenced by that thought. However, it is refreshing to see children, un-encumbered with pre-conceived notions, react very favourably to cathedral-style repertoire (for want of a better term). A case in point was one of our choristers; the first full Evensong in which he sang had as the setting Stanford, in C. Immediately after the final chord of the second Gloria, he let out an almost involuntary 'Phwarrrr!' (or however one wishes to spell it.) Just looking at the natural thrill and rapt expression on his face convinced me that some of our churches are doing a great dis-service to our younger members.
I would say that the secret is to encourage them to look up. By this, I mean, to raise their standards of expectation.
I realise that cathedral-style worship is not necessarily suitable for every parochial situation. However, I think that its application could be far wider than that which is currently prevalent.
Interestingly, when we have a service at my own church which involves modern music (again, for want of a better term), it is the one item of 'traditional' fare which our choristers go out humming - every time. We do not tell them what to like (unlike some of our number, who try to push choruses and rock-band-type accompaniments). Food for thought.
A final point: When I have directed an RSCM course (for example), with children from many different church backgrounds, one of my aims is to give them a taste of something which they may never get in their own churches. I do not regard this as 'elitist' - but I do think that it is vital that we raise their levels of expectation.
The programme for these courses (as some of you are no doubt aware) is to sing a cathedral-style Evensong (or Mass), usually in a cathedral each day for a week or so. This means that children who have never even heard of this wonderful music, get to learn a new Psalm, setting and anthem (together with responses and introits) each day. I have never yet met a group who were not equal to this challenge - or did not welcome it.
So often the problem lies in us ourselves. We do not expect nearly as much of these children as they are able and willing to give.
In return, it is enough for me to see the expressions of wonder and pleasure on their faces as the last notes of the service die away - and they are able to consider that which they have achieved.
We did a fantastic piece of Patrick Gowers recently - Veni Sancte Spiritus - and next morning most of the boys had programmed the theme into their mobiles......
-
Of course it all depends what sound you want to get out of your choir. observing modern choirmasters may often not come up with the goods, there are certainly no cathedrals I am aware of who teach the old Willcocks methods, that sound is simply not heard anywhere today, although I would single out Westminster Abbey as coming close to it, but without any real use of vibrato. Kings at christmas was superb, and a solo boy had a stunning voice, and the choir sang very much in the old style, even if not quite so hot on the diction as they were. (incidently at Westminster Abbey McKie was another excellent choirmaster)
Of course breathing and phrasing and a whole lot of different issues must all be taken into account and of course allowed for, that goes without saying. But to return to my point, if one listens to modern choirs the old sound is simply not there. How much one will learn from any who disregard the old method is open to question, no matter what their position or training.
All best,
R
Richard - I wonder how wise it is to copy another choir's sound and impose it on another group of singers, however much you admire it. Different acoustics, different boys - different end result. You won't learn how to train a choir like Willcocks by watching David Hill, of course, but they will certainly learn a tremendous amount from someone who has been at the helm of some of the finest cathedral and collegiate choirs of the last half century. Compare the sound of the boys at the Abbey and Westminster Cathedral under James O Donnell - fine choirs both, and James is a superb choir trainer, but the two sets of boys sound completely different and the same person has trained them both. So why do they sound so different? (Incidentally, the boys in both choirs have regular professional singing tuition). I still can't quite apprehend your concept of vibrato. You can't 'use' it like a string player uses it, or an organist uses a tremulant - it either comes or it doesn't. What your boys are doing must be something else I think. AJT/pncd - a couple of books that might be interesting. They are very definitely about the voice in general rather than boy choristers in particualr, but they are very sound. 'A Handbook of the Singing Voice' - Meribeth Bunch - a concise and not too anatomically involved description of how it all works physiologically. Even I understand most of it and I'm no scientist... 'Singing and the Actor' - Gillyanne Kayes. Despite the title, this has a lot of very helpful information about general vocal technique, and some excellent exercises - especially good on register change etc. It's a kind of handbook for the Estill method of voice training, and while not all of that approach works for every singer, it provides a good basis for some things. Not by any means the only way to do it, but you might find it helpful to read - again, in conjunction with lessons/discussion from a good teacher - both books avoid vague imagery and airy terminology in favour of straight fact, a good basis for an understanding of basic vocal physiology on which you can then build an approach that kids relate to. There's a good bibliography in the Bunch book for serious researchers.
-
Thanks for the response!
A good ear and instinct I agree with, but surely there's something more than that in actually teaching boys to sing, and, more importantly, sing in the way that you want them to, and that will stand them in good stead for later in life?
John Bertalot's books, if you can get past the way they're written, seem to convey some of this, but I wondered what other resources are out there that the more experienced folks, such as yourself and Stephen Farr know of...
ajt/Richard - I do think that there is more to this than just an ear and instinct. Singing is a skill that can be taught, and there are certainly principles behind a sound technique that no-one, however gifted, is just going to hit on by chance; but the knowledge can be acquired. This becomes more the case when trainers have to sort out voices with problem areas - there isn't a predictable steady supply of natural, easy, fluent voices now, and the first year or two of a boy's training sometimes needs to be spent unpicking the unhelpful vocal habits with which he arrives. I don't imagine the Willcocks generation of choir trainers had this problem to the same degree. As for material - no, there isn't much. Some of the RSCM Voice for Life material is quite good; David/Hilary/Elizabeth's book is very good. My particular luck was a) in working as assistant to two brilliant choir trainers, from whom I learnt countless things and secondly when I arrived here in having a specialist child voice consultant as teacher to the choristers here for three years - she is currently working on a PhD on adolescent voice and at the time she taught here was also teaching in the London cathedrals and coaching child singers for the ROH and ENO. I went and watched many of her coaching and teaching sessions, played for lessons she gave to adults, watched and accompanied her masterclasses, and sent her innumerable emails asking why, what, how..she very patiently and kindly sent me detailed responses and it was enormously helpful. Now I quiz my wife about her own lessons with a different but equally wonderful teacher, some of whose priniciples are proving very helpful in the work we try to do with the boys here. To summarise a fairly long winded response - get talking to some capable singing teachers and ask pertinent questions would be my recommendation. Ask them why they do why they do what they do and get a working knowledge of how the voice actually functions.
-
Romsey Abbey would be a good test, I think.
Or Christchurch Oxford.....it makes a beautiful noise but I found it a test of technique every day, even after 6 years playing it.
-
But a) he's quite a lot older than 14 (certainly old enough to have acquired an ability to decipher notation a bit more accurately) and
his site is chock a block with intemperately immodest statements about his own ability and artistic siginificance....so he is rather inviting, if not ridicule, then certainly trenchant comment.
No idea what that smiley is doing there - and of course I meant significance, not what I typed. It's late.
-
Why berate the poor chap? He plays the Vierne better than I did aged 14... If I'd read all this invective when I was that age, I think I would have given up the organ completely and started concentrating on the fairer sex somewhat earlier than I did....
But a) he's quite a lot older than 14 (certainly old enough to have acquired an ability to decipher notation a bit more accurately) and
his site is chock a block with intemperately immodest statements about his own ability and artistic siginificance....so he is rather inviting, if not ridicule, then certainly trenchant comment. -
There are no men , and the rest of the choir will not generally attempt parts, so a good top line is what I aim at, at least for now...... Of course I do not throw anything at them that is beyond reach, and if it's Latin then I tailor the sound, but again we are talking about tone here, not repertoire. It's like what you can and can't play on any given organ, so if it isn't convincing best not bother. Of course I choose anthems etc that I know they can do and do well, otherwise I wont let them. Nothing worse than a choir trying to do more than they can, particularly when so young, even if they do sound older.
R
It's not quite an exact analogy I think Richard - of course you can't play trios on a one manual, but you're already suggesting that you can 'tailor' vocal sound to suit different genres - so why not tailor range too? A wider vocal range would open up wider repertoire choices. Maybe this is a limitation of the 'head voice' approach.
-
yes I agree with that. As I said, head carried down, never chest up. Incidently I avoid my boys singing anything below D, but the C is good as a safety net, as in "if you can do that you can do a D well". I would be most interested to hear what people think of the old Westminster sound under George Malcolm, and also to hear what people consider his technique was......
All best,
R
You've hit on an important point Richard - repertoire. Are you really saying that you choose your repertoire to fit the sound you are cultivating and that anything which strays outside the range limits of the sound you prefer can't be attempted? Isn't the whole point of technique to enable you to tackle what composers throw at you, no matter what? What about the men in your choir? Do you have to transpose everything up? How do the altos feel about that? I wonder if it has to be acknowledged that the repertoire suited to the older style of training was actually fairly limited in its technical demands - no extremes of compass of dynamic, no angular lines requiring great agility. How would those boys have coped with Weir, Macmillan, Langlais and Poulenc? They do sing very beautifully - but what they sing is not technically testing by modern standards.
-
Richard - I would not necessarily agree with your first point. Certainly over-singing in any register can strain a voice; but I am not completely clear as to what constitutes a 'forced chest tone', in your view.
The latter point - no! If you mean the process of a boy's voice breaking (when the vocal chords thicken, etc), then this cannot be brought about by anything other than physiological and chemical changes, which, in turn, will be influenced by hereditary tendencies.
Whilst I, too, am unhappy about using such terms as 'head-' and 'chest-tone', I will, for the sake of clarity, use them here.
I would question whether it is possible (or even desirable) ot encourage a boy to sing in 'head' tone down as low as middle C - the result would surely be breathy and without any real projection.
I would also be wary of demonstrating something which you wish your choristers to sing, in falsetto - which is, arguably, confusing, since (for the adult male) this involves a different technique. I have found that boys often respond better if I pitch the notes in a range comfortable for my own voice - and then get them to sing it at a pitch which is comfortable for their voices.
Notwithstanding, your point regarding the 'EE' vowel was good - boys (and girls) often tend to try to produce this by flattening and widening the mouth-shape. I also insist on a wider mouth-shape (with the jaw dropped, of course).
I think I know what Richard means by that forced 'chest' sound - it's using the same amount of vocal fold mass as speech employs, and it just can't be carried beyond a certain range - that is the source of the nasty register break we all want to avoid and the vocal mechanism has ways of protecting itself in these circumstances. Lightening the voice as pitch rises is essential, but it has to relate to various postural issues too. The 'ee' vowel is crucial - but as I said before it's what the root of the tongue does that's important (the idea that the tip shouldn't wander about is more established generally now) - a sensation that the tongue is vertical and resting in a relaxed space against the upper back molars is the best strategy for lots of reasons. No space here to go into it in detail! Jaw released and relaxed, rather than dropped, is a terminology I find helpful - if it's dropped too far (like in a yawn) the joint in front of the ears gets involved and the interconnection of musculature eventually puts downward pressure on the larynx from the chin - this inhibits the free movement of the larynx (it rises slightly for higher pitches, and needs freedom to tilt forward to access the thinner vocal fold configuration which enables easy access to high pitches) and will in the end also cause register problems. A sensation that the upper jaw is lifting can be more helpful - a sneeze rather than a yawn - and this also helps with soft palate position. The neck needs to feel like it is lengthening vertically too as pitch rises - this helps to 'support' the larynx as it deals with register changes. Actually heavy 'chest' register can be carried up quite a long way - singers in musical theatre use it. It's called 'belting' and is a specialised technique which needs very expert training - it has NO place in the sort of music we deal with and no one who doesn't know exactly what they're doing should even think of trying to train in this style.
-
I sense brinkmanship!
There seems to some support hereabouts for the concept of a tour...perhaps we should issue an invitation for a couple of lunchtime concerts, Andrew. Can you find a slot at St Saviour's? I' d travel a long way to hear that combination of organ and performer. As for the pronunciation I had imagined it was No-bi-le, as in 'La Donna e....'
-
Andrew - let's talk ....he'd make a great juror you know. I will if you will....
-
Heck! And the brass is always late!
Good thing Mr. Nobile browses through the middle section so quickly. This way, the Trumpet and Trombone players can't have more than one pint or two before re-entering even later.
(Or do brass players made of sand develop drinking habits different from those of their colleagues in flesh and blood?)
Enchanted,
Friedrich
I'm quite tempted to offer him a concert here, but we're booked out until 2008...
-
I always start with raw material, usuallly about 7 years old. First thing is to get them to find their heasd voice at all, as primary school will only have taught them to sing in chest and basically sqwauk!! I usually start with the OO, which can take ages with me often having to show them myself in falsetto, but once that clicks I can tell them to remember how it feels, and where it comes from. I ask them to tell me. I then get them to sing in chest voice, and tell them point blank that is not the sound I want. Ditto for the other vowels. Diction is another matter, and all you can do is show them, and let them see you have the confidence and carefree attitude yourself to sing out reagardless. Boys at that age will copy you in everything you teach, and are an open page for you to write upon. Yes i have blueprint, a sound that I contantly aim at, and it is exactly Willcocks/Vann/Thalben Ball, and everything is tailored to that. All bar Latin, which sound plain ridiculous in stuffy English tone. For that I go more thinner vowelled, particularly the "i" in say Virgine, but Latin is the sole exception. Boys also copy each other, and there is a distinct sense of competition going on, which is good and healthy, but needs to be kept in place, with everyone feeling equally valued....and important. It really is a case of "pulling" the voice up into the head, and the use of vibrato (not all the time) actually helps this, as well as increasing power dramatically. I could go on, but do you want me write a book!?
R
Richard - a book would be good, maybe. How do you get them to produce the oo? Tongue position for that vowel? And what do you do about vibrato? - it either comes or it doesn't if it's true vibrato - you can't 'add' it or remove it if it isn't naturally in the voice, I think. Can you expand on those points ? Best S
-
No, you are not.
How does a mind work in which the Vierne Finale is represented like this?
And then -- have you seen the video on
<http://www.nobile.com/html/video.html>?
In German we say "Organistenzwirn" to this kind of ... um ... sound. And the video makes me feel sea-sick just from watching. Why does he treat the poor console like that?
Hurrying to the railing:
Friedrich
the widor's worse....
-
Having myself been brought up in an all male choir, and having run an all male choir in my early days as a choir trainer, I shared some of the concerns expressed here about boys leaving en masse etc.. However, having run choirs with mixed treble lines for many years now it has not been my experience that this causes any problem. I have generally found that numerically the balance between boys and girls in the choir is naturally maintained and the notion that a mixed choir in fact turns out to be all girls is simply not true. Of course, if you currently have an all male choir and you change it just out of some form of political correctness you may upset the existing membership - but thats a different line of reasoning.
There are issues that need to be considered and handled with tact and diplomacy (not my strong points!). Especially around the age question - ie. that girls can go on singing treble/soprano for much longer than boys and without clear policies in place to allow for this it could result in Head Choristers' posititions, or similar positions of rank and responsibility, being denied to the boys.
Similarly, the question of whether boys get teased, or even bullied, at school because they're in a church choir is not related to whether its an all male choir. I myself tolerated a great deal of this back in the 1970's (in the context of an all-male choir) and I guess things have got worse rather than better. However, this is not a problem confined to boys. My daughters come in for exactly the same bullying and harassment as a result of their membership of the choir.
The all male choir is now a rarity and, as such, we need to cherish and protect remaining examples. But for most of us in the parishes we need to be inclusive and can not afford to turn away anyone who is willing to make the commitment to sing in our choirs.
Each choir trainer needs to know what sound they are trying to achieve and also should have themself studied voice production to know at least the basic techniques that they need to promote. It has been my experience that if you have these basic starting points you will achieve similar, and good, results whatever the mix of boys and girls in your treble line.
You've hit the nail on the head - you can't teach people (especailly children!) to do something you haven't tried to do yourself....an empirical approach to singing technique without some sort of input from a real life singer is rarely successful.
-
It was never my intention to decry "Continental Tone", but I was simply making the point that the old way of singing has largely disappeared. We all talk of Kings as being the finest choir, or did, but that accolade was awarded when the old sound as per Willcocks was in vogue, who did use a very full head voice and a fair old degree of vibrato. A forced chest tone will in time wreck a voice, it is really a form of shouting and the strain can be heard, and it causes a voice to break faster. The tone is not natural in the way head tone is. Nor is it simply the voice production that I find disturbing, but also the diction. We have a language that we should treasure, but all too easily this too can slip. The vowel "E" has to be carefully used (as an example), the jaw to drop rather than try to put the E out as it is, with the mouth widening. This will cause a chorister to become reedy, and the tone will sit at the back of the throat, rather than in the head. People refer to head tone as "Falsetto", and of course yes it does employ the same machanism by and large, but in a boy the tone is different to an adult, so that it cannot be truly regarded as such. Girls sometimes have almost a boys voice but are often more reedy, and there is certainly less difference in boy/girl tone now, simply by virtue of the tone used. Boys talk diffently to girls, and they sound different in singing. A "sound" yes, and a good sound when trained well, but not as pure as a boys voice. P.R. makes some almost scared to stand up for such things, but it is the truth nevertheless. We are losing fast a sound that was very English, and very unique. I do not for a second suppose that all cathedrals should go back to Ernest Lough, but I do say some should. Interestingly, the Kings carols broadcast last year was amazing, and something of the old sound had returned, not least in the solos. Of course Continental Tone has its place, but not to the exclusion of all else. The world is a big place, but this country is turning its back on a very fine tradition, and a lot are following suit. This saddens me.
The choir I run was disbanded and the boys moved with me to another, Anglican, church, and we are thriving there. This was a sideways move to give them more to do and be a better chellenge. I am still encouraging the old tone, and as a matter of interest have one boy who has a stunning voice, at only 8 (who sounds 13), who is a carbon copy almost of Lough. I hope great things for him and them all, and the reason I train the old tone is simply to keep it alive. It takes a lot of work, and it means taking every single thing, vowel etc apart and constantly having to signal for vibrato, but the results are good, and the boys love the challenge. I apologise if my letter caused any offence to anyone, it was simply a concern from a true Englishman (my family has been traced direct line to the early 16th century) who loves and is proud of his country and all of its history and traditions. That includes our choral singing!
R
Richard - can I ask you a few specific questions? Absolutely no offence taken here, and it would never do it everyone sounded the same - but it's all very interesting and having heard your boys on the sound clips I am keen to know exactly what you are teaching them to do. What precisely do you tell your boys to do to achieve it the sound you want? Do you have a blueprint for an absolute ideal of sound which you mould each voice to fit, whatever its intrinsic qualities? How do you make a voice produce vibrato if it isn't naturally there? Can you be really specific about the training methods you use, from basics onwards - what's your regular warm up routine, for example? No one who advocates the 'older' style ever gives anything away about how they think it should be done beyond fairly vague description, and I wish they would - it would open up some useful avenues in the debate. Best wishes S
-
That has been my experience also, particularly when the girls are that little bit older that the boys.
However, I don't think many of us in the Parish Church arena are in the luxurious state of having a pseudo-cathedral setup such as you have - if had separated out my trebles to sing as boys and girls choirs, I'd have had 4 + 6 respectively...
But, maybe training them separately and running them as single sex treble lines might have recruitment benefits - as pcnd mentions, there is a lot of peer ridicule associated with boys singing in a choir, and anything we can do to minimise that has got to be a good thing...
Our two sets of choristers are a generation apart - 8-13 for boys and 11-17 for girls - and the difference in their respective maturity makes it more of a challenge to deal with both simultaneously - there is a different psychology operating in the two groups. I do wonder what Roffensis/Richard has to say about this thread so far? It would be interesting hear his views, on the voice training aspect especially.
-
I was once conducting a university choir doing, amongst other things, the Ave Verum, on live radio (only local radio). I gave the upbeat to the accompaniment of a very resonant burp from a certain bass, who then apologised loudly to his neighbour for the pervading stench of curry....
There's a famous recording of a John's organ scholar breaking wind very audibly in a live R3 broadcast...wouldn't dream of saying who.
-
Stephen, thank you for your reply - I found your comments most helpful.
I would very much like to hear your Guildford choir - I must try to get there one Saturday - that is, if they still sing Evensong on Saturdays?
Regards,
pcnd
pncd - it would great to see you here but I'm afraid Saturdays are no longer sung by the cathedral choir - it was a change we made reluctantly a few years back to address our particular chorister recruitment problems. Drop me a line via the cathedral website if you like - I'll let you know what's coming up. Very best wishes S
-
There seems to me to be much good sense, here.
Stephen, I agree totally with your comments concerning so-called 'head' and 'chest' voices. I remember a letter which you wrote to Organists' Review a few years ago, in which you pointed out that there is no physical connection between the larynx and the 'resonating spaces' in the head, citing Gray's Anatomy as evidence. I realise that this is not an exact quote, but I am afraid that I am too tired to search through back-issues at the present time!
I would also like to state a personal preference for the brighter 'continental' tone, certainly for boys' (and girls') voices. Those choirs which have been trained by David Hill, Stephen Darlington and Christopher Robinson come immediately to mind. The bright, fresh sound seems to enhance just intonation, to my ears. Allan Wicks was also an example - although in his case, I do not think that there was any conscious attempt to produce a 'continental' sound.
I confess that I have little time for the plummy 'hooty' sound which is occasionally produced and which can sound so dull and lifeless. I suspect that it is rather like comparing the old (1921) Gloucester organ with the new (1971) Gloucester organ.
What is interesting, is the number of cathedral organists who have engaged (albeit with the support of the Dean adn Chapter) professional singing teachers. I would be interested to know whether the organists concerned feel that there have been tangible benefits as a direct result of this policy. Of course it depends greatly upon the choice of singing-tutor.
In our own church choir, my boss engaged a singing-tutor for approximately three or four years - with little result, as far as I could see! I occasionally walked through the church during lessons, and was slighly concerned to discover that the girls were singing anything which they happened to bring - often 'pop' songs - why? This involves a completely different technique! (Some might argue that it involves a lack of technique.) I also discovered that the boys were often taught English songs - Quilter, etc. Again, I felt that this was inappropriate for the type of music which we wished them to sing during services. Although I did make tactful mention of it to my boss, nothing was done until he retired a few months ago. Whilst in one sense, a good singing technique may be taught through a variety of musical styles, I did feel that, since we desired a particular sound, a rather more carefully-targeted approach would have been beneficial.
It is to be hoped that, if we do decide to engage the services of another singing-tutor, he or she will prove to be far more useful to the cause, so to speak.
pncd - thanks for your comments. We have had three really excellent singing teachers since before my time here - all of them great with the kids - and I think it was my excellent predecessor in post who introduced the idea. Our current system is that the boys and girls work on real repertoire - either from service lists or things they're preparing fro ABRSM exams. I'm doubly lucky in that my wife (a professional singer herself) is doing the teaching (boys and girls)- nearly all the boys and many of the girls have individual lessons with her away from choir time - and I discuss constantly with her what is going on with each boy, what problems need monitoring, and try to learn as much as I can about what she teaches and why. My Sub who runs the girl choristers does the same. My better half comes in once a week to rehearsals and does the warm up and often stays in to monitor the sound each boy is making in the full ensemble as well as taking individuals out. I'm sure that a unified approach works best - we use the same imagery in pursuit of the physiological things we want to happen and are pursuing absolutely the same basic ideal for the sound, so the principles we want to instil are (we hope) being constantly reinforced. Images are great in teaching singing to kids as long as you know what the images in question are trying to achieve. We talk about it constantly. Team work is the key if you're using a singing teacher I think - any success we may have here with the way the boys sing is not just my doing - I've had the benefit of the expertise of really wonderful colleagues along the way and I've been tremendously fortunate in that.
-
Stephen, many thanks for your illuminating comments. There's some very useful food for thought there. As far as tone production goes, I'll know I've cracked it when I can get a choir to sing the first chord of Byrd's Ave verum with a magic pianissimo that doesn't sound as if the singers are still three-quarters asleep and hungover after a hard night's partying!
VH - one of the hardest things to do - you're quite right.
-
Well, yes, this must be physically true. Yet singers do speak of chest resonance and head resonance - at least those I have spoken to do - by which I understand them to mean the degree to which a falsetto-like quality is allowed to imbue the tone (without resorting to full-scale falsetto production of course). That is all I meant to convey by the term "head-voice". As for the resonating spaces I will have to defer to those who know what they are talking about, but again the singers I have spoken to do talk about such things and, whatever the physiology behind it, there is a noticeable difference in resonance between a singer who has had proper voice-production lessons (supported diaphragm and all that) and one who hasn't. Boys voices can develop considerable resonance when taught, but I'm not sure it can ever quite equal those of grown men (though I'm no singer, so I'm happy to be told otherwise).
You're quite right, VH - singers do talk about things in terms of chest/head resonance - but what they are feeling is vibration. Sensation is a crucial part of singing experience but isn't necessarily a representation of the actual situation physically. Resonance in the strictest sense is of course affected by airflow (although the diapraghm, I was interested to discover from one very expert in these matters, is nothing to do with it - it's not under conscious control, and the important muscles for 'support' are actually further down the body), but how the resonator is tuned - the relationship between the tongue, lips, jaw, general head position etc etc. The most crucial element is possibly tongue position - if you say 'eee' quietly to yourself with a relaxed jaw and without a sideways grimace you'll get the best resonating space, and that's where we start from - the other vowels are related to it rather than to 'ooo' which is much more susceptible to bad formation. It's what the back of the tongue does just as much as the tip which has a material effect on the sound.
Best wishes S
-
I'm going to be offline for a week, but I'll put my cards on the table.
Firstly, I think it pays to be very wary before one claims that there only one right way to perform anything, whether it's a matter of choral tone, organ tone, interpretation, or anything else. More often than not it says more about the insufficiencies of one's own musical appreciation than anything else. The best organ teachers are those who can think themselves into the interpretation you are trying to give and show you how to improve it, not the ones who insist that you play the piece their way. That's not to say one should ignore what is right or wrong from the historical point of view, or that one is not entitled to have preferences. Even less is it an acceptance of "anything goes". Anyone is entitled to come to the conclusion that a particular sound or intertretation is just plain "wrong" for the music in question. My point is simply that it does not pay to close one's ears.
As far as choral tone goes, I couldn't give a gnat's piffle whether it's "continental" or "early twentieth-century English" so long as it's a musically satisfying experience.
I loved the sound of King's under David Willcocks. I have no idea whether the boys were actually trained to produce a largely head-voice sound, but it certainly sounded like it. It fitted the acoustic like a glove and Willcocks made sure his speeds and interpretations played on those qualities. It all fitted together like a glove and - with all due respect to his successors (I'd be ecstatic if I could produce results half as good) - I don't think the choir has ever been the same since. In Byrd or Palestrina, however inauthentic it may have been (and inauthentic it most certainly was), the sound of Willcock's choir could be truly magical, but it didn't work for everything: their Bach motets sounded frankly ridiculous.
Yet I have discs of Tudor music sung with "continental" tone by David Hill's choir at Winchester and Stephen Darlington's at Christ Church, Oxford (to name but two) that are just as awesome in their own way. The music is virile and exciting: it comes alive.
The traditional English head-voice production is a product of the same era that would have the lessons at Matins and Evensong read in a flat, dispassionate voice because it was thought to be no business of the reader to impose his personal interpretation on the hearer. It was an era when things were regarded as best done undemonstratively. It is a beautiful sound when done well, but it is not very effective when any sense of drama is required.
My principal criticism of "continental" tone is that the bright tone of the boys is apt to blend less with the men. I imagine that's partly to do with the different resonating spaces in children's bodies and adults', but there is also the consideration that most cathedral choirs are inherently top heavy in terms of numbers so that the boys inevitably stick out like a sore thumb. There's a historical reason for this and it's nothing to do with singing - it was to ensure that there were sufficient boys act as thurifers, taperers and acolytes as required by the liturgy, while still leaving some to sing the plainsong with the men.
So, to sum up: horses for courses.
I shall look forward to reading how this thread has developed when I return.
Excellent points all, Vox Humana. You've opened up one avenue which is especially interesting I think - the whole idea of chest and head voice and how those concepts have changed and developed. What my singing teacher colleagues tell me is that there's only voice - it's produced in the larynx as air passes over the vocal folds, and it resonates in and is 'tuned' by the various regions of the pharynx and the oral cavity. Chest resonance as a logical consequence can't exist - how can you have a resonator below the sound source? And head resonance - in what space exactly is the sound supposed to resonate? How is it supposed to travel there from the larynx in order that it might resonate in the head? There's no route! Sensations of vibration are one thing, but to say that's actual resonance is quite another. You can't pick your sound up and move it at will from chest to head and back again, although some awareness of how the larynx deals with pitch change makes training out nasty register breaks a lot easier and helps to avoid them developing in the first place. The point you make about balance is important - but I'd say it depends on the men who are singing, and on the ability of the director to balance the sonorities; I don't think it's a fault of 'continental' production to cause balance problems. I wonder how many boys Willcocks had to choose from for each chorister place at King's and how many arrived with vocal problems that he had to train out of them? Alastair - I'm glad you liked the article - and yes, let's include girls in the discussion, although for obvious reasons the issue of training them seems to be less emotive...we are certainly delighted to have the girls here and I do hope your two continue to enjoy their singing - good for them.
-
With the proviso that this may be nothing whatsoever to do with this board...here goes. First of all, Goldsmith - you're very kind - the cheque's in the post
I have been very interested to read comments here and elsewhere about the 'parlous' state of choir training in cathedrals. What specific things - posture, breathing, vowel formation, airflow management etc - do proponents of the 'traditional' sonority think the boys should be taught to do? Richard - your letter in Choir and Organ was pretty categorical that we're mostly doing it wrong (It's a shame the sound clips of your own choristers have disappeared, apparently along with the rest of the church website, by the way). Here we teach the boys to sing in the way that any other singer is taught, with regular input from expert professional singing teachers, and the sound that results is I suppose quite 'continental' in character, whatever that means. I know that at least one person here quite likes it 
and I know exactly what I do to get it. Not that it doesn't change from year to year - it should, given that the personnel aren't the same every year - but all we do is give them sound technical infomation about their voices. The bottom line is that if I were wasting Dean and Chapter funds by wrecking the voice of every boy that came through the choir I'd have some explaining to do ....any views?
his site is chock a block with intemperately immodest statements about his own ability and artistic siginificance....so he is rather inviting, if not ridicule, then certainly trenchant comment.
I have been very interested to read comments here and elsewhere about the 'parlous' state of choir training in cathedrals. What specific things - posture, breathing, vowel formation, airflow management etc - do proponents of the 'traditional' sonority think the boys should be taught to do? Richard - your letter in Choir and Organ was pretty categorical that we're mostly doing it wrong (It's a shame the sound clips of your own choristers have disappeared, apparently along with the rest of the church website, by the way). Here we teach the boys to sing in the way that any other singer is taught, with regular input from expert professional singing teachers, and the sound that results is I suppose quite 'continental' in character, whatever that means. I know that at least one person here quite likes it 
and I know exactly what I do to get it. Not that it doesn't change from year to year - it should, given that the personnel aren't the same every year - but all we do is give them sound technical infomation about their voices. The bottom line is that if I were wasting Dean and Chapter funds by wrecking the voice of every boy that came through the choir I'd have some explaining to do ....any views?
Choral Tone Revisited
in General discussion
Posted
That's my point Richard - it's not vibrato, it's tremolo which is not the same thing. I know exactly what it sounds like... I've got the recording! However, I'm not sure that there really are that many great recordings of choirs in general from the 60s and 70s. It does seem that there can be a danger of extrapolating a general standard from the work of one or two exceptional ensembles.
Best wishes S