When and why did 'operatic voices' become so ugly?

[verismissimo]

In 1907, after 50+ years of teaching female singers, Mathilde Marchesi wrote:

‘The continual vibrato (chevrotement) is the worst defect in singing, and is a certain sign that a voice has been forced and spoiled. It is the result of the relaxation of the exterior muscles of the larynx, which can no longer remain motionless in the same position during the emission of each sound. This disastrous permanent vibrato proceeds from the ignorance or neglect of the registers’ limits.’

She knew what was happening!

[Daniel]

In a rather nebulous way, excessive vibrato strikes me as a kind of insecurity, technical and psychological, a refusal to meet the music head on. When I do listen, it seems like a mild insanity, why would anyone want to sound like that?

On occasion it seems okay, in Wagner for example. I'd always understood that vibrato was necessary to project the voice over large orchestras etc, perhaps to ask a singer to do that and also sound well via the intimacy of a digital mic is a Herculean expectation, achievable only by the few.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

String vibrato can be turned off easily (and it is a bit of a turn-off when it happens).

Woodwind and brass players generally have excellent breath control and can play with or without vibrato as required.

Singers - that's a different matter. There appears to be a much lower degree of control here.

[Nick Armstrong]

And fortunately, we seem to be in an infinitely richer era in terms of piano and orchestral performance (in music which to my ears is much more satisfying) - see my post on the "CD Review discs" thread...

[MrGongGong]

Can one of the folks using the expression enlighten me as to why a "digital mic" should be in anyway different to a good old analogue one?
Is putting the AD converter in the microphone the thing that makes it sound different?

[Nick Armstrong]

Can one of the folks using the expression enlighten me as to why a "digital mic" should be in anyway different to a good old analogue one?
Is putting the AD converter in the microphone the thing that makes it sound different?

I'd love to know, too.

I just sense that its got worse since the 'digital' era. One example that springs to mind is the choir of King's, Cambridge - in recent years, the sound of the choir you get on the radio (Choral Evensong, Christmas Eve carols) is far different from (and inferior to) their sound - i.e. the blend of the choir, the tone etc - when heard live. I never used to notice a radical difference between the two experiences.

(Is there anyone else who is familiar with choral groups who broadcast, and can comment on any 'radio v. live' difference?)

The thought occurred to me that it may be - ahem - analogous to the effects of high definition photography and film in the digital era - for example television. Pictures can be so sharp that defects in people's appearance - pores, spots and skin discolourations - are rendered so clearly and pitilessly that they assume a prominence that detracts from rather than enhances the image, and is different from (and arguably worse than) the experience of actually seeing face-to-face.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Can one of the folks using the expression enlighten me as to why a "digital mic" should be in anyway different to a good old analogue one?
Is putting the AD converter in the microphone the thing that makes it sound different?

I was wondering about this too.

You can buy "digital headphones". If they were really digital, you wouldn't hear any music.

[MrGongGong]

I was wondering about this too.

You can buy "digital headphones". If they were really digital, you wouldn't hear any music.

Indeed
And you can used them to listen to "R'n'B" which is neither "rhythm" nor "blues"....

[Flay]

They don't sing like they used to

I must agree with Calibs et al here about much operatic singing. Mind you it's generally not so bad with Opera North IMHO.

[Daniel]

My use of digital mic was just rather cavalier shorthand for modern recordings and their clinical scrutiny of sound. No technical knowledge was involved.

The thought occurred to me that it may be - ahem - analogous to the effects of high definition photography and film in the digital era - for example television. Pictures can be so sharp that defects in people's appearance - pores, spots and skin discolourations - are rendered so clearly and pitilessly that they assume a prominence that detracts from rather than enhances the image, and is different from (and arguably worse than) the experience of actually seeing face-to-face.

That's the kind of thought that occurs to me also, I feel there may be some truth to it. Though I'd add that ultimately the more pores, discolourations etc the better in general, as it seems closer to the truth, wherein lie the greatest beauties of all (I know recordings are all smoke and mirrors anyway, but ... ). If to one it's an ugly truth, then so be it, at least one sees it clearly.

[MrGongGong]

I'm resisting the Wombles quote again

[jean]

...Mind you it's generally not so bad with Opera North IMHO.

Or the WNO, or the Buxton Festival, or any company on the lookout for cheaper, younger singers who haven't had their voices ruined yet through trying to do too much too soon.

Or, I would have said, Pesaro. I listened to the Rossini last night and thoroughly enjoyed it. There was one sop with a remarkably Callas-like timbre, but I heard nothing I'd call vile, wobbly and altogether toxic.

There's not much point in expecting to hear Rossinian coloratura sung with the sort of 'straight' sound appropriate to early music - it can't be done.

[teamsaint]

I wonder if any of our experts in Lieder/art song, or indeed choral music etc have similar views to those in the OP, about how singing styles in those fields have change in the time frames being discussed?

I feel that I too often turn off swiftly from music in those areas, when presented with voices or singing styles that seem inappropriately transferred from the opera house.

Personally, I blame competitions for much of the trouble.....

And and some links to some recent examples of operatic singing that people really like would be great.

[cloughie]

I wonder if any of our experts in Lieder/art song, or indeed choral music etc have similar views to those in the OP, about how singing styles in those fields have change in the time frames being discussed?

I feel that I too often turn off swiftly from music in those areas, when presented with voices or singing styles that seem inappropriately transferred from the opera house.

Personally, I blame competitions for much of the trouble.....

And and some links to some recent examples of operatic singing that people really like would be great.

We seem to have suffered too many over-blown Four Last Songs over the years mostly by opera singers. Also on the rare occasion I am listening to Breakfast these days it will be a vocal item that triggers the 'off' switch.

[jean]

I wonder if any of our experts in Lieder/art song, or indeed choral music etc have similar views to those in the OP, about how singing styles in those fields have change in the time frames being discussed?

I'm not an expert, but I have been listening to and singing early choral music for as long as I can remember.

Back in the 1950s and 60s, women singing early music professionally didn't make the right sort of sound at all; you were better off with amateurs. And if you were an amateur, the received wisdom was, if you wanted to sing this sort of music, don't have lessons, whatever you do. Emma Kirkby started out as a classicist.

All different now, of course.