Grandi Tenori.com: Index page

Home · ; Shop · ;

Help index · Forum Guidelines · Show recent posts ·

Page 1 of 3
43 posts Go to page 1, 2, 3 Next

Author

Message

< Music per se ~ The future of the Tenor voice

Jim

Posted: 01:27, Tue 26 Jan 2010

Pianissimo Member (100+)Joined: 01:40, Thu 24 Dec 2009Posts: 123

This is a somewhat esoteric topic. Nevertheless there may be some interest in speculating on our continued existence as tenors into the future, or perhaps not.

It is interesting to note that there is a correlation, albeit not exact, between stature and frame type and vocal category. In this way it is fair to say that basses are larger (not always taller but usually so) than baritones and baritones than tenors. This also continues on to sopranos and contraltos. It is important here also to try to exclude girth from this discussion. Singers are often well nourished and at the wrong time of day which does not help in keeping weight down.

Tenors, both amateur and professional where they exist, seem nowadays to fall into a hybrid category with a significant amount of baritonal resonance in the voice (Caruso is often considered the archetype). Natural tenors appear to be a dying breed (John McCormack, Juan Diego Florez).

Do people here agree and if so, have a view as to why this should be? It might also be interesting to consider where this will lead us in terms of the natural tenor voice (and indeed the high soprano voice) over the next 50 to 100 years.

Jim

Top

baritanist

Posted: 01:32, Tue 26 Jan 2010

Piano Member (250+)Joined: 22:57, Thu 18 Jun 2009Posts: 319

Melocchian tenors sounded far more 'baritonal' than any tenors still singing today.

Top

7thSon

Posted: 06:38, Wed 27 Jan 2010

LurkerJoined: 06:07, Wed 27 Jan 2010Posts: 8Location: USA

"Natural tenors appear to be a dying breed (John McCormack, Juan Diego Florez)."

Not to be too picky, but do you mean "lighter-voiced/ non-baritonal sounding tenors are a dying breed? Dramatic tenors, of course, were born into this world with their larger cords, too

"Tenors, both amateur and professional where they exist, seem nowadays to fall into a hybrid category with a significant amount of baritonal resonance in the voice. . ."

I would theorize that it is not necessarily that man is evolving into the heavier-voiced tenor, thereby leaving a smaller pool of lighter-voiced tenors to fill roles, but that instead, casting directors are currently favoring and therefore hiring the heavier voices.

Thanks for posting on this topic-- I found it a very interesting post!

Top

baritanist

Posted: 06:53, Wed 27 Jan 2010

Piano Member (250+)Joined: 22:57, Thu 18 Jun 2009Posts: 319

Also, I'd say, the standard for 'heavier voices' has dropped significantly in the past few years. Voices that would never sing more than lyric rep 50 years ago are singing Radames and Cavarodossi. As such, this alters the definition of 'higher' tenors, which is now less inclusive.

Top

Jim

Posted: 21:52, Wed 27 Jan 2010

Pianissimo Member (100+)Joined: 01:40, Thu 24 Dec 2009Posts: 123

One of the issues in any discussion of voice is clearly terminology. There is no agreement on a standard terminology on almost any topic relating to singing. The discussions, sometimes heated, which have occurred here are testimony to that.

Of course I know what I mean; which is of no use to you if I cannot get this accross.

The context within which I view the voice, and where my query came from, is as follows;

The human voice male and female is on a continuum within each sex. Therefore the labeling of voices is a convenience which of necessity entails oversimplification of voice categrisation.

Let's take bass, baritone and tenor. Until fairly recently baritone was just another form of bass and indeed in choral circles, still is. Most male voices fall in the area between bass and tenor (baritone). Of these quite a large number fall between baritone and tenor. And by this I mean the natural tenor or as 7thSon stated "lighter-voiced/ non-baritonal sounding tenors". These are singers we can definitely say are tenor while many of the others could be either. Is it possible that Caruso could have made a living as a baritone?

Baritonal tenors are usually of a similar physical type to baritones with both usually bigger than the natural tenor. Basses are usually bigger again. Having a certain amount of excess weight does not qualify as bigger, in this context.

I have noticed that during my lifetime men in the west are getting bigger and my hypothesis is that voices are getting deeper. The same is happening to women.

So within this context, what is likely to happen to the tenor voice?

I agree with Baritanist that the standard expected of voices in the heavier repertoire has declined, probably for many complex reasons not least of which is the requirement, on performer's and management's part, to make money. The 'big' money seems to be in these roles and there is always pressure to fill them

Jim

Top

Geoff. Mallinson

Posted: 22:40, Wed 27 Jan 2010

Fortissimo Member (1500+)Joined: 23:40, Mon 07 Apr 2003Posts: 1871Location: Cleethorpes, N.E.Lincolnshire, U.K.

Am I correct Jim, in thinking that the type of tenor you have in mind is someone like Giovanni Martinelli ? There was a voice which could never have been anything else but pure tenor. I'm tempted to say that his was a voice which was almost unique in that respect.
Geoff.

Top

Jim

Posted: 00:17, Thu 28 Jan 2010

Pianissimo Member (100+)Joined: 01:40, Thu 24 Dec 2009Posts: 123

Yes Geoff, Giovanni Martinelli who did to some extent, unfortunately, come under the influence of the Caruso factor, Beniamino Gigli, Dino Borgioli, Tito Schipa, Giacomo Lauri Volpi, Jussi Bjorling, Luciano Pavarotti and getting towards the limit of natural tenor Franco Corelli (certainly not light voiced).

Mario Del Monaco, Enrico Caruso, Jose Cura, Vladimir Galouzine, Placido Domingo, Lauritz Melchior fall, to one degree or another into the interregnum between tenor and baritone, in my view. I do feel that if a baritone does think they can sing tenor the temptation is to do so as there is less competition. Mind you given the names here who would have it any other way.

Jim

Top

Geoff. Mallinson

Posted: 00:38, Thu 28 Jan 2010

Fortissimo Member (1500+)Joined: 23:40, Mon 07 Apr 2003Posts: 1871Location: Cleethorpes, N.E.Lincolnshire, U.K.

Exactly Jim. The names that you quote are precisely the ones that I also have in mind, even to the points made about Corelli.
Geoff.

Top

7thSon

Posted: 04:06, Thu 28 Jan 2010

LurkerJoined: 06:07, Wed 27 Jan 2010Posts: 8Location: USA

Jim,

I read and re-read your second post in this thread and think I have a feel for the context of the question you posed:

"So within this context, what is likely to happen to the tenor voice?"

Well, an excellent question; I also remember reading some news articles awhile back that human heights are increasing with recent generations. I think the increases were speculated to have been related to better nutrition and advances in medical care. As an aside, could this go hand-in-hand with the increase in life-expectancy?

Back to tenors. . .

If this trend of growth continued, I could see voices continue to morph away from the lighter types, if in fact, the trend exists, until the environment that allowed the growth (even if slight) from generation to generation becomes disrupted. What could cause this disruption? If history cycles through again, the disruption could come in the form of war, famine, and/or disease.

My guess, and this is a gut feeling, is that the tenor voice is likely here to stay.

Top

Jim

Posted: 00:58, Fri 29 Jan 2010

Pianissimo Member (100+)Joined: 01:40, Thu 24 Dec 2009Posts: 123

7thSon wrote:

Jim,

I also remember reading some news articles awhile back that human heights are increasing with recent generations. I think the increases were speculated to have been related to better nutrition and advances in medical care. As an aside, could this go hand-in-hand with the increase in life-expectancy?

Increased stature and longevity are probably correlated in some respects without being directly linked. Some of the causes of one probably also affect the other. For instance with the increased industrialisation of food production there is no sign that the nutrition element of this is ending any time soon.

7thSon wrote:

Back to tenors. . .

[/quote]

You are of course correct that my hypothesis is dependent on a continuation of the current environment. There seems to be a correllation between improved nutrition and increasing energy content of food and increasing stature. This is too late to do me any good.

If there is a catastrophic disruption of this then the trend is likely to cease and even perhaps reverse. Then we might have more tenors, perish the thought.

It is my opinion that there are not many light tenors now in western society. As men get bigger, and voices get deeper, western males (funnily enough I am not actually talking about gorillas) will lose the ability to perform in certain repertoire. When nationalities of smaller stature also grow too large we are left with a conundrum. Who will sing 'Alfredo'?

There is of course, to use Geoff's phrase the "shriller sex"

Jim

Top

7thSon

Posted: 11:08, Sun 31 Jan 2010

LurkerJoined: 06:07, Wed 27 Jan 2010Posts: 8Location: USA

Jim wrote:

If there is a catastrophic disruption of this then the trend is likely to cease and even perhaps reverse. Then we might have more tenors, perish the thought.

Brings to mind the following From The Singing Voice by Robert Rushmore (1971) p.86.

Tenors: A Race Apart. Not only has it been declared that there are "men, women and tenors," but also the nineteenth century conductor, Hans von Bülow said forthrightly, "A tenor is a disease." The tenor may be short, thick-necked, fat and less than divinely handsome of features. No matter, so long as he has thrilling high notes.

This has been a great thread.

7thSon

Top

Dan F

Posted: 20:01, Sun 31 Jan 2010

Piano Member (250+)Joined: 00:05, Mon 14 Jan 2008Posts: 398

If there is any trend at all it is for "clearly" tenors! Such a plethora of them in the last ten years, I am surprised that anyone thinks the tenor voice is all going baritone. I mean the household name in tenordom has been Pavarotti. Now, arguably, Florez. Seems like it's all getting lighter and lighter to me.

Stature? Longevity? Try affluence and canonization. Lots of rich folk, lots of old scores. At this point, anything novel will do. Baritonal was novel in its day. Super high tenors will get novel before we're through. I think we're on the upcurve.

Dan

Top

Jim

Posted: 00:21, Mon 01 Feb 2010

Pianissimo Member (100+)Joined: 01:40, Thu 24 Dec 2009Posts: 123

One way to get a feel for the disparity between the number of tenors and other vocal categories is to look at competition lists. The number of tenors compared to baritones and sopranos is very small. All the ones that are any good are snapped up. If you are a baritone or soprano the competition is, in my view, much greater.

It may also be interesting to look at the list of great tenors for 2nd half of 19th and 1st half of 20th centuries and compare them, in terms of numbers, with an equivalent list from the 2nd half of the 20th century and the list is much smaller.

Your comment Dan about affluence is relevant as, populations are increasing and more people are learning to sing, but I think that proportionately fewer of them are tenors. There also seem to be fewer teachers prepared or able to train the tenor voice.

The tenor voice is our overriding interest on this list. Therefore the members here are very aware of the tenors out there.

I agree that there is now a fashion developing for the lighter tenor voice, and not before time. There is an enormous repertoire that was ignored or sung by the same voices over and over until the last 20 years. Mozart, Rossini, Donizetti and Bellini had nearly disappeared from the repertoire for 100 years. However, even now some works have to be transposed today.

Jim

Top

PrimoUomo

Posted: 02:01, Thu 18 Feb 2010

Pianissimo Member (100+)Joined: 03:28, Wed 30 Apr 2008Posts: 232

I don't think is so much the case. I think simply people nowadays worry about making the sound as loud as possible instead of making it beautiful, and that requires more mass and the tessitura goes down.

Top

CavaradossiNadir

Posted: 04:54, Sat 20 Feb 2010

LurkerJoined: 09:00, Thu 28 May 2009Posts: 7

This sort of discussion always strikes up a spark in me.

I am a firm believer that you DO NOT have to have a small light and pretty voice to be a tenor. Living proof of this are the voices of Mario del Monaco, Franco Corelli and arguably the greatest Tenor of the 20th century, Enrico Caruso.

I have seen the attitude towards larger tenors not being tenors at all a lot in the world of early music. Having spent 7 years in a church choir, and countless hours being told to sing softer in the final chorus of Handels Messiah, i was always told to quieten down because my voice is just naturally too loud. I have many views as to why this was wrong (apart from the fact it was marked FFF or something huge), but back to the matter at hand.
Just because someone has a slightly deeper voice, that doesnt mean they are a baritone or bass. I have been called a baritone a lot, but then, Caruso.

I rest my case.

Top

All times are UTC + 2 hours [ DST ]

Next topic Previous topic Board index ~ Music per se Page 1 of 3 43 posts Go to page 1, 2, 3 Next

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Forum Support: Help index · Forum Guidelines · Contact Forum Admin