3:10 They didn't avoid the chest voice while singing bits of arias. They used chest voice, but weren't aware of it as they have a different understanding of what it actually means. Barbieri revealed her understanding of a chest voice by emitting a deep, ugly and cracking noise back in the throat. I think she wanted to produce something of una voce ingolato. Obviously, her (false) understanding of chest voice........
Good God, just listen how Barbieri's voice reverberate in the room! REVERENZA!!! So much power and darkness in her voice. Brava, brava! I defy you to show me a current singer who can sound remotely close to Barbieri in this clip. And pay attention to the fact that Barbieri was a retired opera singer by that time.
Marcella had her own way and temperament, but she was right in being fully upset and pissed off with those silly questions - and unprofessional. But let's appreciate Stefan's hard work though. Thank you to him.
My favourite personality is Gavazzi. She is so passionate when she talks about opera. The saddest, based on my memory of the whole film, is Simionato. The joy of singing left her completely.
There seems to be at present, and indeed for several years now, a great many misunderstandings, about how to train the human voice. One of these is attempting to train it by way of the effect, rather than the cause. Quite clearly stated, we sing with our vocal chords, and the result is resonance in the pharynx, and of course the bones of the head. When the vowel is sung properly with the right amount of energy, the consonant is then carried by this energy and the diction is practically perfect. The key to this is the sung vowel and a rather dark-ish vowel at that, pronounced with the muscles at the back of the throat, not the lips. Brightening the vowel and putting it forward only inhibits the resonance and of course, diminishes the sound of the voice, making it practically impossible to sing with an orchestra. The other effect of the forward approach is the issue of finding the pitch: the problem is technical. If the voice functions as it should, pitch is never an issue. Singing in the mask: One great misunderstanding is the use of the phrase, “sing in the mask”. One of the first people to utilize this phrase was the great polish tenor Jean de Reszke (1851-1925) in his teaching, but he also said at the same time, that “the larynx must be low to achieve the resonance of the whole mask”, and not just sing in the nose, which causes many problems. Another issue that I feel I should address is controlling of the voice, in order to keep it “equal”, as the voice goes higher on the scale. I have spoken about developing the lower and middle parts of the voice and then the higher part. When this is achieved and the voice obviously starts to be freer, hence more intensity of sound, it must be left alone to make this climax. All vocal climaxes are made on higher pitches. This is quite simply how music is written, and to deny it, with some sort of manipulation of the sound, goes totally against the true nature of a voice, and why the composer wrote it that way in the first place. Position of the larynx! Contrary to different opinions today, the larynx should be relatively low in order to achieve the best vocal sound. Of course some languages and how people speak have an influence on the larynx. It cannot be pushed down but it definitely can be trained down. I do this with my students every day. The reason for the lower larynx position is to open the pharynx, thus increasing the resonance and producing the freest sound possible. The vocal chords and the pharynx resonate almost simultaneously, and then “with a little luck”, the voice blossoms, or explodes into the head, depending on the nature of the instrument. Chest voice: All of these various sensations that singers say they feel, are more or less simultaneous with the emission of the sound: this is assuming the voice functions freely and naturally. Perhaps the most singular destructive misunderstanding of our time concerns the chest voice (voce di petto). I prefer to call it the chest register, and it is as essential to both male and female voices, as is the head register. No voice will reach its full potential unless both of these registers are properly trained. As far as the female chest register is concerned, the current theory about it being dangerous, could not be farther from the truth; it is truly dangerous not to develop it, and of course it should be used when singing. Without it no voice is complete.
Thank you! Very interesting. I am not a singer, but I'm curious about what you think about the common stated theory that Callas ruined her voice by abusing the chest voice. I personally don't believe that there was any one reason more than another that she had such a short career and think that it was probably due to many complex reasons that only she could have known, but for the sake of interest and continued debate on the topic I'm curious if you have any opinions :) thanks!!
Makes sense. I agree that yes she had to manipulate something in order to get the voice to do all the things she wanted it to do musically. In terms of the clarity, specific volume, and precision of each note and how it relates to the notes around it and how it makes up an entire phrase, aria, etc. She trained the voice to work like a piano, and yes it was very effective musically and theatrically, but didn't last long. Is that along the lines of what you're saying?
Stone [石のドラム] interesting. I agree that she displayed far greater musical time than really any other singers on record but especially than those of today. It seems that the training just isn’t there anymore nor the musical knowledge. Pianists can still be sensitive today but not singers unfortunately (speaking generally) Also interesting that you say that the female voice is more delicate than the male. Giuseppe di Stefani said that the first time he heard her he was like wow she sings like a man! And it’s true. She has the punch of a man but also has the beauty of line, legato, coloratura, etc. Idk how she did it but it’s miraculous to hear on records. I would be so fascinated to be able to go back in time to see Pasta, Malibran, or Colbran and hear how the actually sang. I’m a professional clarinetist and I think we do something of the same kind of thing with the larynx in order to control the fastest passages. I’m not exactly sure since it was never talked about in my lessons but I heard it mentioned one time. Anyway I feel that as instrumentalists we do have to do a bit of forcing here or there if we really want the music to go a certain way, but i don’t think the consequences are quite as severe 🙂. But from that angle I try and understand what goes on with singers and particularly Callas bc her singing fascinates me to no end.
hodgrix yes, no singer today at least in the light of fame is the level of many singers old. :( The female voice in general is more delicate and prone to injury because the cords are typically thinner and smaller and vibrating at a faster rate. Also why the top part of the range is most dangerous and why the high notes are not just aurally thrilling but thrilling in how dangerous they can be. Women, in my opinion though have the benefit of greater agility and their fundamental pitches are more in the frequency range sensitive to the human ear. Though men, having stronger breath capacity, bigger and thicker cords, can not only generate more air pressure but the cords can be given more air/air pressure without crashing so are naturally more "dramatic and on par to the female voice in terms of "power", despite being roughly an octave lower. There are interesting strengths and weaknesses between make and female voices, but a very light lyric tenor and a contralto are near the same instrument 😅
Stone [石のドラム] yes you feel that with the high notes. It’s not the actual note itself but the feeling one hears when an uncomfortable or as you say dangerous note is being hit! That’s why they excite people
Long story short, it’s neither mask nor chest. It’s about appoggio sul fiato. If you are supporting the sound well, the sound projects properly ie: placed forward. If you don’t, it will be “ingolato” ie: downward. So it’s all about breath support. Either you sing with appoggio or you don’t. It’s not two different voices. Then there is the third case which is singers who do that to darken the voice and try to make it seem bigger which is twice as bad.
Finally someone who understand it! I am sick by Mister Opera and his "Barbieri was against chest voice because she had great voice by nature and she didn't understand herself how she use it! And I know it because Callas said that chest voice is important (but I wouldn't try to understand her deeper, only definitions mean!)." But he has a kind of obsession about "chest voice" and he even don't understand how it works 🙄
Richard Millers book "The structure of singing" is a good resource for this. His book starts on a chapter he titles "The coordinated vocal onset and release."
it is very clear that there is a shift on the terminology and different understanding of the term between those truly amazing vocal artists; all of them used the heavy modal register (chest voice), in different proportions; but while simionato, pobbe and barbieri understand it as a literal "chest resonance" or "chest position" (and therefore are right on saying there is no "chest resonance" as a means per se, because you cannot put your voice anywhere else from where it is actually produced) gencer and gavazzi do mean the physiological "heavy modal register", the "chest registration", which is indeed very often used and has to be trained, as garcia taught; all of them had the registers very well developed, but none of them wanted to depress the larynx artificially, thus creating the "chest feeling" which simionato and barbieri rightfully point out as wrong. these different ways of understanding (and misunderstanding the matter) had though, in fact, led to a series of singers of newer generations (including mine) who really do not develop the chest register enough and this causes a big problem, especially affronting dramatic repertoire... unfortunately.
Dude tbh they doing something inside different and they keep it secret and they didn't teach anyone. She knew exactly what he asked. This is why chest voice is just dead today. This is why without this proper technique chest voice is so ugly today. Believe me or not but i think it's true. They all used chest in the past but with doing something different inside. that's the key. It's not a natural gift. i won't believe this. All this chest voice singers sang at same era. Now not even one singer. They just don't know how to do it and sing without chest. Voices are beautiful but not full of squillante.
"There is no chest voice" ... I challenge anyone to prove to me that there is a chest voice " The truth is that they confused the chest voice with the swallowed voice. Being a great singer does not mean being competent to teach. How much confusion!
It's not related to teaching. It's different terminology. Many singers of this generation used term "chest voice" to swallowed or constricted voice, or vocal fry. Simply for any incorrect use of the lower register.
3:25 Listen to the interviewers natural voice for about 3 seconds. He argues with singers about "natural" sounds and has the most unnatural speaking voice I have ever heard. He needs to take some "voice rehabilitation lessons" so his listeners won't need to cringe so much when listening to him.
@@robertmonthe9750 That's pretty hardy man. Its obvious though that he suffered a vocal injury. He is speaking without glottal closure which is evidence of vocal injury to me. This is surely not something to make fun of him for. The best explanation is that he knows this but cannot make the natural sounds due to injury. Use common sense man. Even just being able to interview these diva's shows he was well respected.
J. Hernandez sorry but it wasn’t a vocal injury , because we 3:25 his natural reappeared and then he felt back to that unnatural speaking voice .... it’s two different things I used my head before typing bro
robert monthe . I would say that talking requires a tone with precise amount of vocal fold precision. The way he would be able to talk would be just as the laugh: coarse, loud, and impractical for a personal conversation. He clearly cannot make that type of vocal fold approximation with a low amount of air pressure. I know this because as a singer, when you lose your voice you can only whisper. Indeed you can make different noises such as shouts as well but it extremely uncomfortable and no doubt aggravating the inflammation further. I stand corrected if that is a choice though. I just don’t see it with that amount of respect he has from these divas. Clearly they know something we don’t.
Dear Siglinde, Thank you very much for the kind words. You might want to read the discussion of these clips by many singers and the public. If you’ll provide your email address, I’d like to sign you up to receive our free e-newsletter. www.belcantosociety.org/store/video/free-film-excerpts/stefan-and-the-divas/ Warmest wishes, Stefan Dear Siglinde, Thank you very much for the kind words. You might want to read the discussion of these clips by many singers and the public. If you’ll provide your email address, I’d like to sign you up to receive our free e-newsletter. www.belcantosociety.org/store/video/free-film-excerpts/stefan-and-the-divas/ Warmest wishes, Stefan
No, Simonato and Barbieri were also right, they just used different definitions than Gencer. They explained it and that what they said is true by technical point of view. Definitions are not important, important is effect - proper technique and, as result, great singing.
@@agnieszkakruszyna4625 At last a sensible reply! Simonato and Barbieri demonstrated perfectly the difference between safe use of chest resonance and the dangerous use of it as an unsupported growl.
Mr. Zucker , if I remember correctly, You made an interview with Cerquetti and Modl Years ago. It was very interesting for me because Cerquetti explained for the first time the reasons of her early retirement: could You kindly post it ? Thanks in advance
They didn't. Simonato and Barbieri both demonstrated the safe and dangerous ways of utilising chest resonance. To them "chest voice" was the dangerous, unsupported way. Gencer was particularly mischievous in her deliberate misinterpretation of what they said.
They did not lie. There is a difference in the definitions of "chest voice". These women come from a different school of thought and understand the term "chest voice" differently than you and I do.
She was correct in what she said though. She just needed to hear their demonstrations & it would’ve cleared away all the confusion. Simionatto & Barbieri have warped definitions of what chest voice actually is (the modal voice; the core sound where most normal people speak; the vocal foundation). They think chest voice is strictly a fake, manipulated, woofy sound. All they did was showcase the correct & incorrect ways to use the chest voice/modal register.
For a far fuller and more informative discussion of all these matters , with a number of famous singers participating, please visit www.belcantosociety.org/store/dvds/stefan-and-the-divas/
@@stefanzucker7072 inorridisco....un lavoro artigianale che si vuole manualizzare.... impossibile.Musicalita' tecnica , possibilità guidate da gusto e stile...E poi di caso in caso.....basta cercare di intrappolare in regole fisse ...si fa..non si scrive.
I can't stop laughing at Gencer's remarks! Proprio loro! hahaha this is priceless!!
I think the confusion stems from the terms used because they say no chest voice and then go on to sing in chest voice in the same breath.
I think they mixed singing with chest voice and singing in the throat.
3:10 They didn't avoid the chest voice while singing bits of arias. They used chest voice, but weren't aware of it as they have a different understanding of what it actually means. Barbieri revealed her understanding of a chest voice by emitting a deep, ugly and cracking noise back in the throat. I think she wanted to produce something of una voce ingolato. Obviously, her (false) understanding of chest voice........
Giulietta is a Goddess
Good God, just listen how Barbieri's voice reverberate in the room! REVERENZA!!! So much power and darkness in her voice. Brava, brava! I defy you to show me a current singer who can sound remotely close to Barbieri in this clip. And pay attention to the fact that Barbieri was a retired opera singer by that time.
So true. Such a natural and healthy sound after an operatic career.
Marcella had her own way and temperament, but she was right in being fully upset and pissed off with those silly questions - and unprofessional. But let's appreciate Stefan's hard work though. Thank you to him.
My favourite personality is Gavazzi. She is so passionate when she talks about opera. The saddest, based on my memory of the whole film, is Simionato. The joy of singing left her completely.
Thank you for these historical interviews caught just before we lost all these legends Stefan!
these amazing ladies... glad to remember em from now
Barbieri must had a huge voice on the stage...
There seems to be at present, and indeed for several years now, a great many misunderstandings, about how to train the human voice. One of these is attempting to train it by way of the effect, rather than the cause. Quite clearly stated, we sing with our vocal chords, and the result is resonance in the pharynx, and of course the bones of the head. When the vowel is sung properly with the right amount of energy, the consonant is then carried by this energy and the diction is practically perfect. The key to this is the sung vowel and a rather dark-ish vowel at that, pronounced with the muscles at the back of the throat, not the lips. Brightening the vowel and putting it forward only inhibits the resonance and of course, diminishes the sound of the voice, making it practically impossible to sing with an orchestra. The other effect of the forward approach is the issue of finding the pitch: the problem is technical. If the voice functions as it should, pitch is never an issue.
Singing in the mask:
One great misunderstanding is the use of the phrase, “sing in the mask”. One of the first people to utilize this phrase was the great polish tenor Jean de Reszke (1851-1925) in his teaching, but he also said at the same time, that “the larynx must be low to achieve the resonance of the whole mask”, and not just sing in the nose, which causes many problems. Another issue that I feel I should address is controlling of the voice, in order to keep it “equal”, as the voice goes higher on the scale. I have spoken about developing the lower and middle parts of the voice and then the higher part. When this is achieved and the voice obviously starts to be freer, hence more intensity of sound, it must be left alone to make this climax. All vocal climaxes are made on higher pitches. This is quite simply how music is written, and to deny it, with some sort of manipulation of the sound, goes totally against the true nature of a voice, and why the composer wrote it that way in the first place. Position of the larynx! Contrary to different opinions today, the larynx should be relatively low in order to achieve the best vocal sound. Of course some languages and how people speak have an influence on the larynx. It cannot be pushed down but it definitely can be trained down. I do this with my students every day. The reason for the lower larynx position is to open the pharynx, thus increasing the resonance and producing the freest sound possible. The vocal chords and the pharynx resonate almost simultaneously, and then “with a little luck”, the voice blossoms, or explodes into the head, depending on the nature of the instrument.
Chest voice:
All of these various sensations that singers say they feel, are more or less simultaneous with the emission of the sound: this is assuming the voice functions freely and naturally. Perhaps the most singular destructive misunderstanding of our time concerns the chest voice (voce di petto). I prefer to call it the chest register, and it is as essential to both male and female voices, as is the head register. No voice will reach its full potential unless both of these registers are properly trained. As far as the female chest register is concerned, the current theory about it being dangerous, could not be farther from the truth; it is truly dangerous not to develop it, and of course it should be used when singing. Without it no voice is complete.
Thank you! Very interesting. I am not a singer, but I'm curious about what you think about the common stated theory that Callas ruined her voice by abusing the chest voice. I personally don't believe that there was any one reason more than another that she had such a short career and think that it was probably due to many complex reasons that only she could have known, but for the sake of interest and continued debate on the topic I'm curious if you have any opinions :) thanks!!
Makes sense. I agree that yes she had to manipulate something in order to get the voice to do all the things she wanted it to do musically. In terms of the clarity, specific volume, and precision of each note and how it relates to the notes around it and how it makes up an entire phrase, aria, etc. She trained the voice to work like a piano, and yes it was very effective musically and theatrically, but didn't last long. Is that along the lines of what you're saying?
Stone [石のドラム] interesting. I agree that she displayed far greater musical time than really any other singers on record but especially than those of today. It seems that the training just isn’t there anymore nor the musical knowledge. Pianists can still be sensitive today but not singers unfortunately (speaking generally)
Also interesting that you say that the female voice is more delicate than the male. Giuseppe di Stefani said that the first time he heard her he was like wow she sings like a man! And it’s true. She has the punch of a man but also has the beauty of line, legato, coloratura, etc. Idk how she did it but it’s miraculous to hear on records.
I would be so fascinated to be able to go back in time to see Pasta, Malibran, or Colbran and hear how the actually sang.
I’m a professional clarinetist and I think we do something of the same kind of thing with the larynx in order to control the fastest passages. I’m not exactly sure since it was never talked about in my lessons but I heard it mentioned one time. Anyway I feel that as instrumentalists we do have to do a bit of forcing here or there if we really want the music to go a certain way, but i don’t think the consequences are quite as severe 🙂. But from that angle I try and understand what goes on with singers and particularly Callas bc her singing fascinates me to no end.
hodgrix yes, no singer today at least in the light of fame is the level of many singers old. :(
The female voice in general is more delicate and prone to injury because the cords are typically thinner and smaller and vibrating at a faster rate. Also why the top part of the range is most dangerous and why the high notes are not just aurally thrilling but thrilling in how dangerous they can be. Women, in my opinion though have the benefit of greater agility and their fundamental pitches are more in the frequency range sensitive to the human ear. Though men, having stronger breath capacity, bigger and thicker cords, can not only generate more air pressure but the cords can be given more air/air pressure without crashing so are naturally more "dramatic and on par to the female voice in terms of "power", despite being roughly an octave lower. There are interesting strengths and weaknesses between make and female voices, but a very light lyric tenor and a contralto are near the same instrument 😅
Stone [石のドラム] yes you feel that with the high notes. It’s not the actual note itself but the feeling one hears when an uncomfortable or as you say dangerous note is being hit! That’s why they excite people
Hmm, a lot of interesting and lesser known female opera voices that I need to learn. Thanks for the upload.
Long story short, it’s neither mask nor chest. It’s about appoggio sul fiato.
If you are supporting the sound well, the sound projects properly ie: placed forward.
If you don’t, it will be “ingolato” ie: downward.
So it’s all about breath support. Either you sing with appoggio or you don’t. It’s not two different voices.
Then there is the third case which is singers who do that to darken the voice and try to make it seem bigger which is twice as bad.
Finally someone who understand it! I am sick by Mister Opera and his "Barbieri was against chest voice because she had great voice by nature and she didn't understand herself how she use it! And I know it because Callas said that chest voice is important (but I wouldn't try to understand her deeper, only definitions mean!)." But he has a kind of obsession about "chest voice" and he even don't understand how it works 🙄
I think finding the right amount of vocal chord adduction comes before anything. Then you know how much you need to support.
Appogio is maybe second or third in the hierarchy.
Richard Millers book "The structure of singing" is a good resource for this. His book starts on a chapter he titles "The coordinated vocal onset and release."
it is very clear that there is a shift on the terminology and different understanding of the term between those truly amazing vocal artists;
all of them used the heavy modal register (chest voice), in different proportions;
but while simionato, pobbe and barbieri understand it as a literal "chest resonance" or "chest position" (and therefore are right on saying there is no "chest resonance" as a means per se, because you cannot put your voice anywhere else from where it is actually produced) gencer and gavazzi do mean the physiological "heavy modal register", the "chest registration", which is indeed very often used and has to be trained, as garcia taught;
all of them had the registers very well developed, but none of them wanted to depress the larynx artificially, thus creating the "chest feeling" which simionato and barbieri rightfully point out as wrong.
these different ways of understanding (and misunderstanding the matter) had though, in fact, led to a series of singers of newer generations (including mine) who really do not develop the chest register enough and this causes a big problem, especially affronting dramatic repertoire... unfortunately.
Dude tbh they doing something inside different and they keep it secret and they didn't teach anyone. She knew exactly what he asked. This is why chest voice is just dead today. This is why without this proper technique chest voice is so ugly today. Believe me or not but i think it's true. They all used chest in the past but with doing something different inside. that's the key. It's not a natural gift. i won't believe this. All this chest voice singers sang at same era. Now not even one singer. They just don't know how to do it and sing without chest. Voices are beautiful but not full of squillante.
Bravo, Stefan!! This is an interesting and wonderful interview!
Great video! ❤🙏😂💕
Mi chiedo se sono o ci fanno... grandissime e fanno finta di non sapere o non capire? La Gencer è un mito... ahahah.
"There is no chest voice" ... I challenge anyone to prove to me that there is a chest voice "
The truth is that they confused the chest voice with the swallowed voice. Being a great singer does not mean being competent to teach. How much confusion!
It's not related to teaching. It's different terminology. Many singers of this generation used term "chest voice" to swallowed or constricted voice, or vocal fry. Simply for any incorrect use of the lower register.
3:25 Listen to the interviewers natural voice for about 3 seconds.
He argues with singers about "natural" sounds and has the most unnatural speaking voice I have ever heard.
He needs to take some "voice rehabilitation lessons" so his listeners won't need to cringe so much when listening to him.
h.thomas ackermann he might be sick really an ugly speaking sound ..... not even head voice but speaking in falsetto good
@@robertmonthe9750 That's pretty hardy man. Its obvious though that he suffered a vocal injury. He is speaking without glottal closure which is evidence of vocal injury to me. This is surely not something to make fun of him for. The best explanation is that he knows this but cannot make the natural sounds due to injury. Use common sense man. Even just being able to interview these diva's shows he was well respected.
J. Hernandez sorry but it wasn’t a vocal injury , because we 3:25 his natural reappeared and then he felt back to that unnatural speaking voice .... it’s two different things I used my head before typing bro
J. Hernandez it’s a choice not an illness if it was the voice would have be raspy but the voice here is airy not raspy two different mechanisms
robert monthe . I would say that talking requires a tone with precise amount of vocal fold precision. The way he would be able to talk would be just as the laugh: coarse, loud, and impractical for a personal conversation. He clearly cannot make that type of vocal fold approximation with a low amount of air pressure. I know this because as a singer, when you lose your voice you can only whisper. Indeed you can make different noises such as shouts as well but it extremely uncomfortable and no doubt aggravating the inflammation further. I stand corrected if that is a choice though. I just don’t see it with that amount of respect he has from these divas. Clearly they know something we don’t.
Imagine that because of this misunderstandings in technical terminology we have lost a big part of quality singing. Kind of sad irony.
Stefan, i only can say thank you! Do you realize this video will live forever? And Lol, Gencer is the only right!
Dear Siglinde,
Thank you very much for the kind words.
You might want to read the discussion of these clips by many singers and the public. If you’ll provide your email address, I’d like to sign you up to receive our free e-newsletter.
www.belcantosociety.org/store/video/free-film-excerpts/stefan-and-the-divas/
Warmest wishes,
Stefan
Dear Siglinde,
Thank you very much for the kind words.
You might want to read the discussion of these clips by many singers and the public. If you’ll provide your email address, I’d like to sign you up to receive our free e-newsletter.
www.belcantosociety.org/store/video/free-film-excerpts/stefan-and-the-divas/
Warmest wishes,
Stefan
I would like that. Thank you!
No, Simonato and Barbieri were also right, they just used different definitions than Gencer. They explained it and that what they said is true by technical point of view. Definitions are not important, important is effect - proper technique and, as result, great singing.
@@agnieszkakruszyna4625 At last a sensible reply! Simonato and Barbieri demonstrated perfectly the difference between safe use of chest resonance and the dangerous use of it as an unsupported growl.
Actually, they were all correct to what they said. The only difference was in their definitions of the terms.
Mr. Zucker , if I remember correctly, You made an interview with Cerquetti and Modl Years ago.
It was very interesting for me because Cerquetti explained for the first time the reasons of her early retirement: could You kindly post it ? Thanks in advance
Fedora Barbieri is truly charming in her wrath! 😂 2:14
Or a belch? 😁
“No good.”
Why is the singer so vehement against olivero at the end ? Saying she overused it to have success. Can someone explain this to me ?
Non correva buon sangue tra la Signora e l Olivero. (se noti, dice "brava, bella voce" per tutte tranne che per Magda)
The majority of these comments let me know that you all know very little about opera in general
Is it just me or the translation seems to omits half of the conent?
The translation is complete.
Blues singers use chest voice all the time
Most great singers use it in general. The correct way ofc.
Leyla Gencer was right, Simionato and Barbieri were wrong.
WHY did they lie, all of them ???? I really don't understand...
They didn't. Simonato and Barbieri both demonstrated the safe and dangerous ways of utilising chest resonance. To them "chest voice" was the dangerous, unsupported way. Gencer was particularly mischievous in her deliberate misinterpretation of what they said.
@@CharlotteinWeimar gencer was right
They are not lying , only interpreting how they feel about the technique
They did not lie. There is a difference in the definitions of "chest voice". These women come from a different school of thought and understand the term "chest voice" differently than you and I do.
Leyla Gencer really don't understand what these italian maestras are talking about.
Capisci tu..... ahahah
@@aledevoli6947 certo 😉
She was correct in what she said though. She just needed to hear their demonstrations & it would’ve cleared away all the confusion. Simionatto & Barbieri have warped definitions of what chest voice actually is (the modal voice; the core sound where most normal people speak; the vocal foundation). They think chest voice is strictly a fake, manipulated, woofy sound. All they did was showcase the correct & incorrect ways to use the chest voice/modal register.
Why do you need to discuss things you know nothing about?
For a far fuller and more informative discussion of all these matters , with a number of famous singers participating, please visit www.belcantosociety.org/store/dvds/stefan-and-the-divas/
@@stefanzucker7072 Not sure where @SilverSingingMethod is coming with this. They teach exactly the same thing in terms of chest voice.
@@stefanzucker7072 inorridisco....un lavoro artigianale che si vuole manualizzare.... impossibile.Musicalita' tecnica , possibilità guidate da gusto e stile...E poi di caso in caso.....basta cercare di intrappolare in regole fisse ...si fa..non si scrive.