I don’t know if “dark” is the right word to use these days, because the people who are doing it wrong sound dark and like they’ve swallowed a potato. I think maybe the word to use is “deep.” Once the chest voice buzz is established, you deepen around it. The larynx sinks down, and the sound becomes more cavernous, but it still goes out to the audience. Just an idea…
Is there any evidence for the statement "Opera has always been sung with a LOW larynx"? I've read that the lowered larynx only grew in popularity well into the 19th century, and specifically as something to be employed for particular expressive purposes rather than to be employed continuously.
No, in fact every piece of written evidence contradicts this statement. The approach is first described in an article published in 1840, but likely existed some time before. All documentation before this date explicitly states that the larynx should and does rise when approaching high notes in good singing.
@@tbraithwaite92 Thank you very much for this! Although I do think it is worth pointing out: The statement "the larynx should and does rise when approaching high notes" is not automatically in any contradiction to a statement that "the larynx should be low". The most relaxed larynx position is itself dependent on the pitch being sung (with a higher larynx being more relaxed for a higher pitch, and a lower larynx being more relaxed for a lower pitch); and the phrase "singing with a low larynx" can simply be interpreted as meaning "keeping the larynx significantly lower than the most relaxed position for the pitch being sung". Therefore, letting the larynx change height when approaching higher notes is still entirely consistent with the general principle of "singing with a low larynx". But nonetheless, I guess that a lot of the modern "low-larynx" advocates also advocate for not letting the larynx rise as notes get higher.
@@juliannewman2ndchannelmusi475 You’re of course right, I assumed that your mention of a ‘low larynx’ was in the context of current or past vocal pedagogy and therefore continued without feeling the need to clarify. Needless to say, a marked change in pedagogy is documented from the middle of the nineteenth-century, accompanied by discussions which suggest most strongly that an approach encouraging a comparatively ‘low/stable larynx,’ regardless of the sung pitch, was a shocking change in vocal timbre.
@@tbraithwaite92 Thank you very much, this is interesting and useful information. Do you have any pointers as to where I might be able to start reading up on the subject in more detail?
Yes, this, as far as I know, was first mentioned by Manuel Garcia, who picked it up earlier in the 1830s. But in a sense, when we consider that all the grand Italian operas where written in the 1800’s, the statement, I would say is actually, at least half-true in a sense. This development also makes sense, considering that the orchestras grew immensely during the 1800s.
Franco Corelli and Jerry Hadley DO NOT sing chiaro-scuro. Having a low larynx does not defines chiaro-scuro, but the connection between chest and mask voice, which they don't have and which starts at passagio for them. You can clearly see a quite more metallic sound (even with full lyric tenors that sing chiaro scuro) in the voice. Just compare the metal there is in Lemeshev, Fritz Wunderlich and Beniamino Gigli to the metal in Franco Corelli, Bonissolli and Gianni Raimondi. It's not easy to identify, without a very good ear training, through audio recordings, if a singer is using chiaro-scuro or not. But I tell you something that might help more than these technical aspects: a chiaro scuro voice seems to be coming from the center, from the core of a singers voice, while chest voice with a low larynx seems to be lighter and come from below his mouth, and not above.
