Britten, Physics and Phonics

While I was at the International Congress of Voice Teachers this past summer, I happened upon a seminar given by an old friend of mine, Dr. Kevin Hanrahan, who is Associate Professor of Voice at the Glenn Korff School of Music of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, and Matthew Clegg, a DMA voice student at the same university. The seminar was entitled Benjamin Britten: A Study in Vocal Acoustics, and focused on Britten's Serenade for Tenor, Horn and Strings, and A Charm of Lullabies for mezzo-soprano, looking into how the composer set the text, to see if the singer simply sang exactly as the text (specifically the vowels) as composed whether it would match the dynamics and expression that Britten intended. It was so fascinating that I asked him to share some of their findings with us!

Q: When you set up this experiment, what were you trying to prove/discover?

A: After working with Kenneth Bozeman at a Nebraska NATS workshop where he discussed what he calls, "Practical Vocal Acoustics", I had the idea that perhaps Britten was using some of the principles that Bozeman was discussing in the workshop and in his book, Practical Vocal Acoustics.  So, what we were looking to discover was whether or not Britten set the text in such a way as to exploit “passive vowel modification” strategies resulting in a timbre that would coincided with the dynamic making, thus making the music vocally and expressively easier for the singer.  Passive vowel modification differs from Active Vowel modification in that passive vowel modification results from a change of pitch resulting in a harmonic/formant interaction without a change of vowel shape, where active vowel modification is when there is a change in vowel shape so as to create a harmonic/formant interaction regardless of pitch.  The main difference is that the singer has to "actively" change or modify their vowel as opposed to "passively" letting the vowel modify as a result of the pitch. In the end it is a matter of whether you move the pitch (passive vowel modification) or move the formant (active vowel modification).

Q: What made you choose Benjamin Britten as the example?

A: Both Matthew and I are tenors, and we both have a fondness for Britten and his music.  One of the reasons we love Britten so much is that we find it to be so easy to sing from a vocal standpoint, and so easy to sing expressively. Knowing that he was very particular about how he composed his vocal works, and that he composed them with specific individuals in mind, we thought he was a natural choice to explore the relationship between the timbres resulting from passive vowel modification and dynamics.

Q: How can we use physics to prove this?

A: Physics doesn’t necessarily “prove” anything, but it does help us explain what we observe.  What we now know is that for "covering" to occur the second harmonic (H2 or 2F0) has to rise above the first vowel formant (F1) or F1 has to be lowered below H2 usually by lengthening the vocal tract which can occur from depressing the larynx, puckering the lips, changing a vowel shape, etc.  This passing of the H2 through F1 is what Bozeman calls "Closed" Timbre. So, using [a], which has a F1 at approximately G5 (middle C is C4), as an example, if one were to sing a tenor "high A" or A4 on an [a] vowel one would only need to maintain the [a] vowel shape to achieve "cover", the crossing of H2 (A5) above F1 (G5).  If one wanted to actively modify by puckering slightly, this would then shift F1 to a lower pitch, perhaps (E5 or F5) and increase the "Closed" or "Covered" quality of the sound. If F1 is continually lowered to where it is just above or in tune with H1, the fundamental, then a new quality takes over, what Bozeman calls “Whoop”.  “Whoop” is a very fluty, light quality that is often associated with soft dynamics or falsetto sounds.  In contrast to “Whoop” is a quality Bozeman calls “Yell” which occurs when F1 is tuned to H2, and as its name suggests is associated with aggressive and loud dynamics.  The last timbre that Bozeman labels is “Open” which also has an association with loud dynamics, and occurs when F1 is above H2.  Now these qualities can be associated with different laryngeal modes, for example, Mode 1 is associate with “Open”, “Close”, and “Yell” timbres, where Mode 2 is associate with “Whoop”.  Looking at the research of Fabiani and Friberg, their study looked at the influence of pitch, loudness, and timbre on instrument dynamics.  They report that dynamics can even be recognized if the loudness (not intensity) is the same, therefore loudness can only partially explain dynamic recognition. They argue that timbre is that missing factor. So, if you put these pieces together then, you have timbres that coincide with dynamics via established vocal registers or modes.  Using the F1/H2 interaction, you can then predict what the likely resulting timbre or vocal register/mode is based on the vowel and pitch, and therefore, the likely resulting dynamic.  If the predicted dynamic matches the dynamic indicated by Britten, then the expressiveness of the singing would be more naturally and easily accomplished.  Furthermore, if the timbre, dynamic, and pitch corresponded with the most conducive vocal register or mode, it would also be vocally easier to sing.

Q: How did you set the parameters?

A: For the timbre prediction we used Kenneth Bozeman’s book, Practical Vocal Acoustics.  To determine the vowels for the text we used an online IPA generator set to American English.  We did this because Received British English tended to favor more mixed vowels and not the purer, if you can call American vowels pure, American vowels.  For example, the word “blow” in American English is [bloʊ] but in British English is [bləʊ]. We confirmed this by listening to British tenors who were well-known for their interpretation of Britten’s music.  When the transcription software didn’t produce a transcription, we looked up the word in the Oxford English Dictionary.  Following standard classical diction rules, i.e. Madeleine Marshall’s Singer’s Manual of English Diction, vowel and “r” combinations were all muted, i.e. changed to [ə].  For the formant pitches we adapted Scott McCoy’s suggested pitches in conjunction with Lindsey’s combination of Well’s and Jones’ vowel chart.  To determine when one timbre was truly different from another, we looked at research about pitch perception and harmonics. We determined that a plus or minus of a major 2^nd was sufficient to properly identify a timbre.  For example, if F1 was C5, then if H2 was between Bb4 and D5, we would conclude that H2 was tuned to F1 resulting in “Yell” timbre. Finally, we associated the timbres with dynamics using established descriptors for the vocal registers, and dynamics shaping was approximated by increasing or decreasing the dynamic level one level, i.e. p to mp, every two beats.  The predicted dynamic shaping was compared to a recording of a well-known tenor and mirrored the tenor’s dynamic shaping quite well.

Q: How can you tell whether the vowels and the pitches are a good match?

A: We assigned various dynamics to the timbres, so pp-p was “Whoop”, mp-f was “Closed”, f-ff was “Open” and f-fff was “Yell”.  Then if the predicted timbre matched the marked dynamic, it was a good match.  For example, if the dynamic was forte, then “Closed”, “Open” or “Yell” were considered to be a good match. Then, if the timbre was used in what would be considered an appropriate pitch range, so for a tenor one would expect “Closed” around G4 or higher, that further strengthened the match. We also looked at groups of dynamics/timbres, meaning how often was “Whoop” used correctly with soft dynamics or incorrectly with loud dynamics. What we are doing now is looking a little more carefully at when there wasn’t a good match or when the dynamic isn’t used correctly with the timbre to see if there is a reason why Britten may have chosen to mismatch the timbre and dynamic.  At the moment it looks like this mismatch is occurring to aid projection. 

Q: What was the upshot of the experiment?

A: What we found was that overall, the predicted timbre matched Britten’s dynamic only 25% of the time.  There were occasions, however, when the predicted timbre matched the dynamic as much as 50%, but it depended on the individual song.  Furthermore, we found that Britten often assigned the “correct” vocal register or mode for the dynamic when in the upper portion of the voice.  We also looked at occasions when F2 happened to correspond to H3 or H4.  The supplemental amplification of F2 is a common technique for tenors, and has the effect of aiding diction clarity.  We found the F2 supplemental tuning was occurring over 37% of the time.  It was also frequently being used in the upper portion of the voice and when the dynamic was soft in conjunction with louder timbres which we interpret as being Britten’s attempt to aid the singer in projection at soft dynamic levels.  Finally, we noticed that when the predicted timbre and dynamic did not match, the timbre shifts mirrored the dynamic shifts, i.e. a shift from “Closed” to “Open” would correspond to a dynamic change of p to mp, etc., as if Britten were cueing the singer as to how a line should be shaped.

Q: How is this useful for singers? Should it change their approach to the text/performance?

A: The big take away for singers here is that with Britten, if you just sing the pitch and the vowel he asks, you will likely sing the dynamic or dynamic shaping he wants.  In other words, Britten has programmed by his choice of pitch and vowel, how to sing his music.  We think this type of analysis would be beneficial to singers, at least on a macro level.  Both of us teach singing, and we frequently see singers making their lives more difficult by imposing an interpretation on a piece.  If they would just take a moment and consider what might happen if they just sing what is on the page, they may find that they don’t need to work as hard to provide a musically pleasing product.  Of course, this is not always true, but it would seem logical, at the very least, to begin from that point of view.  We think this type of analysis also has a tremendous impact on the practice of transposing art songs, particularly. It has become very popular for women to sing song repertoire that was originally composed for men and vice versa. If you have a composer, like Britten, who was very specific about what colors or timbres they wanted from the singer and was also adept at building that into their composition, transposing them or simply singing them up or down an octave would destroy the composer’s artistic concept, not to mention making it very difficult vocally to sing the music.  For example, in Britten’s “Nocturne” from Serenade, he has very carefully chosen his pitch/vowel/dynamic combinations, a 50% match and 64% match above C4.  To have that piece sung by soprano an octave higher would completely destroy those combinations resulting in either the soprano not accomplishing what Britten has asked for or accomplishing it with great difficulty and vocal manipulation. It is really wise to do that?  With some composers, who are less intentional and adept, this may not be an issue, but it is important to consider.  So, we would say that this analysis definitely is useful in aiding interpretation, and vital when considering singing repertoire in transposition.

**********

In case we needed another reminder that singing the text and the proper vowels is important, here we have it! 

--Ellen

Making a choice

I still remember the specific moment that I truly decided to make music. Don’t get me wrong, I was pretty much always going to become a musician, that was never really in doubt. My mom was a pianist and music teacher, I’ve been playing piano since I was able to sit upright (see me and my brother below :-) ) and singing even longer than that—but somehow never made the real conscious decision to make music until I was 19. 

It was in piano class; I was a sophomore in college and my fellow classmates were both grad students. Maumack had already played, and Helen was up, playing Chopin’s G-minor Ballade. Just as she hit the coda, something inside me changed—it felt like my heart opened, tears filled my eyes, and my soul was touched in a way that I’d felt before but never so clearly, and I thought, “I need to do that”. So when it was my turn, I’m sure they were waiting for me to play my Beethoven 32 Variations basically technically well, but I made a different choice. I chose to make music, rather than to play every note correctly. It was a huge moment, and I honestly will never forget the looks of respect, encouragement, and hope that I saw on my fellow students and my teacher Ralph  Zitterbart’s faces.

The funny thing is, I crashed and burned during that performance! About 2 pages from the end, I lost my place and couldn’t get back to it, and I ended up stopping. But they were all so excited and thrilled at the way I had just played that I could see they knew how far I had come in those 15 minutes. 

The moral of the story for me is—it’s not about getting to the end. It’s about the journey. Take people with you on that journey and it doesn’t matter what you do or where you end up, just that you shared it with them.

From that moment on, my choice has always been to make music—working on technique became the means to that end, rather than an end in itself. The hardest thing about that choice was that suddenly everything became more important, and for a very long time I was more nervous than I’d ever been! It’s one thing to play all the notes right—it’s a whole new ballgame when you pour your heart and soul into something and people criticize it. I’ve had singers come in to coachings sometimes where they just sort of sing through the song, assuming that I’ll correct pitches and diction and style, and technically, yes, that’s my job. But the pitches and diction and style are all informed and enhanced by the music you’re trying to make, by the story you're trying to tell, so by committing to that music in every coaching, in every lesson, everything else will improve. Just as we say singers should mark with their voice, not their body, singers should mark with their voice, not their intentions.

In this age of younger, faster, louder, auto-tune, and CDs with single notes corrected or improved, as musicians it’s important to get back to the basics. Make music. Share it with people. That’s why people still come to see live performances—they want to be transported with you. So if you haven’t already done so, commit to making music, rather than to singing or playing the piano. In the end, it will pay off a million-fold.

--Ellen

Opera Rehearsal Do's and Don'ts  (from the perspective of the music staff)

An opera rehearsal, particularly a staging rehearsal, can be a very complex, time-crunched process, with many moving parts and many people involved. Here are are some tips on what to do and what not to do during a rehearsal, based on our observations in student productions as well as in professional situations….

Do....

... arrive a little bit before your call time:
If you are called at 10:00 AM, you should be ready to start rehearsing at 10:00 AM, not 10:05. Time is very precious in rehearsal, and directors, conductors, coaches, simply can't wait around for everyone to take three minutes here and there. That means that you should arrive a little early in order to prepare yourself for the rehearsal (i.e. put on your rehearsal skirts, shoes, get your score and pencil ready, etc.)

... greet your colleagues when you arrive:
A friendly greeting goes a long way to set a rehearsal on the right track. Introduce yourself to people who may not know you (e.g. "Hello, I am so-and-so, and I sing Fourth-Tree-From-The-Left in the piece"). Make sure to include the music staff, we like to feel included :)

... know your music inside-out:
Singing with your score during a staging rehearsal is unprofessional, and should never happen. Wait for breaks to mark your score with staging details. You should be ready to start at any point in your music without difficulty, which means that you should know the score very well. 




Don't....

... stand between the pianist and the conductor:
This is mostly important in early staging rehearsals, when the show is not yet on stage, especially when a lot of people are involved (during a larger chorus rehearsal for instance). If the pianist can't see the conductor well, the whole process will come to a disastrous halt. Don't make the music staff be traffic cops. We get grumpy when that happens!

... conduct:
Only the conductor should be conducting. You might be waiting on the side of the stage for extended periods of time, and it might be tempting to "air conduct" as you are watching your colleagues rehearse. This can be a major distraction, especially if you are within the pianist's sight line, or even the singers', and lead to a lot of confusion. Conductors tend to not take kindly to this.

... sing someone else's lines:
They are not your lines. You have your own :) Also avoid humming/singing when you are not on stage.

... chat:
The only people who should be talking are the director (or their assistants) and the conductor. If everyone starts whispering on stage about post-rehearsal drinks, or weekend plans, the whole process becomes very chaotic. It is very common for a director/conductor to yell "quiet on stage!" (or "Ruhe auf der Bühne" in German), but really it's better when they don't have to do that!

... put things on the piano:
Especially liquids. The piano is not a table, nor a coat rack. We get pretty territorial, so watch out!

These are some of our observations; do you have rehearsal tips (or pet peeves?) Share them in the comments!

Audition Stories and Taking Control

Since audition season will get started soon, I wanted to write a little about auditions and share something odd that happened to me a few years ago while playing auditions. One of the very real issues with auditions is that we feel out of control. We can’t control the piano, the space we’re singing in, the weather that day, or even what songs the judges will choose. 

When it comes to auditions, therefore, it can be very important to figure out what we can control—our clothes (are my shoes too high/too low/comfortable/pinching my feet?), our music (are the pages in the right order—and yes, you should always double check, I may not have time to—are they legible/are there any notes cut off from them?), our timing (arrive early enough to be calm and relaxed, but not so early that you freak yourself out by listening to other people sing or talk).

So here's my crazy story: 

First, I should say that that day was full of singers who broke all the rules of audition etiquette. I had one singer who brought in music where someone had crossed out every note of the piano part with an X. Literally. Every single note. There was another who wanted to sing the Queen of the Night, but was missing the last page of "Der Hölle Rache", so I had to download it onto my iPad (which I dislike intensely). Then there were two other singers there who left the prep area and wandered around the opera house rather than going over the tempi with me, even though they were there in plenty of time to do so and companies in Germany allow time for it. By the time they came back, it was time to head downstairs, and they tried to whisper tempi to me in the stairwell, which never works very well.

But the capper on the day was this: The auditions were being held in a large rehearsal room, and the piano was about 50 feet from the adjudicators. The singer came in and took the usual position in the hook of the piano, but with every line he sang, he took a step forward—until by the end of the aria he was only about 5 feet from the judges, and about 40 feet away from me... with his back to me, of course! The judges then asked him to move back to the piano, and I whispered to him that when he moves that far away I can’t hear him—but sure enough, during his second aria, he did the same thing!

This situation made it almost impossible for me to do a good job playing for him, and it made the people listening very uncomfortable to have someone singing directly in their faces. As you prepare for audition season, I would recommend adding into your checklist the awareness of your surroundings in the audition room:

Are you too close to the people listening?
Are you able to stay in contact with the pianist?

Are you moving around too much or too little?

Obviously the last question can be a matter of taste, but in general, less is more, and if some extreme movement causes you to lose contact with the pianist, it can have devastating results. These are all things that we can control with a little mental preparation.

--Ellen

What Failure Teaches Us

A few weeks ago at one of the summer programs I work with, I got to talking about failure with the students. I get the sense that young performers think that those of us who've "made it" have always been perfect and never messed anything up at all, which couldn't be further from the truth! We’ve all had those moments when we do something wrong and it really brings out that insecure little voice inside our heads that says “Maybe you really AREN’T good enough, maybe you should just give it up.” Or the worry that the one person who's hearing you now holds the deciding vote as to whether or not you'll have a career.

Failure is a part of learning—and how you react to failure is much more important than failing in the first place. It's difficult to succeed without having first understood failure. And if you have an "epic fail", then that's the chance to also succeed epically!

That moment came for me when I was about 30—I had an audition for a pretty important opera house in the States, a fairly informal audition, just me and the head coach. And I’m here to tell you, he ripped me to shreds. Seriously, shreds. He hated the way I played La Bohème, he kept asking me specifics about Italian and German diction rules—I was pretty lazy about learning those rules in college, so I was going off of my ears rather than rules, and he called me out on it for about an hour. I walked out of there completely demoralised and humiliated, convinced that I was the worst vocal coach in America and that there was no hope for me to ever work in the opera world. I can honestly say, that one hour of my life shook my confidence for years. 

But that night (after a good cry) I started translating the libretto for the next opera I was scheduled to play, and kept doing that for every opera I worked on. I cracked open my diction notes from grad school and pored over the diction books I could find. I made my Italian cheat sheets of open and closed words that crop up on a regular basis. I made it my business to be absolutely secure with the diction as well as the music, to know what the rules are and when breaking them is allowable. And eventually, I moved over to Europe and was able to listen to native speakers and how they sound, and applied what I was hearing to the rules I had studied. In the end, diction has become the one thing that really sets me apart from other coaches. And then I started a podcast, which forces me to continue to learn the rules, and hopefully makes it fun for other people to do their homework! Now people send me lyric diction books to edit and review, and I am fortunate enough to constantly learn more about lyric diction through these opportunities.

I could have let that little voice in my head beat me—the insecurity, the voice that told me that I would never be good enough, the one that said that if that head coach hated me, then it was hopeless and I should just give it all up. But instead, I let that little voice remind me that while I may never be perfect, I can certainly always work to be better. So instead of being scared of failure, use it as your marker! Embrace it and learn from it. Let it be the thing that drives you to always study and practice and work hard and continue to learn, rather than something that paralyses you and keeps you from trying in the first place. 

And if you need more encouragement along these lines, check out the NPR podcast "How I Built This". You can hear how many of the most successful business people in the US got their start and built something incredible—and how most of them failed several times before starting the business they are known for today!

--Ellen