"Virili voce"
  • Chant_Supremacist
    Posts: 308
    I recently spent some time at a Benedictine abbey in the congregation of Solesmes. I noticed, in a way that I somehow hadn't specifically noticed before, that they pitch their chant quite high. I didn't verify but it seemed like their reciting tones were at B or C or thereabouts, so a good third (sometimes fourth) higher than I'm accustomed to. It facilitates a head dominant sound which is gracile and ethereal, and it's beautiful, but not 100% to my taste in this one aspect. In passing, I found they were also fairly light on the consonants, which is perfectly coherent with their aesthetic but again not my preference.

    In reading more about this - seeking to understand if my preference for chest-dominant chant has any historical basis - I ran across a reference from St. Bernard of Clairvaux who required his Cistercian monks to sing in virili voce, which is perhaps interpretable as a more chest dominant voice (and perhaps by extension with robust consonants). Can any of the learned members here weigh in on this, whether with insight on the Solesmes aesthetic, the concept of virili voce, medieval chant practices, or just perpectives on situating the chant mainly within the chest voice?
  • FSSPmusic
    Posts: 506
    Marcel Pérès has claimed that, by the time of Gajard, much of the chant at Solesmes was sung as much as a fifth higher than what had previously been customary in France. You might take a look at @Charles_Weaver's post about church keys—and keep in mind that the old tuning standard in France was a whole step lower than modern concert pitch! There is just no way to take head voice down that low. The "Frenchified" (as one of my priests used to call it) sound isn't unique to the Solesmes congregation; in my experience, it's fairly widespread among TLM communities. I have no proclivity toward it at all and would prefer for my men to sing like Romans, not Frenchmen. Another component of that French style seems to be encouraging singing with a constantly raised soft palate. I would be interested to hear what others have to say about this specifically.

    As for light consonants, are you hearing something that is quantitatively different, i.e., simply weaker consonants, or a qualitative difference, i.e. dental ts and unaspirated consonants? Very often, it is possible to detect Anglo/American choirs in otherwise very fine recordings in Italianate Church Latin simply by how hard they attack plosive consonants. It's not the Roman style. Neither is singing Latin with a French accent!
    Thanked by 2Chant_Supremacist tomjaw
  • davido
    Posts: 1,195
    I have always thought two things:

    Perhaps the lighter, head voice dominant vocal mechanism allowed the monks to maintain the amount of singing that they need to do in a day (my understanding is the dynamic is also quite soft). Whereas a chest dominant mechanism would tire more easily.

    Alternatively, perhaps the head voice dominance was a 19th century reaction to the prevalent operatic style of the time. Solesmes was trying hard to develop a new way of chanting which was recognized by Pius X and others as feeling more “spiritual.” Since most secular singing (and ecclesiastical I would bet) was chest voice dominant by the late 1800s, maybe the head voice style was a reaction to that.
    Thanked by 4StimsonInRehab Chant_Supremacist CHGiffen tomjaw
  • Chant_Supremacist
    Posts: 308
    @FSSPmusic Thanks for this information. Their Latin pronunciation, judging by their R's and U's, was not especially French and I thought it was quite fine. (Edit: I should mention that this is St-Benoit-du-Lac in Quebec, so French pronunciation might have been expected and they've made an effort to avoid it.) I'm not sure about the aspiration or lack thereof, but I'll listen to some Dom Gajard and pay attention for that. It was definitely "quantitatively" less than I prefer, and I would say less than is ideal for textual declamation. I've been reading Timothy Mcgee and Christopher Page to try and figure this out but thus far no luck.

    @davido About your first thought, wouldn't it depend mostly on natural tessitura? Like most men I'm a baritone and singing like that, with reciting tones on C for argument's sake, is straining after 10 minutes, let alone hours. Perhaps there is some nonlinear effect that establishes once one is habituated to it, I couldn't say, but it seems counterintuitive.
    Thanked by 2Liam CHGiffen
  • davido
    Posts: 1,195
    Supremacist, I have never been able to visit a monastery to observe this up close, so it’s just a theory I have wondered about. I wonder if it is easier to sustain this tessitura if one has a French linguistic background vs American
    Thanked by 1Chant_Supremacist
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 3,517
    No, I don’t think so, although the reciting tone for the ICRSP in the U.S. tends to be A versus B flat (or C goodness gracious: I only see that with untransposed mode 8 Magnificats from the Renaissance), and Potiron also takes it down to A, but I’ve sung congregational Vespers on B flat since the organist there had scores coming to her via the priest from Gricigliano.

    For the propers, at least on recordings, Clear Creek sings pretty low. Again, there are technique issues (they have a vocal teacher now!) but you can tell that this Solesmes tradition is the broad tradition from which they come.

    I’ve mentioned before that Fontgombault’s recordings have habits like the KIT vowel that I’d associate with their Canadian confrères when it should be /i/. In contrast the ICRSP explicitly asks them to use Italianate pronunciation; they’re not entirely successful but it is not because they are doing it like it’s French. Not on purpose anyway: I have always wondered if it’s a lack of grace or simply an inability to hear or both when people complain about this to me: of course the singer’s native language might be obvious when they sing, just as it tends to be for Americans…

    In the same vein I think that the ICRSP does a pretty good job. Their cantor is probably French. His /i/ is not quite what I’d want (noticeably at the first word of « in Domino »). But oh well, it’s better to me than the KIT vowel as in English in.

    And really: taken too far you’ll wind up with singers whose « pure Latin vowels » filtered through Italian gets them to sound like « it’s a me, Mario ! »; in listening to Italians singing the IEAOU drills that we all do you can hear that the sound is not quite what we American choral musicians want, nor is it French (I have to be careful with a word like « Spiritus » for example).
    Thanked by 1Chant_Supremacist
  • SponsaChristi
    Posts: 730
    whose « pure Latin vowels » filtered through Italian gets them to sound like « it’s a me, Mario ! »; in listening to Italians singing the IEAOU drills that we all do you can hear that the sound is not quite what we American choral musicians want

    We were told that Ecclesiastical Latin pronunciation is supposed to be pronounced specifically with a Roman Italian accent. We also have an Italian priest native to Rome. Spoiler alert: we’re all doing it wrong.
    Thanked by 3Chant_Supremacist tomjaw probe
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 3,517
    It’s not a Roman accent in the sense of « use Italian phonology » if you read between the lines. It is Italianate as opposed to Germanic or anything else.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,953
    This discussion comparing different approaches to singing reminds me of this gem!

    https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/de/view/bsb11175114?page=200,201 Provenienz: Franziskaner-Rekollekten in Augsburg (wurde später Kloster zum Heiligen Grab, was in einem Zusatz angegeben) / Datum: 1605-XX-XX || Provenienz: Königliche Kreisbibliothek in Augsburg / Stempel ||

    Rough translation thanks to my colleague in the Library.

    § 6 [Gregory founded two houses for his choir school, one under the steps of St Peter's, the other under the buildings of the Patriarchate of the Lateran]. Daselb sein rastbetlin darauff er sitzend gesungen, und seine gaissel, mit welcher er den Singer knaben gedrowet, in billichen ehren, sammt dem rechten vsprunglichen Antiphen buech biß auff den heutigen tag bewahret werden [There, his sofa, on which seated he was singing, and his scourge, with which he threatened the choir boys, together with the real original Antiphoner, have been kept in appropriate honour until our days.

    § 7: Diese liebliche Gesang haben vnder andern Völckern Europae, auch die Teutschen und Frantzosen wol lernen und offt widerlenen können: aber auß leichtfertig jrer hertzen, oder aber auß wilder angeborner Natur haben sie dem Gregorianischen Gesang jre aigne gesang eingemischet, vnd derhalben die rechten nit können halten. Diese berggrose cörper donnern mit jren Stimmen hoch, vnd lassen der fürgeschriebner Gesang liebligkeit nit schallen. Die wilde art der versoffnen hälsen, wenn sie die Stimmen biegen vnd ein linden thon machen wöllen, bricht für, kracht wie ein gefrorner oder vngeschmirbter wagen auff dem plaster: solt der zuhörer hertzen erwaichen, vnd aber sie erbitters.

    Amongst the peoples of Europe, also the German and French have been able to learn, and often learn again, this lovely chant. However, because of the levity of their hearts, or of their inborn savage nature, they mixed their own chant into Gregorian chant, and thus cannot keep it right. These bodies as vast as mountains thunder high up with their voices, and do not sound the prescripted loveliness of the chant. When they should inflect the voices and make a soft tone, the savage manner of these boozy throats breaks out, bangs like a frozen or ungreased carriage on a cobbled street, it should soften the hearts of the listeners but embitters them.
    Thanked by 3probe Chant_Supremacist CHGiffen
  • Chant_Supremacist
    Posts: 308
    It has been occurring to me what a critical artistic choice the pitching is, in selecting for more or less head or chest dominance, and it makes me wonder why I haven't seen more deep discussion of it in the books and articles and forums I'm familiar with. The general advice of course is to put it somewhere people can sing. That's beyond question, but it seems a lot more could be said about it, since it could be on the higher or lower end of what everyone can sing, and the resulting difference is enormous. I mean one can easily find reams of discussion on how to sing a quilisma but I've seen nothing comparable on this topic.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 3,517
    Well, to me it’s a question of intelligible text: I find that higher pitching is easier to understand than singing very low. That doesn’t mean that no upper limit exists where it becomes too high (you want to be able to internalize high notes and not just throw something out but also be able to hit the relatively high notes, like upper Do and beyond) and too much falsetto is required to sing the text clearly particularly if the higher range is required for a long portion of something like the gradual’s verse.

    I always pitch the chant in the octave above middle C when giving a note to myself or to anyone. I’m used to singing the office recto tono with the A440 tuning fork and that habit stuck.
    Thanked by 1Chant_Supremacist
  • Chant_Supremacist
    Posts: 308
    Yes, that's an important dimension. I'm not sure I agree on the fact of it, but it adds to a discussion about pitch selection. Also I don't see A as higher pitching, I think it's middle ground, but as always, feel free to teach me something.
  • GambaGamba
    Posts: 663
    The acoustic probably enters into the question, too. Many brothers in choir in a reverberant and mostly-empty Abbey church can “ring” it singing gently in head voice on a C, but chesting on a G would become oppressive. On the other hand, in the bad old days pre-Solesmes, Henri and Jean-Claude surely had to work hard to fill Saint-Sulpice, even with the help of a serpent.

    Similarly in carpeted churches today, etc….
    Thanked by 3Chant_Supremacist CHGiffen davido
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 3,517
    Well, with respect to A: yes, it’s the middle ground. But I’d do the same for the octave if I used B flat. We are fairly consistent between the Mass and the office but some propers demand a different pitching, and we have up to five (just about…) notes written in from different years with different people singing.

    Also I mean higher pitching in a relative sense: like, we’ve had to sing the office on G (back when we did morning Tenebrae) and that’s more intelligible to me than on F etc., and I do Vespers on G for the Triduum like at the Office of the Dead. The good thing about A or B flat as the reciting tone means that when I need to drop the pitch to G it is a noticeable difference without it feeling too low and unintelligible (the people manage to sing recto tono with us; any lower and I think that it’d be a mess).

    I find the deliberate employment of a bass for chant parts in polyphonic recordings very difficult. The Guerrero requiem CD that I have does this.
    Thanked by 1Chant_Supremacist
  • Chant_Supremacist
    Posts: 308
    @Gamba

    "Chesting" has been added to my vocabulary.
Add a Comment