What are they doing to sound like that when singing Gregorian chant?

Question

I am trained to sing with classical techniques with what some call the position of yawning. I even sing Gregorian melodies like that and it sounds very good for those melodies. I do not sing like a modern opera singer. That would be a very different thing.

But I often hear people sing Gregorian chant like in this example: https://spotify.link/mSAIEFbkZCb

It sounds like they are very classical in their techniques but are trying to refrain from singing with a fuller voice. That is what I hear.

If I were to sing like that I would have to manipulate my voice.

I think this technique is easier: https://spotify.link/L2GymvqmZCb He is not trying to hold back his real voice. he sounds like a tenor with some classical training. I like his voice.

I am aware that we have other kinds of tenors like those who sing early music. He doesn't sound like them. But I seem to aim for his sound.

What are they doing to sound like that when singing Gregorian chant?

So holding back and not using your real voice is the ideal in Gregorian chant?

Answer 1

This is somewhat left feld, but bear with me…

Sometimes, when trying to analyse a form you're not familiar with, you have to find an example of the "centre" of the genre, rather than random examples each of which might actually represent an extreme of style.
This is where good copyists come in handy. There's a German band called 'Gregorian' whose penchant is for modern pop & rock songs, done in the style of the EDM band Enigma, but with Gregorian chant vocals. Sure, that's an odd place to start, but what they've done with the vocals is made it sound like the dead centre of what people expect gregorian chant to sound like.

Here's an example - chosen simply because it was the first song of theirs I ever heard, some 15 years or so ago. They have about 15 albums of this stuff, some is great, some misses the point a bit.
It could be described as 'Marmite' [look it up] some people love it, some hate it. Either way, they do manage to sound 'exactly like' what people expect Gregorian chant to sound like.

Answer 2

What are they doing to sound like that when singing Gregorian chant?

In my studies of music history and in my researching for this answer, I have not be able to find anything about medieval European chant being sung with a specific technique. I only mean that I can't find anything that suggest chant is supposed to be sung with a specific character of voice.

It's not totally clear in your question who is the "they" that you're asking about (the singer in the first link or the second?), but either way it seems likely "they" are singing with either in a healthy way and and that's how their voice sounds when they sing that way, or they are singing in an unhealthy way and that's how their voice sounds. It doesn't seem like "they" are deliberately trying to make their voice sound "Gregorian", because there does not seem to be an accepted and discussed "Gregorian" sound.

So holding back and not using your real voice is the ideal in Gregorian chant?

As far as I can tell, no. I haven't found anything that suggests there is a quality of voice that one should specifically seek to sing chant that is different from desired vocal qualities in other eras or forms of Western European art music.

Answer 3

For early music and especially with chant, no vibrato is necessary, and certainly no forced vibrato that becomes popular with opera. Church spaces are set up acoustically to let voices carry and echo, so a little goes a long way. In both recordings you can hear the strong reverb of the space.

But let's analyze the two example recordings you supplied.

The Credo

When you listen to chant, keep in mind that in mass, Catholics are going to sing no matter what their voice sounds like. Allergies? Keep singing. Tightness in the throat? Keep singing. Dust and time affecting your voice? Never really got over that nasal thing from last year? Keep singing. Nobody here to hear you? Keep singing.

Now imagine it's 1995 and some one at the monastery in Luxumbourg borrowed some recording equipment. The chant has been around for eight hundred years, performed daily, reverently, by a constant stream of pious monks. So if it's Brother Maurice's turn to sing at mass and his voice is tight and stuffy that day, that's what going on the record, that's what going in the tourist gift shop.

Regina Caeli Chant

Now imagine it's 2006, the music industry is changed. The ipod has been out for five years and the iphone will be available in two. A music director at a very large church gets an opportunity to put together an album. She has access to musicians all over Chicagoland, including many that sing professionally, exclusively for the Catholic church.

The Chicago Archdiocese puts a big emphasis on providing beautiful music for masses. They're losing members and hemorrhaging money because they have too many buildings, and many of them are money pits. Traditional music, performed with some talent, is one of the few selling points they have.

Mary Gifford contracts Martin Pazdioch to sing for an album they can sell at a mark-up at the many religious shops around town. They want to compete with all the other spiritual/meditational music types that exist. Pazdioch will use the best of his talents to create music for meditation. His voice is clear and strong, with a little natural vibrato and subtle dynamics. Pazdioch is a music instructor. If his throat is tight or he's nose is backed-up, he's going to grab his flownase and do another take. Poor singing would be distracting to people who are used to modern music production, and they're not going to appreciate it on something that costs $29.99. The priests who manage the purses are suprisingly judgey.

so why are they different?

The Catholic church is presented in media in a variety of different ways, but the two big ones are

• we come as we are, join us if you like

• Our religion has given us talent and we're always this polished

Most music appreciators would prefer to hear the Regina Caeli, and say that this is authentic, accurate chant style. However, if you show up for almost any mass or service on a random Sunday, there's a good chance you'll hear something closer to the Credo, but it's not exactly on purpose. All over the globe, in places big and small, Pastors have to sing, in public, every week, no matter what. Some will be great, some will be just be good, but to judge them on their singing talent would be disrespectful. Their talent and goal is worship above all else.

This is a long winded way of saying that I don't think the Credo was sung in a style that's particularly different or special to chant. He's singing through his nose, which means he's in the process of getting some vocal training and hasn't reached the point yet where the singer integrates head and chest voice, or he's holding back a sneeze, or this is just how he sings. The recording is fuzzy, which means this was probably a recording of an actual service. If that's the case, then it was recorded to capture the real sound of the monks in service, allergies and all.

Answer 4

So holding back and not using your real voice is the ideal in Gregorian chant?

But in the first example, from a house of the Congregation of Solesmes, in a style recognizable to that monastic family, it is indeed their real voice. Can we also please further interrogate the assumption that the second example, in a style found in professional choirs in England (Westminster Cathedral) and in Italy/the Vatican) is the real voice and easier to sing?

I know that the sister abbey of Saint-Maur, Clear Creek, employs a vocal teacher who travels to work with the monks. Very few monks have much if any musical training, and while that doesn’t impede necessarily becoming a skilled chanter, it does have limitations, according to Daniel Saulnier who was a monk of Solesmes itself and an academic. He gave a paperon this topic; unfortunately, he doesn’t seem to have made available future remarks on experiences of those with more musical training.

The nasality is a quality that differs between the two recordings, one because the Solesmes congregation is largely French, Francophone, or exposed to it (but this isn’t universal; their Spanish monks retain qualities of Spanish as heard in the famous Santo Domingo de Silos albums). The vowels are not quite French, but they’re not Italian/Roman/Latin. You hear /I/, which exists in Canadian French, sure, but the standard is still /i/ and I’m not quite sure why you get that from some of the Solesmes family.

Most music appreciators would prefer to hear the Regina Caeli, and say that this is authentic, accurate chant style

An assumption in need of interrogation given that most people come to chant through the Solesmes editions and via their albums (to include their daughter houses) or are at least familiar with these. This is only slowly changing, and the professional style really doesn’t have a foothold in France or in the U.S. in my experience.