THE CHRONICLES AND CONFESSIONS OF CASTAGNER
Back in October 2020 the Loggione published an article titled HOW DOES JONAS KAUFMANN COMPARE TO THE GREAT TENORS OF THE PAST. This article, which concluded that he doesn't, pointed out that his success is largely due to his vocalism being supported by technology. In the comment section of the article numerous contributions were made by the well known identity Philippe Castagner. Mr Castagner, who is an accomplished tenor and creator of the popular YouTube channel Mister Opera, made a number of statements regarding amplification within opera today. During his comments Castagner stated that the Metropolitan Opera in New York did not use amplification and did not have a sound system. As a past winner of the revered Met National Council Auditions and a former young artist, Philippe Castagner was well positioned to make these claims. In his commentary during October 2020 he stated:
"I am certainly familiar with the rumours of a sound system, but I can confirm in 2002 we didn't have one. We did have microphones around the stage and pit, and their output was most definitely and obviously piped upstage with monitor speakers. I had free reign (sic) to explore the grounds for three years, and I did so, and there was no sound enhancement system"
Recently the Loggione published the first instalment of its five part series titled MICS AND THE MET. The first article of this series is an analysis of a New York Times piece authored by Anthony Tommasini and published in 2013. In Tommasini's article statements were made by the Metropolitan Opera acknowledging limited instances where amplification is used. After reviewing this information and reading the first two articles of the MICS AND THE MET series Philippe Castagner reversed his position on the issue. In a comment here on the Loggione site he stated:
"You could also make a case that sound enhancement like the MET uses (yes, I concede) is not as good as an acoustic performance, but don't forget to talk about how it changes the orchestra's sound too, since it's going to be affecting that."
"The reason I changed my mind about whether or not there is sound enhancement, is that I considered what Brett had to say, and as I literally just said, I have conceded the point.
Let me restate: I was wrong, so I changed my belief."
Philippe then quickly redefined his stance, reformulating the whole debate. He went on to state:
"If both the orchestra and the singers are amplified, the perceived advantage or "cheating" that you're spelling out to create outrage and bitterness doesn't exist."
"And again, just to make sure everyone understands - when we amplify singers in live performances, what we mean is SELECTIVELY amplifying the performance. Turning up the volume on everything doesn't accomplish that. It just takes whatever sound is reaching the mic and amplifies it."
Philippe's new position on this matter is just as incorrect as his original one. But it's one which I am glad he voiced because it's a false argument which you the public are going to hear a lot more from opera houses over the next two decades. These administrations which formally denied the existence of covert amplification in their venues are transitioning to a new phase of microphone diplomacy, one which tells us "yes, there are microphones there but they are not really doing anything".
In this article the Loggione will give a detailed analysis of this false argument and explain why it simply is not true.
MUDDYING THE WATERS
False narratives are sold to the public all the time. Governments do it, big business does it and so does Philippe Castagner. The technique is always the same and it involves creating a doubt in the public's mind about a fact which deep down they know is an indisputable truth. Often these sellers of false narratives employ science to muddy the waters and create uncertainty in the minds of the public. This technique which has its basis in condescension aims to bamboozle the consumer with facts. Inherent to this phenomenon exists the undertone that the consumer is ignorant and just doesn't understand the latest scientific study. Philippe personifies this behaviour and is always referencing science to try and persuade people to his side of the argument. His message proposes that anyone expressing disagreement does so out of ignorance. He states:
"It's almost impossible to explain anything to the people who spread these rumours, because it entails educating them about a technology they currently perceive as magic. They can't tell you the difference between a shotgun mic and an omnidirectional mic, or a condenser mic - but they are 100% certain the Met is hiding them in some magic place that will somehow amplify the voice but not the orchestra."
"Please guys, for the sake of us all, do your homework at least a little bit and learn about these systems instead of believing in MAGIC."
Once the assertion has been put forward that all with an opposing view are stupid, Philippe then writes essays full of technical jargon referencing low SPL and the inverse-square law. Unfortunately for Philippe science is very unforgiving and quite often the basic facts of the subject he is trying to debate are misunderstood by him.
I will now highlight the basic misunderstandings he has in relation to this issue. With regard to his revised position he states that while the Met does have a sound system it does not amplify singers selectively. The Loggione will now analyse this statement and determine if it is true.
THE MET DOES NOT AMPLIFY SINGERS SELECTIVELY
This statement is easily disproven by simply referencing Tommasini's article in which Gelb states:
"Sometimes a special sound effect requires it, like the booming offstage voice of Fafner the dragon in Wagner's Siegfried".
Now as anybody can understand this proves that the voice is being amplified "selectively" because if it wasn't it would not be possible to add the effect to the voice and not to the orchestra. This selective amplification is achieved by utilising the very same inverse-square law which Philippe speaks of which simply explains that proximity is important in selective amplification. In layman's terms the microphone just needs to be very close to the singer so it can capture the voice and not the orchestra. This could be achieved by either a fixed microphone placed in very close proximity to the singer or more preferably a body mic both of which the Met covertly employ.
The second misunderstanding which Philippe has pertains to sound systems where selective amplification is not being utilised. In such instances where both the voice and orchestra are being captured by the microphone, Philippe makes the false assumption that the singer is not being assisted. He states:
"If both the orchestra and the singer are amplified, the perceived advantage or "cheating" that you're actually spelling out to create outrage and bitterness doesn't exist. Since you can't defend that, you'd of course like to defend something much easier while still taking credit for defending the original point."
To the contrary, the Loggione is very happy to defend the original point and take credit for it. This will be achieved by disproving Castagner's second assertion.
NON-SELECTIVE AMPLIFICATION DOES NOT HELP SINGERS TO CHEAT
Once again Philippe Castagner despite all of the jargon has misunderstood the basic science. In this particular instance his misunderstanding comes down to thinking that the "volume" and the "projection" of a singer are the same. They are not.
Singers can be very loud but not very projective. All of us who have an inside knowledge of the career understand the phenomenon of the "disappearing voice". This is the voice which sounds enormous in the piano rehearsal but disappears in the theatre. These singers despite having loud voices cannot project to the back of the hall. What Philippe fails to understand is that a sound system which does not amplify selectively will help such a singer to cheat. This is because the system will replicate in the hall the large quality that such a voice can only have at close proximity. Unfortunately for "Castagner logic" the theorem which he subscribes to which utilises inverse-square law does not take this important fact into account.
The scientific reasoning behind why some voices project and others don't relates specifically to the spectral energy they produce. This is relevant because vibrations of varying frequencies have different projective capabilities. Voices which have an abundance of acoustic energy below 1000 Hz at the expense of upper partials are one example. This type of singing is not projective in large acoustic venues without the assistance of amplification. However with amplification these voices sound big and rich in the back of the opera theatre. This most certainly is "cheating" and is euphemistically referred to by some in the industry as the "JK effect" named after its most famous exponent Jonas Kaufmann. You can find out more about this phenomenon in the next article to be published by the Loggione titled THE JK EFFECT.
CONCLUSION
It is important to note that the foundational data which this article used to substantiate its case is very basic science. This information which has been known for centuries was well understood by the great voice teachers of the past. It also scientifically explains how the best traditions of the past produced the incredible results they did.
Despite the very basic nature of this science we can see that it is misunderstood today by those who are always referencing the "latest study". These people can be seen to criticise the traditional approach, stating that it is ignorant to the latest innovations. They know all the jargon which they constantly reference and they speak with surety and conviction, but in spite of their apparent expertise and their authoritative delivery even the most basic of concepts is often beyond them.
"These problems are avoidable. Modern physics gives us a REALLY good set of models that tell us how the voice actually works. Silver would have us frozen in time around 1938. I applaud LiVigni for bringing us closer to being up to date. Something like 1962. Unfortunately that still leaves over a half - century of updates out!"
Philippe Castagner
ADDENDUM
The series MICS AND THE MET comprehensively addresses many issues surrounding amplification in opera today. Two issues which are described within the series are:
1) How singers can be amongst the worst culprits in covering up the truth about covert amplification
2) How opera administrations are moving into a new phase of microphone diplomacy. This shift involves publicly acknowledging the use of amplification while maintaining that it doesn't actually assist the singers.
The Loggione would like to thank its good friend Philippe Castagner for demonstrating such a clear example of both concepts.
Copyright Brett Goulding 2021
Comments
Post a Comment