▲ | haberman 3 days ago | ||||||||||||||||
I completely agree that one-per-part singing really brings out the beauty in 16th century choral music. I sing in a choir that specializes in music of this period, and while our live performances usually use two singers per part to fill a room, our recordings are more often one-per-part with relatively close micing. We do record in churches because we like the reverb, so it's not quite the dry studio sound you're describing, but we do prioritize a clear sound stage where all of the parts can be clearly heard. We've found that a Blumlein mic configuration (two figure-8 pattern microphones placed at a 90 degree angle from each other) helps to create this clarity of texture, where all the parts can be heard individually across the stereo image, especially when listening with headphones. I can't take credit for this idea though: we learned it from the sound engineer who records the Tallis Scholars, who told us that they record in this configuration. Here are a couple examples of tracks recorded using this style: | |||||||||||||||||
▲ | Aidevah 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
That Byrd is very nice! The individual voices came across very well on my IEMs. I'm used to reverb as well, and the complete lack of reverb in these recordings still sound a little weird to me, as if they are singing in a closet. But even in the 15th and 16th century vocal polyphony was likely performed (often?) in places other than the resonant nave or choir of a large church. I read that aristocratic (or ecclesial) patrons would have singers perform in private chambers, and performance of votive masses at a private chapel to the side of main space in the church would have very different (and quite dry) acoustics. | |||||||||||||||||
▲ | omnicognate 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||
Please, please, please do this! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45011044 I do realise that's a monumental undertaking, though :-D | |||||||||||||||||
|