# "No Big Voices Today": A Theory



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

Last night I was watching a Youtube video of a recording by the great Lawrence Tibbett (active in the 1920's thru the 1940's) and reading some of the comments which followed (which was probably a mistake ). The gist of many of them was that today's singers don't have "big voices" like singers of the past did. Someone contrasted Tibbett with Bryn Terfel and claimed that, heard live, Terfel has only "a medium-sized voice."

Of course, the above is comparison is slightly ridiculous, considering that the commenter probably never heard _Tibbett_ live and can judge the size of his voice only from recordings. But one often hears the claim that singers' voices have gotten "smaller" over the years. I don't see how this can be strictly true; surely there were "small-voiced" singers in the past. But another claim made on the Youtube video was that even the smaller-voiced singers of the past had bigger voices than the so-called big-voiced singers of today do.

I don't see how voices in general can actually have become smaller over the years. I think what has happened is that, with the passing decades, daily life has become more noisy (imagine what sort of day-to-day noise there was in the early career years of, say, Nellie Melba -- the clomping of horses' hooves, no TV or radio, no background music in shops), and we have also come to expect volume from singers in an opera house to match the volume they produce on their studio recordings -- where they sing with a microphone close to their lips. In addition, I suspect that many people don't know _how_ to listen in an opera house: rather than really concentrating and "listening through the orchestra," they expect the sound to come right out to them. Finally, people's memories are faulty; they might remember a particular famous singer as having more sheer volume than he or she actually had, just because they themselves were so enthralled with that singer's voice.

What does everyone think of these ideas, and do you have any ideas of your own on the topic of voice size in the present vs. the past?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

I think the notion that classical voices have become smaller over the years total nonsense.

Musically, there is more restraint in overall playing and delivery, where appropriate, where in the past an uber late romantic ethos had all "done big," and from the orchestra, especially the string section, a vibrato so wide it could make a contemporary listener sea sick. Ditto for the use of vibrato in vocal production, then and now.

I had just lately commented elsewhere upon the ramped up frequency of hyperbole, even from supposedly intelligent critics, that they too, are infected with the endemic near absolutist-minded disease. I think that is a good part of what has colored the statement you questioned.

Perhaps the writer is now older, and without knowing it, has lost a somewhat significant part of his hearing


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

The actual standard of singing and the personalities behind it is certainly less interesting.
But in the case of Tibbett you can of course read contemporary comments on him by critics and fellow artists, but also you are able to hear live recordings where it is simple to  compare him against the other members of the cast.
I find Bryn Terfel in no way comparable,I think he's a bore.
The other point with singing in the opera house itself is whether the artist can project the voice,some singers with smaller voices can do this.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

I think the truly large voices are freaks of nature and simply don't occur easily and often. There is also the fact that interest in classical singing has declined compared to what was found in former times so many people who could produce enormous sounds today simply use a mic. Singers like Ponselle, Stignani, Flagstad, Melchoir, Caruso, Sutherland, Nilsson, Grob Prandl, Traubel, Corelli or Callas just don't come along everyday. There are some sizeable voices around today, but I dont think we have any voices that could hold up in contests with the singers mentioned ( Callas and Sutherland particularly in coloratura singing).


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

moody said:


> The actual standard of singing and the personalities behind it is certainly less interesting.
> But in the case of Tibbett you can of course read contemporary comments on him by critics and fellow artists, but also you are able to hear live recordings where it is simple to compare him against the other members of the cast.
> I find Bryn Terfel in no way comparable,I think he's a bore.
> The other point with singing in the opera house itself is whether the artist can project the voice,some singers with smaller voices can do this.


Interesting, Moody. If you read contemporary critical reviews of Terfel you will find much praise for his singing.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Speaking only about the size of the voice, this is very difficult to judge using only recordings. If those recordings are recitals, there is no easy way forward. If they are live recordings of opera performances, well, you can at least try to compare with the other singers in the show, and reach some conclusions, but it will be inevitably flawed. Of course, there are many other qualities of the singing that can be accurately reported just by listening to recordings, but not the size.

So, our major source of information about the size of the voice of many singers, are just the reviews and comments of their contemporaries. I've heard Mr. Terfel live at the theater, so I can say with some confidence that his voice is a large, big one. It's true that in recent years, he is having some problems with his projection, but that's a different thing.

If you pay attention to her 'vocal wattage', Sondra Radvanovsky has a huge voice. It fills the theater without any problem. Sometimes you can feel there is someone shouting at your side, even if you are seated on the fourth or fifth floors. However, a smaller voice well projected can also give you the impression, at the right moment, that someone is susurrating at your side, which is even better. 

In the end, to sing Opera, you need at least some vocal size (and, more importantly, a good projection). In most operas, barring a few contemporary pieces, there is no microphone. So, there is no other way. But it's very different for instance to sing Tamerlano in Halle, with a period orchestra, close to the ideal way to perform this opera, something that a good singer, but with a minuscule voice like Monica Bacelli can do very well, than to sing Tamerlano with a modern orchestra in a big theater with +2,000 seats. And it's not the same having to cut through a Wagnerian or Straussian orchestra, than singing Belcanto. 


Size matters, but other things matter more (in singing, I mean )


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

DavidA said:


> Interesting, Moody. If you read contemporary critical reviews of Terfel you will find much praise for his singing.


I know,but more importantly what do you think ?


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

schigolch said:


> Speaking only about the size of the voice, this is very difficult to judge using only recordings. If those recordings are recitals, there is no easy way forward. If they are live recordings of opera performances, well, you can at least try to compare with the other singers in the show, and reach some conclusions, but it will be inevitably flawed. Of course, there are many other qualities of the singing that can be accurately reported just by listening to recordings, but not the size.
> 
> So, our major source of information about the size of the voice of many singers, are just the reviews and comments of their contemporaries. I've heard Mr. Terfel live at the theater, so I can say with some confidence that his voice is a large, big one. It's true that in recent years, he is having some problems with his projection, but that's a different thing.
> 
> ...


Do you just bash on ahead without reading what anyone else might have said ?


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Seattleoperafan said:


> I think the truly large voices are freaks of nature and simply don't occur easily and often. There is also the fact that interest in classical singing has declined compared to what was found in former times so many people who could produce enormous sounds today simply use a mic. Singers like Ponselle, Stignani, Flagstad, Melchoir, Caruso, Sutherland, Nilsson, Grob Prandl, Traubel, Corelli or Callas just don't come along everyday. There are some sizeable voices around today, but I dont think we have any voices that could hold up in contests with the singers mentioned ( Callas and Sutherland particularly in coloratura singing).


I'm not sure that this would hold up in court.You have covered a lot of years with your choices--did Callas have a large voice?
It was certainly a very faulty one.
Incidentally,Thomas Hampson seems to have a big voice and I prefer him to Mr.Terfel.


----------



## Dongiovanni (Jul 30, 2012)

Interesting topic. The problem is that humans are notoriously poor when it comes to "measuring" (estimating would be a better word) physical units as weigth, distance and also sound level. All the evidence we have of those 'large voices" is based on humans, and not on measurements. So this can not be trusted.

Early recordings are very poor in quality. Voices are often distorted and only parts of the audible frequency range is saved. Also, very early recordings (the acoustic ones) were not made in a theatre, the singer would sing straight into the recording machine. And even with today's technique you can make a "small" voice sound "big".

The acoustics of a theatre is very complex. The intensity rate depends on the pitch, the place of the singer, the place of the listener, what is on stage, and then there is another factor, the orchestra. 

Biologically, humans haven't changed much in the past 100 years. So this can't be the cause of the theory. It could be the style not to sing so loud, or it could be that singers nowadays save their voices more, so they could be bigger, but they choose not to.

I have many different experciences. Some voices sound so small, even in smaller theatres, some voices were colossal. Anna Netrebko in La Scala was the largest I have heard so far, and in duets it felt like she was not giving all, so we could still hear the tenor.

Something that we a 21st century people forget is that we are sourrouned by music (well, some would say sound) ALL the time. If you lived in the 19th century or first part of the 20th you would only hear an opera once or twice, but now you can hear it anytime you want to. I think this also has an impact on the judgements about "big" voices.


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

I wonder if maybe the opera houses have gotten bigger- ??


----------



## Cavaradossi (Aug 2, 2012)

moody said:


> Incidentally,Thomas Hampson seems to have a big voice....


Based on what? I've seen him several times, it's certainly a fine voice, decent "sized" but not especially "big". The last time I saw him was opposite Ferrucio Furlanetto in Simon Boccanegra. Hampson held his own to be sure, but was definitely "outsized" by Furlanetto.

More generally, I tend to agree with the theory about recordings, etc. Maybe the lesson is don't put too much stock in Youtube comments.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Cavaradossi said:


> Based on what? I've seen him several times, it's certainly a fine voice, decent "sized" but not especially "big". The last time I saw him was opposite Ferrucio Furlanetto in Simon Boccanegra. Hampson held his own to be sure, but was definitely "outsized" by Furlanetto.
> 
> More generally, I tend to agree with the theory about recordings, etc. Maybe the lesson is don't put too much stock in Youtube comments.


Fairly blunt and crass comment--from what I've seen. I know of no YouTube comments.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

moody said:


> I know,but more importantly what do you think ?


He is a great singer. I think if he were singing on cracked 78s you might feel better disposed towards him!


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

DavidA said:


> He is a great singer. I think if he were singing on cracked 78s you might feel better disposed towards him!


He's not great at all on any type of record,he's OK.


----------



## katdad (Jan 1, 2009)

As was said, people haven't changed at all, genetically. In fact, with modern health and exercise and such, not smoking too, I'd guess that overall, singers have "larger" voices than in the past.

Some here have become a bit focused on specific singers but that's not the issue. We can argue whether we prefer singer A over singer B all day, no harm no foul.

As also was said, there's really no way to know whether singers in the past had "larger" voices but I frankly doubt it. After all, we now have a much larger population in general to draw from, a wider world to supply singers from everywhere (when in the old days they mostly were European), and a greater and more egalitarian wealth among people. All these contribute to a much wider pool from which to draw new singers.

Even today, we do have a few singers who apparently don't have a large enough voice. One example is Cecilia Bartoli about whom I've read that she never had the large voice needed for the Met but was otherwise superb. I've never heard her live so I can't attest either way -- in recordings you can't tell.

I think that there are some critics who create a false yearning for the "old days" and really have no idea what they're talking about. Not on the subject of singers, but look at Rudolph Bing, who ruled the Met with an iron hand, and during whose reign, Mozart was anathema (the Italians ruled) and American singers were virtually nonexistent. Reverse provincialism.

Critics of that same mentality are what Salinger called "section men", creating a private universe of their own design, into which we, as mere mortals, are only allowed a glimpse of the glory, revealed by these disciples on a whim. We've come across those folks in most every artistic venue and they are insufferable bores, for the most part. Only Gobbi! Only Callas! Only Furtwangler! Only Wagner! Only Verdi! (ad infinitum, ad nauseum)

And, as has been said, only those wonderful scratchy fragile Edison drums and cracked 78s hold the truth.

There's a sequence in Joyce's "Dubliners" where the dinner guests are discussing great singers, and most lament that there are no comparisons to the "old greats" nowdays, and the only pro singer among them, Bartell D'Arcy, says that today (1904) there are as good a singers as ever were. "Where are they?" "Milan, London" he replies. The folks don't realize how provincial Dublin's become. And D'Arcy mentions Caruso as an example of the new singers who are as good or better than those of the past.

As I've read, "Nostalgia ain't what it used to be"


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

The thread concerns big voices in opera. Please return to that topic and refrain from personal comments and remember our Terms of Service:

_Be polite to your fellow members. If you disagree with them, please state your opinion in a »civil« and respectful manner. This applies to all communication taking place on talkclassical.com, whether by means of posts, private messages, visitor messages, blogs and social groups.

Do not post comments about other members person or »posting style« on the forum (unless said comments are unmistakably positive). Argue opinions all you like but do not get personal and never resort to »ad homs«._


----------



## Krummhorn (Feb 18, 2007)

Well said ... 

Some posts have been deleted that have attempted to derail yet another thread in the Community Forum. 

We now return you to our Original Topic ...


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

I'm just getting back to "my" thread now. Thanks for all of your responses; I didn't expect the topic would be this popular!

*Katdad*: I know what you mean about dogmatic "critics" (they're not always even _professional_ critics) creating their own private world in which their response to a new recording of, for example, "Caro nome" by a young soprano is to say, "Go listen to [fill in the name of some famous soprano who is either dead or long-retired] if you want to hear the way this aria is _supposed_ to be sung." Talking with such people is like talking to a brick wall.

*PetrB:* It's interesting what you say about singing and instrumental playing in the past having been more vibrato-laden and Romantic, if you will. My brother is a violinist, and he told me just recently that he feels violin style today is moving toward being too concerned just with producing a "big sound," with a lot of vibrato, at the expense of expression. I think he mentioned Joseph Joachim (a violinist active in the 1890's) as having a smaller-scaled, more expressive approach. It's interesting that you think singing today is going in the opposite direction from "Romantic." One thing I have noticed is that few opera singers today have that sort of quick vibrato commonly heard years and years ago (Tibbett had it); tone today tends to be more pure.

A couple of people mentioned Callas as having a big voice, but I don't know if it really was all that big. I remember clearly hearing a discussion on a Met intermission feature in which someone talked about having heard Callas live and being a little surprised that she had only a modest-sized instrument. Another person heard Bjoerling live and said something like, "It was not a great big voice, but it was so beautiful that you paid attention to it."


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

*Seattleoperafan* wrote:

_I think the truly large voices are freaks of nature and simply don't occur easily and often_.

I think that's very true. It seems that every other person on Youtube wants to compare today's sopranos with Joan Sutherland and today's baritones with Leonard Warren. Inevitably, the sopranos and baritones thus compared fall short. From what I've read about and heard (on recordings) of those two singers, they had almost uniquely large voices. Someone (the late J.B. Steane, I think) heard Sutherland many times at Covent Garden and described her voice as seeming to be "everywhere at once." And even on pre-stereo recordings you can hear that Warren had a "fat" voice saturated with rich overtones. So it does seem like they were two examples of the freaks of nature you describe. Thus, it's unfair to expect everyone to sound like them.


----------



## badRomance (Nov 22, 2011)

katdad said:


> As also was said, there's really no way to know whether singers in the past had "larger" voices but I frankly doubt it.


Yes there absolutely is a way to know. There are some people alive today who heard Callas, Sutherland, Nilsson, and maybe even Flagstad live. There is always a link between the present and 1 or 2 generations prior. They can best make the comparisons. I don't know about other operas but read anything about Wagnerian singers and you will see critics who have heard Wagner in the 60s or 70s say there are no Brunnhildes like the ones in the "old days".


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

Bellinilover said:


> Thus, it's unfair to expect everyone to sound like them.


and why would we necessary want them to? I for one don't mind size - good if it's there but if it isn't and the voice has other qualities of interest I sure won't lose sleep over the lack of size.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

deggial said:


> and why would we necessary want them to? I for one don't mind size - good if it's there but if it isn't and the voice has other qualities of interest I sure won't lose sleep over the lack of size.


I agree. In voices I'm not very impressed by size alone. Firmness, focus, and ease of movement are much more important to me.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Yes, but the truly great, THRILLING voices of the past had focus, beauty, firmness of control plus size. Size is of course just one of the elements, but it can really put the whole stick of butter in the recipe;-) Imagine an Aida like Milanov who could be heard clearly above everyone else in the Triumphal Scene in Aida, all with a beautiful tone to boot. Or a Bruinhilde like Flagstad or Traubel who could sound like a pipe organ on the crucial low passages in Walkure or Gotterdammerung, all with perfect tonal control from top to bottom ( well maybe a missing high note sometimes for Traubel). Give me the butter;-)


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

badRomance said:


> Yes there absolutely is a way to know. There are some people alive today who heard Callas, Sutherland, Nilsson, and maybe even Flagstad live. There is always a link between the present and 1 or 2 generations prior. They can best make the comparisons. I don't know about other operas but read anything about Wagnerian singers and you will see critics who have heard Wagner in the 60s or 70s say there are no Brunnhildes like the ones in the "old days".


It is true and you need those types of voices for Wagner certainly,another great Wagner soprano was Frida Leider.
Incidentally,there is no need to talk in an airy-fairy way you can hear those singers from the "olden" days easily on recordings that are neither cracked,tinny or difficult to hear.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Bellinilover said:


> *Seattleoperafan* wrote:
> 
> _I think the truly large voices are freaks of nature and simply don't occur easily and often_.
> 
> I think that's very true. It seems that every other person on Youtube wants to compare today's sopranos with Joan Sutherland and today's baritones with Leonard Warren. Inevitably, the sopranos and baritones thus compared fall short. From what I've read about and heard (on recordings) of those two singers, they had almost uniquely large voices. Someone (the late J.B. Steane, I think) heard Sutherland many times at Covent Garden and described her voice as seeming to be "everywhere at once." And even on pre-stereo recordings you can hear that Warren had a "fat" voice saturated with rich overtones. So it does seem like they were two examples of the freaks of nature you describe. Thus, it's unfair to expect everyone to sound like them.


warren had pretty well ruined his voice by the time he died,Robert Merrill who had a fairly large voice was a far better singer.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

Seattleoperafan said:


> Yes, but the truly great, THRILLING voices of the past had focus, beauty, firmness of control plus size. Size is of course just one of the elements, but it can really put the whole stick of butter in the recipe;-)


granted, for Verdi and Wagner and Strauss a big voice makes a difference. I had the earlier repertoire in mind when I said I don't care one way or another.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

deggial said:


> granted, for Verdi and Wagner and Strauss a big voice makes a difference. I had the earlier repertoire in mind when I said I don't care one way or another.


Big voices are not necessary for earlier repertoire as generally the singers don't have a large orchestra to compete with. Only Alceste or Dido are generally performed with larger voices to my knowledge.


----------



## Operafocus (Jul 17, 2011)

I think this is another discussion where bigger isn't _necessarily _better. Don't get me wrong, I love big, impressive voices. However, there are few things I dislike more than a small voice trying to be big - it's as wrong as a Fiat trying to be a Rolls Royce. I once heard a Rodolfo who tried his best to sound big and butch, like he was doing Radames. The result... well, I'm sure you can imagine.

I've heard some voices live that nearly blew my head off. One being Terje Stensvold (Norwegian bass-baritone who does Wotan a lot). I attended a concert with him a year ago and my ears were ringing. Sir John Tomlinson also has what you'd call a pretty sizable voice, as does René Pape and Ferruccio Furlanetto. Giuseppe Giacomini, when he was younger, had a reputation of blowing toupees off people's heads in the second balcony. Of the women I've heard, Maria Guleghina was astounding. I heard her better OFF stage than I heard the tenor she was singing with ON the stage. She ate him alive (good example of misplaced small voice).

Smaller, softer grained voices record better than enormous spinto voices. If you wanted romance in the past, you put on a recording by Mario Lanza. The current equivalent would be, I guess, Jonas Kaufmann. I've heard him live on a few occasions (JK that is) and although he's audible in the back of the theatre, I wouldn't say he has a big voice by any stretch. Beautiful, yes. Impressive top, yes. Big, no. It doesn't _have to be_.

The point is... horses for courses. You don't necessarily want to hear a Rodolfo with a stonking big noise. Del Monaco or Vladimir Galouzine doing "Che Gelida Manina" is unlikely to be a moment of intense romance - but rather a moment of witnessing skin peeling off a soprano's face. In roles like Calaf or Cavaradossi (at least in my opinion), a big voice is needed to stand up to (and be heard alongside) the big, loud soprano that's required for Turandot and Tosca. But not necessarily for romance - unless they've got a _really _good mezzo voce.

*This is probably the ideal Rodolfo for me:*




Someone who can romance her - and then shoot out probably THE most impressive top C I've heard in recent years.

Just my two cents :lol:


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

Operafocus said:


> Of the women I've heard, Maria Guleghina was astounding. I heard her better OFF stage than I heard the tenor she was singing with ON the stage. She ate him alive (good example of misplaced small voice).


you have to wonder who did that casting. It's a bit unfair.

Seattleoperafan: right! although sometimes you get unusual voices for Baroque singing Handel and the like and it can be _interesting_. For instance I think Blythe's voice is unusually big for Baroque yet she's done a fair share of it with pretty good results in my opinion.


----------



## Operafocus (Jul 17, 2011)

deggial said:


> you have to wonder who did that casting. It's a bit unfair.


I've asked myself the same question a lot when I've attended that house, frankly.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

deggial said:


> granted, for Verdi and Wagner and Strauss a big voice makes a difference. I had the earlier repertoire in mind when I said I don't care one way or another.


Yes, in Verdi, Wagner and Strauss (depending on the opera and role) a voice that is too small for to really fill out the music can leave the listener feeling unsatisfied.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

Seattleoperafan said:


> Yes, but the truly great, THRILLING voices of the past had focus, beauty, firmness of control plus size. Size is of course just one of the elements, but it can really put the whole stick of butter in the recipe;-) Imagine an Aida like Milanov who could be heard clearly above everyone else in the Triumphal Scene in Aida, all with a beautiful tone to boot. Or a Bruinhilde like Flagstad or Traubel who could sound like a pipe organ on the crucial low passages in Walkure or Gotterdammerung, all with perfect tonal control from top to bottom ( well maybe a missing high note sometimes for Traubel). Give me the butter;-)


Well, the ideal _would_ be an extraordinarily big voice that had firmness, focus, and reasonable flexibility. Sutherland, I think, was a perfect example. But it's interesting that you mention Milanov. Of course, I never heard her live and have only recordings and critical opinion to go by; but it seems to me that, while her large voice could be soaringly beautiful (exactly the sort of voice to project over a big orchestra and to create "celestial" effects in "O Patria Mia") at other times it seemed to go out of focus -- particularly in the middle, "speaking" register -- and as a result sound "squally." J.B. Steane makes this point in _The Grand Tradition _and in Volume #3 of his _Singers of the Century _series, and I can hear what he means. I actually like Milanov's voice and agree that it was just right for a big late-Verdian ensemble, but I can hear that perhaps her focus was not always ideal.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

badRomance said:


> Yes there absolutely is a way to know. There are some people alive today who heard Callas, Sutherland, Nilsson, and maybe even Flagstad live. There is always a link between the present and 1 or 2 generations prior. They can best make the comparisons. I don't know about other operas but read anything about Wagnerian singers and you will see critics who have heard Wagner in the 60s or 70s say there are no Brunnhildes like the ones in the "old days".


It was said Nilsson that she could knock you over simply by opening her mouth!


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

moody said:


> warren had pretty well ruined his voice by the time he died,Robert Merrill who had a fairly large voice was a far better singer.


I didn't know that about Warren. Usually, he's made out to have been the true "singer's singer."

The reason Warren is not a favorite of mine has to do with the lack of incisiveness (vocal and dramatic) and with what I'm hearing on recordings as a sluggishness -- a slow, unsteady vibrato in the middle, "speaking" register -- a "beat," perhaps, if not exactly a wobble. Actually, I think "shudder" would be the best word for it. I believe this limits his expressiveness. He was a very great baritone, though, and I'm sure his voice had a big impact in the opera house. Among his "rivals" during his lifetime I do prefer Robert Merrill, because for me his voice had the qualities (consistent firmness and focus) that Warren's lacked. And, as you say, it sounds to have been a big-enough voice. Merrill was not a very imaginative vocal actor, but because of the firmness and focus his singing (for me) generally makes more of a dramatic impact than Warren's does.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Curious. I always thought that in general voices now are bigger because orchestras have gotten louder and theatres have gotten bigger. Bigger doesn't mean better (or worse) though.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

In my own personal experience, that extends now to more than 30 years, the number of small voices now is greater than in any of those past years.


----------



## badRomance (Nov 22, 2011)

moody said:


> It is true and you need those types of voices for Wagner certainly,another great Wagner soprano was Frida Leider.
> Incidentally,there is no need to talk in an airy-fairy way you can hear those singers from the "olden" days easily on recordings that are neither cracked,tinny or difficult to hear.


But hearing them in a recording can be different from hearing them live. I watched the MET Ring live and watched in HD Live and it was striking to hear Westbroek's large magnificent voice which did not record well. Also engineers can muck around with the recorded sound especially orchestra/singer balance.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

I love Warren. Only Ruffo is better IMHO. The astonishing thing about him was that walking home after a Met performance he would often sing a tenor aria up to high C, keeping that big, dark, round sound all the way to the stratosphere. Can you imagine! It supposedly flooded the Met with sound. He was also part of the Jewish male monopoly at the Met: Robert Merrill, Jan Pierce, Richard Tucker, all from the NYC area.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Bellinilover said:


> I didn't know that about Warren. Usually, he's made out to have been the true "singer's singer."
> 
> The reason Warren is not a favorite of mine has to do with the lack of incisiveness (vocal and dramatic) and with what I'm hearing on recordings as a sluggishness -- a slow, unsteady vibrato in the middle, "speaking" register -- a "beat," perhaps, if not exactly a wobble. Actually, I think "shudder" would be the best word for it. I believe this limits his expressiveness. He was a very great baritone, though, and I'm sure his voice had a big impact in the opera house. Among his "rivals" during his lifetime I do prefer Robert Merrill, because for me his voice had the qualities (consistent firmness and focus) that Warren's lacked. And, as you say, it sounds to have been a big-enough voice. Merrill was not a very imaginative vocal actor, but because of the firmness and focus his singing (for me) generally makes more of a dramatic impact than Warren's does.


You have completely explained the stuation,although I don't really agree with the comment on Merrill's acting which are not new.
Listen to him in Rossini' "Barber".


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

badRomance said:


> But hearing them in a recording can be different from hearing them live. I watched the MET Ring live and watched in HD Live and it was striking to hear Westbroek's large magnificent voice which did not record well. Also engineers can muck around with the recorded sound especially orchestra/singer balance.


It's technique that I was thinking of,you are right on the volume,etc.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

jhar26 said:


> Curious. I always thought that in general voices now are bigger because orchestras have gotten louder and theatres have gotten bigger. Bigger doesn't mean better (or worse) though.


Without having looked things up,when were La Scala,Covent Gdn and the Met built--to mention just three.
I doubt that orchestras have got louder in the last 100 years.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

*Seattleoperafan wrote:*

He was also part of the Jewish male monopoly at the Met: Robert Merrill, Jan Pierce, Richard Tucker, all from the NYC area.

Though I don't know if I'd call it a "monopoly," you're right about their being several famous Jewish Met singers during the 1950's; besides those men there was also soprano Roberta Peters. Warren, however, converted to Catholicism around 1950.


----------



## MAuer (Feb 6, 2011)

moody said:


> Without having looked things up,when were La Scala,Covent Gdn and the Met built--to mention just three.
> I doubt that orchestras have got louder in the last 100 years.


I don't know the exact dates of construction for La Scala and Covent Garden, but I know both pre-date the 20th century. Lincoln Center, however, was built in the mid-1960s.


----------



## Aksel (Dec 3, 2010)

moody said:


> I doubt that orchestras have got louder in the last 100 years.


Yeah, they have. Pitch has gone up, allowing especially strings to play louder, or at the very least more brilliantly. Higher pitch, also not too good for singers. Some German and Austrian opera orchestras (most notably at the Wiener and Bayerische Staatsopern) have really cranked the A up to well-nigh impossible heights.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

It is a little annoying to see every Wagnerian singer on YouTube compared (unfavourably) to Melchior and Flagstad. Which I doubt the vast majority have ever heard live, only on rather poor mono recordings, the microphones back then easily saturated by the operatic voice.


----------



## Aksel (Dec 3, 2010)

Couchie said:


> It is a little annoying to see every Wagnerian singer on YouTube compared (unfavourably) to Melchior and Flagstad. Which I doubt the vast majority have ever heard live, only on rather poor mono recordings, the microphones back then easily saturated by the operatic voice.


This. This, this, this, this.

And it's not like there aren't good, or even great Wagner singers alive and singing today.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

Rereading the early chapters of J.B. Steane's _The Grand Tradition_, it strikes me that in the late 19th century and the early part of the 20th, more purely "lyric" singers seem to have been readily accepted in what we today would call "dramatic" roles. For example, Giuseppe de Luca, whom we would probably call a "bel canto" or a "lyric" baritone today, was one of the "Verdi baritones" of his time and even sang some Wagner. On recordings, his voice does not sound very powerful (or menacing), and apparently it was much smaller at least than Titta Ruffo's, whose voice on recordings sounds huge (and who was called "the lion," while de Luca was called "the mouse"). Steane writes that de Luca competed with Ruffo in the only way that he could, "by developing the classic virtues of a smooth style and a compact production."

Maybe, as someone said above, pitch was lower back then. Maybe (as I said in my OP) people's ears in general were not so accustomed to daily loud noise and so to them a singer like de Luca did not seem "small" in Verdi. Or maybe the theatres in which he sang were intimate (and maybe the old Met Opera House was smaller than the current one?). Or maybe it was a combination of all these things. I'm sure de Luca's voice was perfectly projected, but it's hard for me to believe it was much bigger than, say, Thomas Hampson's. Yet Hampson gets lambasted for singing Verdi.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Big voices can sound wrong in the wrong repertoire. Joan Sutherland completely ruins this otherwise exemplary Athalia for me. I have to skip her arias.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

The size of the voice is just one thing among many. We can be fairly certain that the size of Ruffo's was indeed bigger than De Luca's. And probably much bigger. All evidences are pointing in this direction.

But we need to think also in terms of diction, breath support, projection, vibrato, beauty of the timbre, intonation, legato, squillo, coloratura, phrasing,... just to name a few features, none of them related with the size of the voice (well, projection is related to the _perceived_ size of the voice for the audience in the theater).

De Luca was a splendid baritone that made most of his career singing at the MET. He was one of the major stars there from 1915 to 1935. Toscanini said of him: "De Luca is beyond any doubt the best baritone I've ever met". Yes, he had a nice voice, but not spectacularly beautiful (though remarkably well-balanced across all his tessitura), and he didn't have the powerful throat of Ruffo, or the brilliant timbre of Stracciari. His best features were the flawless execution, a limpid, pure sound and a perfect, apparently effortless, legato.

However Ruffo, just a year younger than De Luca, was fonder of singing at different venues, and in the US he sang more at Chicago, than New York. Serafin said of him: "I have been witness to three vocal miracles: Caruso, Ponselle and Ruffo". His voice was reported as a full monster (in size), that could dwarf any orchestra or indeed his fellow singers. Of course, to tame such a voice was difficult. The natural powerful delivery and the beautiful, noble timbre, were often accompanied by rather indifferent, monotous singing. In his time, he was considered the leading baritone of the "modern, verismo" school, while Stracciari or De Luca were more in the "classical" mold. Regrettably, some of Ruffo's mannerisms were copied by later Italian, and not Italian, baritones that, however, did not possess his incredible voice, and artificially tried to expand their middle range.

Two different singers, De Luca and Ruffo, but both great.


----------



## Downbeat (Jul 10, 2013)

Bellinilover said:


> Last night I was watching a Youtube video of a recording by the great Lawrence Tibbett (active in the 1920's thru the 1940's) and reading some of the comments which followed (which was probably a mistake ). The gist of many of them was that today's singers don't have "big voices" like singers of the past did. Someone contrasted Tibbett with Bryn Terfel and claimed that, heard live, Terfel has only "a medium-sized voice."
> 
> Of course, the above is comparison is slightly ridiculous, considering that the commenter probably never heard _Tibbett_ live and can judge the size of his voice only from recordings. But one often hears the claim that singers' voices have gotten "smaller" over the years. I don't see how this can be strictly true; surely there were "small-voiced" singers in the past. But another claim made on the Youtube video was that even the smaller-voiced singers of the past had bigger voices than the so-called big-voiced singers of today do.
> 
> ...


I agree...thre is little way of telling. One thing I do notice is how singers sound less inspired. Probably due to the fact that they sing too much and music starts to feel monotonous to them. As a musician, I find that understandable (rather like orchestral players getting bored of playing together on a daily basis).


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Bellinilover said:


> Rereading the early chapters of J.B. Steane's _The Grand Tradition_, it strikes me that in the late 19th century and the early part of the 20th, more purely "lyric" singers seem to have been readily accepted in what we today would call "dramatic" roles. For example, Giuseppe de Luca, whom we would probably call a "bel canto" or a "lyric" baritone today, was one of the "Verdi baritones" of his time and even sang some Wagner. On recordings, his voice does not sound very powerful (or menacing), and apparently it was much smaller at least than Titta Ruffo's, whose voice on recordings sounds huge (and who was called "the lion," while de Luca was called "the mouse"). Steane writes that de Luca competed with Ruffo in the only way that he could, "by developing the classic virtues of a smooth style and a compact production."
> 
> Maybe, as someone said above, pitch was lower back then. Maybe (as I said in my OP) people's ears in general were not so accustomed to daily loud noise and so to them a singer like de Luca did not seem "small" in Verdi. Or maybe the theatres in which he sang were intimate (and maybe the old Met Opera House was smaller than the current one?). Or maybe it was a combination of all these things. I'm sure de Luca's voice was perfectly projected, but it's hard for me to believe it was much bigger than, say, Thomas Hampson's. Yet Hampson gets lambasted for singing Verdi.


Your post is certainly an interesting translation of what appears in The Grand Tradition.
Steane says that de Luca sang until the Met's 1945/6 season making him 69 years old.
But Ruffo had to retire in middle age and he did have to,see below.
It was actually Ruffo who said that de Luca was a mouse and that he was a lion,so I think that we can ignore that.
Steane also said ; "there is nothing very mousy about de Luca's voice on record,he holds his own with formidable duettists including Caruso."
Steane also stresses that de Luca is a model for any young singer and calls him "a master singer".
perhaps the most fascinating quote is from Ruffo himself:
"I never knew how to sing, that is why my voice went by the time I was fifty. I had no right to teach youngsters something I never knew how to do myself."
He was exciting but the voice is wearing and there are parallels with Warren.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Couchie said:


> It is a little annoying to see every Wagnerian singer on YouTube compared (unfavourably) to Melchior and Flagstad. Which I doubt the vast majority have ever heard live, only on rather poor mono recordings, the microphones back then easily saturated by the operatic voice.


You could hear him him in Technicolor Hollywood romantic films and although older than the famous records he was still a knockout.
Also technology now brings up the voice so well,you have seen that with Bigshot's efforts.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Bryn Terfel a "bore"? I beg to differ ! On the contrary, he's anything but boring ! He has more than a great voice, far more . He's a vivid personality and a superb actor . Nobody on this forum is old enough to have experienced Lawrence Tibbett live, and he must hve been a great artist too and striking personality .
But we have to be careful of making invidious comparisons .


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

superhorn said:


> Bryn Terfel a "bore"? I beg to differ ! On the contrary, he's anything but boring ! He has more than a great voice, far more . He's a vivid personality and a superb actor . Nobody on this forum is old enough to have experienced Lawrence Tibbett live, and he must hve been a great artist too and striking personality .
> But we have to be careful of making invidious comparisons .


What's an invidious comparison,my opinion was based on what I've seen and not comparing him with anyone really. If you don't make comparisons on the other hand,what's the point of discussions re; various singers?
The above is your opinion of course.
Edit--I did say I preferred Thomas Hampson.


----------



## katdad (Jan 1, 2009)

Couchie said:


> It is a little annoying to see every Wagnerian singer on YouTube compared (unfavourably) to Melchior and Flagstad. Which I doubt the vast majority have ever heard live, only on rather poor mono recordings, the microphones back then easily saturated by the operatic voice.


Well, the problem being, other alternatives do you have?

I'm turning 72 soon and although I'm technically old enough to have heard both singers live, the mechanics are otherwise, as I didn't grow up nor visit world opera cities during their heyday. Nor have the vast majority of others, even highly focused fans of either singer at the time.

Recordings are all we have to go on, or maybe reviews. Problem there is that reviews are always tweaked one way or another based on the writers' biases about that particular singer or the singer's style. And even impartial reviews can only tell us about, not show us, the singing. Consider only first-hand evidence: How many of us have attended an opera or concert, liked or disliked a particular singer, and the next day read a totally reverse opinion in the paper? Someone who didn't attend the concert might therefore form a biased opinion that's without merit.

From personal experience, this story: one performance where I sang Antonio the gardener in Nozze. That specific performance I was singing very clearly, projecting, good diction, etc. But I was for some reason missing stage cues and slightly messed up an exit in act 2. The day afterward, as is typical, we all had a sitdown and went through our performance. As I thought, I was nicely "on voice" and maestro commented favorably on this, getting me a round of applause and causing me to blush. "About his acting, however..." he joked. And the stage director indeed had spotted my mixups and recommended some ways to avoid them. Fine, it happens to all, no biggie. And amazingly, in our newspaper, the reviewer specifically mentioned how great my acting was but how my voice was off a bit. Exactly the reverse of what I and my colleagues thought!

In our modern era we're only now able to hear great contemporary singers no matter where we live and despite some financial limitations.

We take what we can get and go from there, imperfectly perhaps, but there are no other avenues.


----------



## Cavaradossi (Aug 2, 2012)

katdad said:


> In our modern era we're only now able to hear great contemporary singers no matter where we live and despite some financial limitations.
> 
> We take what we can get and go from there, imperfectly perhaps, but there are no other avenues.


Technology has certainly been a boon, but yes, imperfect for making comparisons if one insists on doing so. Whether it's via recording or live HD broadcast, thanks to the magic of digital any singer can have as big a voice as the technician tweaking the dials on the sound board decides they should have.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

moody said:


> Your post is certainly an interesting translation of what appears in The Grand Tradition.
> Steane says that de Luca sang until the Met's 1945/6 season making him 69 years old.
> But Ruffo had to retire in middle age and he did have to,see below.
> It was actually Ruffo who said that de Luca was a mouse and that he was a lion,so I think that we can ignore that.
> ...


I don't know that I was aiming to "translate" what Steane writes; I didn't want to make my post too long, and maybe I oversimplified. I also couldn't tell whether the "mouse" quote came originally from Ruffo or if he was repeating something people generally said about de Luca. I'm aware that Ruffo had a relatively early decline and for that reason later refused to teach. (In fact, the title of his autobiography is _La Mia Parabola_, which I believe carries the sense of "my downfall" or "my decline," though I'm not certain). I don't for a minute think that Ruffo's voice was somehow better than de Luca's because it was more powerful.

My main point was that, even if de Luca did "hold his own with some formidable duettists" _on record _(Steane writes about de Luca's apparent ablility to intensify his sound so that it rang powerfully), it would be hard for me to imagine_ critics and/or audiences __today_ readily accepting his voice onstage in any Verdi role other than Posa and Germont. Granted, I haven't listened to any of his duets with Caruso, etc. The pieces I've heard him sing on recordings are "Ah, per sempre io ti perdei" from I PURITANI and "Di Provenza" from LA TRAVIATA. To me his voice sounds clear-timbred, malleable, and equal in all the registers. The sound is slender rather than "wide" or robust. Even if his focus and projection were perfect (as I'm sure they were) and even if he could "give" a lot of ringing tone at the right moments, today he'd probably have to contend with people warning him that he'll ruin his voice if he keeps it up and to stay away from the "heavier" Verdi parts. I wonder whether certain people in de Luca's time said these kinds of things when de Luca sang, say, Amonasro in AIDA?


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

While I don't think that voices have gotten smaller necessarily, I think that they have lost color. Listening to di Stefano on record (never heard him live) I can hear a whole palette of colors, colors that are used to paint the aria (and recordings are supposed to rob you of some of your voices beauty, especially the old ones). His voice, and voices like Pavarotti, Freni, Domingo, Caballe, Gedda, de los Angeles, Thill and Moffo all had distinct, individual, deeply hued vocal color. From just listening I can't really tell Alagna and Beczala apart (although to be fair I have listened to them less). It seems that a lot of voices right now have a very 'white' sound. There's power enough, and sheer volume, but very little color. And without the color, there's not much beauty to me, and not much to listen for.


----------



## badRomance (Nov 22, 2011)

Aksel said:


> Yeah, they have. Pitch has gone up, allowing especially strings to play louder, or at the very least more brilliantly. Higher pitch, also not too good for singers. Some German and Austrian opera orchestras (most notably at the Wiener and Bayerische Staatsopern) have really cranked the A up to well-nigh impossible heights.


I thought A=440Hz for at least a hundred years except for some German regions where A is higher by a quarter tone or something.


----------



## badRomance (Nov 22, 2011)

Couchie said:


> It is a little annoying to see every Wagnerian singer on YouTube compared (unfavourably) to Melchior and Flagstad. Which I doubt the vast majority have ever heard live, only on rather poor mono recordings, the microphones back then easily saturated by the operatic voice.


I don't doubt Flagstad's large voice (Schwarzkopff said that Flagstad sounded as if a microphone was in her throat). Also Melchior pierces though Flagstad's C6 at the beginning of Gotterdammerung in one recording I heard. But yeah, in terms of other qualities, other singers have their strengths especially against Melchior when he irritatingly starts ignoring Wagner's rhythm.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

HumphreyAppleby said:


> While I don't think that voices have gotten smaller necessarily, I think that they have lost color. Listening to di Stefano on record (never heard him live) I can hear a whole palette of colors, colors that are used to paint the aria (and recordings are supposed to rob you of some of your voices beauty, especially the old ones). His voice, and voices like Pavarotti, Freni, Domingo, Caballe, Gedda, de los Angeles, Thill and Moffo all had distinct, individual, deeply hued vocal color. From just listening I can't really tell Alagna and Beczala apart (although to be fair I have listened to them less). It seems that a lot of voices right now have a very 'white' sound. There's power enough, and sheer volume, but very little color. And without the color, there's not much beauty to me, and not much to listen for.


I know exactly what you mean by "color" and agree with you that it's the "colors" to be heard in the tone itself that give a voice interest. I disagree, however, that today's singers lack tonal color, and I also disagree that "colorless tone" is a particularly modern phenomenon. A few examples: Anna Netrebko's voice reminds me of autumn leaves; Barbara Frittoli's voice reminds me of amber; Dwayne Croft's voice has always made me think of a rich, chocolate brownie; in Cecilia Bartoli's tone I hear gold, silver, and red; and Renee Fleming's tone actually makes me think of watercolors. On the other hand, I've never on recordings been able to hear any distinct color at all in Piero Cappuccilli's voice. In the sounds produced by Sutherland, Pavarotti, and Ghiaurov (I choose them because they're his colleagues in the 1973 I PURITANI recording on London/Decca), I do hear "color"; in Cappuccilli's I do not. I think there have always been "white-voiced" singers, and in fact one reason I've never cared for Alagna is because I find his voice both dry and "colorless."

So, in short, while I have heard modern singers with "white" voices, most of the modern voices I've heard do have color -- and some of the "past" ones I've heard do not.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Couchie said:


> It is a little annoying to see every Wagnerian singer on YouTube compared (unfavourably) to Melchior and Flagstad. Which I doubt the vast majority have ever heard live, only on rather poor mono recordings, the microphones back then easily saturated by the operatic voice.


I think it must be said that Melchior was an exception even in his day. There probably never has been such a voice before or since.

Among relatively modern singers only del Monaco and Vickers have come anywhere near for size?


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

moody said:


> I'm not sure that this would hold up in court.You have covered a lot of years with your choices--did Callas have a large voice?
> .


Callas before her weight loss had an enormous, very penetrating sound. Sutherland and Bonynge in an interview on Youtube heard her live at this time and Joan sang Clotilde with her Norma from Covent Garden before the weight loss and said her voice was "collosal"! Remember she also sang loads of Bruinhildes and Turandots at one of the major opera houses of Europe, La Scalla, roles which require a big sound. You can listen to her high Eb at the end of the Triumphal Scene in Aida in Mexico City from this period and even on an old recording it comes off as a solid contender for the biggest note above High C ever recorded.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Seattleoperafan said:


> Callas before her weight loss had an enormous, very penetrating sound. Sutherland and Bonynge in an interview on Youtube heard her live at this time and Joan sang Clotilde with her Norma from Covent Garden before the weight loss and said her voice was "collosal"! Remember she also sang loads of Bruinhildes and Turandots at one of the major opera houses of Europe, La Scalla, roles which require a big sound. You can listen to her high Eb at the end of the Triumphal Scene in Aida in Mexico City from this period and even on an old recording it comes off as a solid contender for the biggest note above High C ever recorded.


I wonder why you have dug this up--I don't really care much she's anathema to me in any case.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

moody said:


> I wonder why you have dug this up--I don't really care much she's anathema to me in any case.


 Bored and digging through old posts on subjects I am interested in. You need to develop some opinions. They might be good for your character;-) Callas will always be divisive. Of that I am aware. I am a a strong contender that there were 2 distinct Callas voices... before and after weight loss. You can't judge her completely just by most of her commercial recordings.
I enjoy your posts, even when I don't always agree with them;-) Have a good day. John


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

moody said:


> I wonder why you have dug this up--I don't really care much she's anathema to me in any case.


Is there an unlike button anywhere? Your blind spot vis-a-vis Callas is really beginning to grate. One almost begins to think it's personal.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

GregMitchell said:


> Is there an unlike button anywhere? Your blind spot vis-a-vis Callas is really beginning to grate. One almost begins to think it's personal.


You may note that I was answering a post that was aimed at me. I certainly couldn't care less whether I might grate on you and I suggest you look to your manners.
Could it be that your obvious support for Callas has become personal,but regardless I will say whatever I want in regarding any artist and you are breaking the rules by criticising with no reasoning behind your comments. Where's your defence of the woman, also my attitude to Karajan is similar but I hear nothing from you on this.
Incidentally,so anyone who dislikes Callas has a blind spot--how laughable !!


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Seattleoperafan said:


> Bored and digging through old posts on subjects I am interested in. You need to develop some opinions. They might be good for your character;-) Callas will always be divisive. Of that I am aware. I am a a strong contender that there were 2 distinct Callas voices... before and after weight loss. You can't judge her completely just by most of her commercial recordings.


I'm not quite sure it's as simple as that, but the voice did change, of that there is no doubt. As you rightly said, Sutherland said the voice was colossal when she sang with her in 1952. It became lighter, though this might also have had something to do with the change in repertoire. By the early 1950s she had ceased singing Turandot, Brunnhilde and Isolde. Even Aida was soon dropped from her repertoire. Tosca she sang only infrequently after the famous De Sabata recording, until the last couple of years when she briefly returned to the operatic stage, singing the role at Covent Garden, in Paris and at the Met. At about the same time as the weight loss, she concentrated more and more on the _bel canto_ repertoire. Where Turandot and Aida were once her calling card, now it was Lucia, Violetta and Norma (the three roles she sang more than any other). They were joined by Amina in La Sonnambula and Medea. Later she added Anna Bolena and Il Pirata. Incidentally I believe 1955 (post weight loss) to be the high watermark of her career, the year when voice and artistry were most perfectly blended. This was the year of the Berlin Lucias, the fabulous La Scala Norma, her first Amina under Bernstein, the famous Visconti Traviata under Giulini, the year she recorded Butterfly, Aida and Gilda. She could still, by 1957, sing with a great deal of power, as witness the live recording of Un Ballo in Maschera from La Scala, when she sings with true _spinto_ tone, though the voice is lighter, more pliable, than it was in those Mexico City Aidas, when she is hurling out massive, sustained high Ebs.

One should also note that her commercial recordings aren't always representative of her career in the theatre. She recorded commercially Turandot and Aida long after she had given up singing them. Nedda, Mimi and Manon Lescaut she never sang in the theatre, and Butterfly only once (in Chicago round about the same time she made the recording). Santuzza she only sang as a student. Walter Legge was very chary about recording her in the roles she wanted to record, only allowing her arias from two of her greatest successes (Anna Bolena and Il Pirata), and surely a Macbeth with her and Gobbi is one of the great might-have-beens of recorded history. Legge flatly refused to record Medea, and it was actually Ricordi who recorded the opera in the end.

I actually think it was madness for her to record Turandot in 1957. Just a few days before the recording, she had been singing two performances of Amina in Cologne (the one recorded is arguably the best of all her recorded Aminas). To go from that to Turandot, a role she hadn't sung since 1949 was foolhardy to say the least. That she acquits herself as well as she does is a surprise in itself, though it must have put an intolerable strain on her voice, a strain that is all too obvious in the Manon Lescaut which followed, and on which she sounds utterly exhausted. There are some alarming flaps on high notes here, much worse than anything prior to this recording. Though she briefly regains her form that year (for a concert in Dallas, and for the La Scala Ballo), it is rapidly downhill form then onwards.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Well we've been here before, Moody. Your blind spot is in not allowing that the singer has any merit whatsoever. (Do you feel the same way about Karajan? I haven't read any of your posts on him.) It's the way you keep dismissing one of the greatest singers of the twentieth century that I find so annoying.

You don't like Callas's voice. Fine. I don't have an argument with that. We all have our personal likes and dislikes. I actually don't much like Sutherland. The mannerisms, the lack of words, the fact that one role sounds much like any other. It's just a beautiful voice making beautiful sounds. That is not enough for me. That is no doubt my blind spot. By the same token, I appreciate her importance in post-war opera, and accept the beauty and technical prowess, even if it is not much to my liking. Nor do I bang on about her the way you do about Callas. Enough. just get over it


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I think the point about Callas is that she was a great singing actress whose voice crumbled after a relatively short time. It's fairly useless to speculate the reason for this. The fact is it happened. At her best she had something that was incomparable. 
Her Leonore with Karajan is fantastic. Her Butterfly unique, even if it is not to everyone's taste. And the famous Tosca with de Sabata is the greatest ever. Her Rosina is a bit of a shrew rather than a minx but the vocal ism is great. By the time she made Carmen the voice was really wearing but the character is interesting. Sadly the supporting cast is weak and the conductor pretty indifferent.
Like all stars she made enemies, of course, who love to magnify her weaknesses. But at her best she offered something pretty unique. I'm surprised that folk today often complain that everyone sounds the same and then complain again at someone as unique as Callas.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> By the time she made Carmen the voice was really wearing but the character is interesting. Sadly the supporting cast is weak and the conductor pretty indifferent.


Oddly enough, I rather like the supporting cast on her *Carmen*. Andrea Guiot's Micaela may not be the equal of Freni or Te Kanawa in terms of beauty of sound, but it is very French, and this Micaela is a plucky little thing. She's certainly a lot better than Ricciarelli on Karajan II. Gedda is one of my favourite Don Joses and Massard a thoroughly plausible Escamillo. In fact this is one of the most _French_ Carmens out there. Aside from Callas and Gedda, everyone else involved is French, and Gedda was, in any case, probably the best _French_ tenor around for quite a while. I also rather like Pretre's no-nonsense approach to the score, which again sounds very French to me. Callas is no doubt an acquired taste as Carmen, but here for once we do have the _belle et dangereuse_ woman Micaela speaks of. Not a prime recommendation perhaps (the edition alone would put it out of contention) but certainly worth a spin.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

GregMitchell said:


> Well we've been here before, Moody. Your blind spot is in not allowing that the singer has any merit whatsoever. (Do you feel the same way about Karajan? I haven't read any of your posts on him.) It's the way you keep dismissing one of the greatest singers of the twentieth century that I find so annoying.
> 
> You don't like Callas's voice. Fine. I don't have an argument with that. We all have our personal likes and dislikes. I actually don't much like Sutherland. The mannerisms, the lack of words, the fact that one role sounds much like any other. It's just a beautiful voice making beautiful sounds. That is not enough for me. That is no doubt my blind spot. By the same token, I appreciate her importance in post-war opera, and accept the beauty and technical prowess, even if it is not much to my liking. Nor do I bang on about her the way you do about Callas. Enough. just get over it


I would not expect someone who actually uses Callas as his avatar to argue the point sensibly. As for getting over it--at 76 years of age I don't think so. Also I saw Callas,did you?
Lastly and I mean lastly among my favourite sopranos are Zinka Milanov ,Elisabeth Rethberg and Rosa Ponselle.
If I admire them I could hardly admire the gurglings and raspings and strange hollow distortions that issue from Callas' mouth.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

moody said:


> I would not expect someone who actually uses Callas as his avatar to argue the point sensibly. As for getting over it--at 76 years of age I don't think so. Also I saw Callas,did you?
> Lastly and I mean lastly among my favourite sopranos are Zinka Milanov ,Elisabeth Rethberg and Rosa Ponselle.
> If I admire them I could hardly admire the gurglings and raspings and strange hollow distortions that issue from Callas' mouth.


Moody, we respect your age and experience. But what you say about Callas' voice simply bears no resemblance to what I hear on the CDs I have of her performances. True, by the time of Carmen, the voice had pretty much gone, but I simply don 'to hear the 'gurgling sand raspings' you mention.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

GregMitchell said:


> Oddly enough, I rather like the supporting cast on her *Carmen*. Andrea Guiot's Micaela may not be the equal of Freni or Te Kanawa in terms of beauty of sound, but it is very French, and this Micaela is a plucky little thing. She's certainly a lot better than Ricciarelli on Karajan II. Gedda is one of my favourite Don Joses and Massard a thoroughly plausible Escamillo. In fact this is one of the most _French_ Carmens out there. Aside from Callas and Gedda, everyone else involved is French, and Gedda was, in any case, probably the best _French_ tenor around for quite a while. I also rather like Pretre's no-nonsense approach to the score, which again sounds very French to me. Callas is no doubt an acquired taste as Carmen, but here for once we do have the _belle et dangereuse_ woman Micaela speaks of. Not a prime recommendation perhaps (the edition alone would put it out of contention) but certainly worth a spin.


I find Gedda tasteful but dull. Nothing as exciting as Corelli, although I accept that Corelli's French is nowhere found in France. Massard I find absolutely dull as ditchwater. One cheers the bull on! And I think Pretre had a train to catch the way he races through the score. As for Callas - interesting! An absolute bitch of a Carmen.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

DavidA said:


> Moody, we respect your age and experience. But what you say about Callas' voice simply bears no resemblance to what I hear on the CDs I have of her performances. True, by the time of Carmen, the voice had pretty much gone, but I simply don 'to hear the 'gurgling sand raspings' you mention.


Everybody is allowed to like or dislike whoever they may choose. I simply don't like rudeness and demands that others should comply. 
Funny thing is that I liked her "Carmen".


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

moody said:


> Lastly and I mean lastly among my favourite sopranos are Zinka Milanov ,Elisabeth Rethberg and Rosa Ponselle.
> If I admire them I could hardly admire the gurglings and raspings and strange hollow distortions that issue from Callas' mouth.


Rethberg and Ponselle I also love, Ponselle rather more. Milanov I've always found as dull as ditchwater. Never did understand what the fuss was about. But I guess, if you enjoy ditchwater , it's not surprising you never "got" Callas.

No. Alas I didn't see Callas. At 62, I'm just too young. You say you heard Callas but when and in what? I could have seen those last concerts I suppose, but admit that I'm rather glad I didn't. it's tragic to listen to the shadow of a once great voice, and at its peak it was a great voice. I know I'm repeating myself, but maybe you didn't read some of my replies to your other posts. As a musician, whether you like the voice or not, she is unparalleled. I am not alone. John Steane, now unfortunately no longer with us, but one of the greatest writers on singing and the gramophone, is also, as it happens, a great admirer of both Rethberg and Ponselle. Callas too was one of his great loves and he often talks about how good her singing is _just as singing_.

But you will not deflect me. Time, posterity, and plenty of other great musicians (singers, conductors and instrumentalists) are on my side, not yours.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> I find Gedda tasteful but dull. Nothing as exciting as Corelli, although I accept that Corelli's French is nowhere found in France. Massard I find absolutely dull as ditchwater. One cheers the bull on! And I think Pretre had a train to catch the way he races through the score. As for Callas - interesting! An absolute bitch of a Carmen.


How we all differ  I can't get past Corelli's execrable French, and the sobbing. It may seem exciting, but it seems all wrong in the role. Gedda might seem a little dull, but actually Jose is a bit of a milksop who goes bad. I don't expect Jose to be a match for Carmen. Killing her at the end is an act of weakness, not strength. Gedda makes much more sense to me. I do like Vickers in the role, but his Carmen (Bumbry) is a trifle dull. I also like Pretre's swift tempi. Karajan loves the score to death, and in so doing kills it stone dead. I'm thinking more of his second recording here, rather than the one with Corelli, which I don't know so well. I've only heard it once, and though I thought Price's approach to the role was interesting, I just couldn't bear to hear Corelli mangling the language again.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

moody said:


> Everybody is allowed to like or dislike whoever they may choose. I simply don't like rudeness and demands that others should comply.
> Funny thing is that I liked her "Carmen".


I'm not being rude, I hope you realise. Just saying I don't hear it the same as you do. Her Carmen was interesting. It was everyone around her who was second rate IMO.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

GregMitchell said:


> How we all differ  I can't get past Corelli's execrable French, and the sobbing. It may seem exciting, but it seems all wrong in the role. Gedda might seem a little dull, but actually Jose is a bit of a milksop who goes bad. I don't expect Jose to be a match for Carmen. Killing her at the end is an act of weakness, not strength. Gedda makes much more sense to me. I do like Vickers in the role, but his Carmen (Bumbry) is a trifle dull. I also like Pretre's swift tempi. Karajan loves the score to death, and in so doing kills it stone dead. I'm thinking more of his second recording here, rather than the one with Corelli, which I don't know so well. I've only heard it once, and though I thought Price's approach to the role was interesting, I just couldn't bear to hear Corelli mangling the language again.


I suppose it depends how 'verismo' you think Carmen is. To me Karajan's care with the score matches his Cav and Pag. His later version is really good too, IMO, the drawback being having actorish actors speaking the dialogue. It is, of course, opinion. I note the late Alan Blyth had a habit of changing his opinion of something in the next review when he saw how the critical tide was running. But then that's critics.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

DavidA said:


> I'm not being rude, I hope you realise. Just saying I don't hear it the same as you do. Her Carmen was interesting. It was everyone around her who was second rate IMO.


The "rude" remark wasn't aimed at you.
But in any case T blame myself,I should have known better than to have got into an argument over Callas. Her supporters are similar to Gould's--fanatical,and I don't like him either.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> I suppose it depends how 'verismo' you think Carmen is. To me Karajan's care with the score matches his Cav and Pag. His later version is really good too, IMO, the drawback being having actorish actors speaking the dialogue. It is, of course, opinion. I note the late Alan Blyth had a habit of changing his opinion of something in the next review when he saw how the critical tide was running. But then that's critics.


I actually have Karajan II. I bought it as a memento of Baltsa and Carreras, whom I saw in their roles at Covent Garden. Both singers were superb, and I still enjoy their performances on the complete set. But, however beautifully the orchestra plays, I find Karajan's approach overblown; Germanic and not in the least bit French. I am not, by the way, in the Karajan hater club. I have a great many of his recordings, both of opera and orchestral repertoire, that I value highly. I just don't particularly like his approach in this opera. I deplore the use of actors for the spoken dialogue, recorded in quite a different acoustic. It lends an air of artificiality to the whole thing. Ricciarelli is just awful as Micaela as well. I enjoy the contributions of Baltsa and Carreras, and often listen to the final scene, where Karajan wakes up and gives us a performance bristling with drama.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

moody said:


> The "rude" remark wasn't aimed at you.
> But in any case T blame myself,I should have known better than to have got into an argument over Callas. Her supporters are similar to Gould's--fanatical,and I don't like him either.


No the "rude" remark was leveled at me, though I'm still not quite sure why my remark was considered rude. I asked why there was no dislike button. We press like when we agree with something. Why can't we have a dislike button when we don't? Is that being rude? I don't agree with you, so that makes me rude?

If you think it's fanaticism, perhaps it could have something to do with the fact that your criticism of Callas is so vitriolic. Plenty of others criticise performers they don't like, myself included, without resorting to the downright nasty. Everything you have ever said about her has been nasty, bitchy and downright untrue.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

*DavidA:* In the past I could never quite get excited about Gedda either, but recently I've come to appreciate him a lot. He's not one of my favorite tenors for Italian opera, though, because his voice didn't have that "caressing" quality and his vowels could be un-Italianate. I have similar feelings about Piotr Beczala; he's another one I'd rather not hear in the Italian tenor roles.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bellinilover said:


> *DavidA:* In the past I could never quite get excited about Gedda either, but recently I've come to appreciate him a lot. He's not one of my favorite tenors for Italian opera, though, because his voice didn't have that "caressing" quality and his vowels could be un-Italianate. I have similar feelings about Piotr Beczala; he's another one I'd rather not hear in the Italian tenor roles.


He was a versatile singer of great taste who would never let the side down. I must confess, however, as to not being a great fan of his Jose, either with Beecham or later Callas.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

moody said:


> The "rude" remark wasn't aimed at you.
> But in any case T blame myself,I should have known better than to have got into an argument over Callas. Her supporters are similar to Gould's--fanatical,and I don't like him either.


Moody, dear friend. Please do not call those who disagree with you 'fanatical'. Disagreement with you does not make someone a fanatic!


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> He was a versatile singer of great taste who would never let the side down. I must confess, however, as to not being a great fan of his Jose, either with Beecham or later Callas.


Whereas I like his Jose rather a lot. Mind you I also like Carreras, Vickers, Kaufman and Domingo in the role - but not Corelli.

Some also find his Pinkerton (on the Callas/Karajan set) too nice, but that surely is the tragedy of *Madama Butterfly*, that a basically nice guy can act so thoughtlessly. Pinkerton is not an ogre. He is just a thoughtless young man, who doesn't consider the consequences of his actions until it's too late.


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

Bellinilover said:


> *DavidA:* In the past I could never quite get excited about Gedda either, but recently I've come to appreciate him a lot. He's not one of my favorite tenors for Italian opera, though, because his voice didn't have that "caressing" quality and his vowels could be un-Italianate. I have similar feelings about Piotr Beczala; he's another one I'd rather not hear in the Italian tenor roles.


For an outstanding example of Gedda singing Bellini, search for his "Tutto e' sciolto... Ah perche non posso odiarti" at the Met with Sutherland. It's _amazing_. And for an example of him not being the best in Italian roles, you can find a performance of the love duet from _Butterfly_ with Pilar Lorengar where his sings the first line as "Bimba dagli occhi pieni di _follia_" (which, as opposed to being a diction mistake, was perhaps a Freudian slip).

My favorite recording of _La Boheme_ is actually his 1963 recording with Mirella Freni. He is so suave and so intelligent. I think the distortion of some of his Italian vowels may have been his "sorriso". He was fluent in Italian, however, like every other language he sang, so that wasn't the problem.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

HumphreyAppleby said:


> My favorite recording of _La Boheme_ is actually his 1963 recording with Mirella Freni. He is so suave and so intelligent. I think the distortion of some of his Italian vowels may have been his "sorriso". He was fluent in Italian, however, like every other language he sang, so that wasn't the problem.


Yes, I remember this Boheme. Beautiful singing. Fine conducting from Schippers too.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

*Please ensure that exchanges of opinions are kept polite and respectful on this forum. A few posts in this thread have been deleted.*


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Yes, I remember this Boheme. Beautiful singing. Fine conducting from Schippers too.


I appreciate the performance that Karajan gets, and I think he brings out some things in the score that aren't usually found, but Schippers' recording is so spontaneous and charming.The pacing of the second half of act one is perfect.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

HumphreyAppleby said:


> I appreciate the performance that Karajan gets, and I think he brings out some things in the score that aren't usually found, but Schippers' recording is so spontaneous and charming.The pacing of the second half of act one is perfect.


We have to say that they are two very different ways of doing the masterpiece. Interesting that HvK's reading on film is different again fro his studio recording!


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

DavidA said:


> We have to say that they are two very different ways of doing the masterpiece. Interesting that HvK's reading on film is different again fro his studio recording!


I never think that there's a "definitive" interpretation. Both Toscanini and Beecham claimed to be following Puccini's personal instructions, but Beecham's _Boheme _is much, much slower than Toscanini's. I tend to prefer slow tempi in general, and especially with Puccini. I think he's routinely taken much too fast.


----------



## DarkAngel (Aug 11, 2010)

One unique quality of Callas voice is that her climatic high notes have tremendous power and authority that would always electrify the audience, almost all singers as they reach for the high notes (especially after a long difficult preceding run) the voice becomes noticeably smaller and narrowly focused.......Callas could project the highest notes with commanding power seeming to grow in size and amplitude.

Our good friend turnipoverlord excellent sample of D'Amor Al Dolce Impero 1954 (San Remo) check the power and swagger of that final run at 4:43 -> 6:20


----------



## rborganist (Jan 29, 2013)

Several valid points have been made here: First of all, the truly huge voices (such as Birgit Nilsson's of Lauritz Melchior's) are rare. Secondly, seeating capacity in opera houses, paricularly in the US, has increased. Thirdly, conductors are allowing the orchestra to play louder so that sometimes the singers cannot be heard as well. However, some voices which are not especially large do project extremely well (Roberta Peters, for example), so they may seem larger than they really are. A small to medium sized but well-focused voice will project much better than a large, unfocused one. And, of course, with singers of the past who recorded with recording was in its infancy can hardly be judged on the size (or timbre) of their voice based entirely on their recordings. Early recordings could not capture the full richness of Caruso's voice on the recordings he left; we have to imagine it from what was written about him, and fortunately a great deal was written about him and his colleagues, including Emmy Destinn, Rosa Ponselle, and Tita Ruffo.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

A number of things relating to the diminishing size (actual or imagined) of operatic voices have not been mentioned. 

I have heard and read statements by people working in opera that it has indeed become more difficult to cast operas calling for dramatic or heroic voices, specifically the operas of Verdi and Wagner - that there are simply fewer people around with sufficient vocal amplitude and maturity of technique. I am inclined to believe this when it comes from someone as much on the "inside," and for as many years, as James Levine. Among possible reasons given, three make sense to me. 1) The fast pace of life, the competition to establish careers quickly, and the need to do so internationally, deprive young singers of the time they should be spending perfecting their vocal technique and giving their voices time to settle, mature, and expand. 2) The emphasis on visual values in contemporary opera theater makes increasing demands on singers to be visually attractive, but big voices tend to come in large bodies. 3) Big, dramatic voices take longer to develop and become technically secure and reliable, and for the above reasons, plus the common process of selecting talent through competitions in which smaller but more finished voices (in beautiful bodies!) are chosen for advancement, potential dramatic singers get winnowed out before they have a chance to show what they're capable of. I would also suggest that: 4) vocal training is less thorough than it once was (I base this on extensive listening to old recordings of numerous early 20th century singers who exhibit vocal control and finesse virtually unknown on today's operatic stage); and 5) that classical singing is not as central to the musical life of our day as it was a century ago, and that many vocally talented people who would once have aspired to careers in opera - potential dramatic voices among them - are simply doing other things for a living.

My own ears tell me that we have no dearth of fine small-to-medium voices, which one would expect given the enormous surge in early (Baroque) music performance aspiring to authentic practice. This is gratifying to those of us who love such music. Those of us who want to hear middle to late Verdi or Wagner projected with power, beauty, and emotion are going to have to pull down the recordings from their shelves, generally recordings made before the mid-'60s or thereabouts.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Nice explanation Woodduck, thanks.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

You make good points, Woodchuck, and I've no doubt that at least some of them are valid. I haven't listened as extensively as you probably have to early-20th century singers and so can't comment on whether they actually showed more "vocal control and finesse" than more recent singers show. But it seems to me that _nuance_ in singing has been more valued in very recent times than in, say, the 1940's/1950's era, where it does sound to me as though everything was "done big" with a sort of uber-Romantic mindset (here I'm basically repeating what a poster at the very beginning of this thread wrote). I suppose this was due to the fact that before the bel canto revival of the 1960's the sort of operas that were played most, in the Italian repertoire at least, were verismo operas (including Puccini) and late-period Verdi, in which no-holds-barred, full-throated vocalism is more or less appropriate. Of course, the subtler approach has its advantages and disadvantages: it may be more satisfying intellectually but less sheerly thrilling than the older, style, "full out" approach would be.

Another, purely technical point I want to make is that no voice can safely be pushed outside of its basic contour. All voices have a contour or outline -- some are "round" or "fat," some are more lithe or slender, etc -- and a singer basically has to work within those limits. In other words, it is nature that determines how big a person's voice will be.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> Oddly enough, I rather like the supporting cast on her *Carmen*. Andrea Guiot's Micaela may not be the equal of Freni or Te Kanawa in terms of beauty of sound, but it is very French, and this Micaela is a plucky little thing. She's certainly a lot better than Ricciarelli on Karajan II. Gedda is one of my favourite Don Joses and Massard a thoroughly plausible Escamillo. In fact this is one of the most _French_ Carmens out there. Aside from Callas and Gedda, everyone else involved is French, and Gedda was, in any case, probably the best _French_ tenor around for quite a while. I also rather like Pretre's no-nonsense approach to the score, which again sounds very French to me. Callas is no doubt an acquired taste as Carmen, but here for once we do have the _belle et dangereuse_ woman Micaela speaks of. Not a prime recommendation perhaps (the edition alone would put it out of contention) but certainly worth a spin.


Well, Greg, here I am, agreeing with a review of yours 100%, again. This is getting monotonous. Try being unperceptive and wrongheaded for a change.


----------



## BaronScarpia (Apr 2, 2014)

My two cents (or pence, seeing as I'm British):

What a ridiculous notion. Now, I may be wrong, but I would say that voices have actually got _larger_ in recent years. If you listen to recordings of Nellie Melba and Luisa Tetrazzini and Adelina Patti, power is not something that comes across. While recordings cannot accurately convey vocal power, you can often get a sense of a voice's potency and volume from recordings. Take Pavarotti, for example. I, personally, get a sense of immense power from listening to his voice. The same can be said for Maria Callas, Joan Sutherland, Birgit Nilsson and Kirsten Flagstad, all dramatic sopranos with massive voices.

Singers from around the turn of the century, however, appear to sing with a hell of a lot of head voice, much more than singers today. Though recordings, and especially recordings from a hundred years ago or more, are not accurate, I think singers have got _more_ powerful, not less.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

BaronScarpia said:


> My two cents (or pence, seeing as I'm British):
> 
> What a ridiculous notion. Now, I may be wrong, but I would say that voices have actually got _larger_ in recent years. If you listen to recordings of Nellie Melba and Luisa Tetrazzini and Adelina Patti, power is not something that comes across. While recordings cannot accurately convey vocal power, you can often get a sense of a voice's potency and volume from recordings. Take Pavarotti, for example. I, personally, get a sense of immense power from listening to his voice. The same can be said for Maria Callas, Joan Sutherland, Birgit Nilsson and Kirsten Flagstad, all dramatic sopranos with massive voices.
> 
> Singers from around the turn of the century, however, appear to sing with a hell of a lot of head voice, much more than singers today. Though recordings, and especially recordings from a hundred years ago or more, are not accurate, I think singers have got _more_ powerful, not less.


You should hear the old Wagner recordings then. No comparison.

Corelli, Del Monaco, DiStefano, Bjoerling, etc. much better than Pavarotti.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

"The same can be said for Maria Callas, Joan Sutherland, Birgit Nilsson and Kirsten Flagstad, all dramatic sopranos with massive voices". None of these singers have performed live for more than a generation ago! Callas and Sutherland are to my knowledge the last of the dramatic coloratura sopranos with massive notes above high C to be extant in the world. As for Nilsson and Flagstad, they are like massive Rolls Royce Phantoms in a field of Toyota Corollas ( which is how I liken all the Wagnerian sopranos since). Nilsson sang her last role over a generation ago as well. Flagstad as Swartkopf said, had a "microphone in her throat". She would shock people if they heard her live today, I'm sure!!!!!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Bellinilover said:


> You make good points, Woodchuck, and I've no doubt that at least some of them are valid. I haven't listened as extensively as you probably have to early-20th century singers and so can't comment on whether they actually showed more "vocal control and finesse" than more recent singers show. But it seems to me that _nuance_ in singing has been more valued in very recent times than in, say, the 1940's/1950's era, where it does sound to me as though everything was "done big" with a sort of uber-Romantic mindset (here I'm basically repeating what a poster at the very beginning of this thread wrote). I suppose this was due to the fact that before the bel canto revival of the 1960's the sort of operas that were played most, in the Italian repertoire at least, were verismo operas (including Puccini) and late-period Verdi, in which no-holds-barred, full-throated vocalism is more or less appropriate. Of course, the subtler approach has its advantages and disadvantages: it may be more satisfying intellectually but less sheerly thrilling than the older, style, "full out" approach would be.
> 
> Another, purely technical point I want to make is that no voice can safely be pushed outside of its basic contour. All voices have a contour or outline -- some are "round" or "fat," some are more lithe or slender, etc -- and a singer basically has to work within those limits. In other words, it is nature that determines how big a person's voice will be.


I'm a little late in getting back to you on this, but here goes. In my post I was conveying, more or less, what others have said on this subject. My ears tell me, at the very least, that we presently have no dramatic sopranos to equal, in sheer amplitude, Flagstad, Traubel, Grob-Prandl, Varnay, Farrell, and Nilsson, all of whom were singing at some point in the 1950s. I might draw up a similar list of dramatic tenors, of whom there's also now a dearth. Flagstad, for one, did not begin with an enormous voice (she started in operettas!), but her voice grew over time; she didn't push herself beyond her capacity, and she didn't sing Wagner till she was nearing 40. Others have proceeded differently, but apparently voices can grow, or at least become technically settled enough that singers can safely progress to heavier roles. This may be part of what is not being given a chance to happen now - though I do notice that Jonas Kaufmann, who was singing Mozart a decade ago, has after a vocal crisis and a revamping of technique begun to move into Heldentenor territory and is sounding great doing it. He is now 45. All the best to him - and to us.

As to your comment about singing being more "nuanced" now than in earlier generations, I'm dubious. I do think I hear a more specific attention to words in the form of a willingness to use vocal inflections to telegraph specific meanings, which perhaps reflects a modern (postmodern?) analytical temper and was virtually introduced into Lieder singing by Fischer-Dieskau. I find this tendency a mixed blessing. If it's not overdone and is allied with a firm musical line and a consistently intense tonal emission, a la Callas, it's an asset; if it feels excessive, contrived, or mannered, or weakens the musical shape (who do I dare mention here? R.F.?), it isn't. My own feeling is that expressiveness in singing is something deeper than fiddling around with verbal inflections or applied affects, and comes first and foremost from an absolutely secure technique that allows the voice to respond unconsciously to, and reflect in its very sound, the emotions of the singer. Contemporary singers may be more "sophisticated" than their forebears (aren't we all!), but I would deny that they are more _expressively_ nuanced. On the contrary, listen to Muzio, Olivero, Ponselle, Lotte Lehmann, Elisabeth Schumann, Schumann-Heink, Gigli, Schipa, Caruso, Amato, Tibbett,etc. etc., and hear a kind of unselfconscious, spontaneous emotion that's unfortunately rare among us clever moderns. I do agree that "verismo" probably encouraged a lessening of dynamic subtlety (as did, I'm sure, heavier orchestrations and bigger opera houses); Caruso's recordings over the course of his career shows a decreasing tendency to play with dynamics and rhythm in the more bel canto area of his repertoire (hear his several recordings of "Una furtiva lagrima"), and baritone Mattia Battistini, born in 1856, seventeen years before Caruso, left some marvelous recordings which show him applying rhythmic and dynamic nuances (and coloratura!) which clearly come from an older, bel canto tradition. The post-verismo bel canto reivival did not, alas, lead to a revival of this sort of vocal refinement among baritones! No one sings like Battistini now.

Here is Verdi as Verdi himself could have heard it:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BaronScarpia said:


> My two cents (or pence, seeing as I'm British):
> 
> What a ridiculous notion. Now, I may be wrong, but I would say that voices have actually got _larger_ in recent years. If you listen to recordings of Nellie Melba and Luisa Tetrazzini and Adelina Patti, power is not something that comes across. While recordings cannot accurately convey vocal power, you can often get a sense of a voice's potency and volume from recordings. Take Pavarotti, for example. I, personally, get a sense of immense power from listening to his voice. The same can be said for Maria Callas, Joan Sutherland, Birgit Nilsson and Kirsten Flagstad, all dramatic sopranos with massive voices.
> 
> Singers from around the turn of the century, however, appear to sing with a hell of a lot of head voice, much more than singers today. Though recordings, and especially recordings from a hundred years ago or more, are not accurate, I think singers have got _more_ powerful, not less.


Don't be misled by recordings. A voice of ordinary size, miked close and with plenty of acoustical reinforcement (the "singing in the shower" phenomenon) can sound enormous. Pavarotti's voice was not of exceptional size, but its focused resonance made it penetrating and the recording engineers did the rest. Conversely, there's absolutely no way to judge the vocal size of the early-acoustic-era sopranos you mention. High voices, more than lower ones, recorded horribly then, and we really have little idea of their true timbre or dimension.

It isn't that voices, as constituted by nature, have grown or shrunk. Presumably the human throat hasn't changed significantly. The question is whether big voices are being developed and employed as formerly, and why or why not.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Seattleoperafan said:


> "The same can be said for Maria Callas, Joan Sutherland, Birgit Nilsson and Kirsten Flagstad, all dramatic sopranos with massive voices". None of these singers have performed live for more than a generation ago! Callas and Sutherland are to my knowledge the last of the dramatic coloratura sopranos with massive notes above high C to be extant in the world. As for Nilsson and Flagstad, they are like massive Rolls Royce Phantoms in a field of Toyota Corollas ( which is how I liken all the Wagnerian sopranos since). Nilsson sang her last role over a generation ago as well. Flagstad as Swartkopf said, had a "microphone in her throat". She would shock people if they heard her live today, I'm sure!!!!!


John Culshaw, in _Ring Resounding_, tells how during the recording of Decca's _Das Rheingold_, for which Flagstad came out of retirement to sing Fricka, the grandmotherly singer uttered her first phrase and the entire Vienna Philharmonic stopped and turned to stare at her in amazement.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> I'm a little late in getting back to you on this, but here goes. In my post I was conveying, more or less, what others have said on this subject. My ears tell me, at the very least, that we presently have no dramatic sopranos to equal, in sheer amplitude, Flagstad, Traubel, Grob-Prandl, Varnay, Farrell, and Nilsson, all of whom were singing at some point in the 1950s. I might draw up a similar list of dramatic tenors, of whom there's also now a dearth. Flagstad, for one, did not begin with an enormous voice (she started in operettas!), but her voice grew over time; she didn't push herself beyond her capacity, and she didn't sing Wagner till she was nearing 40. Others have proceeded differently, but apparently voices can grow, or at least become technically settled enough that singers can safely progress to heavier roles. This may be part of what is not being given a chance to happen now - though I do notice that Jonas Kaufmann, who was singing Mozart a decade ago, has after a vocal crisis and a revamping of technique begun to move into Heldentenor territory and is sounding great doing it. He is now 45. All the best to him - and to us.
> 
> As to your comment about singing being more "nuanced" now than in earlier generations, I'm dubious. I do think I hear a more specific attention to words in the form of a willingness to use vocal inflections to telegraph specific meanings, which perhaps reflects a modern (postmodern?) analytical temper and was virtually introduced into Lieder singing by Fischer-Dieskau. I find this tendency a mixed blessing. If it's not overdone and is allied with a firm musical line and a consistently intense tonal emission, a la Callas, it's an asset; if it feels excessive, contrived, or mannered, or weakens the musical shape (who do I dare mention here? R.F.?), it isn't. My own feeling is that expressiveness in singing is something deeper than fiddling around with verbal inflections or applied affects, and comes first and foremost from an absolutely secure technique that allows the voice to respond unconsciously to, and reflect in its very sound, the emotions of the singer. Contemporary singers may be more "sophisticated" than their forebears (aren't we all!), but I would deny that they are more _expressively_ nuanced. On the contrary, listen to Muzio, Olivero, Ponselle, Lotte Lehmann, Elisabeth Schumann, Schumann-Heink, Gigli, Schipa, Caruso, Amato, Tibbett,etc. etc., and hear a kind of unselfconscious, spontaneous emotion that's unfortunately rare among us clever moderns. I do agree that "verismo" probably encouraged a lessening of dynamic subtlety (as did, I'm sure, heavier orchestrations and bigger opera houses); Caruso's recordings over the course of his career shows a decreasing tendency to play with dynamics and rhythm in the more bel canto area of his repertoire (hear his several recordings of "Una furtiva lagrima"), and baritone Mattia Battistini, born in 1856, seventeen years before Caruso, left some marvelous recordings which show him applying rhythmic and dynamic nuances (and coloratura!) which clearly come from an older, bel canto tradition. The post-verismo bel canto reivival did not, alas, lead to a revival of this sort of vocal refinement among baritones! No one sings like Battistini now.
> 
> Here is Verdi as Verdi himself could have heard it:


Hear! Hear!

GREAT post. I'm sure the late, great John Steane would have approved.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

*Woodduck:* I do think that during the "Golden Age" of the turn of the last century (when Melba, Battistini, De Lucia, etc. were performing) there was more nuance -- a willingness by the singer (and conductor) to shade and stretch phrases. On the other hand, comparing certain singers from the immediate post-War era to singers from the 1960's onward, I generally hear less sheer power but more nuance and, for lack of a better word, vocal _mobility_ in the more modern singers (I'm accepting people like Callas and Gobbi, who were great vocal actors) -- for example, Leontyne Price versus Zinka Milanov, Mirella Freni versus Renata Tebaldi, Placido Domingo versus Mario del Monaco, Sherrill Milnes versus Leonard Warren -- less size, but more in the way of moment-to-moment responsiveness to the dramatic situation. I'm probably expressing it badly, but I do know it when I hear it. Probably it's a generational thing (I'm 34 years old and got into opera when I was 20), but I actually prefer the more modern style to the older one I just described. I also seem to be less impressed than are some people here by sheer vocal size -- what's important to me, above all, is that a voice is _firm_. To me a firm, agile sound generally comes across as more "dramatic" than a sound that is just huge.

Last night I did a sort of experiment involving two baritones -- Giuseppe de Luca and Simon Keenlyside -- in "Ah, per sempre io ti perdei" from I PURITANI. I played de Luca first, then Keenlyside, then de Luca again. De Luca, of course, sings it wonderfully; he had a lovely voice and a great technique. The same could be said for Keenlyside, IMO, at least with regards to voice (maybe his technique isn't quite as "exquisite" as de Luca's, but it serves him well). But with De Luca I don't hear that sense of shifting emotions and being "in the moment" -- and with Keenlyside I do. The best way I can express it is that listening to the Keenlyside version is like listening to an actor _and_ a singer, whereas listening to the De Luca version is like listening to a singer. There's feeling in the De Luca version, certainly, but I don't get that same "real time" sense. Again, I'm probably expressing it badly, but hopefully someone here can relate to what I'm saying.

Edited to add: But you're right about technique being the basis of expressiveness. There's a lot on this subject in that "On the Art of Singing" book I mentioned elsewhere. I just don't think that a solid technique that allows them to be expressive is something only long-dead singers possessed. After all, if I'm feeling something from current performances, it must be a result of the singer's technique (and I've had vocal training myself, so I'm not likely to be persuaded by just "raw" emotion). Also: I agree about Tibbett being a great singing actor. In fact, I've often thought that Tibbett and others of his generation, like Martinelli and Ponselle, sound more "modern" (i.e. more like the "1960's thru present-day" singers) than the singers who came right after them, liike Milanov, del Monaco, and Warren.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Bellinilover said:


> *Woodduck:* I do think that during the "Golden Age" of the turn of the last century (when Melba, Battistini, De Lucia, etc. were performing) there was more nuance -- a willingness by the singer (and conductor) to shade and stretch phrases. On the other hand, comparing certain singers from the immediate post-War era to singers from the 1960's onward, I generally hear less sheer power but more nuance and, for lack of a better word, vocal _mobility_ in the more modern singers (I'm accepting people like Callas and Gobbi, who were great vocal actors) -- for example, Leontyne Price versus Zinka Milanov, Mirella Freni versus Renata Tebaldi, Placido Domingo versus Mario del Monaco, Sherrill Milnes versus Leonard Warren -- less size, but more in the way of moment-to-moment responsiveness to the dramatic situation. I'm probably expressing it badly, but I do know it when I hear it. Probably it's a generational thing (I'm 34 years old and got into opera when I was 20), but I actually prefer the more modern style to the older one I just described. I also seem to be less impressed than are some people here by sheer vocal size -- what's important to me, above all, is that a voice is _firm_. To me a firm, agile sound generally comes across as more "dramatic" than a sound that is just huge.
> 
> Last night I did a sort of experiment involving two baritones -- Giuseppe de Luca and Simon Keenlyside -- in "Ah, per sempre io ti perdei" from I PURITANI. I played de Luca first, then Keenlyside, then de Luca again. De Luca, of course, sings it wonderfully; he had a lovely voice and a great technique. The same could be said for Keenlyside, IMO, at least with regards to voice (maybe his technique isn't quite as "exquisite" as de Luca's, but it serves him well). But with De Luca I don't hear that sense of shifting emotions and being "in the moment" -- and with Keenlyside I do. The best way I can express it is that listening to the Keenlyside version is like listening to an actor _and_ a singer, whereas listening to the De Luca version is like listening to a singer. There's feeling in the De Luca version, certainly, but I don't get that same "real time" sense. Again, I'm probably expressing it badly, but hopefully someone here can relate to what I'm saying.
> 
> Edited to add: But you're right about technique being the basis of expressiveness. There's a lot on this subject in that "On the Art of Singing" book I mentioned elsewhere. I just don't think that a solid technique that allows them to be expressive is something only long-dead singers possessed. After all, if I'm feeling something from current performances, it must be a result of the singer's technique (and I've had vocal training myself, so I'm not likely to be persuaded by just "raw" emotion). Also: I agree about Tibbett being a great singing actor. In fact, I've often thought that Tibbett and others of his generation, like Martinelli and Ponselle, sound more "modern" (i.e. more like the "1960's thru present-day" singers) than the singers who came right after them, liike Milanov, del Monaco, and Warren.


We have three different subjects going here: the OP topic of vocal size, and the matter you've raised, nuance, which subdivides into vocal and interpretive nuance, involving vocal technique and expressive intent. On the first, I don't think I can add anything more. On the others, you do have me thinking. Being almost twice your age and having a different sense of which singers are past and present-day, I have unavoidably perceived differently the changes in singing over the past century or so. I can remember feeling, when I was your age and even younger, that the singers of my time were not, by and large, as exciting to me as what I heard coming from the grooves of my grandparents' 78s (or their CD transfers). No one could accuse me in my 20s of nostalgia for the past; I simply heard things - exhibitions of vocal nuance and control, spontaneity and depth of feeling, and stylistic freedom - that my records from the 60s and 70s rarely contained. I could hear, to be sure, a difference between singers of 1910 and 1950; I was also reading articles by others who discussed some of those differences. A very good one, if you can find it, is Conrad L. Osborne's essay on baritones in High Fidelity magazine, ca. 1966 or '67, in which he takes as a case study recordings of "Eri tu" from Verdi's Ballo and analyzes in detail performances by Battistini, Pasquale Amato, Lawrence Tibbett, Leonard Warren, Cornell MacNeil and others. As you might expect, the latter two, along with other singers from the '50s on, came up wanting in technique and style compared to their "Golden Age" predecessors. I was inspired to go out and buy some Golden Age baritones (Battistini and Amato), and my own listening found me in agreement. Actually, I was astonished at the ease, fluency, clarity of diction, and flair which so many of these people had in common, whatever the differences in their interpretive choices. Osborne's main point was that the thorough technical grounding of these people allowed them to do things easily - sustain a firm legato at all times, add embellishments, darken and brighten the tone, pronounce consonants without any disruption of tonal emission - which the moderns could not equal. In the '60s and '70s I knew well the singing of Warren, Merrill, MacNeil, Milnes, Gobbi and others (who I'm not considering as vocal equals, mind), and I enjoyed them as fine singers and artists. But I'd go back and put on something by Battistini, Amato, Ancona, Ruffo, Stracciari, Tibbett, Zanelli, Schlusnus, Schorr - and the contest was quickly over.

I bring up Osborne's essay because he was comparing Golden Age singers with, primarily, those of precisely the postwar generation you've criticized, and, being a baby boomer myself, I have to recall that I too was critical of some of those same singers - for both interpretive/stylistic and vocal shortcomings. In other words, I believe I heard some of what you are hearing. It's on the subject of present-day singing, however, that I suspect we will part company. I've made a few remarks already about interpretive nuance and how I think it relates to vocal technique and general musicality. It may be that singers are doing more "interpreting" now than they were doing fifty years ago, and if they are I'd never say that that's not a fine thing in itself, as long as it isn't expected to substitute for solid technique and the kind of fundamental, uncalculated expressivity which can only emerge from a free, firm, malleable, vibrant tonal emission. It's these latter qualities which make for great singing as such, whatever interpretive choices may distinguish one artist from another. And it's here that I am unconvinced as I listen to singers today. We have plenty of fine singers, many of whom, I'm sure, are also very good actors and can deliver convincing portrayals in the theater. But there is no question whatever, in my mind, that we do not have now the vocal equals of the Golden Age singers I've brought up, here and in my previous posts. And in asking myself why I don't ever hear singing as thrilling as theirs when I turn on the Met on Saturdays, I usually just shrug and think that the culture changed, that we're different people now, that certain things are no longer valued, appreciated, or even considered desirable or pleasing. I read of a study recently which found, by extensive testing of recordings from the early 20th century to the present, that the average speed of singers' vibratos has actually decreased during that time. Now one of the things I noticed when I first began to think about (and study) singing was exactly this! I have always loved that quick, exciting shimmer, which in those old voices seems to propel, never to compromise, the tone and seems to underlie the capacity for gorgeous portamenti and rapid, carefree embellishments which are such a delightful and expressive feature of the style of Golden Age singers, including - note carefully - baritones and basses. These mercurial vocal flourishes are not heard any more, and I'm more than a little inclined to think that most "heavy" operatic voices now wouldn't sound comfortable or convincing doing them even if they wanted to or had a feel for them (I don't doubt that this is part of the heritage of Verismo you brought up). This change - involving both technique and style, seen as inextricably bound - was essentially what Osborne was saying about singers in the '60s, and I will need to be convinced that we've seen an improvement since then, dramatic "nuance" notwithstanding.

All of this, of course, is IMHO (as the young folks say).


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> Hear! Hear!
> 
> GREAT post. I'm sure the late, great John Steane would have approved.


I'll have to look him up. Anything you can recommend?


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Bellinilover said:


> Last night I did a sort of experiment involving two baritones -- Giuseppe de Luca and Simon Keenlyside -- in "Ah, per sempre io ti perdei" from I PURITANI. I played de Luca first, then Keenlyside, then de Luca again. De Luca, of course, sings it wonderfully; he had a lovely voice and a great technique. The same could be said for Keenlyside, IMO, at least with regards to voice (maybe his technique isn't quite as "exquisite" as de Luca's, but it serves him well). But with De Luca I don't hear that sense of shifting emotions and being "in the moment" -- and with Keenlyside I do. The best way I can express it is that listening to the Keenlyside version is like listening to an actor _and_ a singer, whereas listening to the De Luca version is like listening to a singer. There's feeling in the De Luca version, certainly, but I don't get that same "real time" sense. Again, I'm probably expressing it badly, but hopefully someone here can relate to what I'm saying.


I may be straying off topic here but what a wonderful analysis and description. Places like this and enthusiastic and knowledgeable people like you have taught me more about opera and voices than I ever thought possible.

I understand more now why I find Simon such a thrilling artist.

Thank you!!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> I'll have to look him up. Anything you can recommend?


The Gramophone Magazine published many of his writings for the magazine under the title 'The Gramophone and the Voice'. Steane used to do a quarterly retrospect of vocal recordings which had already been reviewed. He is an excellent writer and well worth reading.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> I'll have to look him up. Anything you can recommend?


Start with _the Grand Tradition_. This was the book that first got me interested in singers of a bygone age.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Itullian said:


> You should hear the old Wagner recordings then. No comparison.
> 
> Corelli, Del Monaco, DiStefano, Bjoerling, etc. much better than Pavarotti.


Pardon? Corelli and Del Monaco might have had bigger voices than Pavarotti but better? I think not when it came to the (limited) roles Pavarotti specialised in before he became rather too complacent with his handkerchief.
For example, I could not imagine a better Rudolfo or Pinkerton than Pav in his recordings with Karajan. As for del Monaco, I have always found him exciting but horribly crude even in his speciality Otello. An incredible voice but what a bawler!
I have also never quite understood the reverence for Bjoerling despite the undoubted excellence of the voice itself.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

I think this (De Luca vs. Keenlyside) is also very dependant on your background, and what you expect from a singer, singing Italian (verdian) repertoire.

I have heard Mr. Keenlyside singing a few Verdi roles, and the only one that was interesting to me, was Posa (perhaps, the less "Italian" of Verdi baritones). The notes are not round. There is no lucentezza or mordente. Very flat renditions. The timbre is dry, matte, smunto. The high notes are not brilliant. Sure, you can find an analytical effort, a way to articulate the score, but the final result is a foreign articulation, and bringing down the spontaneity, the light of Italian singing. Of course, it's different when he is singing Wozzeck, like he did last summer in Madrid. A different artist.

Just the opposite can be said of Mr. De Luca's singing. The very heart of Italy is in his voice. It's not only a matter of nationality, for instance Cornell MacNeill's singing was also, in his root, Italian. Or Lisitsian, even when he sang in Russian.

So, in the end, our roots and personal tastes are the crucial factor here, to enjoy or not to enjoy a particular singer, in a particular role, or roles. Like our friend Woodduck, I was raised with the recordings of the baritones from the Golden Age, and I badly miss them today. In fact, the combination of Italian repertoire and baritone voice, it's the worst case scenario in the current Opera stage, for me. The last baritone that I *really* like in this repertoire was Renato Bruson, so you can feel sorry for me, as I'm not able to enjoy a performance of Trovatore in the theater now, as much as other people here.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Pardon? Corelli and Del Monaco might have had bigger voices than Pavarotti but better? I think not when it came to the (limited) roles Pavarotti specialised in before he became rather too complacent with his handkerchief.
> For example, I could not imagine a better Rudolfo or Pinkerton than Pav in his recordings with Karajan. As for del Monaco, I have always found him exciting but horribly crude even in his speciality Otello. An incredible voice but what a bawler!
> I have also never quite understood the reverence for Bjoerling despite the undoubted excellence of the voice itself.


The image of Pavarotti standing there, encased in bulk, grinning and sticking out his tongue, "complacent with his handkerchief," cracked me up. It's too, too true! But I'll second your defense of his voice, which up to the early '70s was an operatic wonder (and maybe after that, but he did begin to slide). Corelli, another vocal wonder, often sang like an animal, as did Del Monaco. Bjorling, however, never sang like an animal. In fact he sang with exquisite taste and sensitivity, and had one of the most perfect techniques of any singer in any vocal category. The timbre of the voice, crystal clear and sweetly plaintive but opening up more and more thrillingly as he ascended, may not touch you, but to me it is very beautiful. Pavarotti respected him as an ideal; when someone compared him to Bjorling, he said "please, I'm only human."

Try these: 













 (blows everyone else's off the map, no?)

You could choose dozens more, all equally flawless. Did he ever have to _work_ at singing, I wonder? He takes me to a better place.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> I'll have to look him up. Anything you can recommend?


Yes, he wrote "The Grand Tradition," "Voices: Singers and Critics," "The Gramophone and the Voice," and a three-book series called "Singers of the Century." He also contributed to "Opera on Record," which I believe is also in three volumes.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

sospiro said:


> I may be straying off topic here but what a wonderful analysis and description. Places like this and enthusiastic and knowledgeable people like you have taught me more about opera and voices than I ever thought possible.
> 
> I understand more now why I find Simon such a thrilling artist.
> 
> Thank you!!


I'm blushing to think that I've enhanced your understanding in some way. If I have, then it's due to two things: having a Master's degree in English and reading J.B. Steane. By the way, I'll be sending you a PM if you'd like to check it out.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

schigolch said:


> I think this (De Luca vs. Keenlyside) is also very dependant on your background, and what you expect from a singer, singing Italian (verdian) repertoire.
> 
> I have heard Mr. Keenlyside singing a few Verdi roles, and the only one that was interesting to me, was Posa (perhaps, the less "Italian" of Verdi baritones). The notes are not round. There is no lucentezza or mordente. Very flat renditions. The timbre is dry, matte, smunto. The high notes are not brilliant. Sure, you can find an analytical effort, a way to articulate the score, but the final result is a foreign articulation, and bringing down the spontaneity, the light of Italian singing. Of course, it's different when he is singing Wozzeck, like he did last summer in Madrid. A different artist.
> 
> ...


I loved Keenlyside's Posa (at the Met), too; even on his recital disc his death scene moves me to tears. I heard a bit of his Rigoletto on Youtube and thought his voice somewhat small and limited in color for the part -- but then, I've thought the same thing about Robert Merrill's Rigoletto, which I heard on a recording. I guess I just expect to hear a more robust voice in the part -- Sherrill Milnes', for example, or maybe Titta Ruffo's. I'll have to hear more of Simon's Verdi. It may well be that his isn't an ideal voice for all Verdi, but I do love his voice and feel he has some of the very best legato among singers today. One of my favorite baritones.

I'd have to say too that my ideals for baritones seem a little different from yours. On the whole I prefer the "American baritone sound" to the Italian one. It's just a type of sound that appeals to me, maybe because I'm American myself. As you say, it comes down in the end to personal preference and perception.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bellinilover said:


> I loved Keenlyside's Posa (at the Met), too; even on his recital disc his death scene moves me to tears. I heard a bit of his Rigoletto on Youtube and thought his voice somewhat small and limited in color for the part -- but then, I've thought the same thing about Robert Merrill's Rigoletto, which I heard on a recording. I guess I just expect to hear a more robust voice in the part -- Sherrill Milnes', for example, or maybe Titta Ruffo's. I'll have to hear more of Simon's Verdi. It may well be that his isn't an ideal voice for all Verdi, but I do love his voice and feel he has some of the very best legato among singers today. One of my favorite baritones.
> 
> I'd have to say too that my ideals for baritones seem a little different from yours. On the whole I prefer the "American baritone sound" to the Italian one. It's just a type of sound that appeals to me, maybe because I'm American myself. As you say, it comes down in the end to personal preference and perception.


I have Merrill's Rigoletto. It is superbly sung despite Solti rushing the whole cast off its feet.

In purely vocal terms it is better than Gobbi's although Gobbi's characterisation remains supreme. But Merrill is very distinguished.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

DavidA said:


> I have Merrill's Rigoletto. It is superbly sung despite Solti rushing the whole cast off its feet.
> 
> In purely vocal terms it is better than Gobbi's although Gobbi's characterisation remains supreme. But Merrill is very distinguished.


The Merrill Rigoletto I heard was his first one, with Roberta Peters as Gilda; I believe it was recorded in or around 1956. There his voice didn't really have the dramatic "edge" that I wanted to hear. I just found it kind of dull, despite the lovely tone, and I couldn't help thinking that Peters was singing flat in "Caro nome." But I'm sure you're right about Merrill's Rigoletto with Solti, because by that time his voice had probably grown and his interpretation developed.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bellinilover said:


> The Merrill Rigoletto I heard was his first one, with Roberta Peters as Gilda; I believe it was recorded in or around 1956. There his voice didn't really have the dramatic "edge" that I wanted to hear. I just found it kind of dull, despite the lovely tone, and I couldn't help thinking that Peters was singing flat in "Caro nome." But I'm sure you're right about Merrill's Rigoletto with Solti, because by that time his voice had probably grown and his interpretation developed.


I never heard his first, but I read that people generally thought his second superior. Moffo is enchanting as Gilda, btw. Pity Solti didn't give his singers more time to breath.


----------



## BaronScarpia (Apr 2, 2014)

> *Originally posted by Woodduck*
> Don't be misled by recordings. A voice of ordinary size, miked close and with plenty of acoustical reinforcement (the "singing in the shower" phenomenon) can sound enormous. Pavarotti's voice was not of exceptional size, but its focused resonance made it penetrating and the recording engineers did the rest. Conversely, there's absolutely no way to judge the vocal size of the early-acoustic-era sopranos you mention. High voices, more than lower ones, recorded horribly then, and we really have little idea of their true timbre or dimension.
> 
> It isn't that voices, as constituted by nature, have grown or shrunk. Presumably the human throat hasn't changed significantly. The question is whether big voices are being developed and employed as formerly, and why or why not.


I agree that you cannot directly tell the power of a voice from recordings of it, but early sopranos such as Patti did, not just in my opinion, use more head voice than later singers. You cannot sing as powerfully using head voice as you can in your chest voice; that is one of the reasons why, these days, there is so much focus on blending the registers. There is a wonderful interview on Youtube where Joan Sutherland and Marilyn Horne talk about this. They say that, in the past, there was not so much of a focus on blending the registers and negotiating passaggi. This would make sense and tally with my statement about the great singers of the past using head voice as opposed to a blend of head and chest voice (though I'm not saying they exclusively used head voice).


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Brief update: I'm forced to return to this topic by the travesty of _Andrea Chenier_, currently being perpetrated by the Metropolitan Opera, which I heard today on the broadcast.

From the cheering of the groundlings one would have thought that Franco Corelli and Renata Tebaldi had come out of retirement and recovered their voices. No such luck. We had instead Marcelo Alvarez and Patricia Racette, sounding as if they had just wandered in from _La Boheme_, their slender vocal resources pushed to the max by the drama and passion of this tale of revolution and death. It was, in a word, pathetic. I can't imagine whose idea it was to revive this all-stops-out verismo opera for singers like these, and can only surmise that the Met, not wanting to let certain operas fade from the repertoire, is having to bite the bullet and, by default, resign itself to the standard of dramatic singing that now prevails. Alvarez performed with conviction and sounded at least decent, if hard-pressed, in his big arias, but Racette was pathetically overparted, her tone thin and her wild vibrato ruining climaxes clearly beyond her. Her "La mamma morta," embellished with little gasps and sobs in place of the expressive tone she wasn't even close to commanding, was the low point of the opera. Which didn't, of course, stop the fans from screaming their heads off. _So_ depressing.

If anyone wonders where the big voices are these days, I can at least tell you where they are not.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Brief update: I'm forced to return to this topic by the travesty of _Andrea Chenier_, currently being perpetrated by the Metropolitan Opera, which I heard today on the broadcast.
> 
> From the cheering of the groundlings one would have thought that Franco Corelli and Renata Tebaldi had come out of retirement and recovered their voices. No such luck. We had instead Marcelo Alvarez and Patricia Racette, sounding as if they had just wandered in from _La Boheme_, their slender vocal resources pushed to the max by the drama and passion of this tale of revolution and death. It was, in a word, pathetic. I can't imagine whose idea it was to revive this all-stops-out verismo opera for singers like these, and can only surmise that the Met, not wanting to let certain operas fade from the repertoire, is having to bite the bullet and, by default, resign itself to the standard of dramatic singing that now prevails. Alvarez performed with conviction and sounded at least decent, if hard-pressed, in his big arias, but Racette was pathetically overparted, her tone thin and her wild vibrato ruining climaxes clearly beyond her. Her "La mamma morta," embellished with little gasps and sobs in place of the expressive tone she wasn't even close to commanding, was the low point of the opera. Which didn't, of course, stop the fans from screaming their heads off. _So_ depressing.
> 
> If anyone wonders where the big voices are these days, I can at least tell you where they are not.


And this situation will continue to be perpetrated with the vociferous encouragement (enabling?) of fanboys and fangirls who, as you noted, are applauding nonexistent skills due in part to their lack of discernment about vocal singing. Conversely, if they heard good singing they probably wouldn't recognize it. Very sad state of affairs indeed, particularly with this wave of opera company closures. How long, I wonder, until all we can hear on stage is popera?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Revenant said:


> And this situation will continue to be perpetrated with the vociferous encouragement (enabling?) of fanboys and fangirls who, as you noted, are applauding nonexistent skills due in part to their lack of discernment about vocal singing. Conversely, if they heard good singing they probably wouldn't recognize it. Very sad state of affairs indeed, particularly with this wave of opera company closures. How long, I wonder, until all we can hear on stage is popera?


Thank you. It's 9 hours after the broadcast and I'm still wondering whether what I heard was actually an opera (I suspect it was because I recall a baritone singing something very loudly). Perhaps you know whether the Met has yet bowed to the expedient of providing amplification for the Mickey and Minnie Mice scampering about onstage? I've only recently read that this is being done in some places. Perhaps the fans were hearing the decibel levels Corelli and Tebaldi provided without help, if not the tonal quality. But then who needs tonal quality? Or rather, what _is_ tonal quality?

(It's ironic that I think nostalgically of Corelli, when back in the '70s I used to get annoyed with the Met audience for cheering so mindlessly for his crude belting. Oh well. Either I'm just impossible to please or singing's been going downhill since the age of Caruso. I suspect both are true).


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Thank you. It's 9 hours after the broadcast and I'm still wondering whether what I heard was actually an opera (I suspect it was because I recall a baritone singing something very loudly). Perhaps you know whether the Met has yet bowed to the expedient of providing amplification for the Mickey and Minnie Mice scampering about onstage? I've only recently read that this is being done in some places. Perhaps the fans were hearing the decibel levels Corelli and Tebaldi provided without help, if not the tonal quality. But then who needs tonal quality? Or rather, what _is_ tonal quality?
> 
> (It's ironic that I think nostalgically of Corelli, when back in the '70s I used to get annoyed with the Met audience for cheering so mindlessly for his crude belting. Oh well. Either I'm just impossible to please or singing's been going downhill since the age of Caruso. I suspect both are true).


Don't know if the Met has gone that route, but I wouldn't be surprised. I don't expect that audience to react the same way they did in Spain when many in the audience began shouting "Verguenza!" to protest the over the top use of miking on the stage. The performance was halted and management bowed to the audience's indignation and turned off the mikes. I listened to the audio of that ruckus, in YouTube iirc.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Revenant said:


> Don't know if the Met has gone that route, but I wouldn't be surprised. I don't expect that audience to react the same way they did in Spain when many in the audience began shouting "Verguenza!" to protest the over the top use of miking on the stage. The performance was halted and management bowed to the audience's indignation and turned off the mikes. I listened to the audio of that ruckus, in YouTube iirc.


Great story. Couldn't happen here.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Gentlemen, I was in the audience that night at Teatro Real, four years ago.

There was indeed a problem with amplification, but it was not due to any attempt to amplify the voice of the singers (Alvarez himself, Cedolins and Marco Vratogna), it was a honest mistake by the sound engineer. The opera was being recorded by Teatro Real, and part of the amplifiers were switched on. It was immediately detected by the audience due to the misplaced overall sound effect (as opposed to a true amplification, that it's considerable more difficult to detect if properly done with the intention of helping the singers to project their voices). The performance was stopped, and restarted again. Ms. Cedolins and the General Manager of Teatro Real explained the situation and asked for forgiveness. Mr. Alvarez was not able to sustain his voice during all the opera, and was replaced by his cover.

However, I'm not surprised by your comments about the MET performance (I haven't watched that performance). Mr. Alvarez's voice is clearly in the decline, and he was never a real spinto voice to start with. He is a gifted singer in other areas, however, and I do remember a wonderful performance of "Luisa Miller" by him, and Ms. Cedolins, some years ago.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> The timbre of the voice, crystal clear and *sweetly plaintive* but opening up more and more thrillingly as he ascended, may not touch you, but to me it is very beautiful. Pavarotti respected him as an ideal; when someone compared him to Bjorling, he said "please, I'm only human."
> 
> Try these:
> 
> ...


listen, I'm really trying here and have in the past. I do get that his technique is fabulous but dear god that plaintive sweetness just slays me, man. It's sugar overload for me.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

schigolch said:


> Gentlemen, I was in the audience that night at Teatro Real, four years ago.
> 
> There was indeed a problem with amplification, but it was not due to any attempt to amplify the voice of the singers (Alvarez himself, Cedolins and Marco Vratogna), it was a honest mistake by the sound engineer. The opera was being recorded by Teatro Real, and part of the amplifiers were switched on. It was immediately detected by the audience due to the misplaced overall sound effect (as opposed to a true amplification, that it's considerable more difficult to detect if properly done with the intention of helping the singers to project their voices). The performance was stopped, and restarted again. Ms. Cedolins and the General Manager of Teatro Real explained the situation and asked for forgiveness. *Mr. Alvarez was not able to sustain his voice during all the opera, and was replaced by his cover.*
> However, I'm not surprised by your comments about the MET performance (I haven't watched that performance). Mr. Alvarez's voice is clearly in the decline, and he was never a real spinto voice to start with. He is a gifted singer in other areas, however, and I do remember a wonderful performance of "Luisa Miller" by him, and Ms. Cedolins, some years ago.


Some may suspect that the management's explanation may have been a bit, er, disingenuous...  But you were there and I defer to your explanation of events. :tiphat:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

deggial said:


> listen, I'm really trying here and have in the past. I do get that his technique is fabulous but dear god that plaintive sweetness just slays me, man. It's sugar overload for me.


Just be grateful the Swedes gave up being Vikings. Mr. Bjorling might have slain you by a method far less pleasant.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

I heard the ANDREA CHENIER, and have read pretty widely differing opinions of it. How is it that one person can have heard the performance as passionless, and another person have heard it as passionate? I for one am not prepared to say that the person who heard it as exciting doesn't know what he's talking about because he's never heard del Monaco or Corelli. As for myself, I don't know the opera well apart from "Nemico della patria," but I was following along with a libretto. For what it's worth, I'll give my honest reaction. Remember, I'm only 34, and I've not heard Tebaldi, Corelli, etc. in the work. However, I don't believe this means my opinions have no value.

Alvarez's voice was slender for the part, but he sang with commitment, and to be honest I liked the more lyric sound in the role...I can't really explain why. Maybe it's because verismo opera has a reputation for encouraging stentorian singing, and I just found Alvarez's sound more ingratiating in the music.

I've always loved Patricia Racette's voice. I clearly recall her 1998 Met broadcast Violetta -- the first TRAVIATA I ever heard --and still have the sound of it in my head 16 years later. Some seem to hear her vibrato as "too much," but I've always found it extremely poignant; in fact, she reminds me of another singer with an inherently affecting timbre, Ileana Cotrubas, but Racette has always seemed to me to have had the bigger and more firmly supported sound. In this broadcast her vibrato did sound intrusive even to me; her voice isn't what it was in 1998, but she sang with conviction, and I never thought to myself, "This is a terrible performance."

Zeijko Lucic, apparently, has been singing leading baritone roles since 1993. It seems the years have taken a toll on his voice; to my ears there's a grayish quality and an occasional flatness. (His voice is very "wide" in contour, and I believe this type of voice is always something of a challenge to keep under perfect control.) This, I believe, is why I found his singing rather dull. It was a big sound, but there was a certain lack of solidity; that, together with his somewhat monotonous delivery, just produced a dullish effect for me.

Back to the general topic of big voices: I wish I could get across what I mean about vocal firmness. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: to me, a firm-toned, sharply focused, agile, and vibrantly colored voice sounds more "dramatic" than a voice that is big but lacks firmness and a precise focus. I'll liken it to the face of an actor, which must be able to assume different facial expressions quickly and easily. To me a voice that can _move easily _ so as to convey shifting emotions readily is a "dramatic" voice, whether it is a "big" voice or not.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Bellinilover said:


> I heard the ANDREA CHENIER, and have read pretty widely differing opinions of it. How is it that one person can have heard the performance as passionless, and another person have heard it as passionate? I for one am not prepared to say that the person who heard it as exciting doesn't know what he's talking about because he's never heard del Monaco or Corelli. As for myself, I don't know the opera well apart from "Nemico della patria," but I was following along with a libretto. For what it's worth, I'll give my honest reaction. Remember, I'm only 34, and I've not heard Tebaldi, Corelli, etc. in the work. However, I don't believe this means my opinions have no value.
> 
> Alvarez's voice was slender for the part, but he sang with commitment, and to be honest I liked the more lyric sound in the role...I can't really explain why. Maybe it's because verismo opera has a reputation for encouraging stentorian singing, and I just found Alvarez's sound more ingratiating in the music.
> 
> ...


Hello Bellinilover! Please don't think that, because I don't share some of your opinions, I think your opinions have no value. I value anyone's sincerely held opinion when it comes to musical tastes, which are in many ways subjective. It's your right to enjoy a performance, and I don't necessarily disagree with some of what you say here. I did give Alvarez some credit for a pleasing voice and a sincere effort. But remember that this is a thread about the dearth of large voices, and my main point is that we seem to be at a point where even the Met feels compelled to undercast roles ideally, and historically, taken by voices able to surmount heavy orchestration and generate great intensity without strain. In the case of Patricia Racette, I have heard her do very pleasing things in the past, but this was definitely beyond her; the voice, too small to begin with, sounds not in the best of shape, and she won't help it by letting the Met talk her into such assignments.

I don't quite see the relevance your point about big voices that lack firmness and focus. No one is arguing for such voices. I can assure you that there was no lack of firmness or focus in the big voices of the numerous great exponents of verismo, from the days of Caruso and Pertile on down to the days of Del Monaco, Corelli, Olivero, Tebaldi, Callas, et al. Firmness and focus were certainly not present in Ms. Racette's rendition of "La mamma morta" yesterday; you cannot be firm or focused if you are straining to sound like something you are not, but only if the demands of the music you're singing are well within your voice's natural capabilities.

Right now, the rather strenuous demands of verismo opera seem not to be well within the natural capabilities, vocal or histrionic, of very many singers. The degree to which that is true is something only a historical perspective can make perfectly clear. If you can enjoy this kind of opera in performances such as we heard yesterday, I wouldn't want to deprive you of the experience. The alternative appears to be not performing such works at all. I suppose that would be a loss, but not to those of us who've seen rosier times and can pull down our old recordings to keep them alive.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Well, to be sure some of the verismo roles for tenor, were really almost unsingable even while they were being written. Think about Guglielmo Ratcliff or Giannetto Malaspini. 

To sing Andrea Chénier is a difficult undertaking. The four arias (Un di all'azzuro spazio, Io non amato ancor, Si, fui soldato and Come un bel di di maggio), plus the final duet are really a challenge. It's written for a spinto/dramatic voice, and it requires solidity, and the passion to portray the young poet. This doesn't means that you need to shout, let's listen to Gigli. 

Mr. Alvarez, some years ago, was a lyrical tenor that was expecting his voice to develop into a spinto with age. Well, sometimes this happens, but sometimes not, and if you start to tackle the spinto repertoire without the means to do so, you can experience vocal problems moving forward. In Madrid, he literally lost his voice while singing Chénier.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

*Woodduck:* Thanks for your comments; maybe I tend to overreact, and I apologize for that. Since the thread is about big voices, I guess the point I was trying to make about firmness and focus is that in my opinion it's not enough just to have a voice that's big, at least as far as "contour" is concerned. It seems too many opera lovers (mostly they're not here but on, for instance, Youtube) want only to hear a very big sound and are less concerned with the _quality_ of that sound. But I think a contributing factor in all this may be the fact that I've just never responded quite as well to voices that I would describe as "fat" or "wide" or "heavy." This may well be why I've never really warmed to Leonard Warren and prefer, of his rivals during his lifetime, Robert Merrill. Merrill probably didn't have as big a voice as Warren's, but I think it was more consistent in quality: steadier and without any loose vibrato or "fuzz" on the tone, both of which I sometimes hear in Warren; it also seems to have been more agile. The overall point I was trying to make is that a modest-sized voice that "gets things done" is preferable to a huge sound that just "sits there," so to speak.

What did you think of Lucic?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Bellinilover said:


> *Woodduck:* Thanks for your comments; maybe I tend to overreact, and I apologize for that. Since the thread is about big voices, I guess the point I was trying to make about firmness and focus is that in my opinion it's not enough just to have a voice that's big, at least as far as "contour" is concerned. It seems too many opera lovers (mostly they're not here but on, for instance, Youtube) want only to hear a very big sound and are less concerned with the _quality_ of that sound. But I think a contributing factor in all this may be the fact that I've just never responded quite as well to voices that I would describe as "fat" or "wide" or "heavy." This may well be why I've never really warmed to Leonard Warren and prefer, of his rivals during his lifetime, Robert Merrill. Merrill probably didn't have as big a voice as Warren's, but I think it was more consistent in quality: steadier and without any loose vibrato or "fuzz" on the tone, both of which I sometimes hear in Warren; it also seems to have been more agile. The overall point I was trying to make is that a modest-sized voice that "gets things done" is preferable to a huge sound that just "sits there," so to speak.
> 
> What did you think of Lucic?


Really can't quarrel with this. I agree that a smaller, better-focused, more agile voice is preferable to an elephantine one regardless of repertoire. Certainly a lot of vocal fanatics are overly impressed by sheer noise; Wagner often has such clumsy voices inflicted on him, for reasons which are understandable, but of course we have on record his admiration for Bellini and his desire to hear his operas sung "bel canto" (even Brunnhilde is asked to trill!).

Don't really have a personal preference as between Merrill and Warren. Merrill had a beautiful, extroverted, pinging tone (with a personality to match) that I think was enjoyed by just about everybody; his Rigoletto (Solti, with Moffo & Krauss) remains one of my favorites, just the ticket when I want prettier sounds than Gobbi and Callas can provide. I haven't listened to much late Warren; in recordings from the late '30s and early 40s, his voice was powerful, clear, warm and utterly distinctive, and once I got used to its individuality I loved it. No lack of firmness back then anyway, though it always had a "plushness" which was part of its distinctiveness. I'd never heard Lucic before yesterday, and I wasn't exactly focused on him (fixing lunch or something) during his big number, so I'd best reserve judgment. I think my impression was of a large voice that sounded authoritative - unlike the others in the cast - but a bit monotonous. In any case I didn't feel the need to drop what I was doing and come running in to listen, whereas in Racette's case I was forced to listen closely out of anxiety, horror and pity. (Sorry!:angel


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

Coincidentally concerning uncontrolled vibrato, I just watched a Met broadcast of Tosca, with Alagna and Patricia Racette, on PBS (public network). Painful. Even the little streetlighter sounded bad while snuffing the _lanterni_ of Rome. The crowd applauded and roared vociferously in approval here too. I like Alagna in the French repertoire, and ok, this was Italian, but anyway he was in very bad voice. Destroyed _E Lucevan le stelle_. He told Fleming in the interview that he's planning to sing Otello for the first time sometime in the future. (This seems to have a taped performance of an earlier broadcast so I don't know if those plans panned out or not.) And breathing problems all around, particularly Racette. There was singing out of tune in parts, make-up bellowing, a park and bark baritone, etc. That was within. Without lay the Red Death. Racette disappeared behind a stage structure and a stunt guy in a wig reappeared on a side window to take that dive off the roof of the Castel San Angelo. I'm not angry just sad.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Revenant said:


> Coincidentally concerning uncontrolled vibrato, I just watched a Met broadcast of Tosca, with Alagna and Patricia Racette, on PBS (public network). Painful. Even the little streetlighter sounded bad while snuffing the _lanterni_ of Rome. The crowd applauded and roared vociferously in approval here too. I like Alagna in the French repertoire, and ok, this was Italian, but anyway he was in very bad voice. Destroyed _E Lucevan le stelle_. He told Fleming in the interview that he's planning to sing Otello for the first time sometime in the future. (This seems to have a taped performance of an earlier broadcast so I don't know if those plans panned out or not.) And breathing problems all around, particularly Racette. There was singing out of tune in parts, make-up bellowing, a park and bark baritone, etc. That was within. Without lay the Red Death. Racette disappeared behind a stage structure and a stunt guy in a wig reappeared on a side window to take that dive off the roof of the Castel San Angelo. I'm not angry just sad.


Sir! You're giving me daymares! Alagna, Otello?! "O gloria! Otello fu!" (Can't find the emoticon "smiley face committing suicide")


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

Revenant said:


> Coincidentally concerning uncontrolled vibrato, I just watched a Met broadcast of Tosca, with Alagna and Patricia Racette, on PBS (public network). Painful. Even the little streetlighter sounded bad while snuffing the _lanterni_ of Rome. The crowd applauded and roared vociferously in approval here too. I like Alagna in the French repertoire, and ok, this was Italian, but anyway he was in very bad voice. Destroyed _E Lucevan le stelle_. He told Fleming in the interview that he's planning to sing Otello for the first time sometime in the future. (This seems to have a taped performance of an earlier broadcast so I don't know if those plans panned out or not.) And breathing problems all around, particularly Racette. There was singing out of tune in parts, make-up bellowing, a park and bark baritone, etc. That was within. Without lay the Red Death. Racette disappeared behind a stage structure and a stunt guy in a wig reappeared on a side window to take that dive off the roof of the Castel San Angelo. I'm not angry just sad.


While I haven't seen the TOSCA, I've never cared for Alagna. It's not his voice so much as _him_ -- there's just something about his persona that turns me off. It's as if he thinks there's nothing he can't sing, and the fact that he's planning to take on Otello supports that. Surely it's not a role for him. On the other hand, I've always liked Racette, so I'm sorry that her voice seems to be in decline (she's 49 now, I believe). I thought she was wonderful as Madama Butterfly back in 2008-2009, but shortly after that I heard her as Tosca on a radio broadcast and didn't think the role truly suited her.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Sir! You're giving me daymares! Alagna, Otello?! "O gloria! Otello fu!" (Can't find the emoticon "smiley face committing suicide")


I once read or heard a joke: "What are the most terrifying words that you imagine you could hear?" The answer was "Jon Secada is Otello." But now, this prospect will do. If Bobby does his moorship he won't be singing for a while after that.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

Bellinilover said:


> While I haven't seen the TOSCA, I've never cared for Alagna. It's not his voice so much as _him_ -- there's just something about his persona that turns me off. It's as if he thinks there's nothing he can't sing, and the fact that he's planning to take on Otello supports that. Surely it's not a role for him. On the other hand, I've always liked Racette, so I'm sorry that her voice seems to be in decline (she's 49 now, I believe). I thought she was wonderful as Madama Butterfly back in 2008-2009, but shortly after that I heard her as Tosca on a radio broadcast and didn't think the role truly suited her.


It doesn't. Nice lady. Tries hard. She told Fleming that Tosca is now her favorite role.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Bellinilover said:


> I always liked Racette, so I'm sorry that her voice seems to be in decline (she's 49 now, I believe). I thought she was wonderful as Madama Butterfly back in 2008-2009, but shortly after that I heard her as Tosca on a radio broadcast and didn't think the role truly suited her.


Tosca, I'd say, requires a similar weight of voice to Maddalena. Racette didn't and doesn't have that kind of voice. Singers often yield to the temptation to take on heavier and heavier parts whether their voices develop in that direction or not. If they're smart they won't repeat the experiments that fail. My fear is that now opera managements are desperate enough to push singers into the harder-to-cast dramatic parts, and greedy and cruel enough not to say to them "it's not for you," even though there are plenty of experienced ears on hand, ears that have been around for decades and know voices. The opera world needs whistle blowers!


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

Revenant said:


> If Bobby does his moorship he won't be singing for a while after that.


could be a blessing. His face gets my goat.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

Revenant said:


> Racette disappeared behind a stage structure and a stunt guy in a wig reappeared on a side window to take that dive off the roof of the Castel San Angelo.


:lol: I really don't care about Tosca but I'd have watched just for that.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

deggial said:


> could be a blessing. His face gets my goat.


Yes. Mine too. Mixed metaphor or not.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

_Originally Posted by Revenant

Racette disappeared behind a stage structure and a stunt guy in a wig reappeared on a side window to take that dive off the roof of the Castel San Angelo._



deggial said:


> :lol: I really don't care about Tosca but I'd have watched just for that.


The woman is supposed to jump immediately after her imprecation to the ghost of Scarpia. All that monkey motion with her going into a door...beat....beat...beat...then the bewigged stunt man jumping out of the side window, well it ruins the whole dramatic timing and frankly created a risible effect. My favorite opera anecdote, however, is the legendary one (probably spurious) of the soprano throwing herself off the parapet and then bouncing back into view, courtesy of a particularly springy safety net.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

I love that story too.

How it should be done is this of course. In the words of Zeffirelli.

_Maria wore the same dress as in act two, but with a big grey cape. As the alarm sounded, a sleeping soldier - played by an acrobat - woke. Half dressed, he started to chase her. She ran like a bird all over the stage, then up the steps, the soldier at her heels. He nearly caught her at the top but got tangled in the long train of her dress. This gave Maria the chance to throw her cape over his face and make him fall backward down the stairs, blocking the police who had joined the pursuit below. Maria now had only a moment to sing her last line, "O Scarpia, avanti a Dio". As she was still singing, another solder ran from a bridge and lunged at her. But she was too quick and she jumped. The soldier missed her by a hair. Maria wasn't one of those Toscas who lift their skirts and look where they are jumping. She just flew off into space. She was everything I ever hoped my Tosca to be. She could not have given more to me, the public or Puccini._

No wonder those who saw this production were talking about it for decades afterwards. The conductor Iris Lemare once told me that after seeing it she would never see *Tosca* again, as she knew it could never be bettered.


----------



## SilenceIsGolden (May 5, 2013)

GregMitchell said:


> She ran like a bird all over the stage, then up the steps, the soldier at her heels. He nearly caught her at the top but got tangled in the long train of her dress. This gave Maria the chance to throw her cape over his face and make him fall backward down the stairs, blocking the police who had joined the pursuit below.


:lol: Brilliant. I've never heard that story before, thanks for sharing.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> I love that story too.
> 
> How it should be done is this of course. In the words of Zeffirelli.
> 
> ...


New story to me too. Thanks.

Iris Lemare speaks for me, even though all we have to go on is the film of Callas and Gobbi in act 2. I just can't watch any other performance of _Tosca_ now. Come to think of it, that consarned woman has permanently ruined any number of operas and arias for me (as, e.g., "La mamma morta" from the Met the other day, which made me wish I were watching _Philadelphia_ instead). Just thinking of it makes feel as if I'd been married to the perfect person, been widowed, and chosen to remain contentedly celibate for the rest of my life, sitting in my rocker looking at faded photographs of the happy days. Thank God for photographs, and phonographs.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> New story to me too. Thanks.
> 
> Iris Lemare speaks for me, even though all we have to go on is the film of Callas and Gobbi in act 2. I just can't watch any other performance of _Tosca_ now. Come to think of it, that consarned woman has permanently ruined any number of operas and arias for me (as, e.g., "La mamma morta" from the Met the other day, which made me wish I were watching _Philadelphia_ instead). Just thinking of it makes feel as if I'd been married to the perfect person, been widowed, and chosen to remain contentedly celibate for the rest of my life, sitting in my rocker looking at faded photographs of the happy days. Thank God for photographs, and phonographs.


Divina has that reverse-Midas-touch with me too: everything she touches turns to. . . well, you know what. . . for other singers attempting it.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> New story to me too. Thanks.
> 
> Iris Lemare speaks for me, even though all we have to go on is the film of Callas and Gobbi in act 2. I just can't watch any other performance of _Tosca_ now. Come to think of it, that consarned woman has permanently ruined any number of operas and arias for me (as, e.g., "La mamma morta" from the Met the other day, which made me wish I were watching _Philadelphia_ instead). Just thinking of it makes feel as if I'd been married to the perfect person, been widowed, and chosen to remain contentedly celibate for the rest of my life, sitting in my rocker looking at faded photographs of the happy days. Thank God for photographs, and phonographs.


This seems an extreme reaction. Callas was a great artist but I'm also glad of what others brought to the party. So while appreciating Callas, I can also appreciate others.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> This seems an extreme reaction. Callas was a great artist but I'm also glad of what others brought to the party. So while appreciating Callas, I can also appreciate others.


Absolutely.

I'll be the first to submit that she didn't do everything equally good; and that her absolute top-shelf singing waxed and waned in less than ten years. . . but then, the candle that burns twice as bright lasts half as long.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

DavidA said:


> This seems an extreme reaction.


also makes one miss a lot of good stuff. Even though you may always hold one performance above all others, there are many that can be very enjoyable. Why miss out on that?


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> This seems an extreme reaction. Callas was a great artist but I'm also glad of what others brought to the party. So while appreciating Callas, I can also appreciate others.


She was talking about the whole production, not just Callas, but Gobbi too, and the interaction between them. The act of creation in a new production is so different from anything that can be iachieved in a revival that just strives to re-create the original. Zeffirelli's production was devised and conceived around Callas and Gobbi, their performances improvised during rehearsal, and, though the production (the sets and the costumes) stayed in the Royal Opera House's repertoire for over 40 years, they cast a long shadow over it.

This kind of thing happens in the theatre too. I've often been disappointed in a second or third cast of something I saw when new. It is not that these casts are in any way inferior, but, however they rehearse, it will never be able to capture the inspiration of what was created in the original rehearsal period.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

GregMitchell said:


> She was talking about the whole production, not just Callas, but Gobbi too, and the interaction between them. The act of creation in a new production is so different from anything that can be iachieved in a revival that just strives to re-create the original. Zeffirelli's production was devised and conceived around Callas and Gobbi, their performances improvised during rehearsal, and, though the production (the sets and the costumes) stayed in the Royal Opera House's repertoire for over 40 years, they cast a long shadow over it.
> 
> This kind of thing happens in the theatre too. I've often been disappointed in a second or third cast of something I saw when new. It is not that these casts are in any way inferior, but, however they rehearse, it will never be able to capture the inspiration of what was created in the original rehearsal period.


Actually, if you read what was said, she was actually talking mainly about Callas herself. No matter, the Callas / Gobbi Tosca was great. But so was a more recent one with Gheorghiu conducted by Pappano. I love the Zeferelli Falstaff but the recent one at the Met was also a revelation. Of course there are times that are really special - but to exclude all others as a result appears self-defeating.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Actually, if you read what was said, she was actually talking mainly about Callas herself. No matter, the Callas / Gobbi Tosca was great. But so was a more recent one with Gheorghiu conducted by Pappano. I love the Zeferelli Falstaff but the recent one at the Met was also a revelation. Of course there are times that are really special - but to exclude all others as a result appears self-defeating.


I didn't _read_ what was said. It was something she said to me. And, to be fair, she also said she had seen quite a few Toscas in her life, and now didn't really need to see another.

The recent production with Gheorgiu was well received it's true, and I liked it very much when I saw it on TV, though Gheorgiu's acting was extremely mannered compared to Callas's much more naturalistic way in the telecast of Act II. Gheorgiu was the prima donna playing Tosca, rather than a singing actress playing Tosca, the prima donna.

I also remember seeing Gwyneth Jones in the old Zeffirelli production, and I found her more convincing, more inside the role. Very different from Callas, but very plausible. Getting back to the subject of big voices, she certainly had no trouble being heard!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Well, who'd have imagined my extravagantly operatic remarks would lead to such an outpouring of moderation and reasonableness! And on an _opera_ thread no less! But I care not. I sit in my rocker, blissfully indifferent to the fulminations of the fair-minded, having renounced the world, as cobwebs grow to shut out the dying of the light and my Callas records lull me to my repose. (BTW, I thought Gheorghiu was pedestrian. Couldn't act her way out of a ravioli.)

Farewell, friends! Farewell! Fare...

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Well, who'd have imagined my extravagantly operatic remarks would lead to such an outpouring of moderation and reasonableness! And on an _opera_ thread no less! But I care not. I sit in my rocker, blissfully indifferent to the fulminations of the fair-minded, having renounced the world, as cobwebs grow to shut out the dying of the light and my Callas records lull me to my repose. (BTW, I thought Gheorghiu was pedestrian. Couldn't act her way out of a ravioli.)
> 
> Farewell, friends! Farewell! Fare...
> 
> ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!


Could the moderator please add a "love" button?!!!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Tito loves you too, Greg!:tiphat:


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> But so was a more recent one with Gheorghiu conducted by Pappano.


This was not written by me, but by a contributor to another forum, but it was my impression too.

_I saw this broadcast. I just could not take Gheorghiu at all seriously. She has become a parody of a diva and her acting is plastered on self consciously from the outside. The naturalness that was evident in the Solti Traviata at the start of her stardom has been replaced be a stilted, self regarding style. I decided not to buy it despite everything else being first rate. _


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Tito loves you too, Greg!:tiphat:


Is that your Tito or mine?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Revenant said:


> Is that your Tito or mine?


Il due Titi, certamente! Greg deserves no less.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Both Titi, surely. Greg deserves no less.


Yes indeed. But aha, one of those Titis sang with Maria. And that was mine.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Revenant said:


> Yes indeed. But aha, one of those Titis sang with Maria. And that was mine.


Yes, and look what she did to him.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Yes, and look what she did to him.


Oooh... Arcane gossip... pray tell. Oh, you mean she stabbed him? And to think that before him all Rome trembled.... sigh..


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Il due Titi, certamente! Greg deserves no less.


Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. . . Ha. Ha. Ha.

"_Il 'due' Titi_"-- the hemispherically-fixated deserve no less.

Brilliant.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> This was not written by me, but by a contributor to another forum, but it was my impression too.
> 
> _I saw this broadcast. I just could not take Gheorghiu at all seriously. She has become a parody of a diva and her acting is plastered on self consciously from the outside. The naturalness that was evident in the Solti Traviata at the start of her stardom has been replaced be a stilted, self regarding style. I decided not to buy it despite everything else being first rate. _


I haven't actually _seen_ too much of Gheorghiu except in some concert clips, but I feel some of that self-regarding manner in her singing too. I was poking around a thrift store and found a collection of songs called "My World: Songs from Around the World." The program looked interesting but the singing seemed so calculated and lacking in spontaneity that I didn't really enjoy it. I remember loving the sound of her voice years back, so I felt bad. Could've saved the $2.00 and bought some ravioli.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Il due Titi, certamente! Greg deserves no less.


And I love them both


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> I haven't actually _seen_ too much of Gheorghiu except in some concert clips, but I feel some of that self-regarding manner in her singing too. I was poking around a thrift store and found a collection of songs called "My World: Songs from Around the World." The program looked interesting but the singing seemed so calculated and lacking in spontaneity that I didn't really enjoy it. I remember loving the sound of her voice years back, so I felt bad. Could've saved the $2.00 and bought some ravioli.


I like the sound of her voice too now that I've got to know it. Before I knew it so well though, I remember once hearing her version of _Depuis le jour_ on the radio. The voice was not familiar, but the phrasing was. I felt as if I knew how she was going to sing a phrase before she actually sang it, and nine times out of ten I was correct. In all but the sound of the voice, it was almost identical to the Callas version, though one should add that Gheorgiu's tone fell much easier on the ear. However, where Callas's seemed like a spontaneous outpouring, Gheorghiu's was calculated, as if she was ghosting what she had heard before.

A few months later I was listening to the radio with a friend in France when they played a recording of _Vissi d'arte_. Again, knowing Callas's versions well, it seemed as if the singer were reproducing Callas's phrasing. My friend asked if I recognised the singer. I replied that I wasn't sure but was willing to bet it was Gheorghiu, and I was right.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> And I love them both


Less than all cannot satisfy Greg. . . _or_ God. . . _or_ Russ Meyer. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> I like the sound of her voice too now that I've got to know it. Before I knew it so well though, I remember once hearing her version of _Depuis le jour_ on the radio. The voice was not familiar, but the phrasing was. I felt as if I knew how she was going to sing a phrase before she actually sang it, and nine times out of ten I was correct. In all but the sound of the voice, it was almost identical to the Callas version, though one should add that Gheorgiu's tone fell much easier on the ear. However, where Callas's seemed like a spontaneous outpouring, Gheorghiu's was calculated, as if she was ghosting what she had heard before.
> 
> A few months later I was listening to the radio with a friend in France when they played a recording of _Vissi d'arte_. Again, knowing Callas's versions well, it seemed as if the singer were reproducing Callas's phrasing. My friend asked if I recognised the singer. I replied that I wasn't sure but was willing to bet it was Gheorghiu, and I was right.


---
_Becoming_ the character-- now that's an art. Daniel Day-Lewis was so 'on' in _There Will Be Blood _that he was scaring people on the set; so much in fact that the original actor who played the preacher asked to be let go from the role; and was.

Maria Callas is this. . . cubed.

When I think of Maria Callas' achievement-- perfectly-intoned and dramatically-expressed singing fused with the right character modulation of voice; and at _just_ the right moment of each and every scene; for nearly everything she did-- there's just nothing like it. Wagnerian acting-drama taken to an entirely different level.

You can try to imitate this, sure. But it just ends up sounding like hyperbole; at least in my experience-- because all of the bold brush strokes are there, but with none of the shaded-in nuance. Caricatures aren't characters.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Marschallin Blair said:


> ---
> 
> You can try to imitate this, sure. But it just ends up sounding like hyperbole; at least in my experience-- because all of the bold brush strokes are there, but with none of the shaded-in nuance. Caricatures aren't characters.


Oddly though, in the case of Gheorghiu's _Depuis le jour_, all the shaded-in nuances _were_ there, and actually she manages them rather better with her healthy voice than Callas's (by 1960) thinned out tone and parlous top notes, but they sound like copies. I don't know if it was conscious or unconscious, but the fact remains, that, in intention at least, the two performances are practically identical. Maybe others didn't notice because their actual voices and methods of vocal production are so markedly dissimilar. With singers like Sass and Suliotis, who many felt were aping Callas, I never got the same impression.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> Oddly though, in the case of Gheorghiu's _Depuis le jour_, all the shaded-in nuances _were_ there, and actually she manages them rather better with her healthy voice than Callas's (by 1960) thinned out tone and parlous top notes, but they sound like copies. I don't know if it was conscious or unconscious, but the fact remains, that, in intention at least, the two performances are practically identical. Maybe others didn't notice because their actual voices and methods of vocal production are so markedly dissimilar. With singers like Sass and Suliotis, who many felt were aping Callas, I never got the same impression.


---
Perhaps its the hair color, but I don't understand: If Gheorghiu's interpretative nuance _is_ there- with all the attendant musical and dramatic detail-- how does it sound like a_ copy_?


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Marschallin Blair said:


> ---
> Perhaps its the hair color, but I don't understand: If Gheorghiu's interpretative nuance _is_ there- with all the attendant musical and dramatic detail-- how does it sound like a_ copy_?


Presumably because the nuance and dramatic detail isn't hers. She has merely copied the work of another singer. I can't explain it any better.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> Presumably because the nuance and dramatic detail isn't hers. She has merely copied the work of another singer. I can't explain it any better.


I can understand complex things; just not self-evident ones.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

GregMitchell said:


> This was not written by me, but by a contributor to another forum, but it was my impression too.
> 
> _I saw this broadcast. I just could not take Gheorghiu at all seriously. She has become a parody of a diva and her acting is plastered on self consciously from the outside. The naturalness that was evident in the Solti Traviata at the start of her stardom has been replaced be a stilted, self regarding style. I decided not to buy it despite everything else being first rate. _


I have the recording and I think this comment is piffle!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

GregMitchell said:


> Presumably because the nuance and dramatic detail isn't hers. She has merely copied the work of another singer. I can't explain it any better.


Come on! It's called 'acting'!


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

DavidA said:


> I have the recording and I think this comment is piffle!


I have the recording and the comment you see as piffle captures my feelings about Gheorghiu perfectly. All I can see is "look at me, I am such a gorgeous diva". Her performances often make me feel a little queasy, even though I can recognise the real beauty of her instrument. Such a pity.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Come on! It's called 'acting'!


I don't think you've been following the thread. I'm not talking about visuals here.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

mamascarlatti said:


> I have the recording and the comment you see as piffle captures my feelings about Gheorghiu perfectly. All I can see is "look at me, I am such a gorgeous diva". Her performances often make me feel a little queasy, even though I can recognise the real beauty of her instrument. Such a pity.


I thought Kaufman was terrific though, and such a _natural_ actor too.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> I thought Kaufman was terrific though, and such a _natural_ actor too.


Agree (I know, so what else is new?): Kaufmann's a golden boy - as near to a complete package as we're likely to get. I really love his voice, that burnished baritonal quality and ringing top, even the mezza voce which some have criticized; I get the criticism but he uses it most expressively. Somehow his unusual voice straddles nationalities effectively: Don Jose, Werther, Parsifal, Cavaradossi, even Neapolitan songs (see below)! He may not be the ideal exponent of some parts and styles but vocal excitement + acting + looks make him preferable to most others in whatever roles he takes on. When I first saw him doing "E lucevan le stelle" in a YouTube clip I was overwhelmed by the truthfulness of his portrayal. If no current soprano can drag me to see Tosca, maybe Kaufmann can do the trick!





 (I actually like him better in this than some big-name Italians)

Do I sound like a fan of a contemporary singer? Perish the thought!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Have to add a postscript. I was listening to an old Met performance of _Lohengrin_ the other day with Melchior in the title role. All his climaxes and declamatory outbursts were predictably impressive but elsewhere the needed lyricism was sorely lacking. I couldn't help thinking that in Kaufmann we actually have a much better exponent of the part, which requires a cross between heldentenor and lyric tenor. I know there have been a number of such singers in the past. I can't think of one besides Kaufmann presently active.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Woodduck said:


> (I actually like him better in this than some big-name Italians)


Yes because he does more than just belt.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Have to add a postscript. I was listening to an old Met performance of _Lohengrin_ the other day with Melchior in the title role. All his climaxes and declamatory outbursts were predictably impressive but elsewhere the needed lyricism was sorely lacking. I couldn't help thinking that in Kaufmann we actually have a much better exponent of the part, which requires a cross between heldentenor and lyric tenor. I know there have been a number of such singers in the past. I can't think of one besides Kaufmann presently active.


Harold Schoenberg says that Melchior did get bored over the years with the parts he played and was content to just to belt the notes out with his phenomenal voice. Apparently Flagstad had to kick him once when he went to sleep after his death scene in Tristan and started snoring! The voice was quite something. Among more recent tenors, only Vicars had anything like.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Harold Schoenberg says that Melchior did get bored over the years with the parts he played and was content to just to belt the notes out with his phenomenal voice. Apparently *Flagstad had to kick him once when he went to sleep after his death scene in Tristan and started snoring! *The voice was quite something. Among more recent tenors, only Vicars had anything like.


After singing _that_ role, he can almost be excused for grabbing a bit of a rest! Another Wagner aria in which he could have used some more lyrical warmth is _Wintersturme_.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

I've seen the Gheorghiu/Kaufmann/Terfel TOSCA a couple of times on Youtube and enjoy it on the whole, especially Kaufmann, the conducting, and the beautiful visual production. Terfel's Scarpia looks very British -- there's _nothing_ Latin about him -- but personally I like the portrayal; at least he isn't pretending to look like something he's not. (The phrase "a rake in a Jane Austen novel" popped into my mind when watching his Met Don Giovanni, and here I thought of that _and_ Sweeney Todd!) I agree with the above posters about Gheorghiu: as beautiful as she looks and sounds (I do like her tonal quality much better than Callas's), her performance seemed too much like a concert performance to me; her "Vissi d'arte" was a perfect example. Still, I wonder how the performance will be viewed years from now. Last night I watched a little of Renata Tebaldi in a staged TOSCA, and her "Vissi d'arte" was also beautifully sung but static and even stiff from a physical standpoint, yet none of the comments made reference to that. I've also seen people rave over things that I remember as having been poorly received when they first came out, so it'll be interesting to see how certain current performances will "age." I have noticed that things do tend to gain in stature the further in the past they get.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

Has the lack of big voices gotten any better since 2014? [& sorry to be digging up old threads, but I'm new here & these old discussions are fascinating! I've learned so much reading through them ]


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Bonetan said:


> Has the lack of big voices gotten any better since 2014? [& sorry to be digging up old threads, but I'm new here & these old discussions are fascinating! I've learned so much reading through them ]


All dependents on what you call big?


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

Pugg said:


> All dependents on what you call big?


I guess the type of voices meant for the heaviest Wagner, Verdi, Strauss. I suppose we know it when we hear it lol


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Huge voices that are also beautiful often occur just once or twice in a generation for a vocal type from what I have seen. It has been quite some while since we had a Bruinhilde that had the vocal amplitute and magnificence of Christine Goerke. Just my opinion.


----------



## Barelytenor (Nov 19, 2011)

I was looking at the cast for Bayreuth Ring this summer and wondering at the impossibility of even getting tickets, spending weeks in Germany, and would I even want to listen to _that soprano _who can't sing a high note without going flat, and then, voilà, Christine Goerke is Brünnhilde in 2018-19 at the LePage Ring! I think it's time to get these old bones to NYC for one more time, at least ... a lot less expensive and probably a lot more musically rewarding than a visit to the Festspielhaus.

Anyone else thinking about the same trip?

:tiphat:

Kind regards,

George


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

I am certainly interested in visiting NYC to see a cycle, but I can't make any plans until after the San Francisco Ring next summer.

For now I am looking forward to hearing Goerke as Elektra here. I have not yet heard her in person!


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

Barelytenor said:


> I was looking at the cast for Bayreuth Ring this summer and wondering at the impossibility of even getting tickets, spending weeks in Germany, and would I even want to listen to _that soprano _who can't sing a high note without going flat, and then, voilà, Christine Goerke is Brünnhilde in 2018-19 at the LePage Ring! I think it's time to get these old bones to NYC for one more time, at least ... a lot less expensive and probably a lot more musically rewarding than a visit to the Festspielhaus.
> 
> Anyone else thinking about the same trip?
> 
> ...


Sounds fun! How's Michael Volle as a Wotan? Have you heard him? I'm glad Terfel is not back. He's the worst Wotan I've come across...Schager is a major upgrade over Hunter Morris & Goerke is as well obviously over Voight. Upgrades across the board hopefully!


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

a think it's a combination of a few factors
1) big voices are just rare to begin with
2) there are less opera singers around in general (lower demand = less attracted to field)
3) the norm seems to be big, Wagner-style orchestras for everything, whether or not it's historically accurate or fach-appropriate
4) larger voices correlate with larger bodies (it has more to do with facial structure than anything else, but things like a barrel-chested rip cage and extra support help too). Dramatic sopranos like Dragana Radakovic with slender, ectomorphic frames are freaks of nature, not the rule (though she has a fairly long face. that helps a lot). people increasingly want singers who look like Broadway stars rather than the types of bodies which correlate with their voice type


----------



## jflatter (Mar 31, 2010)

There are big voices for the Wagner and heavy Strauss rep. Stemme, Herlitzius and Goerke are all fine Elektra's that I have seen live but would rate Herlitzius as the best in that role but Stemme is a finer Isolde for example. Many great bass singers like Pape, Zeppenfeld, Groissbock etc. Also singers like John Lundgren, Iain Patterson and Michael Volle are great bass-baritones. There are many great mezzos like Sarah Connolly, Ekaterina Gubanova, Christa Mayer. The main problem is the tenors. Kaufmann when fit is a great Siegmund, Lohengrin and Parsifal. Stephen Gould is a decent Tristan but nobody else is around who can do that role justice. Klaus Florian Vogt is ok in some roles but I can't think he'll be a good von Stolzing. Chris Ventris is underrated I have seen him sing Siegmund twice in Dresden and Bayreuth and he impressed each time. 

Schager and Vinke are probably the best Siegfried's around. I first saw Vinke sing the role at ROH in 2012 where he was very powerful but at Bayreuth last summer his knowledge of the role had deepened and it was a more refined account.

There are great singers in every generation and there are also people who say that the singers aren't as good as they used to be in every generation as well. You can't win!


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

jflatter said:


> There are big voices for the Wagner and heavy Strauss rep. Stemme, Herlitzius and Goerke are all fine Elektra's that I have seen live but would rate Herlitzius as the best in that role but Stemme is a finer Isolde for example. Many great bass singers like Pape, Zeppenfeld, Groissbock etc. Also singers like John Lundgren, Iain Patterson and Michael Volle are great bass-baritones. There are many great mezzos like Sarah Connolly, Ekaterina Gubanova, Christa Mayer. The main problem is the tenors. Kaufmann when fit is a great Siegmund, Lohengrin and Parsifal. Stephen Gould is a decent Tristan but nobody else is around who can do that role justice. Klaus Florian Vogt is ok in some roles but I can't think he'll be a good von Stolzing. Chris Ventris is underrated I have seen him sing Siegmund twice in Dresden and Bayreuth and he impressed each time.
> 
> Schager and Vinke are probably the best Siegfried's around. I first saw Vinke sing the role at ROH in 2012 where he was very powerful but at Bayreuth last summer his knowledge of the role had deepened and it was a more refined account.
> 
> There are great singers in every generation and there are also people who say that the singers aren't as good as they used to be in every generation as well. You can't win!


Sorry for my nitpicking lol, but Lundgren & Volle are baritones


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Sondra Radvanovsky's voice is so big that some colleagues of hers say that even standing next to her when she sings could blow out their eardrums. That lady's got plenty of power.
I think Bryan Hymel also has a lot of power.


----------

