# Special Edition: Der fliegende Holländer - Finale - Titus, Studer, Silvasti



## ALT (Mar 1, 2021)

On a day like today in 1843 in Dresden, Richard Wagner’s _Der fliegende Holländer_ received its world premiere. We celebrate with a live, audio-only recording of the rousing finale, rousingly sung, from the 1999 Bayreuth Festival.






_With her large, powerful, luminous and distinctive instrument, Cheryl Studer, as Senta, delivers a sustained, live-coil ardor and intensity that, in my opinion, matches or even surpasses darling Leonie Rysanek’s. The other principals, too, are the stuff of dream casting. No one ever talks about the fine Dutchman of Alan Titus nor the equally fine Erik of Jorma Silvasti and one wonders why but comes up empty. No less important is the direction of Peter Schneider, a conductor in the great German tradition. No one talks about him either. And the late, exceptional Norbert Balatsch shaped the Bayreuth chorus to match the intensity of the principals which helped raise the already scorching-hot musical temperature to a level _*we no longer experience*.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

This is interesting to me for the male participants. I didn't know Alan Titus sang Wagner - he sounds pretty good, though its hard to say more based on this - and I've never heard Silvasti at all. The belcanto-ish arias of Erik are often given to hopefully dramatic tenors who just can't draw a graceful line, which Silvasti does in most attractive fashion. I do wonder about the size of his instrument, which a recording can't convey well; his vocal texture suggests a rather small voice, not a problem here since the aria doesn't have a heavy accompaniment. Studer too sounds small-voiced, the high notes too pushed and fluttery to justify the reviewer's comparison with Rysanek (whom I'm not a fan of, btw); I hear a valiant effort at being intense, but without the visceral impact a more dramatic-scaled voice can offer. Bayreuth's acoustics do permit singers with modest-sized voices to be heard, so this may have been a satisfying evening in the theater. The audience sounds happy.


----------



## ALT (Mar 1, 2021)

Woodduck said:


> This is interesting to me for the male participants. I didn't know Alan Titus sang Wagner - he sounds pretty good, though its hard to say more based on this - and I've never heard Silvasti at all. The belcanto-ish arias of Erik are often given to hopefully dramatic tenors who just can't draw a graceful line, which Silvasti does in most attractive fashion. I do wonder about the size of his instrument, which a recording can't convey well; his vocal texture suggests a rather small voice, not a problem here since the aria doesn't have a heavy accompaniment. Studer too sounds small-voiced, the high notes too pushed and fluttery to justify the reviewer's comparison with Rysanek (whom I'm not a fan of, btw); I hear a valiant effort at being intense, but without the visceral impact a more dramatic-scaled voice can offer. Bayreuth's acoustics do permit singers with modest-sized voices to be heard, so this may have been a satisfying evening in the theater. The audience sounds happy.


I don’t know what became of Silvasti, who had a rare and unique sound, but his was not a small voice. We agree to disagree again in your assessment of Studer. She doesn’t sound small-voiced at all and the way her top notes soar adds all the visceral electricity we need of a Senta in this finale. That is satisfying enough for me. And the audience went berserk indeed (not fully captured in the track). I suppose they had ample opportunity, as they do every summer, to boo the offending small-voiced-with-the-pushed-and-fluttery-high-notes off the stage. A related anecdote: A year+ earlier or so during a press conference one of the journalists in attendance had the gall to ask Wolfgang Wagner why he had bothered to enlist Studer. His response was “_*because what matters here is art*_”. Touché.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

_Touché?_ Seriously?  Why does asking Wolfgang Wagner why he engaged Studer require "gall"?

Fanboys just can't stand anything but unqualified praise for their fetishes. Guess you're doomed to dwell in permanent indignation.


----------



## ALT (Mar 1, 2021)

Woodduck said:


> _Touché?_ Seriously?  Why does asking Wolfgang Wagner why he engaged Studer require "gall"?


Why? I think it’s quite obvious. Because: 1. The journalist singled her out (out of a pool of many others), and 2. To question the director of the festival for his casting decisions to his face is nothing short of an affront and a sign of disrespect. WW’s perfect words must have stopped the journo on his tracks.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

ALT said:


> Why? I think it’s quite obvious. Because: 1. The journalist singled her out (out of a pool of many others), and 2. To question the director of the festival for his casting decisions to his face is nothing short of an affront and a sign of disrespect. WW’s perfect words must have stopped the journo on his tracks.


Gosh, such profound reverence for "authority." How old-world/monarchical of you.

"Singled her out"? Well, I guess asking about someone is singling her out. Every time you mention someone without mentioning people you aren't interested in you're "singling out" that person. How do you avoid singling out individuals when they're the particular ones you want to talk about?


----------



## ALT (Mar 1, 2021)

Woodduck said:


> Gosh, such profound reverence for "authority." How old-world/monarchical of you.
> 
> "Singled her out"? Well, I guess asking about someone is singling her out. Every time you mention someone without mentioning people you aren't interested in you're "singling out" that person. How do you avoid singling out individuals when they're the particular ones you want to talk about?


Woodduck, neither do you get it nor do you want to get it. But it’s your choice to incessantly assert and reassert your one-upmanship. As for reverence for authority, yes, when warranted or required. But if you want to live in a world in which everything and everyone is an equal and on the same plane and therefore fair game, be my guest.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

ALT said:


> Woodduck, neither do you get it nor do you want to get it.


Get what? The absolute, indisputable supremacy of The Divine Cheryl?

What I "get" is that you can't tolerate the sightest disagreement about that. From anyone. 

Cheryl Studer is not the ultimate Leonore, or Senta, or Eva, or Salome. The rest of the world is free to point out why they think so. If you post her performances here people are going to do just that. Get used to it and get over it.


----------



## ALT (Mar 1, 2021)

Woodduck said:


> Get what? The absolute, indisputable supremacy of The Divine Cheryl?
> 
> What I "get" is that you can't tolerate the sightest disagreement about that. From anyone.
> 
> Cheryl Studer is not the ultimate Leonore, or Senta, or Eva, or Salome. The rest of the world is free to point out why they think so. If you post her performances here people are going to do just that. Get used to it and get over it.


I never said hers are the ultimate of the ultimates (although I strongly feel her Salome is and shares a special place with a couple others). But you are reverse-obsessed, hyper-sensitive and hyper-vigilant of her appearing here in this forum. As long as I am around, and I only speak for myself, I will not allow your bullying and intimidation from stopping me from bringing her up when and as I see fit and without having to walk on eggshells. Are we clear?


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Get what? The absolute, indisputable supremacy of The Divine Cheryl?
> 
> What I "get" is that you can't tolerate the sightest disagreement about that. From anyone.
> 
> Cheryl Studer is not the ultimate Leonore, or Senta, or Eva, or Salome. The rest of the world is free to point out why they think so. If you post her performances here people are going to do just that. Get used to it and get over it.


Why bother?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

ALT said:


> I never said hers are the ultimate of the ultimates (although I strongly feel her Salome is and shares a special place with a couple others). But you are reverse-obsessed, hyper-sensitive and hyper-vigilant of her appearing here in this forum. As long as I am around, and I only speak for myself, I will not allow your bullying and intimidation from stopping me from bringing her up when and as I see fit and without having to walk on eggshells. Are we clear?


I'm perfectly happy over Cheryl Studer's appearance on the forum. I welcome her work for consideration like that of any other artist. I even agree that she is often overlooked and that her performances are often well worth hearing. Unfortunately, any remark even slightly critical of her is met by defensiveness from you, often including snide remarks such as "darling Rysanek" and such. That particular one wasn't even in response to criticism, but was an entirely gratuitous gesture mocking Rysanek's fans before they could get around to commenting on Studer, assuming they wanted to. Surely it's unhelpful to start a thread about a singer by taking a dig at fans of her competition.

In this thread I attempted a simple, honest and measured response to the performance I heard. I said of Studer's singing, *"Studer too sounds small-voiced, the high notes too pushed and fluttery to justify the reviewer's comparison with Rysanek (whom I'm not a fan of, btw); I hear a valiant effort at being intense, but without the visceral impact a more dramatic-scaled voice can offer."* This is my honest reaction to her in these climactic passages of Senta's music, and to your comparison with Rysanek . Your response? Sarcasm: *"I suppose they had ample opportunity, as they do every summer, to boo the offending small-voiced-with-the-pushed-and-fluttery-high-notes off the stage." *You then capped your response with *"Touché."*

_Touché??? _

If you don't see what you're doing in such remarks, and realize that they represent your default attitude whenever your favorite doesn't get just the reaction you want, you might try taking some time out for self-examination. There is a very good reason why so many of your posts get so few responses (including, please note, from me), and it isn't because of a dislike of Cheryl Studer. I suspect most of us would appreciate her appearances here much more if they were not accompanied by an obligation to bend the knee before her and her prophet on pain of some snark or sneer.

I will continue to ignore most of your postings, as I have heretofore, because you put forward the work of one singer as if she were, like other artists here, a topic of discussion, yet clearly do not want to hear anything but fulsome praise and are likely to respond unpleasantly if you don't hear it. Meanwhile, do look in on the exchanges elicited by Seattleoperafan's (and others') sing-offs and note how rarely any unpleasantness arises. It's rare because even sharp disagreements are not merely tolerated but welcomed. Diversity of reaction and opinion is valued by most of us, I think, as a way of enlarging our perception and understanding of singing, which is often highly subjective. But maybe you think it's only the perception and understanding of others that needs enlarging.


----------



## ALT (Mar 1, 2021)

Woodduck said:


> I'm perfectly happy over Cheryl Studer's appearance on the forum. I welcome her work for consideration like that of any other artist. I even agree that she is often overlooked and that her performances are often well worth hearing. Unfortunately, any remark even slightly critical of her is met by defensiveness from you, often including snide remarks such as "darling Rysanek" and such. That particular one wasn't even in response to criticism, but was an entirely gratuitous gesture mocking Rysanek's fans before they could get around to commenting on Studer, assuming they wanted to. Surely it's unhelpful to start a thread about a singer by taking a dig at fans of her competition.
> 
> In this thread I attempted a simple, honest and measured response to the performance I heard. I said of Studer's singing, *"Studer too sounds small-voiced, the high notes too pushed and fluttery to justify the reviewer's comparison with Rysanek (whom I'm not a fan of, btw); I hear a valiant effort at being intense, but without the visceral impact a more dramatic-scaled voice can offer."* This is my honest reaction to her in these climactic passages of Senta's music, and to your comparison with Rysanek . Your response? Sarcasm: *"I suppose they had ample opportunity, as they do every summer, to boo the offending small-voiced-with-the-pushed-and-fluttery-high-notes off the stage." *You then capped your response with *"Touché."*
> 
> ...


While I am genuinely tired of arguing with you, I will leave it at this: Please spare me the sanctimony. For I recognize the tactic all too well: Establish a seemingly balanced and unbiased persona in the eyes and minds of others so that when those you disapprove of or disagree with show up you can cut them down to size as soon as possible. Worse even, mock and intimidate them into disappearing so that your exquisite sensitivities are not inconvenienced. Be off.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Studer really doesn't deserve this.

N.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

ALT said:


> Be off.


No.


----------



## Mostart (3 mo ago)

ALT said:


> While I am genuinely tired of arguing with you, I will leave it at this: Please spare me the sanctimony. For I recognize the tactic all too well: Establish a seemingly balanced and unbiased persona in the eyes and minds of others so that when those you disapprove of or disagree with show up you can cut them down to size as soon as possible. Worse even, mock and intimidate them into disappearing so that your exquisite sensitivities are not inconvenienced. Be off.


I hear you. Know that <ever- shrinking> operaworld still has a small cadre that thrives in flaunting their <self -appointed> guardianship like peacocks. I think it is fair to assume that some of them wanted to become opera singers but did or could not reach their dreams. So they exact their revenge on easy targets. And we know that the higher the accomplishment the easier the target. E.G., iconic Leontyne Price is often the bull’s eye in platforms like YouTube even in the presence of evidence to the contrary. It all boils down to this - After the proverbial curtain drops, neither Woodduck nor you nor I will be remembered. But Price and Studer will be. All the best and cheers.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mostart said:


> I hear you. Know that <ever- shrinking> operaworld still has a small cadre that thrives in flaunting their <self -appointed> guardianship like peacocks. I think it is fair to assume that some of them wanted to become opera singers but did or could not reach their dreams. So they exact their revenge on easy targets. And we know that the higher the accomplishment the easier the target. E.G., iconic Leontyne Price is often the bull’s eye in platforms like YouTube even in the presence of evidence to the contrary. It all boils down to this - After the proverbial curtain drops, neither Woodduck nor you nor I will be remembered. But Price and Studer will be. All the best and cheers.


Really, isn't it a little silly to use a brief argument between two individuals you don't know to make a point about some broad category of people - "a small cadre that thrives in flaunting their <self -appointed> guardianship like peacocks" - some imagined class who "wanted to become opera singers but did or could not reach their dreams," who "exact their revenge on easy targets"?

Who here belongs to this fantasy contingent? No one that I observe, and I've been frequenting this forum a good while longer than you have. Broad-brushed putdowns of whole groups of people tend to be inapplicable to individuals. In this case the exercise misses by a mile.

Given that this little disagreement between ALT and me ended several days ago, what's your investment in it? Do you want to revive it? No offense, but people here can take care of their own affairs, and this one has been over for some time.


----------



## ALT (Mar 1, 2021)

Mostart said:


> I hear you. Know that <ever- shrinking> operaworld still has a small cadre that thrives in flaunting their <self -appointed> guardianship like peacocks. I think it is fair to assume that some of them wanted to become opera singers but did or could not reach their dreams. So they exact their revenge on easy targets. And we know that the higher the accomplishment the easier the target. E.G., iconic Leontyne Price is often the bull’s eye in platforms like YouTube even in the presence of evidence to the contrary. It all boils down to this - After the proverbial curtain drops, neither Woodduck nor you nor I will be remembered. But Price and Studer will be. All the best and cheers.


This makes perfect sense to me as well.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

ALT said:


> This makes perfect sense to me as well.


So let's be clear... Cluttering up a music forum by butting into other people's arguments, digging up disputes several days old, and making gross and fantastic generalizations about people you don't know even slightly, makes perfect sense to you.

Marvelous what "makes sense" to us when our egos have been massaged.


----------

