# Non classical singers with better "classical technique" than modern opera singers



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

*Non classical singers with better "classical technique" than modern opera singers*

stolen from *PaulFranz*

first up: Robert Goulet


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Margery McKay (the caption is wrong. Peggy Wood performed the role, but she didn't provide the singing voice)


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Judy Garland (it's not perfect, but she's like 15 here and has a more natural sounding voice than than the majority of modern opera singers 20 years older than that)


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Gordon MacRae:


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Dimash Kudaibergen: 6 octaves and he sounds like a real soprano instead of a countertenor up high. He has degrees in classical vocal, pop vocal and a masters in music composition. Here he sings up to E6, which is largely unheard of in men post puberty.



 In this .13 second excerpt he sings coloratura better than many coloraturas. He was invited to sing opera with the Kazazk National Opera Company, but he makes much more money in pop singing like a female opera singer, as well as a baritone and a tenor. I've heard him sing without a mike and it is not a tiny voice at all. He trained as an operatic tenor but sings like a baritone and a high soprano as well. Vocal coaches say he has perfect vocal support. He has had his vocal chords studied and they are considerably longer than average.


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

It's an interesting topic because there definitely was a vocal culture that had a lot more continuity between classical singing and popular singing than we see now. Folk and pop singers often had clear, powerful voices that had the classical virtues: chiaroscuro, homogeneous sound, legato, proper vibrato and squillo or a penetrating quality being the most important, along with what is sometimes called an "aristocratic temperament" but which I prefer to call an artistic sensibility. I consider those voices "classical" even if they would have needed more or specific training to sing opera.

Two of my favorites:




Paul Robeson is sometimes called an opera singer, but according to what I've read he refused formal opera training because his wife didn't want him to lose any of the natural qualities of his instrument. If he had decided to pursue opera, and wasn't excluded from the stage, he could easily have been one of the greatest basses or bass baritones of all time. He was a genius and a successful Shakespearian actor, a trained orator, and obviously a great musician, so I can imagine that his performances in opera would have been extraordinary. He probably would have been a great Wotan. Even so, he had an incredible instrument that was very "classical" and is probably the greatest interpreter of spirituals ever. I would rather listen to him than any modern operatic bass or baritone.

Vera Lynn is my all time favorite pop singer. Her voice is perfectly coordinated and one of the most beautiful I know of. Even more, she was a phenomenal musician: when she sings sappy tunes, I can't tell it isn't Mozart. She really exploits the classical vocal virtues to transcend the sentimentality of the music she sings and touch real feeling. She would have needed to enlarge her voice to sing opera, but she had all the classical vocal virtues in abundance.





Of course, there are dozens of Jewish cantors from the early 20t century that leave every singer since before WWII in the dust, but they usually had classical training, so I'm not sure they really count for the purposes of this thread.

The flip side is opera singers who successfully sang pop with with a "smaller" voice but still great classical technique. Many opera singers cannot do this without sounding really unnatural, but Dorothy Kirsten and Eileen Farrell are the best I've heard.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Jane Powell


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> stolen from *PaulFranz*
> 
> first up: Robert Goulet


What makes his technique "better?" And who have you compared him with? To me, he's like Ethel Mermam, just LOUD.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> Judy Garland (it's not perfect, but she's like 15 here and has a more natural sounding voice than than the majority of modern opera singers 20 years older than that)


I love her voice here, she sings so naturally.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

MAS said:


> What makes his technique "better?" And who have you compared him with? To me, he's like Ethel Mermam, just LOUD.


it's clear and full. that alone is enough to make it better than most modern singers, who tend toward singing either nasal/crying, woofy or thin and unsupported.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

*JANE FROMAN*


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

MARIO LANZA!!! By a country mile! He could have been the greatest voice of the 20th Century but he got in his own way. Too too bad.


----------



## Operasinger (May 28, 2021)

nina foresti said:


> MARIO LANZA!!! By a country mile! He could have been the greatest voice of the 20th Century but he got in his own way. Too too bad.


Mario Lanza! Totally!
Also obviously… Julie Andrews….!!!!!!


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> Jane Powell


You've got to be kidding! She makes Kathryn Grayson look like Tebaldi.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> Jane Powell


You've got to be kidding!! She makes Kathryn Grayson seem like Tebaldi.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

nina foresti said:


> MARIO LANZA!!! By a country mile! He could have been the greatest voice of the 20th Century but he got in his own way. Too too bad.


Mario Lanza was superb in South Pacific. Another favorite singing actress of mine is Julie Andrews. When they decided to cast Audrey Hepburn as Eliza in the movie version instead because she was an established major star, they knew they couldn't use her singing voice. Without telling her, they dubbed in the singing of Marni Nixon, another fine singer, but no Julie Andrews.

In the jazz world, Ella Fitzgerald, especially in her youthful prime, was a great vocalist. The youthful Tony Bennett sounded very good. As for pop singers, I like the Everly brothers, and I admired the countertenor range and control of Paul Anka. Yes, the songs may be silly, but try singing them yourself. He made them sound very easy and natural. Edith Piaf had a unique voice and style that was very effective. Same with Tony Willliams, lead singer of the Platters.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Gordon MacRae


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> Gordon MacRae


Wonderful. But check out Alfred Drake, who created the role of Curly on Broadway:


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

fluteman said:


> Wonderful. But check out Alfred Drake, who created the role of Curly on Broadway:


much better than I expected. I would still go to live operas to hear singing like this


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

One of the great things about Streisand is that unlike almost all pop singers except for Ella and Sarah Vaughan she has a good chest register. I think this adds an emotional depth to her singing because of it.She also has breath control to rival just about any opera singer. The other great thing about her is perfect legato yet maintaining about the best diction of any singer of any time. My Youtube video on why I think early Barbra was the best is my third most popular video with over 7000 views and over a hundred very positive comments. I'd be surprised if anyone here likes Barbra . The other thing is that at 80 she sounds like she is middle aged with just a touch more huskiness, which works great for pop music. Just think what she could have done if she ever warmed up. She said she is lazy and never ever warms up. When she was young she sang a Schubert lied up to A5 with an operatic sounding voice, but I think she was wise to stick with her regular sound as she has more gold records than any woman in history.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

No one here has mentioned Yma Sumac who's range was almost as great as Dimash today, better than probably any opera singer and who even sang The Queen of the Night:



 in her unique style. Here she is singing Claire de Lune better than most opera singers could:



.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

Seattleoperafan said:


> One of the great things about Streisand is that unlike almost all pop singers except for Ella and Sarah Vaughan she has a good chest register. I think this adds an emotional depth to her singing because of it.She also has breath control to rival just about any opera singer. The other great thing about her is perfect legato yet maintaining about the best diction of any singer of any time. My Youtube video on why I think https://www.talkclassical.com/members/mas.html?tab=thanksearly Barbra was the best is my third most popular video with over 7000 views and over a hundred very positive comments. I'd be surprised if anyone here likes Barbra . The other thing is that at 80 she sounds like she is middle aged with just a touch more huskiness, which works great for pop music. Just think what she could have done if she ever warmed up. She said she is lazy and never ever warms up. When she was young she sang a Schubert lied up to A5 with an operatic sounding voice, but I think she was wise to stick with her regular sound as she has more gold records than any woman in history.


Barbra has one of the most beautiful head voices I'd ever heard, but she "spoils" it with that belting nasal wail she loves to use.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

Seattleoperafan said:


> No one here has mentioned Yma Sumac who's range was almost as great as Dimash today, better than probably any opera singer and who even sang The Queen of the Night:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


She, like Dimash, is a stunt singer - though there's nothing wrong with that, that's how they make their name. Mado Robin, the French opera singer was also know for the stunt high notes - A above high C, I think.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

MAS said:


> Barbra has one of the most beautiful head voices I'd ever heard, but she "spoils" it with that belting nasal wail she loves to use, in my opinion.





MAS said:


> She, like Dimash, is a stunt singer - though there's nothing wrong with that, that's how they make their name. Mado Robin, the French opera singer was also know for the stunt high notes - A above high C, I think.


you beat me to it on both accounts.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Seattleoperafan said:


> One of the great things about Streisand is that unlike almost all pop singers except for Ella and Sarah Vaughan she has a good chest register. I think this adds an emotional depth to her singing because of it.She also has breath control to rival just about any opera singer. The other great thing about her is perfect legato yet maintaining about the best diction of any singer of any time. My Youtube video on why I think early Barbra was the best is my third most popular video with over 7000 views and over a hundred very positive comments. I'd be surprised if anyone here likes Barbra . The other thing is that at 80 she sounds like she is middle aged with just a touch more huskiness, which works great for pop music. Just think what she could have done if she ever warmed up. She said she is lazy and never ever warms up. When she was young she sang a Schubert lied up to A5 with an operatic sounding voice, but I think she was wise to stick with her regular sound as she has more gold records than any woman in history.


anything that sounds "pop-y" in the post-1960s sense isn't really what I was going for here.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

fluteman said:


> Mario Lanza was superb in South Pacific.


Don't you mean Ezio Pinza, who played the role of Emil de Becq on Broadway opposite Mary Martin?


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Seattleoperafan said:


> One of the great things about Streisand is that unlike almost all pop singers except for Ella and Sarah Vaughan she has a good chest register. I think this adds an emotional depth to her singing because of it.She also has breath control to rival just about any opera singer. The other great thing about her is perfect legato yet maintaining about the best diction of any singer of any time. My Youtube video on why I think early Barbra was the best is my third most popular video with over 7000 views and over a hundred very positive comments. I'd be surprised if anyone here likes Barbra . The other thing is that at 80 she sounds like she is middle aged with just a touch more huskiness, which works great for pop music. Just think what she could have done if she ever warmed up. She said she is lazy and never ever warms up. When she was young she sang a Schubert lied up to A5 with an operatic sounding voice, but I think she was wise to stick with her regular sound as she has more gold records than any woman in history.


Another of Streisand's attributes is her well nigh perfect intonation and I've heard many a classical singer praise her for it. She is always bang in the centre of the note. If she strays off pitch, as she does at one point in _C'est si bon_, you can be damn sure she's doing it for a reason and as a means of expression. Her breath control is phenomenal, as is her legato.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

So far most of the popular singers we have been talking about are singers who sing in a recognisably operatic or conventionally classical style, but what of singers who are unequivocally pop singers?

Caballé apparently told Freddie Mercury that he could easily have been an opera singer if he had trained to be one. His range was phenomenal. Karen Carpenter had a rich, velvety contralto voice and she too had perfect legato and stunning breath control.

However the pop singer who impresses me most at the moment is Adam Lambert, who is one of the few singers who has been able to take on the mantle of Freddie Mercury and now sings with the surviving members of Queen. Here he is singing Cher's _Believe_ and giving the song a whole new meaning. This is so good that there are countless videos on Youtube of singing teachers and coaches analysing his performance with awe.


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

I thought of Jo Stafford when I read the title for this thread, I've read that she was classically-trained:


----------



## brunumb (Dec 8, 2017)

Wow. That Adam Lambert clip gave me goosebumps. Thank you Tsaraslondon,


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

brunumb said:


> Wow. That Adam Lambert clip gave me goosebumps. Thank you Tsaraslondon,


I've watched it a dozen times at least and it always does that to me too. He has such musicality and has total command of his instrument. No wonder Cher was in tears.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Barbara Cook singing the most difficult song ever written for a Broadway show. She was also the original Marion the librarian and the female lead in _She Loves Me_. (Check out _Vanilla Ice Cream_.)

Kristen Chenoweth also does _Glitter and Be Gay_ quite nicely.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Billy Eckstine!!


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

nina foresti said:


> Billy Eckstine!!


Hmmm. I only have a few songs by him, but they include a duet with Sarah Vaughan on _You're Just in Love_, where he hits one of the most sour notes in my record collection.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

jegreenwood said:


> Barbara Cook singing the most difficult song ever written for a Broadway show. She was also the original Marion the librarian and the female lead in _She Loves Me_. (Check out _Vanilla Ice Cream_.)
> 
> Kristen Chenoweth also does _Glitter and Be Gay_ quite nicely.


I remember seeing a TV programme in which Barbara Cook talked about playing Cunégonde in the first production of *Candide*. She said she was so young and so green that she just did as she was told. If she'd known how difficult the song was, she would have been terrified. I saw her quite a few times in concert and the voice never seemed to age. The last time I saw her she must have been in her 80s. She had to be helped onto the stage, but age had hardly touched her voice. It's centre had no doubt dropped a bit, but it was as pure and clean a sound as it had been when she was young, with no widening vibrato or wobble.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

OK - I just watched Chenoweth in a stage concert performance of _Candide_, and I have to post it. Because, it's a concert performance, she gets to ham it up considerably, but she still handles the music. There's a bit with Patti LuPone before the song begins.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

jegreenwood said:


> Hmmm. I only have a few songs by him, but they include a duet with Sarah Vaughan on _You're Just in Love_, where he hits one of the most sour notes in my record collection.


Oh right!! I forgot. Callas never ever hit a sour note. (My bad!)


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> much better than I expected. I would still go to live operas to hear singing like this


You still can, and should.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Seattleoperafan said:


> One of the great things about Streisand is that unlike almost all pop singers except for Ella and Sarah Vaughan she has a good chest register. I think this adds an emotional depth to her singing because of it.She also has breath control to rival just about any opera singer. The other great thing about her is perfect legato yet maintaining about the best diction of any singer of any time. My Youtube video on why I think early Barbra was the best is my third most popular video with over 7000 views and over a hundred very positive comments. I'd be surprised if anyone here likes Barbra . The other thing is that at 80 she sounds like she is middle aged with just a touch more huskiness, which works great for pop music. Just think what she could have done if she ever warmed up. She said she is lazy and never ever warms up. When she was young she sang a Schubert lied up to A5 with an operatic sounding voice, but I think she was wise to stick with her regular sound as she has more gold records than any woman in history.


She made a famous album called Classical Barbra that I'm sure you've long owned. But despite her great vocal abilities, she was very much a theatrical singer in the tin pan alley Broadway musical tradition. Part of the grand opera tradition (before late Wagner, anyway), was that each aria was a small musical performance in its own right, deserving of its own applause, and in extreme examples, its own encore.

IMO, in the Broadway musical tradition, singing is more integrated into the dramatic program, often by adopting more of the features and tone of speaking than would be acceptable in classical opera. A very few Broadway and movie stars, among them Julie Andrews and Barbra Streisand, manage to sing theatrically without departing too far from the classical vocal standard. Seattleoperafan mentioned Streisand's excellent diction, and could have said the same for Andrews. That is a big part of their ability to accomplish this. There are male singers who were able to do this as well. For example, Alfred Drake, who I mentioned above, and Larry Kert, who created the role of Tony in the Broadway show version of West Side Story.

But Broadway show and movie singing evolved ever further from classical singing as the 20th century progressed. As I said above, Broadway and Hollywood show singing often has more of the characteristics of speaking, with flatter, less homogenous, more inflected and more nasal vowel sounds than would be acceptable in classical singing. This doesn't mean today's singers and their teachers are incompetent, merely that a different style with different goals now prevails.

And of course, away from Broadway and Hollywood, all sorts of styles flourish, some of which are much more evocative of the classical style than others.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

MAS said:


> Barbra has one of the most beautiful head voices I'd ever heard, but she "spoils" it with that belting nasal wail she loves to use, in my opinion.


I heard a voice teacher say it was her way of working around a difficult passagio. With the nasal placement, which went away to some extent over time, especially by later in the 70's, she achieved drama without over extending herself I think. You are not alone in not liking it. I think it makes her so recognizable, which is so lacking in pop music, I think. Also too little real drama in most pop music and she gave it. I like a f****** climax.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

fluteman said:


> She made a famous album called Classical Barbra that I'm sure you've long owned. But despite her great vocal abilities, she was very much a theatrical singer in the tin pan alley Broadway musical tradition. Part of the grand opera tradition (before late Wagner, anyway), was that each aria was a small musical performance in its own right, deserving of its own applause, and in extreme examples, its own encore.
> 
> IMO, in the Broadway musical tradition, singing is more integrated into the dramatic program, often by adopting more of the features and tone of speaking than would be acceptable in classical opera. A very few Broadway and movie stars, among them Julie Andrews and Barbra Streisand, manage to sing theatrically without departing too far from the classical vocal standard. Seattleoperafan mentioned Streisand's excellent diction, and could have said the same for Andrews. That is a big part of their ability to accomplish this. There are male singers who were able to do this as well. For example, Alfred Drake, who I mentioned above, and Larry Kert, who created the role of Tony in the Broadway show version of West Side Story.
> 
> ...


I totally agree about Julie and her perfect diction. Also totally original sound!!! Love her Xmas album.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Tsaraslondon said:


> I remember seeing a TV programme in which Barbara Cook talked about playing Cunégonde in the first production of *Candide*. She said she was so young and so green that she just did as she was told. If she'd known how difficult the song was, she would have been terrified. I saw her quite a few times in concert and the voice never seemed to age. The last time I saw her she must have been in her 80s. She had to be helped onto the stage, but age had hardly touched her voice. It's centre had no doubt dropped a bit, but it was as pure and clean a sound as it had been when she was young, with no widening vibrato or wobble.


I'm crazy about Barbara Cook.



 The way she shifts into a fully resonant head voice at F5 here is gooseflesh inducing. She sang all the high notes in Glitter and Be Gay in her unique voice and style. Maybe the best version.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> anything that sounds "pop-y" in the post-1960s sense isn't really what I was going for here.


Sorry, I didn't see that spelled out in the original post and am sorry I hijacked your thread. I am way more into pop music than most people on this forum so I got overly excited. I love so many styles of music and judge them all on their own merits, not holding everything up to the great standards of 78 era opera stars. I only judge opera singers to that level;-) Be well in the UK!


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

My vote for a most impressive pop singer is for Roberta Flack in The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face - I thought that she must've had "classical training." A great song, too!


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> it's clear and full. that alone is enough to make it better than most modern singers, who tend toward singing either nasal/crying, woofy or thin and unsupported.


BB: Could you please name a few tenors who fit your above description of nasal, crying, woofy, or thin where Goulet is superior to them?


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Seattleoperafan said:


> I'm crazy about Barbara Cook.
> 
> 
> 
> The way she shifts into a fully resonant head voice at F5 here is gooseflesh inducing. She sang all the high notes in Glitter and Be Gay in her unique voice and style. Maybe the best version.


And she it 8 times a week along with the rest of the score. As I recall, she had no special vocal training.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

nina foresti said:


> Oh right!! I forgot. Callas never ever hit a sour note. (My bad!)


Didn't mean to offend. It's just that my collection has exactly two vocals by him (both duets with Sarah), and one of them makes me cringe each time I listen.

I certainly can't judge his voice overall, based on such a small sample.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

jegreenwood said:


> Didn't mean to offend. It's just that my collection has exactly two vocals by him (both duets with Sarah), and one of them makes me cringe each time I listen.
> 
> I certainly can't judge his voice overall, based on such a small sample.


I hear ya. I also have a Traviata with di Stefano where he completely screws up the timing while singing a duet with Steber. It happens.


----------



## Azol (Jan 25, 2015)

Muslim Magomayev singing Largo al factotum


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

Seattleoperafan said:


> I totally agree about Julie and her perfect diction. Also totally original sound!!! Love her Xmas album.


Julie Andrew has the most perfect diction of anyone I know - crisp and pointed and very English! Love her.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

Tsaraslondon said:


> I remember seeing a TV programme in which Barbara Cook talked about playing Cunégonde in the first production of *Candide*. She said she was so young and so green that she just did as she was told. If she'd known how difficult the song was, she would have been terrified. I saw her quite a few times in concert and the voice never seemed to age. The last time I saw her she must have been in her 80s. She had to be helped onto the stage, but age had hardly touched her voice. It's centre had no doubt dropped a bit, but it was as pure and clean a sound as it had been when she was young, with no widening vibrato or wobble.


I'm always amazed that the Broadway singers sing 7 or 8 times a week! How they don't lose their voices is astonishing. Cook is a phenomenon.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

MAS said:


> I'm always amazed that the Broadway singers sing 7 or 8 times a week! How they don't lose their voices is astonishing. Cook is a phenomenon.


And back in the day they would have had to do it without bodymikes. However I know that for really big roles now, like Evita or both Jesus and Judas in *Jesus Christ Superstar* they have alternates, who do two performances a week, so that the leads only have to sing six shows. I think it's the same for the Phantom and Jean Valjean in *Les Miserables*.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

MAS said:


> I'm always amazed that the Broadway singers sing 7 or 8 times a week! How they don't lose their voices is astonishing. Cook is a phenomenon.


Fortunately, she only had to do it for two months. The original _Candide_ was a flop, closing after 56 performances. Thank god, Goddard Lieberson still recorded a cast album.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

MAS said:


> I'm always amazed that the Broadway singers sing 7 or 8 times a week! How they don't lose their voices is astonishing. Cook is a phenomenon.


I think the style of singing and vocal production that prevails on Broadway has something to do with that. You wouldn't find them singing Tristan and Isolde 8 times a week.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

fluteman said:


> I think the style of singing and vocal production that prevails on Broadway has something to do with that. You wouldn't find them singing Tristan and Isolde 8 times a week.


You wouldn't find anyone singing _Tristan_ eight times a week, regardless of singing style. If any Broadway show required singers to sing as powerfully, over as wide a range of pitch, with as much dramatic intensity, and as constantly for as many hours as _Tristan_ does, I doubt whether the Broadway style of vocal production would get them through one performance, much less eight.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Are you guys aware of rock and pop singers today learning Bel Canto technique for vocal preservation. They will look like they are straining for a note but it is all show as the tone is totally supported. I could say more. Many have gone down this road.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

Seattleoperafan said:


> Are you guys aware of rock and pop singers today learning Bel Canto technique for vocal preservation. They will look like they are straining for a note but it is all show as the tone is totally supported. I could say more. Many have gone down this road.


I just wish that Bel Canto opera singers today learned Bel Canto opera technique.

Jokes aside, many radio people and broadcasters, especially in previous eras, learned elements of operatic technique to preserve their voices; think of the stereotypical "smooth" radio voice from the 50's. It therefore wouldn't surprise me if people in other disciplines who use their voice a lot also learnt some elements of operatic technique.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

Seattleoperafan said:


> Are you guys aware of rock and pop singers today learning Bel Canto technique for vocal preservation. They will look like they are straining for a note but it is all show as the tone is totally supported. I could say more. Many have gone down this road.


I am not aware of this at all. Which teachers are they going to, and why are opera singers today not going to them?


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Seattleoperafan said:


> Sorry, I didn't see that spelled out in the original post and am sorry I hijacked your thread. I am way more into pop music than most people on this forum so I got overly excited. I love so many styles of music and judge them all on their own merits, not holding everything up to the great standards of 78 era opera stars. I only judge opera singers to that level;-) Be well in the UK!


I'm from the states, not the UK (currently live in South Carolina)


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

Two of the most beautiful tenor voices in pop music are Art Garfunkel (example, Bridge Over Troubled Water) and John Denver (example, Sunshine On My Shoulders).


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

MAS said:


> I am not aware of this at all. Which teachers are they going to, and why are opera singers today not going to them?


It actually has become a big deal. I can't find the guy who started it out but this video I think explains how the old Italian techniques can be adapted to make rock and pop stars sing effortlessly without vocal strain. It started because so many were loosing their voices.



 This is a good introduction to what they are doing. Uber rock star Steven Tyler credits his long career to Bel Canto singing techniques and he uses it over his very wide range. My favorite rock singer, Jeff Buckley, somehow was doing all this back in the 90's before he died and before this was in vogue. Many said he had the best rock voice with a huge range, created great drama with his high notes but vocal coaches who review him all agree his throat and jaw and mouth are always very relaxed and the voice supported at all times.



. He even did a lovely version of Dido's Lament:



. Elton John said if he could have one album on a desert island it would be Jeff's only album. Pretty high praise. Did you know Elton was the savant of the Royal Academy of Music and sort of ran rings around his classmates. I found that interesting.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

Seattleoperafan said:


> It actually has become a big deal. I can't find the guy who started it out but this video I think explains how the old Italian techniques can be adapted to make rock and pop stars sing effortlessly without vocal strain. It started because so many were loosing their voices.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The Singing Dojo was interesting, but Jeff Buckley will take some getting used to. Dido's Lament made my throat hurt, though, and it sounded very strained to me. I don't listen to much pop these days, not did I do much in the last few decades, so this is a learning experience.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Seattleoperafan said:


> Are you guys aware of rock and pop singers today learning Bel Canto technique for vocal preservation. They will look like they are straining for a note but it is all show as the tone is totally supported. I could say more. Many have gone down this road.


Just like with work, I'm usually a fan of singing smarter rather than harder. with that said, I feel like a lot of singers/teachers get a bit too zealous about "preserving" the voice, shying away from the natural, raw power of a well developed voice (operatic or otherwise) and unintentionally causing neck and tongue tension because of trying to hold back too much. The resulting sound is weaker, more effortful, more constricted and has an affect to it that makes modern people who listen to other styles think opera is some dorky eccentricity of the upper classes (lieder and baroque singers are probably the biggest offenders, usually lacking even a weak attempt at chest voice and sounding like some unholy fusion of a sick grandma, an Ottoman eunuch and The Bee Gees).

I know I have a reputation for being a bit of a chest voice Nazi (a somewhat bizarre development from a Sutherland fanboy), but it's more than just that. The entire voice gets misaligned and sounds artificial and sterilized. Not like a natural human.

edit: really? _that_ word is censored? it's not even profanity. whatever, I'll just edit it and use another one so it doesn't look like I was cussing someone out lmao


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

MAS said:


> The Singing Dojo was interesting, but Jeff Buckley will take some getting used to. Dido's Lament made my throat hurt, though, and it sounded very strained to me. I don't listen to much pop these days, not did I do much in the last few decades, so this is a learning experience.


People either LOVE Jeff Buckley or have your reaction. You are not alone. Try this: 



 Perhaps you might like the meditative, largely counter tenor Britten's Corpus Christi Carol by him. He sang in all musical styles including arias and art songs. My friends are either all fanboy on him or he leaves them cold. I grew up listening to pop and I find it nostalgic and often exciting and fun for driving. My 73 year old lady friend who rides with me every Monday afternoon at work loves opera as much as pop, rock, r&bm, bluegrass so we are a musical marriage made in heaven. Most people like music as background music, but I like to pay attention to and savor whatever I am listening to. I've finally met someone who is as passionate about music as me.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> You wouldn't find anyone singing _Tristan_ eight times a week, regardless of singing style. If any Broadway show required singers to sing as powerfully, over as wide a range of pitch, with as much dramatic intensity, and as constantly for as many hours as _Tristan_ does, I doubt whether the Broadway style of vocal production would get them through one performance, much less eight.


Yes. That's what I'm saying. As I said above, the modern Broadway musical style of singing, not exactly the same in every show but there is a generally prevailing style, is somewhere between classical singing and speaking. It lacks the sonorous rounded matching vowel sounds and powerful 'chest tones' of a lot of traditional classical singing, instead, there are flatter, less homogenous, more nasal, and more inflected vowel sounds, and more conversational rhythms and accents. This makes is easier to hear lyrics clearly and for there to be dramatic continuity between spoken dialogue (which is entirely absent from most classical opera) and song.

This reflects a fundamentally different theatrical approach between the traditional classical operas (at least those before late Wagner) and the modern Broadway shows. In many of the traditional operas, each solo aria is a miniature self-contained concert, drawing its own applause and sometimes even an encore on the spot. The modern approach I am referring to is a profound departure from that, integrating music with spoken dialogue.

Many other genres of modern singing involve something similar. Other genres are closer to classical singing, but almost none are truly equivalent, since in the non-classical world, singers don't stand on a large stage in a large concert hall and need to be heard over a full orchestra and sometimes other singers with absolutely no amplification.

You need not respect or have an interest in these modern traditions, but if you are unwilling to consider the differences between them and classical opera, well, maybe I'm not the one who should be wearing the pointy hat.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

Seattleoperafan said:


> People either LOVE Jeff Buckley or have your reaction. You are not alone. Try this:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you might like the meditative, largely counter tenor Britten's Corpus Christi Carol by him. He sang in all musical styles including arias and art songs. My friends are either all fanboy on him or he leaves them cold. I grew up listening to pop and I find it nostalgic and often exciting and fun for driving. My 73 year old lady friend who rides with me every Monday afternoon at work loves opera as much as pop, rock, r&bm, bluegrass so we are a musical marriage made in heaven. Most people like music as background music, but I like to pay attention to and savor whatever I am listening to. *I've finally met someone who is as passionate about music as me.*


This isn't possible; I simply do not believe it.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

fluteman said:


> Yes. That's what I'm saying.


MAS said: _"I'm always amazed that the Broadway singers sing 7 or 8 times a week! *How they don't lose their voices is astonishing.*_"

You replied: "*I think the style of singing and vocal production that prevails on Broadway has something to do with that.*_ You wouldn't find them singing Tristan and Isolde 8 times a week._"

Your reply appears to say that the style of singing that prevails on Broadway - as opposed to the style that prevails in an opera such as _Tristan und Isolde_ - enables singers to perform 7 or 8 times a week without losing their voices. The implication is that Broadway singing gives singers more endurance than operatic singing. Maybe this isn't what you actually meant to say.



> As I said above, the modern Broadway musical style of singing, not exactly the same in every show but there is a generally prevailing style, is somewhere between classical singing and speaking. It lacks the sonorous rounded matching vowel sounds and powerful 'chest tones' of a lot of traditional classical singing, instead, there are flatter, less homogenous, more nasal, and more inflected vowel sounds, and more conversational rhythms and accents. This makes is easier to hear lyrics clearly and for there to be dramatic continuity between spoken dialogue (which is entirely absent from most classical opera) and song.
> 
> This reflects a fundamentally different theatrical approach between the traditional classical operas (at least those before late Wagner) and the modern Broadway shows. In many of the traditional operas, each solo aria is a miniature self-contained concert, drawing its own applause and sometimes even an encore on the spot. The modern approach I am referring to is a profound departure from that, integrating music with spoken dialogue.


These distinctions exist, but I know you realize how variable both opera and the musical are and have been over the course of their evolution. Most elements in your descriptions of each genre could be applied to certain works in the other genre, and there's a continuum of singing styles between traditional opera and contemporary Broadway. I think that positing a "fundamentally different theatrical approach" between opera and the musical overstates the case, except in the more extreme and obvious cases. We'd certainly agree that _Pelleas et Melisande_ and _Guys and Dolls_ have little in common musically or theatrically, but an opera such as _Der Freischutz_ rather bridges the gap. The best example of an intermediate genre is probably operetta, which is in most respects a precursor to the musical, coexisted with it in America, and merges with it in the works of composers from Romberg, Kern and Rodgers right up to Sondheim, such that quite a few works of musical theater are hard to categorize.



> Many other genres of modern singing involve something similar. Other genres are closer to classical singing, but almost none are truly equivalent, since in the non-classical world, singers don't stand on a large stage in a large concert hall and need to be heard over a full orchestra and sometimes other singers with absolutely no amplification.
> 
> You need not respect or have an interest in these modern traditions, but if you are unwilling to consider the differences between them and classical opera, well, maybe I'm not the one who should be wearing the pointy hat.


Meow!


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> MAS said: _"I'm always amazed that the Broadway singers sing 7 or 8 times a week! *How they don't lose their voices is astonishing.*_"
> 
> You replied: "*I think the style of singing and vocal production that prevails on Broadway has something to do with that.*_ You wouldn't find them singing Tristan and Isolde 8 times a week._"
> 
> ...


Woodduck, just guessing but with amplification perhaps they don't need to expend as much vocal energy as you think. I could be wrong.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

Seattleoperafan said:


> Woodduck, just guessing but with amplification perhaps they don't need to expend as much vocal energy as you think. I could be wrong.


Isn't amplification a relatively recent development? Surely the early "Broadway" singers didn't need amplification? Also the theaters there are relatively small compared to most American opera houses. One must also remember, singers in most musicals also need to dance, so energy is spent doing that as well.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Seattleoperafan said:


> Woodduck, just guessing but with amplification perhaps they don't need to expend as much vocal energy as you think. I could be wrong.


What MAS said. 11111111111111111


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

MAS said:


> Isn't amplification a relatively recent development? Surely the early "Broadway" singers didn't need amplification? Also the theaters there are relatively small compared to most American opera houses. One must also remember, singers in most musicals also need to dance, so energy is spent doing that as well.


I'm smart but I have always had friends who are smarter. I have a friend who loves opera but LOVES Broadway and I asked him about this. He said well of course the theaters are like European opera houses and tiny. The first floor micing was in South Pacific in the late 40's. Anna Maria Albergheti was the first star to use a body mic in 1961. Phyllis Diller took over for Merman in Dolly and asked her if she used a mic. She said only the people in the theater needed to hear her, not the throngs on the street. The only un miced pop singer I have heard of was Patti Labelle who was at a large outdoor concert and the speakers went out and Patti kept on singing and they heard her at the back with no problem. She always had great vocal placement and a secure C5 I do go on. By the way pop singers are often not talking about C 4 or C5 but use something like the letter M to talk about octaves.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> *Judy Garland* (it's not perfect, but she's like 15 here and has a more natural sounding voice than than the majority of modern opera singers 20 years older than that)





MAS said:


> I love her voice here, she sings so naturally.


Truly a remarkable vocal performance in the 1939 film.

By 1951 her voice had matured, but she still sounded nice.






By 1960 the diet drugs the studios gave her had taken their toll






Compare to this from 1969, just a few months before her untimely death.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

Seattleoperafan said:


> I'm smart but I have always had friends who are smarter. I have a friend who loves opera but LOVES Broadway and I asked him about this. He said well of course the theaters are like European opera houses and tiny. The first floor micing was in South Pacific in the late 40's. Anna Maria Albergheti was the first star to use a body mik in 1961. Phyllis Diller took over for Merman in Dolly and asked her if she used a mic. She said only the people in the theater needed to hear her, not the throngs on the street. The only un miced pop singer I have heard of was Patti Labelle who was at a large outdoor concert and the speakers went out and Patti kept on singing and they heard her at the back with no problem. She always had great vocal placement and a secure C5 I do go on. By the way pop singers are often not talking about C 4 or C5 but use something like the letter M to talk about octaves.


I'm no expert in musicals on Broadway, but the people you mention above are not "real" singers who could project their voices well to the back row (though I don't know if Albergheti was one such, I remember her as a Disney kid). So are people like Elaine Stritch and Betty Buckley (any relation?) and Streisand in her day, also mic'd?


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

MAS said:


> Isn't amplification a relatively recent development? Surely the early "Broadway" singers didn't need amplification? Also the theaters there are relatively small compared to most American opera houses. One must also remember, singers in most musicals also need to dance, so energy is spent doing that as well.


This is exactly what went through my mind as I scrolled through the videos at the beginning of this thread: All these "Ethel Mermanesque" singers had to do so live on stage without the benefit of body mics. The singers that "made it" were those that could project to the back of the house, whether it was Gordon MacRae or Barbara Cook or Robert Goulet.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> MAS said: _"I'm always amazed that the Broadway singers sing 7 or 8 times a week! *How they don't lose their voices is astonishing.*_"
> 
> You replied: "*I think the style of singing and vocal production that prevails on Broadway has something to do with that.*_ You wouldn't find them singing Tristan and Isolde 8 times a week._"
> 
> Your reply appears to say that the style of singing that prevails on Broadway - as opposed to the style that prevails in an opera such as _Tristan und Isolde_ - enables singers to perform 7 or 8 times a week without losing their voices. The implication is that Broadway singing gives singers more endurance than operatic singing. Maybe this isn't what you actually meant to say.


There is no question that most modern musicals aren't nearly the athletic challenge for singers that a Wagner or Verdi opera are. And yes, operetta is the precursor to the modern musical, with a lot of spoken dialogue rather than more taxing singing. But no, Der Freischutz does not bridge the gap to Guys and Dolls, despite its buoyant, catchy tunes, and despite the classical training of Frank Loesser. Did you know that Robert Alda, who created the role of Sky Masterson on Broadway (father of actor Alan Alda, another non-singer in Broadway musicals in his early years), by his own admission almost could not sing at all? Non-singer Rex Harrison was a Lauritz Melchior in comparison. Yes, that bad. But his songs were written so he could cope with them. For heaven's sake, the ultimate non-singer, Marlon Brando, played the role in the movie, and unhappy as he was with the idea of singing on film, he did it.

One of the biggest stars who helped establish this kind of sprechstimme was the middle-aged Frank Sinatra. As a young singer in the big band era, he had quite a nice voice, and some good classical vocal training early on as well. But his greatest stardom came after, beginning in the 1950s and continuing into the 1990s (!), by which time he had no singing voice to speak of. I think he was influenced in this regard by jazz pianist turned (almost accidentally) singer Nat Cole, whom Sinatra greatly admired. This speaking style of singing extended Sinatra's career for decades. Can you imagine the 50-year old Sinatra singing an opera aria, from der Freischutz or otherwise?

Of course there are many other styles of singing current today, but can you imagine Robert Alda, Marlon Brando, the over-50 Frank Sinatra, or even Nat Cole, singing anything in the grand opera tradition? They represented a significant development in the western singing tradition. And all of that is just one example of how singing has changed since the salad days of grand opera.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

> can you imagine Robert Alda, Marlon Brando, the over-50 Frank Sinatra, or even Nat Cole, singing anything in the grand opera tradition?


About as horrifying as Pavarotti singing a Muddy Waters song.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

fluteman said:


> There is no question that most modern musicals aren't nearly the athletic challenge for singers that a Wagner or Verdi opera are. And yes, operetta is the precursor to the modern musical, with a lot of spoken dialogue rather than more taxing singing. But no, Der Freischutz does not bridge the gap to Guys and Dolls, despite its buoyant, catchy tunes, and despite the classical training of Frank Loesser. Did you know that Robert Alda, who created the role of Sky Masterson on Broadway (father of actor Alan Alda, another non-singer in Broadway musicals in his early years), by his own admission almost could not sing at all? Non-singer Rex Harrison was a Lauritz Melchior in comparison. Yes, that bad. But his songs were written so he could cope with them. For heaven's sake, the ultimate non-singer, Marlon Brando, played the role in the movie, and unhappy as he was with the idea of singing on film, he did it.
> 
> One of the biggest stars who helped establish this kind of sprechstimme was the middle-aged Frank Sinatra. As a young singer in the big band era, he had quite a nice voice, and some good classical vocal training early on as well. But his greatest stardom came after, beginning in the 1950s and continuing into the 1990s (!), by which time he had no singing voice to speak of. I think he was influenced in this regard by jazz pianist turned (almost accidentally) singer Nat Cole, whom Sinatra greatly admired. This speaking style of singing extended Sinatra's career for decades. Can you imagine the 50-year old Sinatra singing an opera aria, from der Freischutz or otherwise?
> 
> Of course there are many other styles of singing current today, but can you imagine Robert Alda, Marlon Brando, the over-50 Frank Sinatra, or even Nat Cole, singing anything in the grand opera tradition? They represented a significant development in the western singing tradition. And all of that is just one example of how singing has changed since the salad days of grand opera.


I don't dispute the changes in popular singing styles. Who does? It's been a gradual development, and we can hear examples of "popular" singing representing every phase of that development, starting in the early 20th century when opera singers routinely programmed then-popular tunes to please audiences, and sounded completely idiomatic singing them. The occasional or partial employment of a nearly operatic technique persisted in popular singing all the way into the 1950s - see the glorious Jane Froman, whose rendering of popular ballads was second to none, IMO - alongside the "talkier" styles of people like Sinatra, with a Met baritone like Robert Merrill still a popular guest on TV variety shows. I remember seeing Merrill and Sinatra appearing on one such program, and Sinatra joking that the difference between them was that Merrill could hold notes longer (of course that isn't the only difference).

As for the differences between opera and musical as theatrical forms, I'm suggesting only that there is such variety in styles of musical theater over the last several centuries that the boundaries between genres are blurry. It really doesn't matter whether we think that _Freischutz_ and _Zauberflote_ - representative of the German _Singspiel_ - are closer in form or spirit to the modern musical or to _Pelleas et Melisande_ and _Boris Godunov._ That depends partly on what we're calling a "modern" musical. Are _South Pacific_ and _Carousel_ modern? Our definitions are meant only to orient us in the world, not to dictate to it.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

pianozach said:


> Truly a remarkable vocal performance in the 1939 film.
> 
> By 1951 her voice had matured, but she still sounded nice.
> 
> ...


Yes, but, by the time she quit movies and started giving concerts she became possibly the most exciting live pop performer of all time. Judy came alive before a live audience like no one before or since in pop music. I love The Judy Garland show where she was so thin and was such an exciting singer. She seems to top out around D5 but I heard a radio bit where she went up to around G5 during her movie days.



 This is an early Toastmaster talk I did that I posted to Youtube on her incredible concert years. Many of the younger members were blown away with my presentation of Judy Garland.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

MAS said:


> I'm no expert in musicals on Broadway, but the people you mention above are not "real" singers who could project their voices well to the back row (though I don't know if Albergheti was one such, I remember her as a Disney kid). So are people like Elaine Stritch and Betty Buckley (any relation?) and Streisand in her day, also mic'd?


Streisand has a small voice that sounds big on albums. She was miked. Streisand could have easily pursued a classical vocal career with her range and great set of pipes, but her voice might not have been big enough for opera. 20 Gold Records later I think she made the right choice.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Are _South Pacific_ and _Carousel_ modern? Our definitions are meant only to orient us in the world, not to dictate to it.


Good question. I'd say South Pacific and Carousel, and especially Oklahoma!, in many ways represent a transition into the modern era of musicals, but certainly reflect earlier traditions too. West Side Story didn't come much later, and that was truly revolutionary.

If it makes you feel any better, the golden age of the symphony orchestra is past as well. As professional orchestras gradually shorten their seasons and reduce the number of rehearsals in response to unrelenting economic pressures (and despite fierce union resistance), standards inevitably drop regardless of the skills of the individual musicians. A freelance orchestra, however skilled, will never quite reach the level of the Vienna Philharmonic.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Seattleoperafan said:


> Streisand has a small voice that sounds big on albums. She was miked. Streisand could have easily pursued a classical vocal career with her range and great set of pipes, but her voice might not have been big enough for opera. 20 Gold Records later I think she made the right choice.


Pop music is littered with musicians who, had they trained differently, might have had a career in opera or classical music. I've already mentioned Caballé's comments on Freddie Mercury. Nana Mouskouri was training at the Athens Conservatory and moonlighting by singing in Tavernas and Jazz clubs in Athens at night. She was told by the Academy that she would have to make a choice. She chose pop music and had a massive success all over the world.

As you noted elsewhere, Elton John won a junior scholarship to the Royal Academy of Music when he was just 11. According to one of his intrsuctors he was able to play back "like a gramophone record" a four page pice by Handel after hearing it just once. He was evidently something of a prodigy and an excellent student, but left before taking his final exams.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

I don't want a non-Classical singer to exhibit vocal training. For me, the interesting aspects of non-Classical singing is a distinctiveness of style, attitude, phrasing, and grittiness which I like, and which is as far as you can get from a classically trained voice.

A good example would be Bob Dylan - or most Blues singers.

But to contribute something to the thread, Roy Orbison had a voice that was operatic for a Rock singer. Freddie Mercury, I guess. What about Josh Groban? Although I like musicals I hate most Broadway singing, brassy and superficial, IMO.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> Although I like musicals I hate most Broadway singing, brassy and superficial, IMO.


I'm not sure how you can like musicals if you don't like Broadway singing and find it superficial, not that I hear anything superficial in the singing of someone like Barbara Cook, one of those singers who was really able to make you listen to the lyrics whilst maintaining a pure musical line.

Apologies to the OP for straying off topic here.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Tsaraslondon said:


> I'm not sure how you can like musicals if you don't like Broadway singing and find it superficial, not that I hear anything superficial in the singing of someone like Barbara Cook, one of those singers who was really able to make you listen to the lyrics whilst maintaining a pure musical line.
> 
> Apologies to the OP for straying off topic here.


Because I like the form of musical theater, the craft of the writing and telling a story with songs and scenes. I prefer a more casual singing style, and some musical actors have that, like Barbara Cook. But she has n't appeared in a musical in a long time. Her work now is mainly concert and cabaret.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

SanAntone said:


> Because I like the form of musical theater, the craft of the writing and telling a story with songs and scenes. I prefer a more casual singing style, and some musical actors have that, like Barbara Cook. But she has n't appeared in a musical in a long time. Her work now is mainly concert and cabaret.


What am I missing? I thought Barbara Cook died.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Tsaraslondon said:


> Pop music is littered with musicians who, had they trained differently, might have had a career in opera or classical music. I've already mentioned Caballé's comments on Freddie Mercury. Nana Mouskouri was training at the Athens Conservatory and moonlighting by singing in Tavernas and Jazz clubs in Athens at night. She was told by the Academy that she would have to make a choice. She chose pop music and had a massive success all over the world.
> 
> As you noted elsewhere, Elton John won a junior scholarship to the Royal Academy of Music when he was just 11. According to one of his intrsuctors he was able to play back "like a gramophone record" a four page pice by Handel after hearing it just once. He was evidently something of a prodigy and an excellent student, but left before taking his final exams.


Buddy, that was the anecdote I was trying to remember. He did some wonderful classical sounding stuff for the soundtrack of the movie Friends 40 years ago that is my favorite music by him. I had heard about Nina. Mercury wrote music for Caballe that made her sound wonderful in the later part of her career and sounded wonderful with her. I KNOW Linda Ronstadt could have had a career as a lyric soprano. Her glorious head voice in Tata Dios from her Mexican album is proof of that :



 as is her spot on singing above C6 and coloratura in Pirates' of Penzance:



 ... plus you get to see her gorgeous co-star;-) I think Ronstadt had one of the greatest pop voices of my generation and her Nelson Riddle stuff is as good as you got before the 50's. Plus, one note.. you know her. I think one reason might be she grew up on Mexican mariachi music which is much closer to classical singing than English pop.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> I don't want a non-Classical singer to exhibit vocal training. For me, the interesting aspects of non-Classical singing is a distinctiveness of style, attitude, phrasing, and grittiness which I like, and which is as far as you can get from a classically trained voice.
> 
> A good example would be Bob Dylan - or most Blues singers.
> 
> But to contribute something to the thread, Roy Orbison had a voice that was operatic for a Rock singer. Freddie Mercury, I guess. What about Josh Groban? Although I like musicals I hate most Broadway singing, brassy and superficial, IMO.


I was trying very hard to avoid mentioning the influence of the blues on modern western popular singing. That's a sore point among some here. Then, not only do you go ahead and do that, you mention the efforts of some opera stars to sing popular music. I'm still recovering from that Renee Fleming exhibition you mentioned. I almost mentioned Roy Orbison, who had a remarkable voice, especially in his younger days. One problem with these jazz and pop icons, like Sinatra, Ella, Roy Orbison, etc., is that we often remember them best from their final years, when they retained their unerring musical instincts but had long since lost their beautiful vocal tone.

Perhaps the ultimate example is the young Jimmy Scott, with his amazing castrati-like voice due to Kallmann's Syndrome. Imagine Handel opera fans hearing that! I heard him live in old age twice, croaking away but still so effective.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

fluteman said:


> Good question. I'd say South Pacific and Carousel, and especially Oklahoma!, in many ways represent a transition into the modern era of musicals, but certainly reflect earlier traditions too. West Side Story didn't come much later, and that was truly revolutionary.
> 
> *If it makes you feel any better, *the golden age of the symphony orchestra is past as well. As professional orchestras gradually shorten their seasons and reduce the number of rehearsals in response to unrelenting economic pressures (and despite fierce union resistance), standards inevitably drop regardless of the skills of the individual musicians. A freelance orchestra, however skilled, will never quite reach the level of the Vienna Philharmonic.


At my age, and given climate change and the general deterioration of the planet, I don't expect to feel better. But thanks for thinking of me.

When did freelance orchestras ever reach the level of the Vienna Philharmonic? I do know that our local orchestra, the Rogue Valley Symphony, is said to be better than it used to be. Pre-Covid, of course. Now it's mostly unemployed.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SanAntone said:


> I don't want a non-Classical singer to exhibit vocal training. For me, the interesting aspects of non-Classical singing is a distinctiveness of style, attitude, phrasing, and grittiness which I like, and which is as far as you can get from a classically trained voice.
> 
> A good example would be Bob Dylan


I find it hard to hear Dylan as an example of anything. The sound he makes is about as far as you can get from any kind of singing technique and still qualify as singing. If it weren't for his lyrics and his place in the culture, who would listen to him?


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Woodduck said:


> I find it hard to hear Dylan as an example of anything. The sound he makes is about as far as you can get from any kind of singing technique and still qualify as singing. If it weren't for his lyrics and his place in the culture, who would listen to him?


Many more than listen to your favorite opera. What you don't hear in Bob Dylan's singing would fill a book, and in fact has - in dozens of books.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SanAntone said:


> Many more than listen to your favorite opera. What you don't hear in Bob Dylan's singing would fill a book, and in fact has - in dozens of books.


I'm quite sure that I can hear everything that's in the vocal sounds Dylan makes. As with many non-classical musicians, but perhaps to an extreme degree, we hear his voice as an intrinsic part of his identity as an artist - composer, lyricist, guitarist and vocalist expressing a particular cultural milieu and viewpoint - and heard in isolation I'm pretty sure it would not have won him a reputation as a singer. I can't think of any experiment that would prove that, of course, but a survey consisting of the question, "What do you like about Bob Dylan" might tell us something.

We listen differently to classical singing, in which a voice is applied to a wide variety of pre-existing music. The intrinsic qualities of a voice, apart from what it's singing about, are important. Of course this is true of other kinds of singing to varying degrees.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> When did freelance orchestras ever reach the level of the Vienna Philharmonic?


Never. IME, orchestras that don't do a full, 40+ week, 100+ performance season are always at a disadvantage, at least slightly, though there are many highly skilled and talented freelance players in most large urban areas who play in less than full time ensembles. Many of these players, though graduates of major conservatories and top university music programs, earn their living mostly by teaching, or even in non-music related day jobs.

We're gradually getting to the point, at least in the US, where fewer cities are able to support full-time full-size symphony orchestras. The pandemic may be accelerating the trend towards less than full time ensembles.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Woodduck said:


> I'm quite sure that I can hear everything that's in the vocal sounds Dylan makes. As with most non-classical musicians, but perhaps to an extreme degree, we hear his voice as an intrinsic part of his identity as an artist - composer, lyricist, guitarist and vocalist expressing a particular cultural milieu and viewpoint - and heard in isolation I'm pretty sure it would not have won him a reputation as a singer. I can't think of any experiment that would prove that, of course, but a survey consisting of the question, "What do you like about Bob Dylan" might tell us something.


The point is that his singing is not heard in isolation, and that is a weird qualification. Okay, what he's about is not something you are interested in, why not leave it at that. IMO he is one of the most important artists to come out of the 20th century. He has many millions of fans, and for a variety of reasons, not least of which is his songwriting.

And he is the best interpreter of those great songs.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> The point is that his singing is not heard in isolation, and that is a weird qualification. Okay, what he's about is not something you are interested in, why not leave it at that. IMO he is one of the most important artists to come out of the 20th century. He has many millions of fans, and for a variety of reasons, not least of which is his songwriting.
> 
> And he is the best interpreter of those great songs.


This debate will go nowhere. Anyone whose music derives in significant part from other than the 18th and 19th-century European tradition is regarded as an 'outsider' by many here, and of less interest. As you know, there is considerable historical precedent for that in America, where until near the end of the 19th century, African American culture was ridiculed or ignored in polite society, and Native American culture was virtually eradicated. Only European musical traditions were considered legitimate.

The word "opera" generally stands for a purely European tradition that flourished in that period, and remained through much of the early 20th century. Nobody seems concerned that Melchior and Flagstad never had the opportunity to sing Nixon in China, The Death of Klinghoffer or The Ghosts of Versailles, much less Einstein On The Beach. Those singers still can be celebrated as the gold standard because nothing that came too long after the early 20th century is relevant.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

fluteman said:


> This debate will go nowhere. Anyone whose music derives in significant part from other than the 18th and 19th-century European tradition is regarded as an 'outsider' by many here, and of less interest. As you know, there is considerable historical precedent for that in America, where until near the end of the 19th century, African American culture was ridiculed or ignored in polite society, and Native American culture was virtually eradicated. Only European musical traditions were considered legitimate.
> 
> The word "opera" generally stands for a purely European tradition that flourished in that period, and remained through much of the early 20th century. Nobody seems concerned that Melchior and Flagstad never had the opportunity to sing Nixon in China, The Death of Klinghoffer or The Ghosts of Versailles, much less Einstein On The Beach. Those singers still can be celebrated as the gold standard because nothing that came too long after the early 20th century is relevant.


Why the continual sneering characterization of what "many here" (according to you) think, especially with regard to contemporary music? "Many here" prefer classical singing because this is an opera subforum in a classical music forum that attracts people with such preferences. It happens that "many here" enjoy other kinds of music too, and enjoy non-classical singing in appropriate repertoire. Melchior, Flagstad, Caruso and other opera greats represent a gold standard in the repertoire discussed in this forum, but when I listen to Portuguese Fado I don't imagine that Flagstad would do it better than Amalia Rodrigues. As for late 20th-century opera, it is still sung by, and largely written for, people with voices trained in the long tradition of opera that produced Caruso and Ponselle, and if Caruso and Ponselle represent a gold standard it's simply because they sang extraordinarily well within that tradition. "Extraordinarily well" means having a technique that enables them to do exceptional things. It isn't a mere preference or prejudice. No matter how much music changes, singing such as those people were capable of will always inspire admiration and give pleasure.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> Meow!


You mean "Quack!"


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Why the continual sneering characterization of what "many here" (according to you) think, especially with regard to contemporary music? "Many here" prefer classical singing because this is an opera subforum in a classical music forum that attracts people with such preferences. It happens that "many here" enjoy other kinds of music too, and enjoy non-classical singing in appropriate repertoire. Melchior, Flagstad, Caruso and other opera greats represent a gold standard in the repertoire discussed in this forum, but when I listen to Portuguese Fado I don't imagine that Flagstad would do it better than Amalia Rodrigues. As for late 20th-century opera, it is still sung by, and largely written for, people with voices trained in the long tradition of opera that produced Caruso and Ponselle, and if Caruso and Ponselle represent a gold standard it's simply because they sang extraordinarily well within that tradition. "Extraordinarily well" means having a technique that enables them to do exceptional things. It isn't a mere preference or prejudice. No matter how much music changes, singing such as those people were capable of will always inspire admiration and give pleasure.


No sneering from my end. (How about yours?) You seem to ignore that nearly all of my education, training and performing experience is in western classical music. That is, Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms and Stravinsky. And Verdi and Puccini. And Wagner, so long as I don't have to sit through an entire opera in person. OK, and Broadway shows and Gilbert & Sullivan operettas. I've performed in many orchestras, bands, chamber music groups and choruses. Nearly all of that has been European classical music. Living in Chicago, one of my favorite programs on WFMT was Marty Robinson's The First 50 Years, basically an all Ponselle and Melchior et al. program. Great stuff. No longer needed in the internet era, I suppose, but Robinson was great, for those of you who remember.

But I am very much interested in, and have great respect for, non-traditional European musical traditions, and music at least in part derived from them. Among other things, since the early 20th century, western music increasingly has felt the influence of these traditions.

And finally, while having monikers like Parsifal98 and Seattleoperafan and musical interests to match is perfectly fine, I have little patience or respect for those who seem to need to reflexively put down anything that isn't purely in the 18th and 19th century European tradition. And, I'm very sorry to say, blanket statements that modern singing is inferior to that of the golden age days, today's vocal teachers are incompetent, etc., betrays just such an attitude and some significant ignorance about contemporary music. And when you call me a "dunce" for daring to disagree, who, exactly, is sneering at whom?


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

fluteman said:


> And finally, while having monikers like Parsifal98 and Seattleoperafan and musical interests to match is perfectly fine, I have little patience or respect for those who seem to need to reflexively put down anything that isn't purely in the 18th and 19th century European tradition. And, I'm very sorry to say, blanket statements that modern singing is inferior to that of the golden age days, today's vocal teachers are incompetent, etc., betrays just such an attitude and some significant ignorance about contemporary music. And when you call me a "dunce" for daring to disagree, who, exactly, is sneering at whom?


Very few members make complete blanket statements about modern singing; most consign themselves to statements on the general quality of the singing of the time period; even fewer state that all vocal teachers today are incompetent. Really, the fact that you even mention Seattleoperafan as an example of someone whose (I can only presume from the context of your statements) interests are narrowly focused on opera, tells me that you don't really spend time on the opera forum seriously reading members opinions. There possibly isn't anyone on the forum who is as enthusiastic about a wide variety of singing styles as Seattleoperafan.

(Finally, no one has called anyone a dunce; perhaps we could keep it that way?)


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

BachIsBest said:


> Very few members make complete blanket statements about modern statement; most consign themselves to statements on the general quality of the singing of the time period; even fewer state that all vocal teachers today are incompetent. Really, the fact that you even mention Seattleoperafan as an example of someone whose (I can only presume from the context of your statements) interests are narrowly focused on opera, tells me that you don't really spend time on the opera forum seriously reading members opinions. There possibly isn't anyone on the forum who is as enthusiastic about a wide variety of singing styles as Seattleoperafan.
> 
> (Finally, no one has called anyone a dunce; perhaps we could keep it that way?)


May Bach visit you in your dreams;-)


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

fluteman said:


> I have little patience or respect for those who seem to need to reflexively put down anything that isn't purely in the 18th and 19th century European tradition. And, I'm very sorry to say, blanket statements that modern singing is inferior to that of the golden age days, today's vocal teachers are incompetent, etc., betrays just such an attitude and some significant ignorance about contemporary music.


You know, I often feel this is your motive (or agenda) behind a lot of the things you say on the forum; to criticize the naysayers of contemporary music. But by doing it even in threads that aren't specifically about contemporary music, you're being a bit over-zealous (if I may say so).


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

fluteman said:


> No sneering from my end. (How about yours?) You seem to ignore that nearly all of my education, training and performing experience is in western classical music. That is, Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms and Stravinsky. And Verdi and Puccini. And Wagner, so long as I don't have to sit through an entire opera in person. OK, and Broadway shows and Gilbert & Sullivan operettas. I've performed in many orchestras, bands, chamber music groups and choruses. Nearly all of that has been European classical music. Living in Chicago, one of my favorite programs on WFMT was Marty Robinson's The First 50 Years, basically an all Ponselle and Melchior et al. program. Great stuff. No longer needed in the internet era, I suppose, but Robinson was great, for those of you who remember.
> 
> But I am very much interested in, and have great respect for, non-traditional European musical traditions, and music at least in part derived from them. Among other things, since the early 20th century, western music increasingly has felt the influence of these traditions.
> 
> And finally, while having monikers like Parsifal98 and Seattleoperafan and musical interests to match is perfectly fine, I have little patience or respect for those who seem to need to reflexively put down anything that isn't purely in the 18th and 19th century European tradition. And, I'm very sorry to say, *blanket statements that modern singing is inferior to that of the golden age days, today's vocal teachers are incompetent, etc., betrays just such an attitude and some significant ignorance about contemporary music.* And when you call me a "dunce" for daring to disagree, who, exactly, is sneering at whom?


Look, I'm not in the habit of criticizing the tastes and perceptions of whole made-up classes of other music-lovers on this forum, as you appear to be. I'm here to discuss music, not supposed deficiencies in others. Do you not see that you're doing it again here, doubling down on your assessments of others' "attitudes" toward music? It's offensive and tiresome.

The conviction that the standard of contemporary operatic singing has declined over the decades, as revealed in numerous side-by-side comparisons of recordings made over the last 120 years, has nothing to do with anyone's knowledge of, interest in, or opinion of any style or period of music. Voices either do what singers ask them to do, and make possible a certain range of musical effects and thus a certain range of expression, or they don't, and how well they fulfill the demands made on them can be heard to a remarkable extent even on ancient acoustic recordings with muffled sound. Singers themselves understand this physically from making the actual effort to sing, but others too are quite capable of hearing what voices do and how well they do it.

Whether any individual, including you, places value on the skills exhibited by superbly trained voices is irrelevant. A number of members here have considerable experience as both singers and listeners, and are able to make comments both precisely descriptive and interesting to others. We learn from each other's observations, and most of us seem to appreciate that. The accumulated knowledge on exhibit, including knowledge of the extraordinary achievements of vocal artists of the past, is in no way related to anyone's supposed failure to appreciate Cage, Xenakis or Ligeti. Debates over those composers may play out elsewhere on the forum, but they're thankfully irrelevant in discussing the relative merits of Stracciari and Milnes.

Contrary to your implication, I think all of us here are only too happy to celebrate the appearance of first-rate singing in artists of our own day, and we fervently wish we had more opportunities to celebrate. Meanwhile we can turn to singers like Battistini, Schipa, Leider, Urlus, Jadlowker, Spani, Muzio, et al. to hear and appreciate what many feel is the greatest of all instruments functioning at an extraordinarily high level of technique and musicality. That appreciation doesn't exclude an understanding of changing musical styles, the development of new musical idioms, or the enjoyment of nonwestern music. The fact that jazz, the classical music of India, Sami joiking, or the _Sprechstimme_ of Schoenberg may require different techniques and affects is not in question, and having the ability to discriminate between greatness and mediocrity in the singing of Bellini or Puccini in no way rules out the ability to appreciate those other kinds of music or the singing appropriate to them.

The longer this conversation goes on, the less sure I am of who you're arguing with and what you're arguing about.


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

> Anyone whose music derives in significant part from other than the 18th and 19th-century European tradition is regarded as an 'outsider' by many here, and of less interest. As you know, there is considerable historical precedent for that in America, where until near the end of the 19th century, African American culture was ridiculed or ignored in polite society, and Native American culture was virtually eradicated. Only European musical traditions were considered legitimate.


I see I was wrong to think you were implying we were racist in the other thread. You aren't implying we're racist, you're just saying that our opinions are the same as those that a lot of racists used to hold. That's very clear now.



> some significant ignorance about contemporary music


We are talking about people with the ability to sing 19th and early 20th century opera in a 19th and early 20th century vocal style. We discuss singing manuals from the time, listen to and compare recordings, quote secondary sources, discuss contemporaneous and recent musical criticism, and generally have cordial, fruitful discussions. When we say that singing is worse today, we are talking about the singers of today who attempt to join that tradition by performing 19th and 20th century works, and, rather significantly, by using the terminology and standards of the past. Today's singers talk about squillo, being audible in the house, stamina, trills and ornamentation, oftentimes chiaroscuro, and they talk about how wobbles are a fault. They don't systematically apply those standards because doing so would lead to the precise conclusion that we draw, which they find distasteful, but they do haphazardly bring up those elements. Listen to a Renee Fleming masterclass, and she'll talk about squillo, about chiaroscuro, about proper ornamentation, about registers. In other words, she uses the traditional vocabulary of opera, and these singers place themselves in that tradition even if they are often reluctant to look deeply into the recorded evidence of that tradition. So, we aren't the ones somehow unfairly comparing them to the greats of the past. They are are raising the comparison by performing operas from the tradition and often claiming to be heirs to the tradition. Any honest comparison shows that they are wanting.

If we're wrong, show me the recording from contemporary artists that even comes close to any of these:

























Show me the Verdi Baritone who trills like Giraldoni (or honestly, even just a real Verdi Baritone at all). The tenor who can sing Mozart's devlish fioritura with no aspirates and a perfect trill and then sing a powerful flawless Lohengrin, Radames, and Cavaradossi the next day. The baritone with the power, steadiness, and ability to paint with registers that Lawrence Tibbett had and employed so seemingly effortlessly. The second string Wagner soprano with utterly secure tone, no hint of wobble, perfect intonation, a perfect trill, equalized homogeneous registers, and no trace of shrillness in her top notes. The Italian spinto/Puccini tenor today with the squillo, legato, and ringing, rounded vowels of Daniele Barioni, again, a second string tenor in his day. The Italian bass totally free of any woofiness, wobble, unnecessary heaviness, and with perfect legato, mezza voce and liquid phrasing. Does anybody think Netrebko (even at her prime, when she was pretty good) or anyone else today can approach the characterization, security, depth of tone and feeling, or effortless musicality of Oda Slabodskaya (who I bet most people have never heard of).

Every time we debate this issue on the forum I make the same request: show me the singers that are as good, that have those identifiable skills and qualities that singers, audiences and critics claim to value at that or anything approaching that level. I have yet to see the video posted that matches Melchior or Flagstad or Ponselle (though I do admit, I've never heard them sing _Einstein on the Beach_ - you got me there). They insist they're there, they tell me I'm pining away for some imagined past (my moniker means "long live new people" (from _Gianni Schicchi_ referring to immigrants, but also young people and anyone innovative and creative - go figure) or whatever. But we all know there are no singers of this caliber around today. By comparison, today's singers are poor to decent, with a very few brighter spots. This isn't hard to show, and it doesn't mean that singers today are necessarily hopeless. It means that the knowledge of how to train those skills and qualities is mostly gone. It was acquired once -- who knows, maybe it could be again. I would like nothing better. And once singers have free, powerful, brilliant voices, I would love to hear them do anything they want to with them: bold new interpretations, strict literal interpretations, sing new operas, revive obscure pieces, cross over into other media. But if they are going to sing 19th and early 20th century operas and claim to be heirs to that vocal tradition, they'd better have the skills to compete.



> Anyone whose music derives in significant part from other than the 18th and 19th-century European tradition is regarded as an 'outsider' by many here, and of less interest.


Well yeah: it's a Classical Music forum's Opera page. What did you expect? I don't go trolling South Asian folk music forums telling them they're closed minded bigots because they don't like Flagstad or Wagner's operas. And I like lots of different kinds of music. I love traditional Japanese music, you may have notices from my avatar I'm rather a fan of Eastern and especially Japanese art: I study it, revere it, enjoy it, teach it, try to learn some of it myself. I understand full well that applying Western notions of purity of tone to Japanese instrumental and vocal music would lead you to totally dismiss it, as you rightly say many people did in the past, and that if you adapt yourself to the tradition and come to understand it on its own terms you find something of unique power, sophistication, and depth of feeling. But if you're going to sing Mozart and Verdi and Puccini and Wagner you can either sing the fioritura legato or you can aspirate it; you can wobble or have proper vibrato; you can have strong high notes or not; you can call on a wide range of tonal colors to support your artistry or not.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

fluteman said:


> Mario Lanza was superb in South Pacific. Another favorite singing actress of mine is Julie Andrews. When they decided to cast Audrey Hepburn as Eliza in the movie version instead because she was an established major star, they knew they couldn't use her singing voice. Without telling her, they dubbed in the singing of Marni Nixon, another fine singer, but no Julie Andrews.
> 
> In the jazz world, Ella Fitzgerald, especially in her youthful prime, was a great vocalist. The youthful Tony Bennett sounded very good. As for pop singers, I like the Everly brothers, and I admired the countertenor range and control of Paul Anka. Yes, the songs may be silly, but try singing them yourself. He made them sound very easy and natural. Edith Piaf had a unique voice and style that was very effective. Same with Tony Willliams, lead singer of the Platters.


Mario Lanza in South Pacific? When and where please


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> About as horrifying as Pavarotti singing a Muddy Waters song.


Ooh. I would pay good money to hear that!:lol:


----------



## damianjb1 (Jan 1, 2016)

Seattleoperafan said:


> One of the great things about Streisand is that unlike almost all pop singers except for Ella and Sarah Vaughan she has a good chest register. I think this adds an emotional depth to her singing because of it.She also has breath control to rival just about any opera singer. The other great thing about her is perfect legato yet maintaining about the best diction of any singer of any time. My Youtube video on why I think early Barbra was the best is my third most popular video with over 7000 views and over a hundred very positive comments. I'd be surprised if anyone here likes Barbra . The other thing is that at 80 she sounds like she is middle aged with just a touch more huskiness, which works great for pop music. Just think what she could have done if she ever warmed up. She said she is lazy and never ever warms up. When she was young she sang a Schubert lied up to A5 with an operatic sounding voice, but I think she was wise to stick with her regular sound as she has more gold records than any woman in history.


I f***ing adore Streisand. LOVE HER LOVE HER LOVER HER.
I saw her live in 2000 in Sydney. No recording has ever quite captured the impact of what those big notes live actually sound like.

I personally think her best singing is the Yentl Soundtrack and The Broadway Album. Personal view so totally subjective.

This is one of my all time favourite Barbra clips. The dress and the perm are questionable. But the singing is astounding.


----------



## damianjb1 (Jan 1, 2016)

I'm so excited that I get to be the first person to mention this singer in this thread.
K D Lang. 
Gorgeous voice. Wakes the words matter. And within her style a flawless technique. My second favourite 'pop' singer (after Streisand).


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

damianjb1 said:


> I'm so excited that I get to be the first person to mention this singer in this thread.
> K D Lang.
> Gorgeous voice. Wakes the words matter. And within her style a flawless technique. My second favourite 'pop' singer (after Streisand).


I couldn't agree more. If lang wasn't so openiy gay, I'm sure she would be better known. As it is, she refused to hide her sexuality as the big companies wanted her to do and her following is slightly smaller than it should be. I first became aware of her at a charity event for AIDS awareness, which was attended by their patron Princess Diana. She was the opening act for Mick Hucknall, who followed her in the first half and George Michael, who had the second half to himself. David Bowie was the compere. That really was a night to remember. lang knocked me out and when she sang _Crying_ she sent shivers down my spine. She has made Leonard Cohen's _Hallelujah_ very much her own and there are wonderful vidoes on youtbe of her singing it at the opening of the Vancouver Olympics, and a more intimate version in front of Cohen himself, when he was inducted into the Canadian Songwriters' Hall of Fame. Cohen is visibly moved.

Incidentally, George Michael has an impressive technique, as you can hear when he sings _The First Time Ever I Saw Her Face_, with wonderful breath control and a seamless legato. Furthermore he really makes you listen to the lyrics, and gives the song a feeling of wonder and awe.

Sorry, we are off topic again. Maybe we need another thread somehwere about pop singers who display certain of the technical qualities that classical singers strive for.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Tsaraslondon said:


> I couldn't agree more. If lang wasn't so openiy gay, I'm sure she would be better known. As it is, she refused to hide her sexuality as the big companies wanted her to do and her following is slightly smaller than it should be. I first became aware of her at a charity event for AIDS awareness, which was attended by their patron Princess Diana. She was the opening act for Mick Hucknall, who followed her in the first half and George Michael, who had the second half to himself. David Bowie was the compere. That really was a night to remember. lang knocked me out and when she sang _Crying_ she sent shivers down my spine. She has made Leonard Cohen's _Hallelujah_ very much her own and there are wonderful vidoes on youtbe of her singing it at the opening of the Vancouver Olympics, and a more intimate version in front of Cohen himself, when he was inducted into the Canadian Songwriters' Hall of Fame. Cohen is visibly moved.
> 
> Incidentally, George Michael has an impressive technique, as you can hear when he sings _The First Time Ever I Saw Her Face_, with wonderful breath control and a seamless legato. Furthermore he really makes you listen to the lyrics, and gives the song a feeling of wonder and awe.
> 
> Sorry, we are off topic again. Maybe we need another thread somehwere about pop singers who display certain of the technical qualities that classical singers strive for.


 I agree. KD also straddles country/ pop which might put off some fans. I think her career started off strong but fizzled for some reason. She and George M are both possessors of gorgeous voices used very artfully. KD could have easily have been trained to be a great contralto in another life. George Michael started out in light pop and then later turned out some more serious stuff.


----------



## damianjb1 (Jan 1, 2016)

Seattleoperafan said:


> I agree. KD also straddles country/ pop which might put off some fans. I think her career started off strong but fizzled for some reason. She and George M are both possessors of gorgeous voices used very artfully. KD could have easily have been trained to be a great contralto in another life. George Michael started out in light pop and then later turned out some more serious stuff.


My impression is her career went the way she wanted it to. She said many times that she really didn't like the publicity side of her job. She just wanted to sing to people. She got a pretty good idea of super stardom with the Ingenue album (Constant Craving was the big hit) and she didn't particularly like it.

This is one of my favourite things of hers.


----------



## damianjb1 (Jan 1, 2016)

Tsaraslondon said:


> I couldn't agree more. If lang wasn't so openiy gay, I'm sure she would be better known. As it is, she refused to hide her sexuality as the big companies wanted her to do and her following is slightly smaller than it should be. I first became aware of her at a charity event for AIDS awareness, which was attended by their patron Princess Diana. She was the opening act for Mick Hucknall, who followed her in the first half and George Michael, who had the second half to himself. David Bowie was the compere. That really was a night to remember. lang knocked me out and when she sang _Crying_ she sent shivers down my spine. She has made Leonard Cohen's _Hallelujah_ very much her own and there are wonderful vidoes on youtbe of her singing it at the opening of the Vancouver Olympics, and a more intimate version in front of Cohen himself, when he was inducted into the Canadian Songwriters' Hall of Fame. Cohen is visibly moved.
> 
> Incidentally, George Michael has an impressive technique, as you can hear when he sings _The First Time Ever I Saw Her Face_, with wonderful breath control and a seamless legato. Furthermore he really makes you listen to the lyrics, and gives the song a feeling of wonder and awe.
> 
> Sorry, we are off topic again. Maybe we need another thread somehwere about pop singers who display certain of the technical qualities that classical singers strive for.


Here's a beautiful version of _The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face_


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

damianjb1 said:


> My impression is her career went the way she wanted it to. She said many times that she really didn't like the publicity side of her job. She just wanted to sing to people. She got a pretty good idea of super stardom with the Ingenue album (Constant Craving was the big hit) and she didn't particularly like it.
> 
> This is one of my favourite things of hers.


It's on the album _Hymns of the 49th Parallel_, which is one of my favourites.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

hammeredklavier said:


> You know, I often feel this is your motive (or agenda) behind a lot of the things you say on the forum; to criticize the naysayers of contemporary music. But by doing it even in threads that aren't specifically about contemporary music, you're being a bit over-zealous (if I may say so).


I have no such agenda. One point I've made is that for most here the word "opera" by definition excludes modern and contemporary music, even though there are modern and contemporary operas. So this discussion has nothing to do with modern classical music. Rather, the idea is to put down today's classical opera singers by pointing out all the 'non-classical' singers who, in the opinion of the OP and others here, have better 'classical technique' than they do. That is the stated topic of this thread.

While I have great respect for many non-classical singers, I don't have much use for such snarky, and frankly ill-informed, blanket put downs of the best professional singers in any genre, as also occurred in an earlier thread, where Woodduck referred to me as a dunce. One can appreciate the art of Rosa Ponselle et al., Ella Fitzgerald and Bob Dylan without doing so. The only other point I've made here and elsewhere is that singing as a whole has changed over the course of the 20th century (instrumental music too), and in my opinion that in significant part is due to the onset of amplification, recording and broadcasting, as well as the globalization of musical influences.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

vivalagentenuova said:


> I see I was wrong to think you were implying we were racist in the other thread. You aren't implying we're racist, you're just saying that our opinions are the same as those that a lot of racists used to hold. That's very clear now.
> 
> We are talking about people with the ability to sing 19th and early 20th century opera in a 19th and early 20th century vocal style. We discuss singing manuals from the time, listen to and compare recordings, quote secondary sources, discuss contemporaneous and recent musical criticism, and generally have cordial, fruitful discussions. When we say that singing is worse today, we are talking about the singers of today who attempt to join that tradition by performing 19th and 20th century works, and, rather significantly, by using the terminology and standards of the past. Today's singers talk about squillo, being audible in the house, stamina, trills and ornamentation, oftentimes chiaroscuro, and they talk about how wobbles are a fault. They don't systematically apply those standards because doing so would lead to the precise conclusion that we draw, which they find distasteful, but they do haphazardly bring up those elements. Listen to a Renee Fleming masterclass, and she'll talk about squillo, about chiaroscuro, about proper ornamentation, about registers. In other words, she uses the traditional vocabulary of opera, and these singers place themselves in that tradition even if they are often reluctant to look deeply into the recorded evidence of that tradition. So, we aren't the ones somehow unfairly comparing them to the greats of the past. They are are raising the comparison by performing operas from the tradition and often claiming to be heirs to the tradition. Any honest comparison shows that they are wanting.
> 
> ...


That Rigoletto Quartet with Caruso goes down in history with me as the finest I have ever heard. The main difference is not just with the choice of superior voices but more importantly the singers, as a group, were not singing just the words, they were expressing the actual feeling behind the words' intents.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

vivalagentenuova said:


> I see I was wrong to think you were implying we were racist in the other thread. You aren't implying we're racist, you're just saying that our opinions are the same as those that a lot of racists used to hold. That's very clear now.
> 
> We are talking about people with the ability to sing 19th and early 20th century opera in a 19th and early 20th century vocal style. We discuss singing manuals from the time, listen to and compare recordings, quote secondary sources, discuss contemporaneous and recent musical criticism, and generally have cordial, fruitful discussions. When we say that singing is worse today, we are talking about the singers of today who attempt to join that tradition by performing 19th and 20th century works, and, rather significantly, by using the terminology and standards of the past. Today's singers talk about squillo, being audible in the house, stamina, trills and ornamentation, oftentimes chiaroscuro, and they talk about how wobbles are a fault. They don't systematically apply those standards because doing so would lead to the precise conclusion that we draw, which they find distasteful, but they do haphazardly bring up those elements. Listen to a Renee Fleming masterclass, and she'll talk about squillo, about chiaroscuro, about proper ornamentation, about registers. In other words, she uses the traditional vocabulary of opera, and these singers place themselves in that tradition even if they are often reluctant to look deeply into the recorded evidence of that tradition. So, we aren't the ones somehow unfairly comparing them to the greats of the past. They are are raising the comparison by performing operas from the tradition and often claiming to be heirs to the tradition. Any honest comparison shows that they are wanting.
> 
> ...


I'd be interested to know how you compare the Lucia "Sextette" above with this version with Callas/di Stefano/Panerai. I was particularly taken with Callas' stunning holding of that one particular note.
But I must say that as an entire group the Galli-Curci, Gigli/Pinza seemed like the more cohesive singing as opposed to hearing di Stefano more outstandingly in the Callas one.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Just as (another) clarification, I accuse nobody of being racist. Elite society in early America featured some ethnocentric cultural attitudes. "Culture" meant European culture only, and that applied to music. A major transition away from that attitude occurred from the late 19th to the mid 20th century. In Europe itself, one would expect European culture to have had a primary position. Cultural globalization is very much a 20th and 21st century phenomenon.

Also, I am a big fan of the classic European opera tradition. One of my favorite daily warm ups is to play Casta Diva from Bellini's Norma in every key. Don't you think I've carefully listened to and learned form a long list of interpretations from the 78 era to today, of that and many other great opera standards, including those of Callas, of course?

But I've never seen the need to look down my nose at the traditions of other eras and cultures. Here at TC, hammeredklavier has given us some excellent insight into Mozart, Beethoven and Haydn (and Michael Haydn, of course!) SanAntone has a wealth of knowledge of contemporary composers. Woodduck the Wagner specialist has more ideas about moral and philosophical themes underlying Parsifal than I'd previously considered. Vivalagentenuova seems to be TC's Marty Robinson for early opera stars, which is great.

I see no need to relentlessly denigrate music outside one's own specialty or portfolio of preferences, however. That only distorts and confuses things. One can certainly, and legitimately, prefer the way 19th century operas were performed in their own era (or as close as we can get to it in early recordings) as opposed to today, just as many prefer baroque music performed on original instruments and in accordance with the performance practices of its own era, of which there is considerable and detailed evidence, without the modifications of the 19th century. Some performers today try to perform the symphonies of Beethoven, Brahms and Bruckner more as they would have been performed in their own time.

All of that is good for me, so long as the result is musically convincing. Speaking of which, check out Saioa Hernandez, a student of Montserrat Caballe and very much in her style, in Casta Diva, starting at 5:50. The sound quality is poor, but her greatness comes across. I think so long as music from this tradition has a significant audience, there will be at least some capable of singing it, but as the audience declines, fewer singers will be willing to devote their lives to mastering it. Better to advocate for maintaining and building the audience for opera than to denigrate current performances.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Has anyone mentioned *Cecilia Bartoli*? At least one singer specializing in Bel Canto well into the 21st century. Her _Norma_ from 2013 is very good, IMO.












> In collaboration with Giovanni Antonini, Riccardo Minasi and Maurizio Biondi, Cecilia Bartoli restores the sound and spirit of Norma in a landmark Decca recording based on the operas original sources.
> 
> Cecilia Bartoli leads a fabulous cast in Deccas groundbreaking new recording, which presents Vincenzo Bellinis Norma in a form that is complete with the exquisite mix of vocal and instrumental colours that Bellini intended for his tragic opera. Sumi Jo, John Osborn and Michele Pertusi respectively illuminate the roles of Adalgisa, Pollione and Oroveso. The sounds of period instruments from the composers time, brought to life by Orchestra La Scintilla and conductor Giovanni Antonini, underpin and blend with the timbres of a cast carefully chosen to recreate the individual vocal qualities of the operas roles.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> Has anyone mentioned *Cecilia Bartoli*? At least one singer specializing in Bel Canto well into the 21st century. Her _Norma_ from 2013 is very good, IMO.


For me, Bartoli is a splendidly charismatic stage presence, a true star. I'm guessing her vocal technique would come under some fire from the Board of Opera Experts here, though.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> Has anyone mentioned *Cecilia Bartoli*? At least one singer specializing in Bel Canto well into the 21st century. Her _Norma_ from 2013 is very good, IMO.


I listened to it once. I never want to hear it again.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Tsaraslondon said:


> I listened to it once. I never want to hear it again.


I was right! :lol:


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Tsaraslondon said:


> I listened to it once. I never want to hear it again.


Could you expand on your reaction? I very much liked the sound of the period instrument orchestra, and certainly while my experience with opera is limited, I did enjoy the singing.


----------



## Azol (Jan 25, 2015)

Has Lisa Gerrard already been mentioned?


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

SanAntone said:


> Could you expand on your reaction? I very much liked the sound of the period instrument orchestra, and certainly while my experience with opera is limited, I did enjoy the singing.


1) her machine gun-style coloratura and lack of legato do not belong in good bel canto singing 
2) Cecilia Bartoli is intense, but she's intense like a birthday party where everyone has had a week's worth of sugar in 30 minutes. Not what you're listening for when you go to see Norma. 
3) Her strange croony middle register always distracts me.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> 1) her machine gun-style coloratura and lack of legato do not belong in good bel canto singing
> 2) Cecilia Bartoli is intense, but she's intense like a birthday party where everyone has had a week's worth of sugar in 30 minutes. Not what you're listening for when you go to see Norma.
> 3) Her strange croony middle register always distracts me.


Here's an excerpt from a long review by Robert Levine, which is a very good read and brings some light to a discussion which is usually over-heated. IMO, Bartoli, Antonini and Biondi have done a service to return the work to its original sound, as best as can be achieved today.



> Bartoli most assuredly is Bartoli, and if you are allergic to her in general, you will remain so. For most of the performance *her coloratura avoids the tommy-gun approach* she has been known to use (only for a moment in the "In mia man" duet does she pull a Deutekom and begin to yodel). You can practically see her, the letter "r" has a life of its own, there's a bit too much breath in non-legato pianissimos. *But she is unique, and in the end, a very moving Norma*. The scene with her sleeping children is chilling-not on the Callas-horror level (the phrase "Son miei figli" coming from Callas is terrifying)-but she makes us feel her confusion and misery.
> 
> The long, slow passages are ravishing (perhaps greater than Caballé's simply because they are integrated and do not draw attention to themselves) and imply an intimacy that makes us identify with Norma's plight; her diction is impeccable. She occasionally stumbles in imposing moments because her voice is simply too small-shortly before she calls for war, for instance. I wouldn't bet that her vibrato is anything like what audiences in the 1830s heard; it's too prominent. But you will hear things in her performance that will illuminate aspects of the character as never before.
> 
> ...


While I have enjoyed opera, having had subscriptions to both the Met and NYC Opera for several years, and at times been an avid reader about the genre and works - I am far from a seasoned listener able to compare recordings as is the case for a number of TC members.

However, I am a fan of HIP/PI recordings and found this recording a very enjoyable experience.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> 1) her machine gun-style coloratura and lack of legato do not belong in good bel canto singing
> 2) Cecilia Bartoli is intense, but she's intense like a birthday party where everyone has had a week's worth of sugar in 30 minutes. Not what you're listening for when you go to see Norma.
> 3) Her strange croony middle register always distracts me.


I liked your post, because rather than simply dismissing a modern star as no good, you give a little insight into your own aesthetic values and what you are looking for in Norma, which I assume you were familiar with pre-Bartoli. As you say, her brand of high intensity is not what you would expect from a traditional performance. Well said, especially the part about the birthday party sugar high. (Perhaps you have some experience with young children?) I might go even further than you and say sometimes her departures from tradition seem almost radical.

But even if reactions like "over the top" or "too intense" are the first things that come to mind, she has an enthusiastic audience that responds to what she does. And it isn't a small audience. That is not unimportant. Somewhat as with Lang Lang, rather than simply wave our hands and say it's bad, I think it's worthwhile to examine exactly what it is that these performers bring to their audiences. Because it is enormously hard to achieve the kind of popular success they have achieved, especially with classical music. For example, all the technical ability in the world doesn't guarantee it. Gimmicks don't either.

Edit: The review cited by SanAntone certainly reflects the other side of the coin. Really, you need to decide if you are willing to have your expectations confounded. I think performers like Bartoli help keep the artform vibrant and relevant, even though criticism is inevitable (and correctly predicted by me here).


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

fluteman said:


> I liked your post, because rather than simply dismissing a modern star as no good, you give a little insight into your own aesthetic values and what you are looking for in Norma, which I assume you were familiar with pre-Bartoli. As you say, her brand of high intensity is not what you would expect from a traditional performance. Well said, especially the part about the birthday party sugar high. (Perhaps you have some experience with young children?) I might go even further than you and say sometimes her departures from tradition seem almost radical.
> 
> But even if reactions like "over the top" or "too intense" are the first things that come to mind, she has an enthusiastic audience that responds to what she does. And it isn't a small audience. That is not unimportant. Somewhat as with Lang Lang, rather than simply wave our hands and say it's bad, I think it's worthwhile to examine exactly what it is that these performers bring to their audiences. Because it is enormously hard to achieve the kind of popular success they have achieved, especially with classical music. For example, all the technical ability in the world doesn't guarantee it. Gimmicks don't either.
> 
> Edit: The review cited by SanAntone certainly reflects the other side of the coin. Really, you need to decide if you are willing to have your expectations confounded. I think performers like Bartoli help keep the artform vibrant and relevant, even though criticism is inevitable (and correctly predicted by me here).


if you look at "are they a good singer?" vs "are they a good performer?", I will grant you that the latter encompasses much more than simply the former. it's clear by now that I don't enjoy Bartoli's particular charisma, but there is absolutely no denying that it is there, regardless of what any one person or one standard says otherwise.


----------



## Tietjens Stolz (Jun 2, 2015)

fluteman said:


> Edit: The review cited by SanAntone certainly reflects *the other side of the coin*. Really, you need to decide if you are willing to have your expectations confounded. I think performers like Bartoli help keep the artform vibrant and relevant, even though criticism is inevitable (and correctly predicted by me here).


...and here's the other side of the coin. For those who like Bartoli's rendition of Norma, even if you disagree (fully or partially) with the following review, it's still worth analysing. The Amazon reviewer, Dr Philip Cokkinos from Greece, did not fully dismiss Bartoli and in fact acknowledge her merits on certain points, but he did explain substantially why on the whole he finds Bartoli's portrayal wrong:



> *Partially beautiful, wrong portrayal!*
> 
> I listened to this recording several times before attempting to review it.
> 
> ...


To OP: Sorry that this goes somewhat off the topic of this thread.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> if you look at "are they a good singer?" vs "are they a good performer?", I will grant you that the latter encompasses much more than simply the former. it's clear by now that I don't enjoy Bartoli's particular charisma, but there is absolutely no denying that it is there, regardless of what any one person or one standard says otherwise.


And I will grant you that she can stray pretty far from what most would think of as the bel canto tradition, as you said. I understand that bothers some here a lot more than it bothers me. I respect her talent, which is not common. Also, she can fill the house, which is crucial if the opera tradition is to survive at all.



Tietjens Stolz said:


> ...and here's the other side of the coin. For those who like Bartoli's rendition of Norma, even if you disagree (fully or partially) with the review, it's still worth analysing. The Amazon reviewer, Dr Philip Cokkinos from Greece, did not fully dismiss Bartoli and in fact acknowledge her merits on certain points, but he did explain substantially why on the whole he finds Bartoli's portrayal wrong:
> 
> To OP: Sorry that this goes somewhat off the topic of this thread.


OK, that seems like another good review. He (and you) may have heard a lot more Normas than I have, so it's nice to know the most famous and celebrated ones, Ponselle, Callas and Caballe, are the best ones. I do notice he says some of Bartoli's emotional outbursts would be less effective without a microphone 10 cm away, yet he praises a rendition of Casta Diva that would only be possible with a microphone. I intentionally posted Saioa Hernandez singing Norma in a live, staged and presumably not amplified performance of the full opera, despite the dreadful sound quality, to show that the classic singing style is not dead. What Bartoli does is not the same thing, but imo, that doesn't make it 'wrong, wrong, wrong', especially if it fills the house


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

I listen to any opera as a totality, not just an appraisal of the singer(s). What I liked most about this recording was the HIP/PI approach, and the Amazon reviewer does compliment that aspect. I especially liked the lowered pitch since it brought the voices to a different tessitura, and offered a different color to the orchestration.

I have not followed Bartoli's career and only knew of her, more than I had heard much of her singing (I was grossed out by her CD cover with a beard).

I remember seeing a production of _Cosi fan tutte_ with her on DVD. I thought of her as primarily a singer of *Handel*, *Mozart* and *Rossini* (three of my favorite opera composers), so my first thought was one of surprise that she took on _Norma_. But then I read some about the edition, the "critical edition," which got my attention, along with Biondi's name, a HIP/PI conductor I have enjoyed in the past.

I suppose I am an unorthodox opera fan since I am not mainly interested in the singers. I also like productions which are somehow unique, which is why I enjoyed *Robert Wilson*'s _Pelléas et Mélisande_, my favorite opera, and L'Orfeo even though they were unconventional.

Overall, I am very happy to have discovered this recording.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> I listen to any opera as a totality, not just an appraisal of the singer(s). What I liked most about this recording was the HIP/PI approach, and the Amazon reviewer does compliment that aspect. I especially liked the lowered pitch since it brought the voices to a different tessitura, and offered a different color to the orchestration.
> 
> I have not followed Bartoli's career and only knew of her, more than I had heard much of her singing (I was grossed out by her CD cover with a beard).
> 
> ...


Yup, it is theater, first and foremost, right? For you and me, anyway. But there are many who don't see or hear it that way, and for whom it is singing first and foremost. I can see arguments made both ways, but it's late, so, ciao.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

fluteman said:


> Yup, it is theater, first and foremost, right? For you and me, anyway. But there are many who don't see or hear it that way, and for whom it is singing first and foremost. I can see arguments made both ways, but it's late, so, ciao.


There are good reasons why we identify operas by the names of their composers. Opera is a theatrical art form, but its primary expressive medium is music. Listen to a recorded opera and you still have an opera. Watch one without music and you have a pageant or a pantomime, or at most a not-very-memorable spoken play. For those who can't get to the theater, opera is nonetheless a vital art, and what transpires in the theater of the mind, directly inspired by the composer, singers and conductor, may surpass in potency and artistic integrity any number of productions.

We're entitled to value whatever aspects of opera we wish, but if the essence of the work is not conveyed by the singing and conducting it will be something other than what its composer gives us. (Sad to say, the disproportionate emphasis on novelty and "concept" in theatrical production, along with the decline in vocal proficiency, may have made this distortion of emphasis more acceptable. Does the audience looking at a crocodile in place of Kundry care that they've been told they're watching _Parsifal, _and do they care whether a seductress who looks like a reptile also sounds like one? If "theater" is our chief concern, it might be better if she did.)

If the composer has done his work, he will have given his characters music that expresses their nature in definite ways. It typically takes a superb singer to realize the potential of that music and bring us her character in a complete and compelling way. Opera is drama through music - sung music - and to have it sung well is, for most works in the repertoire, of supreme importance. Without great singing, opera is an inferior and even pointless art form; with it, it's one of the most powerful.


----------



## damianjb1 (Jan 1, 2016)

Tsaraslondon said:


> It's on the album _Hymns of the 49th Parallel_, which is one of my favourites.


A gorgeous album. Really beautiful.


----------



## damianjb1 (Jan 1, 2016)

Azol said:


> Has Lisa Gerrard already been mentioned?


Thank you so much. I can't believe it.
I first heard that song nearly 20 years ago in a very powerful documentary about the 9/11 attacks. It's been in my mind ever since. And I've never known what it was or who the singer was. And now I do. So thank you.
That's an amazing voice. If a singer can get their voice to do whatever they want it to do, does that mean they have a perfect technique?


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

nina foresti said:


> What am I missing? I thought Barbara Cook died.


She did. In 2017 at the age of 89.

But she continued to perform until 2011.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

pianozach said:


> She did. In 2017 at the age of 89.
> 
> But she continued to perform until 2011.


And was still singing brilliantly when I last heard her in 2008.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Barbebleu said:


> Mario Lanza in South Pacific? When and where please


It was opera singer *Ezio Pinza* that premiered *South Pacific*, after retiring from The Met.

*Mario Lanza* sang _*Younger Than Springtime*_, from *South Pacific*, which was a minor hit for him. You can find it on his Greatest Hits album, but it was originally released on his Lanza on B'way album.


----------



## IgorS (Jan 7, 2018)

Cecilia Bartoli's singing has nothing to do with Bel Canto. Impersonating an asthmatic donkey is not Bel Canto.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> There are good reasons why we identify operas by the names of their composers. Opera is a theatrical art form, but its primary expressive medium is music. Listen to a recorded opera and you still have an opera. Watch one without music and you have a pageant or a pantomime, or at most a not-very-memorable spoken play. For those who can't get to the theater, opera is nonetheless a vital art, and what transpires in the theater of the mind, directly inspired by the composer, singers and conductor, may surpass in potency and artistic integrity any number of productions.
> 
> We're entitled to value whatever aspects of opera we wish, but if the essence of the work is not conveyed by the singing and conducting it will be something other than what its composer gives us. (Sad to say, the disproportionate emphasis on novelty and "concept" in theatrical production, along with the decline in vocal proficiency, may have made this distortion of emphasis more acceptable. Does the audience looking at a crocodile in place of Kundry care that they've been told they're watching _Parsifal, _and do they care whether a seductress who looks like a reptile also sounds like one? If "theater" is our chief concern, it might be better if she did.)
> 
> If the composer has done his work, he will have given his characters music that expresses their nature in definite ways. It typically takes a superb singer to realize the potential of that music and bring us her character in a complete and compelling way. Opera is drama through music - sung music - and to have it sung well is, for most works in the repertoire, of supreme importance. Without great singing, opera is an inferior and even pointless art form; with it, it's one of the most powerful.


For me, that is by far your best post in both of the recent threads on this subject. You give an articulate, well-stated explanation of your side of this coin. Bravo. You could post exactly the same thing again as an encore. Or I could nominate it for 'sticky' status, so you don't have to say it again each time this subject arises here.

But much as I appreciate, understand and sympathize with this side of the issue (remember I am a Marty Robinson fan from way back -- maybe you remember him, as WFMT went nationwide through cable TV providers in the early 1980s), there is, and always will be, another side. Opera always reflects a combination of, and an often complex interplay and tension between two very different artforms, music and drama (or theater, as it is loosely called). Despite this, it is the operas that can stand on their own as musical masterpieces, without theatrical production, that occupy the most prominent place in the canon, in large part for the reasons you gave.

Nonetheless, nearly all of the most famous traditional operas (so famous that even an ignorant non-expert like me knows them) have theatrical merit sufficient to justify the great expense of a full production. After all, without theatrical merit, they would have been immediate failures in their own day, and most likely forgotten today, as many are. True, as time passes, cultural tastes and values change, and what constitutes effective theater, comedy, tragedy or otherwise, change too. Some of the famous classic operas may more be the equivalent of a paperback best seller from a dramatic perspective rather than timeless classics like the work of Shakespeare or Tolstoy. But these operas still have theatrical value, and most importantly there is still the interplay between music and drama that I mentioned above, in which both are enhanced.

For these reasons, creative and enterprising artists continue to seek to breathe life into the dramatic aspect of these old operas, rather than simply perform the music. Inevitably, many of these contemporary creative efforts will draw derision from those who savor the art in its original form, not least because, new approaches are liable to significantly impact the musical presentation. I try to keep an open mind and ears, while at the same time respecting the "HIP philosophy", which has been beneficial in the case of baroque music, in my opinion.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

fluteman said:


> For me, that is by far your best post in both of the recent threads on this subject. You give an articulate, well-stated explanation of your side of this coin. Bravo. You could post exactly the same thing again as an encore. Or I could nominate it for 'sticky' status, so you don't have to say it again each time this subject arises here.
> 
> But much as I appreciate, understand and sympathize with this side of the issue (remember I am a Marty Robinson fan from way back -- maybe you remember him, as WFMT went nationwide through cable TV providers in the early 1980s), there is, and always will be, another side. Opera always reflects a combination of, and an often complex interplay and tension between two very different artforms, music and drama (or theater, as it is loosely called). Despite this, it is the operas that can stand on their own as musical masterpieces, without theatrical production, that occupy the most prominent place in the canon, in large part for the reasons you gave.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the good report card. Mom will be so proud!

I don't disagree about the importance of effective theatrical presentation. A classic example is the film of Act 2 of Tosca made at Covent Garden in 1964, with Callas and Gobbi giving us brilliantly acted performances that make the opera into something more powerful and profound than you ever dreamed it was. I'm not overly fond of _Tosca_, but I think I've watched that film a dozen times and it never fails to knock my socks off. Of course those two, as expected, also miss no nuance in the vocal writing, either musically or in projecting the text.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Thanks for the good report card. Mom will be so proud!
> 
> I don't disagree about the importance of effective theatrical presentation. A classic example is the film of Act 2 of Tosca made at Covent Garden in 1964, with Callas and Gobbi giving us brilliantly acted performances that make the opera into something more powerful and profound than you ever dreamed it was. I'm not overly fond of _Tosca_, but I think I've watched that film a dozen times and it never fails to knock my socks off. Of course those two, as expected, also miss no nuance in the vocal writing, either musically or in projecting the text.


Let's hope directors and performers never stop trying to create that kind of excitement, even though we can't expect them to succeed so brilliantly every time.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Hi Fluteman: 
You said: _"For these reasons, creative and enterprising artists continue to seek to breathe life into the dramatic aspect of these old operas, rather than simply perform the music. Inevitably, many of these contemporary creative efforts will draw derision from those who savor the art in its original form, not least because, new approaches are liable to significantly impact the musical presentation."_

Could you possibly give me some names of who you might consider today "creative and enterprising artists who breathe life into the dramatic aspect of these old operas"?
It would help me to understand more simply exactly where you are coming from.


----------



## PaulFranz (May 7, 2019)




----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

PaulFranz said:


>


?????????????????


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

PaulFranz said:


>





MAS said:


> ?????????????????


Tennessee Ernie Ford. Remarkable singer. I don't care much for the genres in which most of his released output resides, but one cannot dispute that his voice was quite something.


----------



## PaulFranz (May 7, 2019)

Only once in my life have I heard a non-classical singer and mistakenly thought I was listening to a classical singer:


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

pianozach said:


> Tennessee Ernie Ford. Remarkable singer. I don't care much for the genres in which most of his released output resides, but one cannot dispute that his voice was quite something.


ooo! baritone duet! _glorious_!


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

PaulFranz said:


> Only once in my life have I heard a non-classical singer and mistakenly thought I was listening to a classical singer:


He was mostly a musical theatre singer, but he did sing some opera. Imo, it's difficult not to listen to this and say "_that's_ a real opera singer"


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

I don't think anyone has mentioned that Rosa Ponselle was a popular music singer in vaudeville before she made her debut at the Met in Trovatore at the age of 22. In my study of her I can only find mention of her studying with coaches to learn a role, never with vocal coaches.. Voice teachers today still hold her up as paragon example of perfect vocalism.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Seattleoperafan said:


> I don't think anyone has mentioned that Rosa Ponselle was a popular music singer in vaudeville before she made her debut at the Met in Trovatore at the age of 22. In my study of her I can only find mention of her studying with coaches to learn a role, never with vocal coaches.. Voice teachers today still hold her up as paragon example of perfect vocalism.


Ponselle's debut was in Forza del Destino (at the opera's Met premiere!) It's true that her technique would appear to have been totally natural and she did have some vocal coaching before and after that premiere, but it must have been mostly there for her to have been taken to audition by Caruso and to have received a contract for major roles.

N.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

The Conte said:


> Ponselle's debut was in Forza del Destino (at the opera's Met premiere!) It's true that her technique would appear to have been totally natural and she did have some vocal coaching before and after that premiere, but it must have been mostly there for her to have been taken to audition by Caruso and to have received a contract for major roles.
> 
> N.


I think there is a difference in role coaching and a voice teacher, although I'm sure some voice teachers do both. From my reading she just had role coaching at the Met, which is a necessity, although my sister was well known as a quick study back in her day and on a number of occasions would learn a soprano role in say 2 or 3 days and go onstage cold when a singer backed out!!!!!!!!! In my reading about Flagstad she mentions having a role coach work with her on new roles. I can't imagine Isolde without one!


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Seattleoperafan said:


> I think there is a difference in role coaching and a voice teacher, although I'm sure some voice teachers do both. From my reading she just had role coaching at the Met, which is a necessity, although my sister was well known as a quick study back in her day and on a number of occasions would learn a soprano role in say 2 or 3 days and go onstage cold when a singer backed out!!!!!!!!! In my reading about Flagstad she mentions having a role coach work with her on new roles. I can't imagine Isolde without one!


There's also a difference between vocal coaching and a voice teacher.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

pianozach said:


> There's also a difference between vocal coaching and a voice teacher.


Can you explain please if you don't mind.


----------



## PaulFranz (May 7, 2019)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> He was mostly a musical theatre singer, but he did sing some opera. Imo, it's difficult not to listen to this and say "_that's_ a real opera singer"


Well I'll be! Praise be to Youtube and Danny's Radio for the uploads! To be fair to myself, those are very recent uploads, and I'd gone years without ever catching a whiff of him in anything classical at all. This just confirms what I was hearing--that is superb classical technique! Thanks for the share.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Seattleoperafan said:


> Can you explain please if you don't mind.


I'm a coach, not a voice teacher.

As a coach, I am more about presentation and interpretation. I do not do foundational work to build proper vocal technique.

Usually it is working with a singer for a performance or audition.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

pianozach said:


> I'm a coach, not a voice teacher.
> 
> As a coach, I am more about presentation and interpretation. I do not do foundational work to build proper vocal technique.
> 
> Usually it is working with a singer for a performance or audition.


That is what I thought. Ponselle and Flagstad worked with coaches to learn new roles. Can you go to music school to learn the skillset you need for your job or are most coaches former opera performers?


----------



## PaulFranz (May 7, 2019)

Back to the topic: all the standard crooners with a more straightforward mindset had better basic vocal production than today's classical singers, though whether they could've handled the volume and tessitura of classical rep is an open question.

Jimmy Roselli, Eddie Fisher, Ed Ames, Jim Nabors, etc. 

Nelson Eddy and Thomas L. Thomas were both primarily popular singers, but they were of course classically trained and generally perceived as such. Anyway, I'd certainly prefer to see them at the Met over what we get now.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

fluteman said:


> Mario Lanza was superb in South Pacific. Another favorite singing actress of mine is Julie Andrews. When they decided to cast Audrey Hepburn as Eliza in the movie version instead because she was an established major star, they knew they couldn't use her singing voice. Without telling her, they dubbed in the singing of Marni Nixon, another fine singer, but no Julie Andrews.
> 
> In the jazz world, Ella Fitzgerald, especially in her youthful prime, was a great vocalist. The youthful Tony Bennett sounded very good. As for pop singers, I like the Everly brothers, and I admired the countertenor range and control of Paul Anka. Yes, the songs may be silly, but try singing them yourself. He made them sound very easy and natural. Edith Piaf had a unique voice and style that was very effective. Same with Tony Willliams, lead singer of the Platters.


Ella sang comfortably down to the D below middle C with perfect transition of registers so that you noticed only a smooth sound. She never vocalized into the head register in her early singing but when she later took up scat singing she beautifully went up to around A5 and the whole voice was a unified whole. Her sinuses were X rayed and they were twice the size of a normal person. The only technique where she did not excel was that unlike Barbra Streisand she had only average breath control and often takes breaths because she has to rather than where it makes logical sense for the text.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

MAS said:


> Isn't amplification a relatively recent development? Surely the early "Broadway" singers didn't need amplification? Also the theaters there are relatively small compared to most American opera houses. One must also remember, singers in most musicals also need to dance, so energy is spent doing that as well.


Of course Ethel Merman did not need amplification, but from memory it started in the neighborhood of 1959 on Broadway. By the time Streisand was doing Funny Girl on Broadway in the mid sixties everyone was amplified. I don't remember the original Broadway theaters I went to being anywhere nearly as large as today's opera houses.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Seattleoperafan said:


> That is what I thought. Ponselle and Flagstad worked with coaches to learn new roles. Can you go to music school to learn the skillset you need for your job or are most coaches former opera performers?


For presentation and interpretation? Education and/or experience. You're better off working with an experienced performer with a background in musical theatre, but acting coaches are also good as well.

Some voice teachers are very good at coaching for peformance-level presentation, others not so much.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Many singers will rehearse with a repetiteur when first learning a role. Callas used to call this period "straightjacketing", a time when you simply learn the notes and put interpretation aside. The repetiteur is there to tell you if you sing a wrong note or hold it longer than its required time.


----------



## OffPitchNeb (Jun 6, 2016)

I came across this lovely song by Piazzolla and decided to check out different performances on Youtube.

The version by Schrott, who is (or was) hyped as one of the best bass-baritones of our time, couldn't get any more sketchy and soporific. I think it is not singing, more like vocally gesturing. José Ángel Trelles, a non-classical singer, did justice to this beautiful piece.


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

L'Amico Fritz - YouTube 
Claudio Villa had a beautiful tenor voice and good technique, but chose to make a career in popular music. He probably could have done opera if he'd wanted to.


----------



## BBSVK (10 mo ago)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> Judy Garland (it's not perfect, but she's like 15 here and has a more natural sounding voice than than the majority of modern opera singers 20 years older than that)


BalalaikaBoy, could you tell me as if I am 5 years old, what is the core of the problem you see in operatic singing of today ? (And why are these musical singers better ?)


----------



## OffPitchNeb (Jun 6, 2016)

I have listened to a lot of Kurt Weill lately. *Lotte Lenya* and *Marlene Dietrich* outperformed opera singers attempting Weill like Stratas and von Otter. Not sure if the techniques of the former two were better, but they sounded more spontaneous and "gutsy".


----------



## DCK (7 mo ago)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> *Non classical singers with better "classical technique" than modern opera singers*
> 
> Gordon McRae was good but perhaps John Raitt was better. Here he is with excellent English pronunciation.


----------



## ColdGenius (9 mo ago)

I don't know much about technique, but there are many beautiful voices in folk music, fado for example. 




Madredeus and Teresa Salgueiro made their own music, but based on fado.


----------



## ColdGenius (9 mo ago)

Misia, who inspired a renewed interest to fado about 30 years ago.


----------



## vespertine (Jun 4, 2019)

Seattleoperafan said:


> I'm crazy about Barbara Cook.
> 
> 
> 
> The way she shifts into a fully resonant head voice at F5 here is gooseflesh inducing. She sang all the high notes in Glitter and Be Gay in her unique voice and style. Maybe the best version.


Absolutely! Famously, she does such a good job phonating each 'H' in the _ha-ha-hahahaha _section of "Glitter and Be Gay" which is extremely challenging vocally, and basically all singers after her omitted.


----------



## vespertine (Jun 4, 2019)

I wouldn't say he has better classical vocal technique than modern opera singers - he was first and foremost a drummer in Genesis - but Phil Collins does a great job drumming and singing here from 5:25 on. For starters he just has excellent musical sensibility and clearly knows how to build to a climax. Look at the audience, they're _loving it_. But he also keeps his legato line very well despite banging around. Renée Fleming said she saw Rusalka recently and felt the soprano would have sung "Song to the Moon" better had she not been running around the stage so much before it (as modern opera demands); this is sort of the pop music equivalent.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

BBSVK said:


> BalalaikaBoy, could you tell me as if I am 5 years old, what is the core of the problem you see in operatic singing of today ? (And why are these musical singers better ?)


1) A good operatic voice is supposed to sound like a normal, natural voice...but better. 
2) Some singers are woofy like a dog or a gorilla, other singers are strained and nasal and tend to screech when they go up high. 
3) Not all powerful voices are good, but all good voices are powerful
4) Good voices sound effortless


....that's about all I would be able to explain to a small child. Describing things like legato/portamento is more difficult.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> 1) A good operatic voice is supposed to sound like a normal, natural voice...but better.
> 2) Some singers are woofy like a dog or a gorilla, other singers are strained and nasal and tend to screech when they go up high.
> 3) Not all powerful voices are good, but all good voices are powerful
> 4) Good voices sound effortless
> ...


Here's my take on your take....which I have demonstrated my respect for, and enjoyment of, many times I believe!

The word "good" jumps out at me. Unamplified operatic singing in enormous halls is too challenging for good singers to reach those criteria. I think only great singers pull it off and then, far from always. Bjoerling lost effortlessness as the years went by.....Battle's voice could be transcendent on record but lacked the pre-requisite power onstage.

But for answering the question that was asked of you, I agree with your priorities. I just think that only the very best achieve that level a high percentage of the time.


----------



## Dogville (Dec 28, 2021)

I think Whitney Houston's technique was informed in part by classical techniques. Her voice in her prime always sat on the breath, her singing always maintained a lyrical beauty to it, and her control over modulating volume was truly virtuosic for pop music standards (just listen to 2:18 onwards!) and better than many current opera singers if we are being honest. Her head voice also spun like a genuine lyric soprano. Pavarotti even complimented her when they sang a tiny snippet of Rigoletto together in 1994.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

ScottK said:


> Here's my take on your take....which I have demonstrated my respect for, and enjoyment of, many times I believe!
> 
> The word "good" jumps out at me. Unamplified operatic singing in enormous halls is too challenging for good singers to reach those criteria. I think only great singers pull it off and then, far from always. Bjoerling lost effortlessness as the years went by.....Battle's voice could be transcendent on record but lacked the pre-requisite power onstage.
> 
> But for answering the question that was asked of you, I agree with your priorities. I just think that only the very best achieve that level a high percentage of the time.


Side note: I'm usually more descriptive and thorough and relying on words like "good" to explain what I'm trying to convey, but I was asked specifically to describe good singing as if speaking to a 5 year old. A proper answer to this question could not be made in less than a page.


----------



## BBSVK (10 mo ago)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> Side note: I'm usually more descriptive and thorough and relying on words like "good" to explain what I'm trying to convey, but I was asked specifically to describe good singing as if speaking to a 5 year old. A proper answer to this question could not be made in less than a page.


My friend independently found these complaints about modern teaching on youtube and shared them with me.






Is this what you don't like ? Are you, by chance, an author ?


----------

