# What are the main characteristics you look for when listening to an opera singer?



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

some of mine

in general
1) A luxurious legato line. If you can't sing legato, you can't sing. No exceptions.
2) A relatively classy delivery. I'm not asking for everyone to be Elisabeth Schwarzkopf, but I've seen a number of productions of Tosca and left thinking "You look like a cheap harlot" or listened to a rendition of Nessun Dorma and thought "You are a histrionic mess. How anyone takes you seriously is beyond me". There are a couple of exceptions to this though. For example, if you are playing Carmen and you look classy, you are doing something VERY wrong. 
3) Well-placed high notes. I don't expect everyone to have a high D like Sutherland, a high C like Pavarotti or a high A like Milnes, but at least make sure it goes in the right place, and for heavens sake, _don't screech_!
4) Be able to sound a little bit romantic (yes, even lower voices). Most opera has a strong romantic aspect, and if one can't bring some degree of romantic longing and sensuousness to that, it's incredibly unconvincing.

more specific
1) For male voices, they must be dark. As a default, I find tenor voices somewhat annoying, so it needs to be a touch darker and smoother for me to take them seriously. For basses and baritones, if they're not dark, I'm kind of left like....what's the point?
2) For sopranos spinning top notes with some degree of brightness. Obviously, I don't expect all sopranos to sound like princess-y dolls, but imo, a soprano with zero brightness is basically a mezzo singing soprano rep. 
3) If you can't sing coloratura, don't. It's there for a reason, and when people sing it lazily, it's _extremely_ distracting.
4) Dramatic voices need to be able to move well. I could have included this in the general section, but it seems to be a particular issue for dramatic singers. I have a low tolerance for bellowing, and this includes Wagnerians. Many Wagnerian singers such as Flagstad, Lieder and Crespin move quite well, and I see no reason why others can't.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

On key, nuanced singing with feeling, a recognizable voice, a decent trill, ability to successfully execute high (low)notes, and a talent for a diminutive sound.


----------



## davidglasgow (Aug 19, 2017)

I've been hunting for an expression which might sum up my preferences and I've landed on *vivid/ vividness/ vividity*.

I think that gauging a performance on its 'vividness' best explain my personal preferences in terms of opera singers/ opera performance. Definitions for 'vivid' include:

1) "*producing powerful feelings or strong, clear images in the mind"
*
2) *"(of a colour) intensely deep or bright"*

3) *"(of a person or animal) lively and vigorous"*

*"Clear images"* are precisely what are communicated when the best singers have a profound grasp of opera's dramatic possibilities e.g. Claudia Muzio, Maria Callas, Fernando de Lucia, Aureliano Pertile, Ramon Vinay, Tito Gobbi, Feodor Chaliapin. Technically, these artists share excellent diction, flexible voices and considerable carrying-power. These artists often take vocal risks, they experiment with repertoire and they are no shrinking violets. These artists may risk admonition about bad taste but their histrionics can be like dagger blows.

*"Intensely deep or bright" [vocal] colours *are just what I look for in recordings. I think I favour archetypal voices e.g. Tamagno, Gigli, di Stefano, Pavarotti as sun-kissed tenor voices, or the even brighter Scandinavian tones of Jussi Bjorling and Aksel Schiotz rather than baritonal exemplars. Conversely, I really enjoy some deep basso voices such as Gottlob Frick or Kurt Moll. Rather unfairly, it takes a genius like Gobbi or Lisitsian to really grab my attention regarding baritone voices. 
*
"Lively and vigorous"* artists are a godsend for reinvigorating performances and making opera a constant pleasure. I'll repeat the truism that great voices amount to little if the artist is a dullard. Singers like Pertile, Schipa, Stabile, Valdengo, Olivero and Sills have at times completely, and deservedly, elbowed out competition that had greater natural gifts through their sheer intelligence, force of personality and dramatic acumen. Bravo!

When the stars align and an artist's dramatic smarts, exciting timbre and vigorous approach to the music combine the results can be exhilarating - that's why Serafin's miracles of Ponselle, Caruso and Ruffo and their vivid art surely remain paragons a century later.


----------



## Barelytenor (Nov 19, 2011)

nina foresti said:


> a talent for a diminutive sound.


I'm not sure I understand this bit. Do you mean the ability to sing softly?

Speaking as a longtime singer, I try to always find the meaning and communicate that. Forget technique, put down the music, and communicate with your listeners. A decent trill has never been a requisite for this baritone.

Kind regards, :tiphat:

George


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I want to hear immediately that a voice is functioning well physically. Two signs indicate good systemic coordination: 1.) even support of the tone by the breath, with no faltering or loss of tone at phrase ends and during changes in volume; and 2.) a fast, regular vibrato that increases slightly in intensity but doesn't widen and slow at high pitch and volume. If a voice exhibits both of these characteristics, it's healthy and can respond accurately and expressively to virtually all musical and dramatic demands placed on it. 

When technical security is lacking, to whatever degree, I may be able to make allowances if the singer's art persuades me to. If I feel secure in a singer's technical mastery I'm able to enjoy a great variety of voices of different ranges and timbral colorations, and I find it hard to generalize about my preferences. 

One other thing I must have from a singer is clear diction. It isn't always easy to achieve, depending on how the composer has set the words, but IMO there is no great singing without it. The sounds of language are tools of expression, and if you can't use those tools effectively you're at best an overstuffed songbird, not an artist.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> 1) For male voices, they must be dark. As a default, I find tenor voices somewhat annoying, so it needs to be a touch darker and smoother for me to take them seriously. For basses and baritones, if they're not dark, I'm kind of left like....what's the point?


I once felt similarly until I realized that especially dark voices tend not to project so well. In the music I love most that's not going to fly. Hvorostovsky, Kaufmann, Ferdinand Frantz, Amartuvsin Enkhbat from the 2015 Cardiff, all immediately come to mind as dark voiced singers who reportedly don't project as well as their brighter voiced counterparts. I prefer the laser-focused sound that slices right through the biggest orchestration & makes my ears ring


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Barelytenor said:


> I'm not sure I understand this bit. Do you mean the ability to sing softly?
> 
> Speaking as a longtime singer, I try to always find the meaning and communicate that. Forget technique, put down the music, and communicate with your listeners. A decent trill has never been a requisite for this baritone.
> 
> ...


Yes as in Milanov, Sutherland, Caballe, Corelli, diStefano etc. etc.
Also I missed a big one; Intonation. Clear diction.


----------



## Scott in PA (Aug 13, 2016)

I like a singer whose voice does not change character when moving from register to register. This is quite a challenge. I believe this is called producing a “covered” tone, but I never understood that term real well.


----------



## Annied (Apr 27, 2017)

I look for the singers who interpret what I hear when I listen to the music. Because rhythm dominates so heavily for me, phrasing, hitting every note in the very centre of the beat and not taking a breath in what to me feels the wrong place, are the most important factors. A voice that is another instrument becoming one with the music. I find it very difficult to listen to the singers who, in their attempts to bring extra passion into their singing, go against the musical flow.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Charm, vitality, and sex appeal - a beautiful adaptable voice for any role, plus a sense of health and well-being. Soprano Barbara Hannigan is my green goddess. I'd love to spend time with her in and out of the orchestra pit. She's amazing, especially with some of the modern stuff, such as Stravinsky. I find her wonderfully inspired. For me, she's the shining Emma Peel (the Avengers!) of voice and conducting.


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

Bonetan said:


> I once felt similarly until I realized that especially dark voices tend not to project so well. In the music I love most that's not going to fly. Hvorostovsky, Kaufmann, Ferdinand Frantz, Amartuvsin Enkhbat from the 2015 Cardiff, all immediately come to mind as dark voiced singers who reportedly don't project as well as their brighter voiced counterparts.


That's what I call the "fake dramatic" effect. Lyric voices that are artificially darkened because it's more flattering and sounds bigger when closely mic'ed, but of course don't project well because of of this chiaroscuro imbalance (too much scuro) and because it's actually a much smaller voice than it seems on record. The singers you mentioned are the perfect example.



> I prefer the laser-focused sound that slices right through the biggest orchestration & makes my ears ring


Same here. I prefer voices with a cutting-edge which I find far more dramatic and thrilling than any hefty but overly-rounded voice. It's by far my favorite of Callas' vocal qualities, and it's the first thing I look for it in other singers in certain roles.


----------

