# Do opera singers have to 'have the look' now days to make it?



## barkingbartok (Oct 28, 2007)

I've heard a lot of talk of more demands on opera singers to look certain ways to get lead roles, so I was wondering about other people's thoughts on looks verses voice.


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

The more attractive someone looks, the better their chances of getting the lead roles - however, there are roles for the ugly guys as well! Opera singers have to play with what they've got and I'm sure there are roles for everyone.


----------



## RicardoTheTexan (Nov 6, 2007)

You wish. I wish.

A long, long time ago La Scala (the company) made an experiment. The administration flatly refused to re-sign overweight singers, no matter how well-known. The results were absolutely astounding. Suddenly most of them lost weight (including those who had previously claimed that a) losing weight was impossible for them due to .. blah,blah, bla b) losing weight would destroy their voices). I don't think a similar experiment would be possible today.

Two years ago I saw Rigoletto at the Met, conducted by Placido Domingo, and featuring a bunch of youngsters in the lead roles. Domingo is perhaps the best (most respectful of the composer) conductor in the world right now. As for the cast, it was a pleasure to see the Duke leap away from the garden gate in a cat-like motion when Rigoletto opened it. It was also a pleasure to see Maddalena perch playfully on the table and touch the Duke's chest with her toes while singing. It was truly a pleasure.

I mean, looks are not REALLY vital in opera; sometimes, however, those primadonnas of both genders can REALLY get out of hand with the idea that their vocal ability justifies everything.


----------



## LFcatface (Nov 21, 2007)

Looks play a part in casting opera productions but at least appearance is not the number one concern (after box office) as it is in Musical Theatre. When casting a musical the production team select out those who look the part and from that set of people, they select and cast the performer who acts and sings the best.

Generally, in opera companies like to select the excellent singers who can ALSO look and act the part.

There are many standard roles in the repertoire that are well within the abities of many ,many professional opera singers, so those in charge of casting can easily find an artist that fits the role visually and vocally and also the specific production.

For example it certainly would be less believable to cast an Octavian that is much shorter than the singer playing the Marschallin in Der Rosenkavalier Given the choice of two mezzo's one being short and voluptuous and another being tall and flat chested , most directors would choose to cast the tall one to play this" trouser" role. In fact chances are that the short voluptuous mezzo does not even have Octavian worked up, but instead is prepared to sing Carmen.

It is a good thing that most people involved in casting opera understand that a lady or gentleman who is carrying a bit of extra weight auditioning in front of them, will usually look quite nice anyway in a big opera costume , maybe even better than a"fashionably"slender person. An hour glass figure and cleavage look great in period costumes on a big stage.

In a few instances looks do get in the way of an exceptional vocal talent. For instance if a very large lady has a voice suitable only for soubrette or ingenue roles and there are a wealth of petite young ladies available to sing these roles, or in the case of a tenor with a leading man's voice and decidedly "charachter" looks.

It is my theory(from studying how facial stucture enhances sound) that excellent singers are more likely to have what society considers to be exceptionally beautiful facial bone structure, as the face is a part of the instrument(singers resonation in enhanced there) therefore the soprano with the beautiful cheekbones and the beautiful big smile cast in a leading role may actually sound better than the less beautiful singer who is understudying!


----------



## luigi.di.violini (Dec 11, 2007)

The combinations of appearance and voice is a very individual factor for each singer and situation. It doesn't hurt to look good and have a good voice, because you have an advantage over someone who looks less ideal but has a good voice. But opera characters are people as well, and it's ok for some of them (especially peripheral characters, fathers, uncles, servants, comic heroes and heroines) to be short or plump, etc.

However, I read that La Traviata failed when it first came out because the soprano was around 170 lbs. which didn't fit the image of a delicate, frail, and dying lady. An average figure should be acceptable. We shouldn't have to devote our lives to looking like models, though obesity seriously affects overall health which can be damaging to the voice. Obesity worsens conditions such as acid reflux, allergies, etc. But it is actually easier to sing when you have 2-3 extra lbs. rather than being too thin, as someone once said "An empty sack can't stand up."


----------



## Klassikal (Dec 14, 2007)

Anna Netrebko does. James Valenti does. There are a few. The former is heavily marketed, but certainly not deprived of talent. Valenti is young, trained by Corelli. Like Corelli, exceptionally tall for a tenor (1.90) and handsome.

James Valenti singing "Addio fiorito asil"


----------



## Gladiator (Dec 4, 2007)

certainly does not hurt because they have to be actors as well.


----------



## LFcatface (Nov 21, 2007)

*Corelli?*

Hi Klassical,
You wrote that Valenti is trained by Corelli. I was under the impression that Valenti has been a student of Bill Schuman. Corelli has been dead for few years, was he really Valenti's teacher or did Valenti just sing for Corelli in a master class or something? I think we should be careful before we give the credit for training a voice to an opera star (even a great one like Corelli) when all the work was done by an excellent singing teacher such as Bill.


----------



## Klassikal (Dec 14, 2007)

Lacatface: very true, I am sorry if I did not chose my words carefully. I do know Valenti studied with the late Corelli and certainly when I hear him now I hear lots of influence of Corelli. Whether his fundaments came from elsewhere I don't exactly know, but I am sure the teachers that got him to that fundament which he built upon should receive full credit.


----------



## luyan1985 (Dec 18, 2007)

I think appearance is very important who is an excellent singer.


----------



## billie_d_kidd (Sep 17, 2008)

Yes...........


----------



## Elaryad (Jul 29, 2008)

I think opera is not Hollywood. Well, I hope it isn't. 
But I don't know if you're talking about general looks (if the singer is very pretty/handsome, very fat, etc.) or the adaptation to the role (cut or letting grow their hair/beard, etc.).
I agree with the second but cannot accept the first.
Unfortunately there is a general tendency (according with our wonderful times) to choose someone by the looks and THEN by the skills.
There's a Portuguese proverb that says: there are the eyes that eat the first bit.
So the answer is Yes.


----------



## Zombo (Oct 5, 2008)

I dont think it should. The #1 reason must and always remain the singing ability of the candidate.

However, given two candidates with equally good singing and given that Opera is performing art, the spot must be given to the more attractive singer if the role demands it of course.


----------



## luyan1985 (Dec 18, 2007)

Opera is not a moive and a show.people who come to appriciate opera focus on the following:firstly:singing.voice and tequnic .But It dosen't mean we don't even look at the apperance of the singer.as an audieance we really hope the apperance of the singer could be quite perfect with the conterpart role.we don't want to see the 50-year-old woman to act the petty lady in opera.But if she has an incredible voice and tequnic.It's ok.That's my opinion


----------



## Isabelle (Oct 16, 2008)

I don´t think it should matter what a singer looks like, but I understand some roles require a certain shape, but I think people should be chosen on voice most of all. I judge singers by their voice myself but I do understand that some people in looks are more suited for certain roles, but the voice should be the main thing the role should be given on, if theres an ´ugly´ singer with a great voice and pretty one with a medium voice, the choise should obviously fall on the good voice, if both are equal in technique and voice quality, I do think its fair they place the choise on looks, but only if both are exactely equally good for the role in voice.


----------



## BobR (Nov 3, 2008)

In another thread I mentioned an innovative Australian Opera 1993 production of La Boheme with a young, attractive, agile cast that just entranced me. Voices? Well, Cheryl Barker was pushing her limits, and although David Hobson is no Domingo, his light tenor hit the highest notes with ease. On the DVD, they looked good - or dare I say hot? And they ACTED. Maybe it's just Opera for the Common Folk, but it's a refreshing change from DVDs I've seen with overweight singers past their prime who are most unconvincing in their roles.

Looking good, or at least looking the part, adds to the experience. In this Boheme, Rodolfo could pick up Mimi and carry her to the couch, and Musetta and Marcello pushed each other around when they fought. They were supposed to be young, and they were.


----------



## katdad (Jan 1, 2009)

No question that good looks will help the singer. Maybe in a purist mode it doesn't make any difference but in today's modern world, a singer with a good voice AND good looks will be in a better situation.

If a singer is a bit stocky, that is always okay but someone who's hugely overweight will have problems getting cast as The Duke or Gilda or whomever, so long as the company has the services of an equally good singer who's height/weight proportionate.

Like it or not, that's the way it is nowadays.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Well, one has to give singers a bit of slack - a lot of slack even. One has to accept that not everyone can be as pretty as Netrebko or as handsome as Domingo - or that whoever plays, say, Madama Butterfly is inevitably going to be too old for the part. But there are limits to everything. To have a Madama Butterfly who looks like for example Montserrat Caballé would be ridiculous.


----------



## katdad (Jan 1, 2009)

Agreed. We all use suspension of disbelief -- after all, nobody stands around carrying a sword and sings -- but the cast should be at least reasonably fitted to their roles. I don't think anyone demands absolute verisimilitude.


----------



## BobR (Nov 3, 2008)

Listening to an opera, we can use our imaginations and picture the artists as we choose. Watching a live performance, unless you're very near to the stage or have incredible vision, costuming and makeup can hide a lot. But now DVDs give you a close view, and you can see perhaps more than you'd like to. 

For some, what is seen on stage is secondary to what is heard, but for others, the visual component is important. That's why there is more than one flavor of ice cream.


----------



## katdad (Jan 1, 2009)

Agreed about the ice cream. Opera is an auditory and visual experience. If it weren't part visual, everything would be performed in a concert version, singers just standing there wearing formal tuxes and gowns.

I've seen chunky heroes and heroines, and that's okay. We don't need perfect fits for the roles. Otherwise all Butterflys would be Japanese only, and so on.

One terrific DVD I have is the Metropolitan double bill of Tabarro and Pag. Teresa Stratas is well into her 50s in Tabarro and in closeups she certainly doesn't fit the part of the young wayward wife, but her personality and acting carry the role over, not to mention her wonderful voice.

So we "wink" a bit and let things slide. It's only sensible to expect a singer somewhat conform to the role in appearance, and we need to cut them some slack. That being said, it certainly helps if the singer looks the part, voice of course being the primary concern.


----------



## Lang (Sep 30, 2008)

The day that classical singers are chosen on the basis of their facial features will be the day this society has really hit rock bottom.


----------



## katdad (Jan 1, 2009)

Besides the technically interesting topics we've discussed here, I must also admit to having a mild crush on some singers -- Kiri Te Kanawa, "Flicka", and naturally the most recent stunners, Netrebko included. I'm only human.


----------



## Doctor Whom (Jan 26, 2009)

I suppose it might depend on whether you think opera is principally theatre, or concert. If it's theatre then the performer's ability to play the part is determined by the same things as in a play or musical: physical attributes, acting ability, professionalism and voice. If not, then vocal ability is all-important. If it's _both_, then there might have to be a compromise, unles you're very, very lucky.


----------



## katdad (Jan 1, 2009)

I think that opera is of course both theater and music. As I said before, if it weren't theater, opera would not have evolved beyond the old-style Handel mode, with very little onstage physicality.

That's also what makes opera perhaps the most complex and difficult of all art forms -- it requires skill in orchestral, singing, acting, staging, sets, costumes, to create the totality of its magic.

Another small item -- today's young singers are in a great degree athletes. They recognize the need for physical stamina and good general health, and have also put the lie to the old myth that an opera singer had to be heavy-chested to sing well. (Anyone who thinks that had better watch some Teresa Stratas videos)

So long as the need for decent physical attributes is not taken as the principal item in a singer's worth, I think it's just fine that most young singers -- the stars of tomorrow -- look the part. Everybody wins.


----------



## jvalenti (Feb 5, 2009)

*from james valenti*

just for the record..i NEVER studied with Franco Corelli...i never even met him...not sure where that rumor got started. I have studied with Bill Schuman since i was 23. Also, i am about 198 cm. Just want to make sure people have the facts.

thanks 
james


----------



## Gneiss (Feb 3, 2009)

jhar26 said:


> Well, one has to give singers a bit of slack - a lot of slack even. One has to accept that not everyone can be as pretty as Netrebko or as handsome as Domingo - or that whoever plays, say, Madama Butterfly is inevitably going to be too old for the part. But there are limits to everything. To have a Madama Butterfly who looks like for example Montserrat Caballé would be ridiculous.


Not wishing to be unkind, the last Isolde I saw stretched the imagination a tad!


----------



## Margaret (Mar 16, 2009)

I know this thead's a little old, but it's still on the front page for this section....

This reminds me of something I heard many years ago.

Back in the days before TV there were radio dramas. The voice of Marshal Matt Dillon on "Gunsmoke" was played by William Conrad.

Then came TV. And William Conrad is short and fat. So they cast James Arness who had the physical appearance, voice and acting skills. And his Matt Dillon became legend.

If I'm listening to a CD reading the libretto cast the absolute best voice you can get. My imagination does the rest.

As others have said, if the voices are equal and one person's appearance matches the character better cast that person.

But I'll go a step further. If one voice is better than the other but it's coming out of someone whose appearance and age are completely at odds with the character and someone else's voice is not quite as good, but s/he matches the appearance and age of the character -- _as far as I'm concerned_, go with latter. Ultimately it's going to be less of a distraction to me and enable me to stay in the world that's being created much easier than if I have constantly remind myself of who someone's actually supposed to be.

True story. And feel free to laugh at me.....

The first opera I saw was "The Marriage of Figaro." I was given the ticket as a Christmas present. I had never heard of a "pants role." I didn't know Cherubino was supposed to be a teenage boy. Or, to be more precise, I didn't know that we the audience were supposed to pretend that this attractive 30 something, curvaceous woman was a teenage boy. Every time Cherubino came on stage I kept wondering "What's up with this cross-dressing, lesbian story line?"


----------



## Gneiss (Feb 3, 2009)

Margaret said:


> The first opera I saw was "The Marriage of Figaro." I was given the ticket as a Christmas present. I had never heard of a "pants role." I didn't know Cherubino was supposed to be a teenage boy. Or, to be more precise, I didn't know that we the audience were supposed to pretend that this attractive 30 something, curvaceous woman was a teenage boy.


Hansel and Gretel still amuses me for much the same reason...

"But Hansel's a GIRL"


----------



## Fritz Gerlich (Sep 23, 2009)

Here is just a few thoughts on current classical music, please feel free to disagree!

We all know that what sells best is sex, which is the reason so many new young classical music stars (not only opera) are good looking, skills come second. This is the reverse over what has been true in the past and I think is a reflection of the changing audience for classical music. The younger audiences that came of age from the 80's onward have been conditioned to associate looks with music performers, and part of how they evaluate an artist is on how they look. I mean when you see 70's rock stars they are by-in-large butt ugly, but by the time of MTV you had to look good. Most would agree that creatively the 70's was a better time in popular music than the 80's, but the 80's had better looking people. Anyway, back to classical music...so in the younger audiences (<40), they have been conditioned to see an artist in terms of looks and talent, not just talent. So the younger generation of Classical musicians that are being sold to the under 40's have to be good looking just like the current crop of pop muscians.

Ugly people have a harder time in life in general, so why would it be any different in the world of music. Taking another non classical music example, just look at the US presidents since 1970 when TV became the main weapon in politics--all good looking men. Then take a look at pre 1970 presidents, by-in-large butt ugly. And I guess if people are superficial in choosing something as imporatant as the prez, why would choosing favorite violinists or opera singers be any different. 

So if you see a fat ugly young classical music star, you KNOW they've got talent. Pavarotti, Horowitz, and Caruso wouldn't have a chance today.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Fritz Gerlich said:


> Here is just a few thoughts on current classical music, please feel free to disagree!
> 
> We all know that what sells best is sex, which is the reason so many new young classical music stars (not only opera) are good looking, skills come second. This is the reverse over what has been true in the past and I think is a reflection of the changing audience for classical music. The younger audiences that came of age from the 80's onward have been conditioned to associate looks with music performers, and part of how they evaluate an artist is on how they look. I mean when you see 70's rock stars they are by-in-large butt ugly, but by the time of MTV you had to look good. Most would agree that creatively the 70's was a better time in popular music than the 80's, but the 80's had better looking people. Anyway, back to classical music...so in the younger audiences (<40), they have been conditioned to see an artist in terms of looks and talent, not just talent. So the younger generation of Classical musicians that are being sold to the under 40's have to be good looking just like the current crop of pop muscians.


In opera it has a lot to do with productions becoming more physically demanding and complicated in my opinion. Audiences don't accept anymore that you just stand there at the front of the stage with your arms widespread for two hours, just showing of the beauty of your voice. They want opera to be like a regular play with the characters moving around, interacting in (as much as opera allows) a realistic manner and they want them (within reason) to look the part.

PS: I agree about MTV. It's the worst thing that ever happened to popular music.


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent (Feb 28, 2008)

Kids are trying to take over our opera too. I look on many websites or stores at newer productions of operas. The singers all look like Soap Opera stars rather than Opera singers. Their lack of talent is made up by devilish looks. Women are beautiful, Men are unblemished and chiseled. Hell most of the singers I listen to are not exactly the prettiest or handsomest of singers _excluding Ferroochie my avatar_. I am just a regular guy who enjoys talent over looks. I attempted showing family some of my opera DVDs and all I heard was how ugly that Don Giovanni was and how big Sussana's nose is and How fat that soprano is. This generation only cares about 1 thing *Looks*. We are in a world were people want everything to be clean and shiny. Even operas are starting to be polished up. Everything has to be perfect.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I have mixed feelings about this question. Opera is a form of theater. The narrative drama, the visuals and the music are all essential to the experience. If I am listening to a recording, none of this matters. Mimi can be 240 pounds, the Commendatore can be a dwarf, and Otello can be an effeminate albino. When one watches an actual opera performance (whether recorded of live) it is somewhat necessary that the actors and actresses fit the role. This is not to say that we go for looks over talent. Personally I find that a lot of the best performers have both looks and talent. Certainly this is true of Magdalena Kozena...










Angela Gheorghiu...










Elina Garanca...










Anna Netrebko...










Cecilia Bartoli...










continued...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Renee Fleming...










Andreas Scholl...










Philippe Jaroussky...










and Dimitri Hvorostovsky...










Not a single one of these performers is unattractive... and yet they are also among the best singers and performers today in opera and classical song. Of course there are exceptions...










But still someone like Terfel is not exactly bad looking... and like all of the major operatic performers he most certainly will have the benefit of some of the best theatrical make-up artists. At the same time... the roles that he would be chosen for in live performances would most certainly suit his appearance.

continued...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Neither do I buy the idea that this is a recent phenomenon.Among the biggest operatic stars of the past were many that were considered quite handsome or beautiful... sex symbols even. For example the phenomenal Jussi Bjorling...










... the inimitable Fritz Wunderlich...










... the marvelous Lucia Popp...










and of course Maria Callas who could rival nearly any Hollywood starlet for sheer sex appeal... and still sing (my God could she sing!)


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

> I have mixed feelings about this question. Opera is a form of theater. The narrative drama, the visuals and the music are all essential to the experience. If I am listening to a recording, none of this matters. Mimi can be 240 pounds, the Commendatore can be a dwarf, and Otello can be an effeminate albino. When one watches an actual opera performance (whether recorded of live) it is somewhat necessary that the actors and actresses fit the role. This is not to say that we go for looks over talent. Personally I find that a lot of the best performers have both looks and talent. Certainly this is true of Magdalena Kozena...


Honestly, i could care less even if I was watching a performance. It just has to be convincing, and mostly it's all about the music. An enormous amount of the qualities of a character really come to me through the singing.

By the way, this is a bit random, but could anyone refer to me an Opera where one of the cast members performs an instrument to fulfill a part? It doesn't sound that out of the ordinary, and I believe I've seen that in a show or two, but I'm not so sure. It sounds as if it would be interesting.


----------



## BobR (Nov 3, 2008)

When many operas were first performed, they were seen and heard only live on stage. There were some limitations for both visual and auditory senses, depending on the hall and where you were seated. With no amplification, volume was appreciated. Then came the phonograph, the LP, and then the CD. We heard the voices without visual input, and our criteria altered. We could fall in love with a 300-pound singer with a weak voice. DVDs make us shift gears. We see and hear the whole package (with amplification), and we make comparisons to other theater forms found on TV.

So now we anticipate the perfect voice in a perfect body with athletic movements and consummate acting skills. A rare combination indeed, and we are usually doomed to some disappointment. I try to overlook some factors and appreciate a performance if it passes at least a couple of the criteria.

I have CDs that I play often because the voices handle every note with perfection, despite the fact that the singers may be old, fat or clumsy. I don't have to see that. At the same time, I play the DVD I cited earlier of the Australian Opera production of La Boheme, with sexy David Hobson and Cheryl Barker, whose voices may evoke criticism, but who portray their roles well. They'd win the approval of the MTV crowd, because they look good. Is that such a bad thing?

Opera will wither and die if it doesn't adapt to the desires of the coming generations.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Honestly, i could care less even if I was watching a performance. It just has to be convincing, and mostly it's all about the music.

Of course that is as prejudicial as if someone were to suggest that the cinematography, the music, the acting etc... do not matter much in film... its all about the narrative. As an art form all the elements must work for the work to rise to the highest level. We can ignore certain "flaws" to an extent when other elements rise to a great height... but they remain as "flaws". Opera is an art form that combines music with theater, visuals, etc... I'm going to have a hard time not feeling a unintended sense of absurdity if Romeo is 5 foot 2" or Juliette weighs in at 300 pounds. But I am also going to be more than disappointed if Juliette is a real stunner but can't sing her part without continual strained notes, etc...

An enormous amount of the qualities of a character really come to me through the singing.

Of course... but have you not noticed that Opera works so much more when seen in person (or in DVD)? Much of the drama is also conveyed through the acting, the action, the gestures and expressions... even the staging and lighting. None of these are irrelevant.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Lukecash12 said:


> Honestly, i could care less even if I was watching a performance. It just has to be convincing, and mostly it's all about the music. An enormous amount of the qualities of a character really come to me through the singing.
> 
> By the way, this is a bit random, but could anyone refer to me an Opera where one of the cast members performs an instrument to fulfill a part? It doesn't sound that out of the ordinary, and I believe I've seen that in a show or two, but I'm not so sure. It sounds as if it would be interesting.


Felicity Lott as The Marquise of Birkenfeld plays the piano in my DVD of La Fille du Regiment with great aplomb.


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent (Feb 28, 2008)

If I ever played Don Giovanni, I wouldn't need to pretend to play the mandolin. Though some have done a good job. Samuel Ramey (My favorite Don) just taps on his mandolin.


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent (Feb 28, 2008)

Luciano Pavarotti as The Duke in Rigoletto was very convincing. I never saw Pavarotti as a dashing man, but I think he pulled it off.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Luciano Pavarotti as The Duke in Rigoletto was very convincing. I never saw Pavarotti as a dashing man, but I think he pulled it off.

Certainly... a great Duke of Mantua... but perhaps questionable as Don Giovanni, Romeo, Tamino, or Rodolfo... except in recordings.


----------



## Fritz Gerlich (Sep 23, 2009)

I think the stakes have risen dramatically over the years in terms of looks. We are exposed now to so many beautifully people, and more than beautiful thanks to photoshop and cgi. Sandra Bullock was on Jonathan Ross recently and she was talking about how much computer generated animation they did on her body during her nude scene and she is already beautiful. 

I also think it's human nature to evaluate someone on how they look. There's been studies that show more attractive people on average earn more money and generally have a much easier time with regards to certain things. Being ugly and/or fat in our society is a handicap when it comes to succeeding. The fact is ugly/fat people might not even get the chance to show their stuff in the arts because they aren't as sellable. That's not to say ugly/fat people can't succeed or anything stupid like that, just that it is harder, especially when it comes to the theater. Although, looking at the new crop of classical music stars, they're all pretty hot. And I suppose that's kinda the way it goes. Opera companies, record labels, etc all have to sell things, and if they sell more with good looking people then that's who they're going to choose.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

I have two categories. I listen to CDs of opera and then I'll go for voice and vocal acting, of course. But on stage I need to be able to suspend disbelief. I watched a DVD of Stiffelio recently with a very large singer as the adulterous wife and I'm sorry, I just couldn't buy it; she was simply too big, although when I shut my eyes she sounded great. I've just watched another opera where the singing was impeccable and everyone looked the part (and could move) and this really added to the experience for me.

All that said I think there is a lot of commercial pressure on artists to look good and I think it's gone too far.


----------



## Sieglinde (Oct 25, 2009)

Depends on role and vocal range. A bass can be huge, fat and bearded - they're not the romantic lovers after all. But a fat tenor (except for buffo roles) is horrible. Also, a fat lyric or lirico-spinto soprano. Just imagine how laughable is when a sumo-fighter Rodolfo sings about how he starves, and the not much slimmer Mimi coughs. Or the over-50, over 100 kg Butterfly shyly admits she's 15.

That's the reason I prefer baritones over tenors - the baritones are mostly handsome and slim. Tenors... well, not many tenors look as good as Domingo (even now that he's old). And those who do are nowhere near his voice. But barihunks are many.
Tenors who are slim _and_ have really good voices, not ruined too early? Let's see... Philip Langridge (still hot), Ian Bostridge, Jonas Kaufman, Neil Shicoff.


----------

