# Met To Close For a Year



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

https://slippedisc.com/2020/09/breaking-the-met-stays-shut-for-a-year/


----------



## Granate (Jun 25, 2016)

As a first reaction, I think it's the best thing the company could do to the audience. The topic of the wage and health insurance for the musicians and singers is really serious.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Granate said:


> As a first reaction, I think it's the best thing the company could do to the audience. The topic of the wage and health insurance for the musicians and singers is really serious.


https://playbill.com/article/metrop...ire-20202021-season-lays-out-plans-for-future


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Opera as we know it is dead. We need a bright, young(ish) thing to revive it!

Where this needs to start is with training and a proper school to teach the technique as widely practised in the first half of the twentieth century (and before).

N.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The Conte said:


> Opera as we know it is dead. We need a bright, young(ish) thing to revive it!
> 
> Where this needs to start is with training and a proper school to teach the technique as widely practised in the first half of the twentieth century (and before).
> 
> N.


I've been looking at the Met broadcasts and I wouldn't say it is dead at all. Bit of a contradiction saying we need the young to take us back a century isn't it?


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

DavidA said:


> I've been looking at the Met broadcasts and I wouldn't say it is dead at all. Bit of a contradiction saying we need the young to take us back a century isn't it?


Not at all, we need someone with energy, a Dame Ninette de Valois who can do for opera, what she did for ballet in the UK. When I say that opera is dead, I mean that opera singing is dead. I'm sure the Met (or anywhere else for that matter) can put together a roster of glamorous looking stars.

In any case, best not to derail the topic. It will be interesting to see if the ROH follows suit and whether other venues (especially on the continent can carry on with some sort of programme, if they can, why can't we?)

N.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The Conte said:


> Not at all, we need someone with energy, a Dame Ninette de Valois who can do for opera, what she did for ballet in the UK. When I say that opera is dead, I mean that opera singing is dead. I'm sure the Met (or anywhere else for that matter) can put together a roster of glamorous looking stars.
> 
> In any case, best not to derail the topic. It will be interesting to see if the ROH follows suit and whether other venues (especially on the continent can carry on with some sort of programme, if they can, why can't we?)
> 
> N.


The Fidelio that was broadcast from ROH on TV recently was excruciating, an example of the direction not to take. Incomprehensible piffle of a production. Singing isn't dead at all. Jus5 that it is moving in a different direction. The problem is we cannot live n the past.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

DavidA said:


> The Fidelio that was broadcast from ROH on TV recently was excruciating, an example of the direction not to take. Incomprehensible piffle of a production. Singing isn't dead at all. Jus5 that it is moving in a different direction. The problem is we cannot live n the past.


Operatic singing is indeed dying, if it's not already dead. I think if one knows what to listen for it's undeniable. The art has suffered some serious damage over the years.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

I've been watching the digital backgrounds used by the rocker Dimash and if opera could afford it there is almost an infinite capacity to create fantastic stage settings with the new technology to flesh out operas as never before. If only we could keep the star directors from stealing all the attention away from the works and the singers. I could simply not believe what digital backgrounds were capable of. I just don't know if they are within the reasonable budget for an opera production. I could provide examples if desired.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Bonetan said:


> Operatic singing is indeed dying, if it's not already dead. I think if one knows what to listen for it's undeniable. The art has suffered some serious damage over the years.


I'm so perplexed by this as I cannot understand how on earth is it possible that the whole old singing tradition started dying so quickly and is almost nonexistent after just a few decades?! Couldn't someone just resurrect it, please  ...?


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

annaw said:


> I'm so perplexed by this as I cannot understand how on earth is it possible that the whole old singing tradition started dying so quickly and is almost nonexistent after just a few decades?! Couldn't someone just resurrect it, please  ...?


People have been lamenting the decline since the early days of verismo. I think that more declamatory style of singing is part of what lead us here.


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

annaw said:


> I'm so perplexed by this as I cannot understand how on earth is it possible that the whole old singing tradition started dying so quickly and is almost nonexistent after just a few decades?! Couldn't someone just resurrect it, please  ...?


I don't know, but I'd guess changing musical interests has left the opera world with a smaller selection of singers to work with (others have said that too). But people still want to hear all the difficult roles (e.g., Brünnhilde, Wotan, Siegfried, Tristan, Isolde, Turandot, Elektra, etc.). Singers are pushed into roles they should never dream of singing to fill the demand. Or those with the right voice for a role are hailed by opera houses as the wonder they have been looking for, but the singers have not had enough training for the role. Then the singers' voices decline rapidly, perhaps leading people to think that old methods of singing are at fault. Lack of knowledge increases. Then singers are told wrong things and form all these bad habits, and the overall quality of singing drops. Not sure though, just speculating...

But please, opera world, bring good singing back! The last good Wagnerian soprano was Nilsson, so we have gone some 40 years without a successor! And what about all the other Fachs? Where are the Melchiors, Corellis, Callases, etc.?


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

Seattleoperafan said:


> I've been watching the digital backgrounds used by the rocker Dimash and if opera could afford it there is almost an infinite capacity to create fantastic stage settings with the new technology to flesh out operas as never before. If only we could keep the star directors from stealing all the attention away from the works and the singers. I could simply not believe what digital backgrounds were capable of. I just don't know if they are within the reasonable budget for an opera production. I could provide examples if desired.


Yes! There is so much unrealized potential for staging or new opera-movies in the vein of the Francesco Rosi _Carmen_ (though some don't them). And words cannot describe how it vexes me when people say things like, "We would get bored if it was the same old-fashioned staging over and over." . . .  Seriously, there is only *one* traditional _Ring _on video! And goodness, Bayreuth hasn't had a traditional production since maybe the 1980s! Even the once traditional Met is going down the Regietheater road... If people like all these medieval and fantasy movies and TV shows, they will like a good traditional _Ring _or _Tristan und Isolde_ .

OK, I should probably leave this thread now.


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

I have heard a lot of different theories about the decline of opera singing: fewer singers to choose from; decline of church choirs; microphones present smaller voices better and increase the demand for them; introduction of pseudoscientific concepts; orchestras play too loud these days; change in concert pitch; environmental pollutants. None of them is particularly satisfactory, and I think it's likely that there is a complex set of factors that reinforce each other. It seems clear enough that one of them is a change in singing pedagogy from practical training in pitch patterns and vowels to ideas about the "mask" and nasal resonance theories. Hence, I've changed my way of thinking from "singers of today are worse than singers of the past" to "singers of today have mastered an inferior technique." That seems less accusatory and less likely to make people think the problem is that today's artists are incapable of human feeling or are not dedicated etc..


----------



## Granate (Jun 25, 2016)

So does anyone want to talk about the effect of the coronavirus crisis on the finances of opera companies and musicians? Or are we just going to rant about people making a living out of their skills not being up to the standards of the (retired or passed away) best singers of all time in their prime?


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Granate said:


> So does anyone want to talk about the effect of the coronavirus crisis on the finances of opera companies and musicians? Or are we just going to rant about people making a living out of their skills not being up to the standards of the (retired or passed away) best singers of all time in their prime?


I wasn't personally talking about the singers, rather the singing tradition. There might be people who have a voice like Callas or Bastianini and if they don't start to bloom because of the teaching methods, I do not see anything wrong with addressing the problem. However, I agree that it might not have been the right thread.

I think that the bigger opera houses will survive for sure. I'm also quite sure the European opera houses will get financing from the countries because many of them have a huge cultural significance. It can be tough for the singers, though. Even if the opera house survives, it doesn't mean the singers are all able to keep their jobs. I don't know enough about the situation in the US to evaluate that, though. Also, the situation with pandemic is very different in different countries. Here both of our major opera houses are working at the moment and also making new productions.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

annaw said:


> I wasn't personally talking about the singers, rather the singing tradition.
> 
> I think that the bigger opera houses will survive for sure. I'm also quite sure the European opera houses will get financing from the countries because many of them have a huge cultural significance. It can be tough for the singers, though. Even if the opera house survives, it doesn't mean the singers are all able to keep their jobs. I don't know enough about the situation in the US to evaluate that, though. Also, the situation with pandemic is very different in different countries. Here both of our major opera houses are working at the moment and also making new productions.


According to an article in The Guardian, one third of musicians are considering giving up their careers https://www.theguardian.com/music/2020/sep/22/one-third-british-musicians-may-quit-industry-covid-pandemic-dcms-treasury

The situation in the whole live entertainment and events industry is critical, as it depends on mass gatherings to survive. I don't think governments have realised how serious the situation is. The UK government certainly hasn't and looks at the industry as being non-essential. However, millions of people work in the industry (not just musicians and actors, but all the people that work behind the scenes and in front of house) and their needs are not veing met. I can't see the situation changing until a vaccine is found. Prospects are very depressing.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Tsaraslondon said:


> According to an article in The Guardian, one third of musicians are considering giving up their careers https://www.theguardian.com/music/2020/sep/22/one-third-british-musicians-may-quit-industry-covid-pandemic-dcms-treasury
> 
> The situation in the whole live entertainment and events industry is critical, as it depends on mass gatherings to survive. I don't think governments have realised how serious the situation is. The UK government certainly hasn't and looks at the industry as being non-essential. However, millions of people work in the industry (not just musicians and actors, but all the people that work behind the scenes and in front of house) and their needs are not veing met. I can't see the situation changing until a vaccine is found. Prospects are very depressing.


All this! This perfectly sums up the situation in the UK (and I imagine it is very similar in the States.)

N.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

Granate said:


> So does anyone want to talk about the effect of the coronavirus crisis on the finances of opera companies and musicians? Or are we just going to rant about people making a living out of their skills not being up to the standards of the (retired or passed away) best singers of all time in their prime?


Sorry to veer off topic!


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Because the Met is a major company they cannot afford to lower their normal standard for an audience accustomed to having top productions for which they pay top prices. 
I just contributed my purse to the Met offerings of live performances online sans orchestra or fancy stagings and traded in for more basic scenes of beautiful backgrounds in interesting countries, but the singers were the calling card for me and I was willing to part with my pocketbook for the privilege of seeing them up close and personal in their homes. 
I can't blame the Met for choosing this road even though I have no doubt they are paining over decisions on how to help employees in need as well. It's not an easy choice and there is no satisfactory conclusion.
Having said all that, I will kindly disagree that there are no wonderful singers today. There are so many that are top notch and some as great as the golden age like *Sondra Radvanovsky* (you owe it to see her Norma without having a Callas obsession on your back), *Joyce di Donato* a fresh and lovely mezzo who also knows how to get to the bones of a character. 
There is *Joseph Calleja* who, if you close your eyes, will take you back to that golden age sound so sorely missed. 
And what of *Renee Fleming* of the velvet throat like no other who just recently decided to tone down her career, but still can deliver the goods. 
Of course then there is the one who gets all the brickbats thrown at her from her voice to her undesirable personality, *Anna Netrebko*. If one could only be fair and separate the two issues, you'd find one really fine soprano sound which is maturing and becoming richer.
Another given the moniker of La Dragonette for obvious reasons, *Angela Gheorghiu*, has one of the most gorgeous soprano voices to ever grace any stage.
Can you hear the screams like teenagers when the face and sound of tenor *Jonas Kaufmann*'s name is mentioned, coupled with a talent of getting to the guts of a role as well.
*Piotr Beczala*'s stunning lyric tenor voice is very welcome at any venue today. And even *Roberto Alagna* still has enough charm at this stage of his career even though he may be a bit long in the tooth.
Some pretty fine talents off the top of my head and no, opera is NOT dead, even with that huge covid bouquet thrown in our faces. It's just different from the past and many find it difficult to accept newness and change -- some for the better, some not as dedicated as in the past, but all there for us to enjoy our magnificent obsession.
Give thanks instead of frowns.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

nina foresti said:


> Because the Met is a major company they cannot afford to lower their normal standard for an audience accustomed to having top productions for which they pay top prices.
> I just contributed my purse to the Met offerings of live performances online sans orchestra or fancy stagings and traded in for more basic scenes of beautiful backgrounds in interesting countries, but the singers were the calling card for me and I was willing to part with my pocketbook for the privilege of seeing them up close and personal in their homes.
> I can't blame the Met for choosing this road even though I have no doubt they are paining over decisions on how to help employees in need as well. It's not an easy choice and there is no satisfactory conclusion.
> Having said all that, I will kindly disagree that there are no wonderful singers today. There are so many that are top notch and some as great as the golden age like *Sondra Radvanovsky* (you owe it to see her Norma without having a Callas obsession on your back), *Joyce di Donato* a fresh and lovely mezzo who also knows how to get to the bones of a character.
> ...


I don't want to derail the thread, so please forgive me. I have not sung at the Met, but I have sung with many Met singers and I believe the decline is very real. The ease of vocal production is what's most lacking. I think Kaufmann being regarded as a great singer perfectly illustrates the problem. 
I want opera to thrive more than anyone as it's my livelihood, but it's not in a good place...and I'm not talking about covid


----------



## Sieglinde (Oct 25, 2009)

This! I love historical fashion. I am devouring costume drama and I'm extremely tired of the same ugly *** suits and vaguely WWII uniforms on a nearly empty stage in every cheap *** Regie production.

You could do Regie in a fun and creative way, you could go all out with space haute couture and surreal landscapes, but naaah! That would cost money!

There is the Star Trek Seraglio and the Nintendo Zauberflöte to prove that it's entirely possible to make entertaining, fresh Regie. There was also the Copenhagen Ring, which, while modern, looked spectacular. I wish more directors had original ideas. And if they don't, at least put something pretty on stage.


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

Granate said:


> So does anyone want to talk about the effect of the coronavirus crisis on the finances of opera companies and musicians? Or are we just going to rant about people making a living out of their skills not being up to the standards of the (retired or passed away) best singers of all time in their prime?


This is the only "rant" I've seen on this thread. Other posts have been reasonable considerations raised by a crisis in opera that forces us to take stock of its present state and future prospects.


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

The thing is that covid is not the only problem affecting opera. While covid is the most recent obstacle and probably the biggest one at the moment, there is more that needs to be overcome if opera is to avoid any further damage.

Lots of people think that the decline in opera singing is some conspiracy theory, but it's not. It's very real. Just go on YouTube and watch the most recent videos put out by the MET, the Royal Opera, La Scala, etc. and compare them to singers of the 1970s and earlier. The vocal problems are not hard to spot, unless perhaps one has only known the modern singers. There are also many comparison videos too, so much that there should not be any accusation of cherry picking. The comparison video I saw most recently might be the best summation I've ever seen, so much so that I'm putting here.






If you go in chronological order, the singing basically goes from excellent to acceptable to horrible. Once you hear Nilsson and Windgassen, there is no question that the singing from long ago was better. And there are many more examples on YouTube.

I'd hypothesize that modern type of operatic singing has given the public the wrong impression of what opera should sound like. If you've ever seen someone do an impression of an opera singer, you probably heard them distort their voice into something hollow and fake sounding with exaggerated vibrato. If you've never heard this, ask one of your outgoing acquaintances to do this. And this is the problem. People think that opera involves some sort of fake sounding singing that is unbearable to the ears, but it's not. Opera is meant to be natural sounding singing, except there is no microphone.

And I won't bother going into the ridiculousness of modern staging.

So... TLDR: Rather than seeing covid as the huge deadly blow out to destroy opera, I see it more as the straw that broke the camel's back, if indeed it's effect on opera is permanent.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

adriesba said:


> I'd hypothesize that modern type of operatic singing has given the public the wrong impression of what opera should sound like. If you've ever seen someone do an impression of an opera singer, you probably heard them distort their voice into something hollow and fake sounding with exaggerated vibrato. If you've never heard this, ask one of your outgoing acquaintances to do this. And this is the problem. People think that opera involves some sort of fake sounding singing that is unbearable to the ears, but it's not. Opera is meant to be natural sounding singing, except there is no microphone.


If I could give this paragraph 100 likes, I would.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Granate said:


> So does anyone want to talk about the effect of the coronavirus crisis on the finances of opera companies and musicians? Or are we just going to rant about people making a living out of their skills not being up to the standards of the (retired or passed away) best singers of all time in their prime?


Well, it is awful here in Seattle for sure. I think some companies might close for good.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

adriesba said:


> The thing is that covid is not the only problem affecting opera. While covid is the most recent obstacle and probably the biggest one at the moment, there is more that needs to be overcome if opera is to avoid any further damage.
> 
> Lots of people think that the decline in opera singing is some conspiracy theory, but it's not. It's very real. Just go on YouTube and watch the most recent videos put out by the MET, the Royal Opera, La Scala, etc. and compare them to singers of the 1970s and earlier. The vocal problems are not hard to spot, unless perhaps one has only known the modern singers. There are also many comparison videos too, so much that there should not be any accusation of cherry picking. The comparison video I saw most recently might be the best summation I've ever seen, so much so that I'm putting here.
> 
> ...


Thankfully I don't go in for a lot of Wagner these days. I would suggest, however, as Solti once said, that we do Mozart better these days. That is unless you are irredeemebly wedded to the past. At least with Mozart we can have singers who look the part.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

adriesba said:


> I'd hypothesize that modern type of operatic singing has given the public the wrong impression of what opera should sound like. If you've ever seen someone do an impression of an opera singer, you probably heard them distort their voice into something hollow and fake sounding with exaggerated vibrato. If you've never heard this, ask one of your outgoing acquaintances to do this. And this is the problem. People think that opera involves some sort of fake sounding singing that is unbearable to the ears, but it's not. Opera is meant to be natural sounding singing, except there is no microphone.


Generally speaking, if people don't like operatic singing, it's because they don't like operatic singing.


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

DavidA said:


> Thankfully I don't go in for a lot of Wagner these days. I would suggest, however, as Solti once said, that *we do Mozart better these days*. That is unless you are irredeemebly wedded to the past. At least with Mozart we can have singers who look the part.


Solti is dead 23 years...


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

amfortas said:


> Generally speaking, if people don't like operatic singing, it's because they don't like operatic singing.


That doesn't stop people getting into opera though. If they don't like the singing, they can always look at the singers!

N.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Revitalized Classics said:


> Solti is dead 23 years...


Yes and we do Mozart better than we did in his day.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

The Conte said:


> That doesn't stop people getting into opera though. If they don't like the singing, they can always look at the singers!


Not always a rewarding prospect.


----------



## Parsifal98 (Apr 29, 2020)

Can someone explain to me how we now sing Mozart better than before? Did singers back in Mozart's days have wobbly voices, thick sound and mushy vowels? Did they have undevelopped chest voices and uncoordinated registers? Did they have voices which lacked squillo and the ability to declamate? Did soprani screamed the high Fs in the Magic Flute with their constricted throats? Because if so, then we have indeed managed to equal they prowesses and are now singing Mozart much better than during Callas's time. Thank God for modern times!


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

DavidA said:


> Yes and we do Mozart better than we did in his day.


We'll find out soon enough when Nezet-Seguin conducts Le Nozze di Figaro at the Met in April 2022.
Figaro: Christian Van Horn
Susanna: Aida Garifullina
Conte d'Almaviva: Gerald Finley
Contessa d'Almaviva: Federica Lombardi
Cherubino: Sasha Cooke
Bartolo: Maurizio Muraro
Marcellina: Elizabeth Bishop.

You swear it will not just match but easily exceed Solti's performances at the Paris Opera in 1973 or 1980 with
Figaro: Jose van Dam
Susanna: Mirella Freni / Lucia Popp
Conte d'Almaviva: Tom Krause
Contessa d'Almaviva: Gundula Janowitz
Cherubino: Frederica von Stade
Bartolo: Kurt Moll
Marcellina: Jane Berbie.

In the meantime...


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

^ ^ ^ I'm not very familiar with Mozart opera to add anything to this discussion, but . . . Lucia Popp and Gundula Janowitz cannot be exceeded!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Parsifal98 said:


> Can someone explain to me how we now sing Mozart better than before? Did singers back in Mozart's days have wobbly voices, thick sound and mushy vowels? Did they have undevelopped chest voices and uncoordinated registers? Did they have voices which lacked squillo and the ability to declamate? Did soprani screamed the high Fs in the Magic Flute with their constricted throats? Because if so, then we have indeed managed to equal they prowesses and are now singing Mozart much better than during Callas's time. Thank God for modern times!


I was listening to Così last night and haven't the faintest idea of what you are talking about


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Revitalized Classics said:


> We'll find out soon enough when Nezet-Seguin conducts Le Nozze di Figaro at the Met in April 2022.
> Figaro: Christian Van Horn
> Susanna: Aida Garifullina
> Conte d'Almaviva: Gerald Finley
> ...


Come off it! I made a generalised statement and not a statement on specific casts. The fact is we do Mozart better. You can pick on a stellar cast of course from the past but I'm talking as a generalised role in style and in general performance.
I could go back and take a specific Wagner cast from the past and compare it with the best we have from the present and swear we do that better today. We are talking about generalisations not specifics. I said we do Mozart better not every performance is cast better. Today we can generally go to a Mozart opera and find it will be well sung by young singers who look appropriate and conducted in a fashion that is suitable


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

Revitalized Classics said:


> We'll find out soon enough when Nezet-Seguin conducts Le Nozze di Figaro at the Met in April 2022.
> Figaro: Christian Van Horn
> Susanna: Aida Garifullina
> Conte d'Almaviva: Gerald Finley
> ...


I have seen that live in Paris


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

Rogerx said:


> I have seen that live in Paris


I'm so envious!


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

DavidA said:


> Come off it! I made a generalised statement and not a statement on specific casts. The fact is we do Mozart better. You can pick on a stellar cast of course from the past but I'm talking as a generalised role in style and in general performance.
> I could go back and take a specific Wagner cast from the past and compare it with the best we have from the present and swear we do that better today. We are talking about generalisations not specifics. I said we do Mozart better not every performance is cast better. *Today we can generally go to a Mozart opera and find it will be well sung by young singers who look appropriate and conducted in a fashion that is suitable*


When are you saying Mozart operas were populated with decrepit singers who looked inappropriate and the conducting was unsuitable?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Revitalized Classics said:


> When are you saying Mozart operas were populated with decrepit singers who looked inappropriate and the conducting was unsuitable?


Can I ask you where I said that?


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

DavidA said:


> Can I ask you where I said that?


*"The fact is we do Mozart better. *[...]
Today we can generally go to a Mozart opera and find it will be 
well sung by 
young singers who 
look appropriate and 
conducted in a fashion that is suitable
Last edited by DavidA; Today at 08:01."

You said 'better'. 'Better' than when?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Revitalized Classics said:


> *"The fact is we do Mozart better. *[...]
> Today we can generally go to a Mozart opera and find it will be
> well sung by
> young singers who
> ...


So where did I say what you said I said? That is the question you have not answered. Putting something in capital letters does not make you any the less wrong in your assumptions.


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

DavidA said:


> So where did I say what you said I said? That is the question you have not answered. Putting something in capital letters does not make you any the less wrong in your assumptions.


Will you explain what on Earth you are talking about? Just once.

You repeat that modern singers are better - with no proof - and assert that they sing well, look appropriate and the conducting is suitable - as if that hasn't been happening for the entire post-war period.

Where and when were the galumphing performances of Mozart which supposedly make contemporary performances preferable?

We had actual stars gracing Mozart performances for the entire 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. Where are the singers like Freni and Popp, Te Kanawa and Margaret Price, Allen, Ramey and Raimondi etc today? Just point them out...



> I could go back and take a specific Wagner cast from the past and compare it with the best we have from the present and swear we do that better today. We are talking about generalisations not specifics.


It's not just the case that the Met's cast in 2022 might not match Solti's superb Paris cast in 1973 and 1980.

The argument is that the Met's 2022 cast, or any contemporary cast, lack the star power to match any of the previous casts in surviving broadcasts from that house or Covent Garden or Glyndebourne etc from whenever they started taping them in the 1930s up until the 1990s. It is grim.

If we are living through a Mozartian renaissance like you say, cite examples and explain why
1) opera is not in the doldrums but actually
2) your idiosyncratic view that it is actually better than what we have all come to know.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Revitalized Classics said:


> Will you explain what on Earth you are talking about? Just once.
> 
> You repeat that modern singers are better - with no proof - and assert that they sing well, look appropriate and the conducting is suitable - as if that hasn't been happening for the entire post-war period.
> 
> ...


Will you just stop saying I said words which I did not say. It is so irritating. Please read what I put and then come back with a response.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

I don't know but I feel Mozartean singing is somewhat better off just because it usually requires lighter voices, compared to very heavily orchestrated operas, such as Wagner's and Strauss'. Verdi requires some utter technical mastery as well and almost all famous Otellos have been either dramatic tenors or heldentenors. Even if some don't like Wagner or Strauss, they are the two most famous figures of German opera, along with Mozart. If only Mozart survived, our understanding of "German opera" needs to change radically and I'm not sure if I would like that, if it can be helped.

Btw, does someone know what happened to Metropolitan's orchestra? While the singers can still find some ways to earn, I have no idea what the orchestra players will do...


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

annaw said:


> Btw, does someone know what happened to Metropolitan's orchestra? While the singers can still find some ways to earn, I have no idea what the orchestra players will do...


I think teaching will be a big thing for both out of work singers and orchestra players. Lots of Zoom lessons. And of course many will have to take jobs outside of music.


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

DavidA said:


> Will you just stop saying I said words which I did not say. It is so irritating. Please read what I put and then come back with a response.


No need: you're unable to express yourself clearly.

Ta-ta


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

annaw said:


> *I don't know but I feel Mozartean singing is somewhat better off just because it usually requires lighter voices, compared to very heavily orchestrated operas, such as Wagner's and Strauss'*. Verdi requires some utter technical mastery as well and almost all famous Otellos have been either dramatic tenors or heldentenors. Even if some don't like Wagner or Strauss, they are the two most famous figures of German opera, along with Mozart. If only Mozart survived, our understanding of "German opera" needs to change radically and I'm not sure if I would like that, if it can be helped.
> 
> Btw, does someone know what happened to Metropolitan's orchestra? While the singers can still find some ways to earn, I have no idea what the orchestra players will do...


The demands do seem to vary drastically. It's not even the case there are no nice singers out there, for instance I'd speculate that Yoncheva, Netrebko, Kurzak who are all due to appear in coming seasons could all sound good in suitable Mozartian/more lyrical repertoire. Make a hell of a lineup in Don Giovanni.

Instead, they are taking on bigger roles - and in big theatres - as Elisabeth de Valois (Yoncheva), Turandot and even a cancelled Abigaille (Netrebko) or Tosca (Kurzak). They all have technique, it is just that they are also trying out the very heaviest repertoire given their resources...


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Revitalized Classics said:


> No need: you're unable to express yourself clearly.
> 
> Ta-ta


Always the other person's fault isn't it?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Revitalized Classics said:


> No need: you're unable to express yourself clearly.
> 
> Ta-ta


Of course your own misinterpretation of what people say it wouldn't have anything to do with it ?


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

annaw said:


> I'm so perplexed by this as I cannot understand how on earth is it possible that the whole old singing tradition started dying so quickly and is almost nonexistent after just a few decades?! Couldn't someone just resurrect it, please  ...?


Probably a ridiculous notion lol, but why not start it's resurrection right here on TC by reminding our fellow fans of what great singing is...and maybe, just maybe, a singer or two will come along, read these threads, take it to heart and put it to practice...and if we're extremely lucky these singers will have the necessary talent and drive to make a difference. It could happen, right??


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Of course for those who insist on living in the past nothing in the present will be right. I mean there are some rather good Mozart performances own this week from the Met which are reasonably up to date. One Cosi from the ROH on Sky Arts which is well sung by singers who are not household names. But as always there will be those who insist that the past has to be better.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

There have been some rather good modern productions at the ROH in recent times, but as always there are those who insist that the directors of the past have to be better. I generally find they are the people who spend more time commenting on what singers look like, rather than how they perform.

N.


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

DavidA said:


> Of course for those who insist on living in the past nothing in the present will be right. I mean there are some rather good Mozart performances own this week from the Met which are reasonably up to date. One Cosi from the ROH on Sky Arts which is well sung by singers who are not household names. But as always there will be those who insist that the past has to be better.


I and others have insisted that singing of big roles, such as those in Wagner operas, has declined. On this forum and elsewhere (e.g., YouTube) there have been many examples of this. However, I am not very familiar with singing for Mozart operas. If you think that they are done better today, how about you illuminate the subject by showing specific examples of singing, conducting, or productions that show today's Mozart performances to be better?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The Conte said:


> There have been some rather good modern productions at the ROH in recent times, but as always there are those who insist that the directors of the past have to be better. I generally find they are the people who spend more time commenting on what singers look like, rather than how they perform.
> 
> N.


There are of course some of us who believe that opera is a drama not an oratorio and therefore what singers look like can be important, especially in HD. Else why bother to go to the theatre?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

adriesba said:


> I and others have insisted that singing of big roles, such as those in Wagner operas, has declined. On this forum and elsewhere (e.g., YouTube) there have been many examples of this. However, I am not very familiar with singing for Mozart operas. If you think that they are done better today, how about you illuminate the subject by showing specific examples of singing, conducting, or productions that show today's Mozart performances to be better?


There is a Mozart week on at the Met broadcasts. Tune in.


----------



## Aerobat (Dec 31, 2018)

DavidA said:


> Of course for those who insist on living in the past nothing in the present will be right. I mean there are some rather good Mozart performances own this week from the Met which are reasonably up to date. One Cosi from the ROH on Sky Arts which is well sung by singers who are not household names. But as always there will be those who insist that the past has to be better.


Indeed - I've got Cosi streaming right now while I work. This is a lovely performance by a cast who're working very nicely together. In my case though, I'm something of an audiophile - recordings made in the 50s / 60s / 70s really don't cut it for me. T Streaming has its flaws in terms of quality too, but at least it's bringing performances into our homes while we can't get the theatres.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Aerobat said:


> Indeed - I've got Cosi streaming right now while I work. This is a lovely performance by a cast who're working very nicely together. In my case though, I'm something of an audiophile - recordings made in the 50s / 60s / 70s really don't cut it for me. T Streaming has its flaws in terms of quality too, but at least it's bringing performances into our homes while we can't get the theatres.


Yes you would do hard to beat it. There is a modern one from ROH on Sky Arts being broadcast on Freeview. Very different and a bit too clever but entertaining


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

DavidA said:


> Of course for those who insist on living in the past nothing in the present will be right. I mean there are some rather good Mozart performances own this week from the Met which are reasonably up to date. One Cosi from the ROH on Sky Arts which is well sung by singers who are not household names. But as always there will be those who insist that the past has to be better.


You've made it clear on many occasions that you're not willing to or discerning enough to glean anything from very old recordings, so that makes you unqualified to comment on any topic related to old school singing traditions, does it not? You can accept a low level of singing as suitable if you wish, but that will only hasten the death of opera.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> You've made it clear on many occasions that you're not willing to or discerning enough to glean anything from very old recordings, so that makes you unqualified to comment on any topic related to old school singing traditions, does it not? You can accept a low level of singing as suitable if you wish, but that will only hasten the death of opera.


Well as opera is now being broadcast around the world to a wider audience than ever before (before the latest pandemic) I hardly think it speaks of the death of opera. In any case, how could me listening to old recordings which I can hardly make out improve matters? What good would it do? I really enjoyed the performance of Cosi I've just heard from the Met without the bacon and eggs in the background. How would that help my enjoyment?


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

DavidA said:


> Well as opera is now being broadcast around the world to a wider audience than ever before (before the latest pandemic) I hardly think it speaks of the death of opera. In any case, how could me listening to old recordings which I can hardly make out improve matters? What good would it do? I really enjoyed the performance of Cosi I've just heard from the Met without the bacon and eggs in the background. How would that help my enjoyment?


'Wider audience than ever before' speaks only to advancements in technology. Imagine having this technology to go along with a public that actually cares about the art...

Listening to old recordings with open ears will raise our standards of what great singing is. People have forgotten. Singers, fans, conductors, impresarios etc, they've all forgotten. We've forgotten what the human voice is capable of. We listen to old recordings to remind us. If we're all reminded the standard will raise and we'll all reap the rewards.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> 'Wider audience than ever before' speaks only to advancements in technology. Imagine having this technology to go along with a public that actually cares about the art...
> 
> Listening to old recordings with open ears will raise our standards of what great singing is. People have forgotten. Singers, fans, conductors, impresarios etc, they've all forgotten. We've forgotten what the human voice is capable of. We listen to old recordings to remind us. If we're all reminded the standard will raise and we'll all reap the rewards.


Well as the public pays their money to go and see these productions one assumes they care about the art. Funny I suppose the aristocrats who viewed Mozart's operas cared for his art as much as we do? What has happened is that the 'art' is now opened to a far wider audience than just the few elite. I know that might bother some people but I think it's a boon and have really appreciated it. And as I say listening to old recordings does not give me an idea of what great singing really is as I can't hear much of it. I know we are supposed to listen to these old crackly recordings which wow and flutter and gasp at the artistry but frankly and honestly I can't appreciate them.


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

Bonetan said:


> You've made it clear on many occasions that you're not willing to or discerning enough to glean anything from very old recordings, so that makes you unqualified to comment on any topic related to old school singing traditions, does it not?* You can accept a low level of singing as suitable if you wish, but that will only hasten the death of opera*.


I was just thinking Bonetan that we are pages into this discussion and nobody so far has expressed particular regret at the lost 2020-2021 season performances.

By that I mean, no matter how understandable the cancellations, you would expect to see some comments like "Oh no, I was desperate to hear...X in _Aida_" or "We were really looking forward to hearing Tenor Y in _Trovatore_" or..."I really hope I get another chance to hear Soprano Z..."

You know...any special enthusiasm?

If you cancelled a whole season in 1950, 1960, 1970 etc rather than 2020 you would have Callas fans or Sutherland fans or Pavarotti fans or whoever understandably bewailing the missed opportunities to hear their favourites. Since when were fans so reticent? Were so few people psyched at the planned schedule before all the cancellations?

Fair enough if audiences are a bit inured to disappointment at the moment with cancellations: I just wonder how engaged they were to start with.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

DavidA said:


> Well as the public pays their money to go and see these productions one assumes they care about the art. Funny I suppose the aristocrats who viewed Mozart's operas cared for his art as much as we do? What has happened is that the 'art' is now opened to a far wider audience than just the few elite. I know that might bother some people but I think it's a boon and have really appreciated it.


The question I would ask is how big is the public that cares about the art compared to the public that cared 100 years ago? Are those dwindling numbers not a valid concern in your opinion?



DavidA said:


> And as I say listening to old recordings does not give me an idea of what great singing really is as I can't hear much of it. I know we are supposed to listen to these old crackly recordings which wow and flutter and gasp at the artistry but frankly and honestly I can't appreciate them.


This is a flaw in your ability to listen and parse out the elements that make for great singing. Listen for simple things like the way the singer connects notes. The use of dynamics. Light and shade. Consistency and clarity of vowels, as well as vibrato. These are all things you could easily identify if you cared to take the time. The old recordings leave much to be desired, but they reveal much more.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> The question I would ask is how big is the public that cares about the art compared to the public that cared 100 years ago? Are those dwindling numbers not a valid concern in your opinion?
> 
> This is a flaw in your ability to listen and parse out the elements that make for great singing. Listen for simple things like the way the singer connects notes. The use of dynamics. Light and shade. Consistency and clarity of vowels, as well as vibrato. These are all things you could easily identify if you cared to take the time. The old recordings leave much to be desired, but they reveal much more.


I have absolutely no idea how the size of the public compares. What I am absolutely certain of is that vastly more people actually hear and see opera than they did then as it was only available on 78s in small excerpts which were expensive and most ordinary people could not afford. Other than that in arrangements you could sing round the piano. What I am certain is that not too many people actually saw or heard complete operas as they do now. So I have no idea where you get your 'dwindling numbers' idea from.

Of course, this is always the argument people like you make. It's the flaw in my listening that cannot imagine the wonderful voices that are really there. Sorry mate, but I just can't hear it. You as an opera buff might. But to appreciate opera I need to hear the notes and orchestra clearly not something which is wailing and wowing like old recordings do. I have no idea how good these singers were because on the basis of many of these recordings people put up you just cannot tell.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

DavidA said:


> I have absolutely no idea how the size of the public compares. What I am absolutely certain of is that vastly more people actually hear and see opera than they did then as it was only available on 78s in small excerpts which were expensive and most ordinary people could not afford. Other than that in arrangements you could sing round the piano. What I am certain is that not too many people actually saw or heard complete operas as they do now. So I have no idea where you get your 'dwindling numbers' idea from.
> 
> Of course, this is always the argument people like you make. It's the flaw in my listening that cannot imagine the wonderful voices that are really there. Sorry mate, but I just can't hear it. You as an opera buff might. But to appreciate opera I need to hear the notes and orchestra clearly not something which is wailing and wowing like old recordings do. I have no idea how good these singers were because on the basis of many of these recordings people put up you just cannot tell.


You're not willing to acknowledge that opera isn't as popular with the general public as it once was. I understand.

I've given you advice on what you can listen for. If you're not willing or able it is indeed a flaw in your ability to listen. Apologies, but if you say that the old recordings make it impossible to tell, you're lying. It took me time to arrive there, but if you take the time and know what to listen for, you'll be able to tell just as I can.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> You're not willing to acknowledge that opera isn't as popular with the general public as it once was. I understand.
> 
> I've given you advice on what you can listen for. If you're not willing or able it is indeed a flaw in your ability to listen. Apologies, but if you say that the old recordings make it impossible to tell, you're lying. It took me time to arrive there, but if you take the time and know what to listen for, you'll be able to tell just as I can.


Can you give me statistics to prove that less people listen to or see complete operas in one form or another today than they used to? You keep saying these things yet you don't produce any statistics to prove it.

I'm sorry but calling someone a liar is just insulting and I do not go in for trading insults. Leave it there if you cannot argue in a courteous way.


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

Bonetan said:


> You're not willing to acknowledge that opera isn't as popular with the general public as it once was. I understand.


This is correct. A handy visualisation is available here where opera falls off the chart during the 1950s apparently never to return


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Revitalized Classics said:


> This is correct. A handy visualisation is available here where opera falls off the chart during the 1950s apparently never to return


So can you give me an exact number of people watching complete operas today compared with 100 years ago. That was the question.


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

Bonetan said:


> This is a flaw in your ability to listen and parse out the elements that make for great singing. Listen for simple things like the way the singer connects notes. The use of dynamics. Light and shade. Consistency and clarity of vowels, as well as vibrato. These are all things you could easily identify if you cared to take the time. *The old recordings leave much to be desired, but they reveal much more*.


Thank you for discussing the utility of older recordings, Bonetan, your enthusiasm is infectious and I particularly enjoy that last line: very nicely expressed!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Revitalized Classics said:


> Thank you for discussing the utility of older recordings, Bonetan, your enthusiasm is infectious and I particularly enjoy that last line: very nicely expressed!


So how much more do they reveal apart from to your fond imagination?


----------



## Parsifal98 (Apr 29, 2020)

You do not even need to listen to crackling recordings to hear the differences between old school singers and modern school singers. All you need to do is compare them directly.






Opera singing is a technique. Like all techniques, it can be forgotten or changed (not always for the better). The only reason why we keep mentioning the "good old days" is because something has happened to the transmission of knowledge in opera over the last decades, and the only way to prove it is to compare singers in time. But it not a question of time as DavidA keeps making it about. It is a question of knowledge being lost or corrupted. This is what is killing opera slowly. And to be honest, the decline of singing is much worst than one season of the Met being cancelled.

Here are some videos to prove the point being made. If anyone as anything to say against the arguments being presented in these videos (looking at you DavidA), let him or her present counter-arguments instead of simple dismissive answers.


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

DavidA said:


> So can you give me an exact number of people watching complete operas today compared with 100 years ago. *That was the question*.


I confirmed Bonetan's assertion in #67 "that opera isn't as popular with the general public as it once was" is correct according to the resource I provided in #69.

Any promise for further statistics was hallucinated on your part.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Revitalized Classics said:


> I confirmed Bonetan's assertion in #67 "that opera isn't as popular with the general public as it once was" is correct according to the resource I provided in #69.
> 
> Any promise for further statistics was hallucinated on your part.


Hallucinated? Have you been taking drugs or something? The popularity of opera depends on the number of people watching it not some bogus statistic. I would like to bet that with modern technology there's more people watching and listening to complete jumper is now than ever there was. Prove otherwise.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

You don't need to be listening to recordings from that long ago. There is a difference between singers today and those fifty years ago.

N.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

Revitalized Classics said:


> Thank you for discussing the utility of older recordings, Bonetan, your enthusiasm is infectious and I particularly enjoy that last line: very nicely expressed!


Thank you very much! I'm thrilled to read this!! Viva, Wooduck, Wkasimer, Conte and others have had the same affect on me, and my love of singing and opera has increased as a result. I hope we can spread the enthusiasm! I think the more sophisticated we become as listeners and fans, the better it is for opera


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

DavidA said:


> Hallucinated? Have you been taking drugs or something? *The popularity of opera depends on the number of people watching* *it* not some bogus statistic. I would like to bet that with modern technology there's more people watching and listening to complete jumper is now than ever there was. Prove otherwise.


No, it doesn't.

The "popularity of opera" is comparative and depends on the number of people watching everything.

Let's say a hundred million people do watch or listen to opera today: it is still not close to 'popular' as billions do not.

If you don't think that the record sales referenced in the Youtube video are analogous to interest in opera in the general population by all means *you prove it*


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

DavidA said:


> I'm sorry but calling someone a liar is just insulting and I do not go in for trading insults. Leave it there if you cannot argue in a courteous way.


Sorry David, and perhaps I give you too much credit, but being the serious opera fan that you are I'm almost certain that if you made a concerted effort to give the recordings a listen with an open mind that you would hear the same things I hear.

I think you're really missing out by not giving a deep listen to singers who knew Wagner, Verdi etc personally. Singers who coached the roles with the composers themselves! These recordings are an absolute treasure and I'm sorry you can't appreciate them.


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

This is getting ridiculous.



DavidA said:


> Can you give me statistics to prove that less people listen to or see complete operas in one form or another today than they used to? You keep saying these things yet you don't produce any statistics to prove it.
> 
> I'm sorry but calling someone a liar is just insulting and I do not go in for trading insults. Leave it there if you cannot argue in a courteous way.


See post 69. The numbers are based on album sales. It's not a perfect way to measure the genre's popularity. Seeing how far opera is displaced is telling. Plus, haven't you read any articles from before covid saying that attendance at the MET has been dropping?



DavidA said:


> So can you give me an exact number of people watching complete operas today compared with 100 years ago. That was the question.


No it wasn't. You simply said to provide a statistic. You did not specify that it had to be a specific measurement in a specific timeframe. This seems like an attempt to request something so specific so as to make producing such a number nigh impossible.



DavidA said:


> So how much more do they reveal apart from to your fond imagination?


It's not just one person who thinks this way. The idea that opera singing is declining in quality is widespread as evidenced by many members on this forum and elsewhere on the internet.



DavidA said:


> Hallucinated? Have you been taking drugs or something? The popularity of opera depends on the number of people watching it not some bogus statistic. I would like to bet that with modern technology there's more people watching and listening to complete jumper is now than ever there was. Prove otherwise.


What??? You just asked for a statistic from the other side to prove their point, and now you say it cannot be proved with a statistic. What do you want then? Statistics are exactly how such assertions are proven. So, what you just did was not only a complete contradiction of what you said in your previous post, but also an example of bad logic. Let me ask, what have you produced to prove your point? Nichts.


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

The Conte said:


> You don't need to be listening to recordings from that long ago. There is a difference between singers today and those fifty years ago.
> 
> N.


Yes! Fifty years ago, we had Nilsson! Plus, sound quality was plenty good back then.


----------



## Parsifal98 (Apr 29, 2020)

adriesba said:


> Yes! Fifty years ago, we had Nilsson! Plus, sound quality was plenty good back then.


We even have recordings with great sound of Callas at her peak! I puritani, Lucia, La Gioconda, Tosca, Cavaliera Rusticana, Traviata... When listening to these, it becomes clear that no one can equal her today.


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

Parsifal98 said:


> We even have recordings with great sound of Callas at her peak! I puritani, Lucia, La Gioconda, Tosca, Cavaliera Rusticana, Traviata... When listening to these, it becomes clear that no one can equal her today.


Right! She has many recordings that have been remastered by Warner and sound great! Recordings with good sound go as far back as the 1950s when there was a plethora of good singers. And if one doubts studio recordings, there are live recordings recorded by Decca and DG that also have good sound quality (e.g., the Keilberth _Ring_).


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Revitalized Classics said:


> No, it doesn't.
> 
> The "popularity of opera" is comparative and depends on the number of people watching everything.
> 
> ...


Well just to give you a statistic, in the 2013-2014 season, 10 operas were transmitted from the Met via satellite into at least 2,000 theaters in 66 countries, including more than 800 U.S. theaters. Box office hit $60 million worldwide. That means there are about 30 million watchers who attended the Met broadcasts alone. Many of these people are like myself it would not normally go to an actual Opera house apart from a rare occasion.We then have to have the people like me who buy CDs and can listen to complete operas at home. Of course the meat is just one Opera house which does this. I'm sorry to cut across your negativity but I think this adds a bit of proof that quite a few million people are watching opera and not just listening to snippets but watching complete operas


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> Thank you very much! I'm thrilled to read this!! Viva, Wooduck, Wkasimer, Conte and others have had the same affect on me, and my love of singing and opera has increased as a result. I hope we can spread the enthusiasm! I think the more sophisticated we become as listeners and fans, the better it is for opera


So tell me how can me smugly listening to old records improve opera singing today?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

adriesba said:


> This is getting ridiculous.
> 
> See post 69. The numbers are based on album sales. It's not a perfect way to measure the genre's popularity. Seeing how far opera is displaced is telling. Plus, haven't you read any articles from before covid saying that attendance at the MET has been dropping?
> 
> ...


It is totally ridiculous to try and prove something from album sales because you will always find a popular album sales are more than classical sales with a very few exceptions so the whole thing is nonsense. One of the reasons why the numbers attending the Met have been dropping is because of the broadcasts so the number is actually listening to the broadcasts have been increasing. You are quite funny in that you provide a statistic which is quite meaningless in the context. We are asking how many people are listening to complete opposite use talk about album sales of popular music


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> Sorry David, and perhaps I give you too much credit, but being the serious opera fan that you are I'm almost certain that if you made a concerted effort to give the recordings a listen with an open mind that you would hear the same things I hear.
> 
> I think you're really missing out by not giving a deep listen to singers who knew Wagner, Verdi etc personally. Singers who coached the roles with the composers themselves! These recordings are an absolute treasure and I'm sorry you can't appreciate them.


Sorry mate but I haven't got the patience to listen to recordings that wow and hiss and cover whatever voice these people had. I don't know whether you realise but this is an extremely specialist pastime which may work for people who are singers but does not work for people who just want to enjoy the work. There is no enjoyment in straining my ears to try and hear something above a whole load of surface noise. And let's face it these old recordings are constantly full of wow and hiss anyway. The singers always seem to be going off pitch even to my ears


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Parsifal98 said:


> We even have recordings with great sound of Callas at her peak! I puritani, Lucia, La Gioconda, Tosca, Cavaliera Rusticana, Traviata... When listening to these, it becomes clear that no one can equal her today.


And you don't want anyone to equal her either because you want to live in the past don't you? I can remember 50 years ago people discussing Callas and comparing her unfavourably with 'great singers of the past'. It's only since her death she's become a legend. Interesting I was reading George Solti's biography and he said he much preferred Tebaldi's voice, even though Calkas was mesmerising on the stage.
Now yesterday I had a beautiful performance of Cosi fan Tutte from the Met. Beautifully acted and sung. Am I not supposed to enjoy it because everything in the past was better?


----------



## zxxyxxz (Apr 14, 2020)

Firstly I think some good points have been raised. 

And before I ask my question I feel the need to express my appreciation of Mark Obert Thorn, Ward Marston, Pristine etc for their amazing work remastering!

Anyone else think that alot of modern singers sound the same? To me they all sound flat, there's no warmth, no richness, theres no edge to the voice that lets the diction come through.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

zxxyxxz said:


> Firstly I think some good points have been raised.
> 
> And before I ask my question I feel the need to express my appreciation of Mark Obert Thorn, Ward Marston, Pristine etc for their amazing work remastering!
> 
> Anyone else think that alot of modern singers sound the same? To me they all sound flat, there's no warmth, no richness, theres no edge to the voice that lets the diction come through.


No I don't think all modern singers sound the same. I think many singers on old recordings do though due to the sonic limitations.


----------



## zxxyxxz (Apr 14, 2020)

You are entitled to your opinion.

What about diction and word clarity though?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

zxxyxxz said:


> You are entitled to your opinion.
> 
> What about diction and word clarity though?


I never get tha5 far through all the wow and hiss. I listen for a beautiful voice.


----------



## zxxyxxz (Apr 14, 2020)

I meant in modern singers. 

The only 78 transfer I have with constant hiss is one I don't think has been remastered and seems to be just ripped and even on that I can still make everything out. It is most certainly princess ida music and words (1924). But thats a bit of topic.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

zxxyxxz said:


> I meant in modern singers.
> 
> The only 78 transfer I have with constant hiss is one I don't think has been remastered and seems to be just ripped and even on that I can still make everything out. It is most certainly princess ida music and words (1924). But thats a bit of topic.


I can only say I was listening yesterday and the words seemed perfectly clear to me. Don't forget this was a beef years ago about Sutherland that her words were never clear so it's not a new thing.


----------



## zxxyxxz (Apr 14, 2020)

I'm not saying its a new thing. I do think we are perhaps destined to disagree.

I do agree about good Mozart performances though. Last year and a couple before that I went to Mozart by the ETO and they were splendid. It was just a shame that in last years abduction the Constanza and the Pasha were rubbish at delivering their spoken lines at volume and I was in good seats. The previous one was Don Giovanni and that was I felt a bit more successful but then its a better opera.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

zxxyxxz said:


> I'm not saying its a new thing. I do think we are perhaps destined to disagree.
> 
> I do agree about good Mozart performances though. Last year and a couple before that I went to Mozart by the ETO and they were splendid. It was just a shame that in last years abduction the Constanza and the Pasha were rubbish at delivering their spoken lines at volume and I was in good seats. The previous one was Don Giovanni and that was I felt a bit more successful but then its a better opera.


So in the past there was never this problem?


----------



## zxxyxxz (Apr 14, 2020)

I'm not really sure which comment you are disagreeing with...

I don't know how "I'm not saying its a new thing." Could be taken incorrectly.

And my comment on the ETO Mozart is largely positive. And to be honest the theatre I was in was tiny and I would expect professionals to be able to speak at a volume that the whole theatre could hear.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

zxxyxxz said:


> I'm not really sure which comment you are disagreeing with...
> 
> I don't know how "I'm not saying its a new thing." Could be taken incorrectly.
> 
> And my comment on the ETO Mozart is largely positive. And to be honest the theatre I was in was tiny and I would expect professionals to be able to speak at a volume that the whole theatre could hear.


But if you read accounts of opera in the past there were all sorts of problems. To hear some peopke go on atnyone would think the past was perfect.


----------



## zxxyxxz (Apr 14, 2020)

I agree that the past wasn't perfect.  

And everyone hears things differently, what I hear as youthful other people hear as old etc.

And if the ETO ever come back with an opera that interests me I will go again! Covent Garden is too much of a faff and expense!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

zxxyxxz said:


> I agree that the past wasn't perfect.
> 
> And everyone hears things differently, what I hear as youthful other people hear as old etc.
> 
> And if the ETO ever come back with an opera that interests me I will go again! Covent Garden is too much of a faff and expense!


Yes I did go and hear the ETO in Figaro. One had to remember it was a provincial company and not the met but it was quite an acceptable performance. The singing was a good standard


----------



## Aerobat (Dec 31, 2018)

Covent Garden may be a faff, but is usually worth the trip. Will be a while until we go back, as it requires an overnight baby sitter for us now and we live in the middle of nowhere near the England / Wales borders so struggle to get one. But pre-kids, we used to enjoy this immensely. Maybe when the kids are older we'll be able to take them with us, but right now they're too young to even think about it.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Aerobat said:


> Covent Garden may be a faff, but is usually worth the trip. Will be a while until we go back, as it requires an overnight baby sitter for us now and we live in the middle of nowhere near the England / Wales borders so struggle to get one. But pre-kids, we used to enjoy this immensely. Maybe when the kids are older we'll be able to take them with us, but right now they're too young to even think about it.


Unfortunately I have found the ROH productions so variable that it is not worth the trouble and expense of going to London and risking a duff production. A recent Fidelio shown on TV was excruciatingly bad and an embarrassment. And I remember Holten's ridiculous Giovanni which I watched at the cinema. A guy I met coming out had one word for it - 'crap'! Pity as it was well sung. Then there was a Trovatore in which the Manrico looked older than I was! So they are very variable. Of course going to the Met is out of the question os the cinema does or did until the pandemic. Really enjoying the broadcasts though.


----------



## Aerobat (Dec 31, 2018)

DavidA said:


> Unfortunately I have found the ROH productions so variable that it is not worth the trouble and expense of going to London and risking a duff production. A recent Fidelio shown on TV was excruciatingly bad and an embarrassment. And I remember Holten's ridiculous Giovanni which I watched at the cinema. A guy I met coming out had one word for it - 'crap'! Pity as it was well sung. Then there was a Trovatore in which the Manrico looked older than I was! So they are very variable. Of course going to the Met is out of the question os the cinema does or did until the pandemic. Really enjoying the broadcasts though.


It can be variable, and I find it necessary to choose carefully for CG. I haven't been there in the last six years due to children (eldest is almost 6).

As for the Met, my in-laws live in Detroit. I've been trying to convince the wife that it's really not too far to go and that we can leave the kids with the in-laws for the night  All this was pre-Covid of course.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

As one gets older, you sometimes need to pause and take a deep breath before climbing the next hill.


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

DavidA said:


> Well just to give you a statistic, in the 2013-2014 season, 10 operas were transmitted from the Met via satellite into at least 2,000 theaters in 66 countries, including more than 800 U.S. theaters. Box office hit $60 million worldwide. That means there are about 30 million watchers who attended the Met broadcasts alone.


Yes, we can all cut and paste from Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Opera_Live_in_HD



> Many of these people are like myself it would not normally go to an actual Opera house apart from a rare occasion.


Or instead of paraphrasing you could just paste the rest of the wiki article, where the number is just 20%?

"According to a 2008 study commissioned by Opera America, most Live in HD attendees were "moderate and frequent opera goers". About one in five, however, did not attend a live opera performance in the previous two years, with some being completely new to opera and attending because of curiosity about it."

You could quote the line that "There is no evidence that [it] generates more live opera attendance or brings new audiences into local opera houses". That's a doozy.



> We then have to have the people like me who buy CDs and can listen to complete operas at home.


You mean the record sales which you dismissed as 'a bogus statistic' in #74? The statistics where opera fell off the chart in the 1950s.



> Of course the meat is just one Opera house which does this. I'm sorry to cut across your negativity but I think this adds a bit of proof that quite a few million people are watching opera and not just listening to snippets but watching complete operas


You're still not getting the idea of popularity.

2013-2014: Met broadcasts box office = $60 *M*illion worldwide.

In 2013 and 2014 the global box office for all films was hovering around $36 *B*illion.
https://www.motionpictures.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/MPAA-Theatrical-Market-Statistics-2014.pdf

So you have 'proof' that even watching opera in the cinema is a very minority interest: which is what has repeatedly been said here.


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

I've just been reading Nicolai Gedda's "My LIfe and Art" where he described taking part in Met radio broadcasts from 1959 and "how surveys revealed that the Met had about thirty million listeners on those Saturdays, so it was very beneficial for singers to appear in operas that were scheduled for broadcasting"

30 million listeners a week when the population of the USA was about 180 million.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Well as the public pays their money to go and see these productions one assumes they care about the art. Funny I suppose the aristocrats who viewed Mozart's operas cared for his art as much as we do? What has happened is that the 'art' is now opened to a far wider audience than just the few elite. I know that might bother some people but I think it's a boon and have really appreciated it. And as I say listening to old recordings does not give me an idea of what great singing really is as I can't hear much of it. I know we are supposed to listen to these old crackly recordings which wow and flutter and gasp at the artistry but frankly and honestly I can't appreciate them.


Frankly, I am a bit confused (no biggie with me!).
As I read all the comments I am wondering if there is a basic problem with what each of you are having when you refer to "old" recordings.
"Crackly recordings which wow and flutter and gasp and that you can't hear much of it..."? Sounds to me like David is referring to the Maplesons and the like and not of the Golden era of the '40's, 50's and 60's like Bonetan seems to be.
With the new technology of "cleaning up sounds technically" where is there any hissing, flutter and gasps?
Please set the record straight David. Are you referring to the '20's and before or the Golden Age?
I can certainly appreciate some who have difficulty with the really olden day stuff. One has to train one's ear to really get the gist of the Maplesons (but once done, it is a glorious discovery to hear those memorable voices from the past.)
At least, please try to specify which decades you both are referring to. Are you really both in synch? Sounds maybe like you are not.
The Golden age had some of the finest singers in the entire world with nary a hiss or gasp -- voices that a majority of today's singers likely envy today (and with good reason) and cannot touch for various reasons -- the biggest one being dedication to taking the time to train properly. 
However, that doesn't mean that we don't have some truly stunning gems today (as I listed above) that you could plop right down into the Golden era. I, for one, am still grateful to have these singers in my lifetime and I don't feel I have missed that much, short of seeing them live, because opera is simply my magnificent obsession.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

^ A very minor point but isn’t the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th considered to be “the Golden Age of opera singing”. It was right after both the Italian and German opera had climaxed and the dominating singers were Caruso, Battistini, De Luca, etc.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Revitalized Classics said:


> Yes, we can all cut and paste from Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Opera_Live_in_HD
> 
> Or instead of paraphrasing you could just paste the rest of the wiki article, where the number is just 20%?
> 
> ...


You are incredible. What do you want me to do? Do you think we doing a masters degree? I've done those and that is the place for that. You appear to be looking everywhere for in your negativity. You people make me laugh. The sort of believe that modern athletes will be training in the wake of people in 1900. The sort of believe that modern athletes will be training in the wake of people in 1900. You believe anything that's negative. I would've thought that people going to the opera out of curiosity is a very good thing. Maybe you don't in your elitism. Of course if we go to record sales then opera comes right down the list but if you go to record sales anyway at any time then serious music comes further down the list. You just "the bogus statistics which are meaningless. What did Disraeli say? Of course we agree that opera is a minority interest. What do you expect? Do you expect as many people to go and see Wozzek as Indiaba Jones? What sort of world do you live in? It is just not realistic to compare the attendance of the movie theatre to see a Hollywood blockbuster than to see an opera. If you compare the audience to go and see a Hollywood blockbuster to a Shakespeare play you will find the same. Bogus statistics


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

nina foresti said:


> Frankly, I am a bit confused (no biggie with me!).
> As I read all the comments I am wondering if there is a basic problem with what each of you are having when you refer to "old" recordings.
> "Crackly recordings which wow and flutter and gasp and that you can't hear much of it..."? Sounds to me like David is referring to the Maplesons and the like and not of the Golden era of the '40's, 50's and 60's like Bonetan seems to be.
> With the new technology of "cleaning up sounds technically" where is there any hissing, flutter and gasps?
> ...


I am referring mainly to the times before electronic recording and particularly before LP. More particularly in recordings made in the 1920s and before which some people swear by that I can't get on with it all. If folks want to listen to them that is great as I'm concerned but I'm afraid I haven't got the patience to try and train my ear when there are glorious sounds from the LP era in stereo and even good mono


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Revitalized Classics said:


> I've just been reading Nicolai Gedda's "My LIfe and Art" where he described taking part in Met radio broadcasts from 1959 and "how surveys revealed that the Met had about thirty million listeners on those Saturdays, so it was very beneficial for singers to appear in operas that were scheduled for broadcasting"
> 
> 30 million listeners a week when the population of the USA was about 180 million.


So how many went to see the operas in movie theatres?


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

DavidA said:


> I am referring mainly to the times before electronic recording and particularly before LP. More particularly in recordings made in the 1920s and before which some people swear by that I can't get on with it all. If folks want to listen to them that is great as I'm concerned but I'm afraid I haven't got the patience to try and train my ear when there are glorious sounds from the LP era in stereo and even good mono


Thanks for clarifying this. So what do you think of the star singers on recordings made in the 30s, 40s and 50s and the opera stars singing today?

N.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

The Conte said:


> Thanks for clarifying this. So what do you think of the star singers on recordings made in the 30s, 40s and 50s and the opera stars singing today?
> 
> N.
> 
> N.


Good question THE CONTE.
I suspected that perhaps there was a discrepancy in the thinking of both parties. I was thinking more of the '40's -'60's Callas/Corelli/Tebaldi/Bjoerling/Tucker/Steber/Freni, DiStefano years than the Caruso years even with those stupendous sounds of that time. Thanks for the correction, Annaw.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The Conte said:


> Thanks for clarifying this. So what do you think of the star singers on recordings made in the 30s, 40s and 50s and the opera stars singing today?
> 
> N.
> 
> N.


I do not listen much to elderly recordings but I have got Beecham's 1938-39 Zauberflote. Of course he recorded it in Berlin so he couldn't have Tauber, Kipnis and Janssen for the recording, but one can only say that although it set a standard it has been outclassed but subsequent recordings. Just looking through one can say the Karajan from the 1950s is great with a super cast but Klemperer's is even better if you can stand his leaden tempi. Bohm has the incomparable Wunderlich but not much else imo. I've three great reasonably modern recordings in Abaddo, Jacobs and Christie and another good one in Mackerras. So they do leave Beecham trailing. 
I've also got Beecham's 1948 Faust which is very special from the point of view of having an all French cast. Of course it can't compare sonically or vocally with the Sutherland / Corelli version which is reputed to be in French but does sound splendid. But that is now around 50-odd years old!
Wagner? There is the Lehmann / Melchior / Walter Walkure which you have to be in the mood for as the orchestra is very thin despite the singing. I have some of the 1950s Bayreuth but not that keen on Wagner these days but I think there is general agreement that Wagner is best left to the past. 
Mozart is best done today imo. Just one point though. Someone has said that because I said 'we do Mozart better today' I was saying 'Mozart was done rubbish in the past'. I didn't not say that at all. There were obviously some very fine Mozart performances in the past. I was just making a generalisation of performance / production. Of course there are some absolute stinkers today like Holten's Don Giovanni which I had the displeasure of seeing.


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

DavidA said:


> You are incredible. What do you want me to do? Do you think we doing a masters degree? I've done those and that is the place for that. You appear to be looking everywhere for in your negativity. You people make me laugh. The sort of believe that modern athletes will be training in the wake of people in 1900. The sort of believe that modern athletes will be training in the wake of people in 1900. You believe anything that's negative. I would've thought that people going to the opera out of curiosity is a very good thing. Maybe you don't in your elitism. Of course if we go to record sales then opera comes right down the list but if you go to record sales anyway at any time then serious music comes further down the list. You just "the bogus statistics which are meaningless. What did Disraeli say? Of course we agree that opera is a minority interest. What do you expect? Do you expect as many people to go and see Wozzek as Indiaba Jones? What sort of world do you live in? It is just not realistic to compare the attendance of the movie theatre to see a Hollywood blockbuster than to see an opera. If you compare the audience to go and see a Hollywood blockbuster to a Shakespeare play you will find the same. Bogus statistics


30-million-listeners-each-*Saturday* to Met opera radio broadcasts in the 1950s.
30-million-viewers-a-*year* worldwide to HD cinema broadcasts in the 2010s.

Meanwhile the population has nearly doubled.

You tell me, are 60-million Americans interested enough to tune in each Saturday 2020 consuming complete operas by radio? To put that in context, 60 million a week listen to NPR...

If radio is old-hat then whatever the modern equivalent: streaming, Youtube, Spotify etc.

We know that they are not all turning up for your HD-broadcasts: you quote the 30-million-a-year off Wikipedia yourself.

Rather than say the audience proportion is shrinking, you insist it is growing:



> I would like to bet that with modern technology there's more people watching and listening to complete jumper is now than ever there was. Prove otherwise.


Last edited by DavidA; Yesterday at 21:38.

Call me "you people" if you like, throw insults and paraphrase 'til your heart is content: it does not plug the gap in your argument.

The people on this forum expressing concerns are some of the very few who do care enough about opera, they are sometimes disappointed and you are not listening.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Revitalized Classics said:


> 30-million-listeners-each-*Saturday* to Met opera radio broadcasts in the 1950s.
> 30-million-viewers-a-*year* worldwide to HD cinema broadcasts in the 2010s.
> 
> Meanwhile the population has nearly doubled.
> ...


Yes 30 million people PAY AND GO TO CINEMAS!!!!!!! We don';t know how many people tune into the radio broadcasts, listen on CD, DVD, online, etc.. You are just revelling in your usual negativity. I believe there is a far wider audience watching opera now than ever there was. That was the statement. I realise, as Job said, that 'you are the people and wisdom will die with you' but you are not the only ones who care about opera. But tell me. If you care so much about it, what are you actually doing about it? Apart from moaning here on TC? If I really care about something I do something about it. What is your solution and what are you doing about it? You are saying I am not listening to you but all you appear to be doing is reeling off negatives. Be practical man!


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

DavidA said:


> So tell me how can me smugly listening to old records improve opera singing today?





Bonetan said:


> Listening to old recordings with open ears will raise our standards of what great singing is. People have forgotten. Singers, fans, conductors, impresarios etc, they've all forgotten. We've forgotten what the human voice is capable of. We listen to old recordings to remind us. If we're all reminded the standard will raise and we'll all reap the rewards.


As far as the popularity of opera, I'm surprised this is up for debate. The fact that an opera singer 100 years ago could achieve world fame (Hollywood level) should tell us all we need to know. Has any opera singer had a sniff of that since Pavarotti?


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

nina foresti said:


> Frankly, I am a bit confused (no biggie with me!).
> As I read all the comments I am wondering if there is a basic problem with what each of you are having when you refer to "old" recordings.
> "Crackly recordings which wow and flutter and gasp and that you can't hear much of it..."? Sounds to me like David is referring to the Maplesons and the like and not of the Golden era of the '40's, 50's and 60's like Bonetan seems to be.
> With the new technology of "cleaning up sounds technically" where is there any hissing, flutter and gasps?
> ...


David and I are referring to the same era. The age of Battistini, Plancon, Patti, Tetrazzini, Melba. This is the golden age to me, like Annaw said.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> As far as the popularity of opera, I'm surprised this is up for debate. The fact that an opera singer 100 years ago could achieve world fame (Hollywood level) should tell us all we need to know. Has any opera singer had a sniff of that since Pavarotti?


But the fact that within our lifetime an opera singer has achieved that should tell us something. I tell you more people are watching opera now in some medium than ever before no matter what the doom mongers say.

As to the old recordings, you're wasting your time with me as I can't sing anyway. and in any case what old recordings are we talking about? In any case the medium is changing. Opera is moving from audio to a more visual medium.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> David and I are referring to the same era. The age of Battistini, Plancon, Patti, Tetrazzini, Melba. This is the golden age to me, like Annaw said.


The era of recordings so bad you can hardly make out what is being sung!


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

DavidA said:


> The era of recordings so bad you can hardly make out what is being sung!


You repeatedly say this, but in doing so you're only pointing out your own inadequacies as a listener...


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

At this point, I am more curious to know which "category" I fit into of the "you people" comment, David.
Sheesh!


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

DavidA said:


> I do not listen much to elderly recordings but I have got Beecham's 1938-39 Zauberflote. Of course he recorded it in Berlin so he couldn't have Tauber, Kipnis and Janssen for the recording, but one can only say that although it set a standard it has been outclassed but subsequent recordings. Just looking through one can say the Karajan from the 1950s is great with a super cast but Klemperer's is even better if you can stand his leaden tempi. Bohm has the incomparable Wunderlich but not much else imo. I've three great reasonably modern recordings in Abaddo, Jacobs and Christie and another good one in Mackerras. So they do leave Beecham trailing.
> I've also got Beecham's 1948 Faust which is very special from the point of view of having an all French cast. Of course it can't compare sonically or vocally with the Sutherland / Corelli version which is reputed to be in French but does sound splendid. But that is now around 50-odd years old!
> Wagner? There is the Lehmann / Melchior / Walter Walkure which you have to be in the mood for as the orchestra is very thin despite the singing. I have some of the 1950s Bayreuth but not that keen on Wagner these days but I think there is general agreement that Wagner is best left to the past.
> Mozart is best done today imo. Just one point though. Someone has said that because I said 'we do Mozart better today' I was saying 'Mozart was done rubbish in the past'. I didn't not say that at all. There were obviously some very fine Mozart performances in the past. I was just making a generalisation of performance / production. Of course there are some absolute stinkers today like Holten's Don Giovanni which I had the displeasure of seeing.


When you say that Wagner is best left to the past, do you mean that you think there were better singers in Wagner in the past than there were now? Once I understand what you mean by that I will look into the Mozart.

I think there may have been a misunderstanding here and I am sure we can clear it up.

N.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

DavidA said:


> But the fact that within our lifetime an opera singer has achieved that should tell us something. I tell you more people are watching opera now in some medium than ever before no matter what the doom mongers say.


On the other hand, it's quite an eye opener to read about the huge crowds who would turn out at train stops to welcome old-time opera singers touring across the U.S. We don't see that kind of star treatment now.


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

DavidA said:


> Yes 30 million people PAY AND GO TO CINEMAS!!!!!!! We don';t know how many people tune into the radio broadcasts, listen on CD, DVD, online, etc.. You are just revelling in your usual negativity. *I believe* there is a far wider audience watching opera now than ever there was. That was the statement. I realise, as Job said, that 'you are the people and wisdom will die with you' but you are not the only ones who care about opera. But tell me. If you care so much about it, what are you actually doing about it? Apart from moaning here on TC? *If I really care about something I do something about it.* What is your solution and what are you doing about it? You are saying I am not listening to you but all you appear to be doing is reeling off negatives. Be practical man!


I'm sure we are all so very grateful you could interrupt your busy schedule... How lucky that in-between making the world a better place you found time to type 16,000 messages on an internet forum then extoll others to "be practical"... 

Practical... the mind boggles. I know! I'll daub "Give Puccini a chance" in graffiti or how about I write strongly worded letters to Radio 3.... or I'll rugby tackle the next singer I hear with no trill. That'll do the trick.

Ah, well...if you 'Believe there is a far wider audience'... Well that's just dandy. We'll all pretend that you did not say you were "absolutely certain" in #66, or that you had a complete brass neck demanding statistics of Bonetan in #68 or called adriesba's argument "totally ridiculous"...

I discuss the many different singers I like at every opportunity. That is why Bonetan's comments, and others, are always so welcome and your chiding was counter-productive. For every voice-type there are dozens of splendid exemplars for any young singer. If I thought any young singer benefitted from videos I've shared or been inspired by discussions here or it informed their practice it would be a very welcome surprise.


----------



## Parsifal98 (Apr 29, 2020)

DavidA said:


> And you don't want anyone to equal her either because you want to live in the past don't you? I can remember 50 years ago people discussing Callas and comparing her unfavourably with 'great singers of the past'. It's only since her death she's become a legend. Interesting I was reading George Solti's biography and he said he much preferred Tebaldi's voice, even though Calkas was mesmerising on the stage.
> Now yesterday I had a beautiful performance of Cosi fan Tutte from the Met. Beautifully acted and sung. Am I not supposed to enjoy it because everything in the past was better?


But I do want people to equal her so that I can go see an opera live and be amazed by a thrilling dramatic voice instead of being disappointed by undevelopped voices doing their best on the stage. And stop it with the "it's only since her death she's become a legend"... Callas was called La Divina before she even became famous and she was even called _Soprano absoluta del siglo_ by the Mexican crowd as early as 1952 as you can see on this picture...









But this is not even about Callas. It is about new voices not having the same qualities as older singers. It is about the singing tradition slowly dying. You may believe, DavidA, that campaigning as we are doing for better voices is futile. But in order to solve a problem, the first big step is to recognize there is one. Something you seem incapable of doing.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> You repeatedly say this, but in doing so you're only pointing out your own inadequacies as a listener...


No the inadequacy of the recordings. Hasn't that occurred to you? 

Of course though this is the argument that is always fallen back upon. Because we don't hear the amazing voices of these people then it's our inadequacies as the listeners. But maybe it's just because they are not coming through the speakers? And maybe it's just that people are fondly imagining them?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

nina foresti said:


> At this point, I am more curious to know which "category" I fit into of the "you people" comment, David.
> Sheesh!


You don't Nina. It was not directed at you. Sorry if it gave that impression


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

amfortas said:


> On the other hand, it's quite an eye opener to read about the huge crowds who would turn out at train stops to welcome old-time opera singers touring across the U.S. We don't see that kind of star treatment now.


No because they usually arrive by plane. No because they usually arrive by plane. :lol:

My question is though how many of those peopke actually went to the opera house and watched the opera compared to the total audience now which watches. The point is it's alright living in the nostalgia of times past but we've got to realise that times change. Frankly a huge crowd turning out is not going to improve the standard of singing


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The Conte said:


> When you say that Wagner is best left to the past, do you mean that you think there were better singers in Wagner in the past than there were now? Once I understand what you mean by that I will look into the Mozart.
> 
> I think there may have been a misunderstanding here and I am sure we can clear it up.
> 
> N.


As I'm not particularly interested in Wagner then the question is irrelevant. My observation is that Wagner is best left to the past in my own life as I find his operas pretty boring these days. But it seems to be pretty well agreed that the great that the singing was in a past generation. But then it's always been so ever since I can remember. Wagner singing was always better in a previous generation and I've been hearing that for the last 50 years
As for Mozart I think the performances I'm hearing at the moment are as good as that of ever been if not better. But it's useless trying to convince you that because you believe everything in the past was better. But I believe we do early opera up to and including Mozart better


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Revitalized Classics said:


> I'm sure we are all so very grateful you could interrupt your busy schedule... How lucky that in-between making the world a better place you found time to type 16,000 messages on an internet forum then extoll others to "be practical"...
> 
> Practical... the mind boggles. I know! I'll daub "Give Puccini a chance" in graffiti or how about I write strongly worded letters to Radio 3.... or I'll rugby tackle the next singer I hear with no trill. That'll do the trick.
> 
> ...


You're very good at writing smart messages but I'm just asking you what practically would you do to improve the standard of singing which you're going on on about. I assume you are a qualified voice teacher of course? I assume you mentor young singers? Or are you just like the guy who stand on the sideline in a football match and reckons he can win the match better than the manager and the players?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Parsifal98 said:


> But I do want people to equal her so that I can go see an opera live and be amazed by a thrilling dramatic voice instead of being disappointed by undevelopped voices doing their best on the stage. And stop it with the "it's only since her death she's become a legend"... Callas was called La Divina before she even became famous and she was even called _Soprano assoluta del siglo_ by the Mexican crowd as early as 1952 as you can see on this picture...
> 
> View attachment 143817
> 
> ...


Come on then what are you doing practically to produce better voices. Telling people like me who can't sing anyway about it will not do any good. In any case I never thought that Callas had a remarkable voice. As Solti says in his autobiography, Tebaldi and other singers had greater voices. It was a stage animal that Callas excelled as


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

DavidA said:


> As I'm not particularly interested in Wagner then the question is irrelevant. My observation is that Wagner is best left to the past in my own life as I find his operas pretty boring these days. But it seems to be pretty well agreed that the great that the singing was in a past generation. But then it's always been so ever since I can remember. Wagner singing was always better in a previous generation and I've been hearing that for the last 50 years
> As for Mozart I think the performances I'm hearing at the moment are as good as that of ever been if not better. But it's useless trying to convince you that because you believe everything in the past was better. But I believe we do early opera up to and including Mozart better


It was just a comment that you don't like Wagner, then, thanks for clearing that up.

N.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The Conte said:


> It was just a comment that you don't like Wagner, then, thanks for clearing that up.
> 
> N.


I said he belongs to the past


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

Parsifal98 said:


> But I do want people to equal her so that I can go see an opera live and be amazed by a thrilling dramatic voice instead of being disappointed by undevelopped voices doing their best on the stage.


This is exactly right. I wish singing were as good as it used to be because I love opera and would be extremely happy to go to performances where I could hear the things I hear on old records. It has nothing to do with undo nostalgia.

As for Mozart singing, I wish I could say it has fared much better than Wagner singing, but I don't think that's true. I know of no Mozart singer who approaches any of these, easily audible with no or minimal noise:

























And on and on it can go. They are not necessarily huge voices, just perfectly balanced, natural sounding, elegant, exciting voices.

It's a simple empirical claim: I don't hear any singers like these right now or for the past 50 years or so. If they are out there, I'd be delighted to hear them. So far, nobody has provided me with any examples of singers who can reproduce this kind of sound.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

vivalagentenuova said:


> This is exactly right. I wish singing were as good as it used to be because I love opera and would be extremely happy to go to performances where I could hear the things I hear on old records. It has nothing to do with undo nostalgia.
> 
> As for Mozart singing, I wish I could say it has fared much better than Wagner singing, but I don't think that's true. I know of no Mozart singer who approaches any of these, easily audible with no or minimal noise:
> 
> ...


Of course no one beats them because it is the rule of faith with you that the past is always better. That's fine but it's just your subjective opinion. I have recordings where the singing is better than this imo. In any case where did you see that we need huge voices for Mozart?
Let me just say that I listen to these things which people put up one which is supposed to be such great examples of singing and I just think, well I've got stuff on my shelves which is better than this. Honestly some of the recordings I've got these operas have better singing than these examples. But of course this is because of my lack of discernment, everyone says. That is the usual response. Let me say it for you


----------



## Parsifal98 (Apr 29, 2020)

Parsifal98 said:


> You do not even need to listen to crackling recordings to hear the differences between old school singers and modern school singers. All you need to do is compare them directly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





DavidA said:


> Come on then what are you doing practically to produce better voices. Telling people like me who can't sing anyway about it will not do any good. In any case I never thought that Callas had a remarkable voice. As Solti says in his autobiography, Tebaldi and other singers had greater voices. It was a stage animal that Callas excelled as


To be honest, I feel rether impuissant. I can hardly go to my local conservatoire to tell the students that their teachers are not properly developing their voices (which is actually the case). But TC being a forum for lovers of classical music, it is, I believe, the best place to have a proper discussion regarding voices. A lot of the participants on this forum are singers or know singers and can therefore spread the message. Knowing this, I try to support my claim that modern voices are not as well developed as the ones of older singers with elaborated arguments, like the ones presented in the videos that I posted earlier (see above).


----------



## Parsifal98 (Apr 29, 2020)

> Of course no one beats them because it is the rule of faith with you that the past is always better. That's fine but it's just your subjective opinion. I have recordings where the singing is better than this imo. In any case where did you see that we need huge voices for Mozart?


Have you even listened to the videos DavidA? If so, what do you think of these singers?


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

DavidA said:


> You're very good at writing smart messages but I'm just asking you what practically would you do to improve the standard of singing which you're crowing on about. I assume you are a qualified voice teacher of course? I assume you mentor young singers?


Oh, I see...you don't believe that a consumer is entitled to an opinion....Yikes.

I did not proffer solutions because, funnily enough, I don't know why it is happening... which is why I raised my concerns here in the hope that it might encourage debate and, yes, remedies and solutions to improve the entertainment I enjoy.

I did previously try asking around our local bus station to see if anyone had ideas...then the park... but it eventually occurred to me that an internet discussion board with a sub-forum specifically on opera and frequented by professionals and fellow enthusiasts might be the place to talk about opera... D'oh.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Parsifal98 said:


> Have you even listened to the videos? If so, what do you think of these singers?


Yes. I've heard better.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Revitalized Classics said:


> Oh, I see...you don't believe that a consumer is entitled to an opinion....Yikes.
> 
> I did not proffer solutions because, funnily enough, I don't know why it is happening... which is why I raised my concerns here in the hope that it might encourage debate and, yes, remedies and solutions to improve the entertainment I enjoy.
> 
> I did previously try asking around our local bus station to see if anyone had ideas...then the park... but it eventually occurred to me that an internet discussion board with a sub-forum specifically on opera and frequented by professionals and fellow enthusiasts might be the place to talk about opera... D'oh.


I see so you haven't a clue? So all you can do is go onto a journey man like me about how things were so much better in the past? That is your solution? Like the guy who stands at the touchline of the football match and tells everyone how much better players were in the past? All that in WG Grace's day Joe Root would be lucky to bat at number 11?
So come on what great ideas have you hit upon? Surely people are overflowing with them here. I'm listening to a broadcast from the Met at the moment which is highly enjoyable and the singing is a very high standard and frankly I don't know what you're complaining about.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

DavidA said:


> No the inadequacy of the recordings. Hasn't that occurred to you?
> 
> Of course though this is the argument that is always fallen back upon. Because we don't hear the amazing voices of these people then it's our inadequacies as the listeners. But maybe it's just because they are not coming through the speakers? And maybe it's just that people are fondly imagining them?


Why would that occur to me? Are the JB Steane's of the world who've written extensively about these treasured recordings imagining things as well in your opinion? You've already admitted that you're a casual, therefore you have nothing of value to contribute to this discussion. You're simply unable to recognize great singing. Without taking the necessary time to listen to these recordings, none of us are. I was a casual once too...


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

DavidA said:


> I see so you haven't a clue? So all you can do is go onto a journey man like me about how things were so much better in the past? *That is your solution?* Like the guy who stands at the touchline of the football match and tells everyone how much better players were in the past? All that in WG Grace's day Joe Root would be lucky to bat at number 11?
> So come on what great ideas have you hit upon? Surely people are overflowing with them here. I may not listening to a broadcast from the Met at the moment which is highly enjoyable and the singing is a very high standard and I don't know what you're moaning about


Enough.

I posited that there are problems. I did not offer a solution...since I don't have one.

I am not asking you to agree. I know you do not have a solution and I know you don't think I am entitled to even ask the question. I don't need to explain it any further to you.

It might seem like gobbledygook to you but it is what I want to talk about and I don't need your permission to discuss whatever I choose.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

What a shame! This could have been such an interesting thread, but someone seems determined just to be argumentative for no constructive reason.

N.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

DavidA said:


> Yes. I've heard better.


Share some; maybe that will put the argument to rest.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Please refrain from personal comments. Focus on the MET, its closing, and general operas issues in general. A few posts have been removed.


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

Parsifal98 said:


> But I do want people to equal her so that I can go see an opera live and be amazed by a thrilling dramatic voice instead of being disappointed by undevelopped voices doing their best on the stage. And stop it with the "it's only since her death she's become a legend"... Callas was called La Divina before she even became famous and she was even called _Soprano absoluta del siglo_ by the Mexican crowd as early as 1952 as you can see on this picture...
> 
> View attachment 143817
> 
> ...


What really brought this home to me was I was reading an 1950s booked called _The Record Guide_ reviewing opera recordings issued on LP. You could tell that the authors were enthusiastic, but not uncritical, of the new versions being issued on LP with all those new singers who were celebrated then and we still revere some today.

What struck me most were the assumptions the authors felt able to make.

_Of course_ there was a whole new generation of excellent singers
_&_ the new versions were a big improvement technically on the old
_&_ all the versions were cast from strength whichever you preferred
_&_ you could expect a really strong performance whether it was Milan, Rome, Florence, Bayreuth, London, New York, Paris etc etc

...it made me so envious!!

I don't know precisely what worked before. Might it involve drawing deeply on local talent, bringing on young singers for years through the ranks and letting them learn their craft that way? That seems to have been the case in Rome (see Gobbi's autobiography) and Covent Garden (according to Joan Sutherland) or more specifically, Covent Garden before Solti.

Does anyone know if that was how it worked historically at the Met? You had Tucker, Peerce, Merrill, Roberta Peters, Milanov, McCracken, Warren and others who were all stalwarts. But you also had Sutherland saying she sang with a different tenor in Traviata each night. They also had long tours which cannot have been easy...

Penny for your thoughts?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> Why would that occur to me? Are the JB Steane's of the world who've written extensively about these treasured recordings imagining things as well in your opinion? You've already admitted that you're a casual, therefore you have nothing of value to contribute to this discussion. You're simply unable to recognize great singing. Without taking the necessary time to listen to these recordings, none of us are. I was a casual once too...


I read John Steane with interest and I have one of his books. But I do not share his interest in singers of the past who are recorded very inadequately. My wife incidentally is a professional musician and also a trained singer and she has the same opinion as I do!
Now if that is your hobby and your interest and that is great. I have contributed to the discussion but all you can say is personal remarks. When you say that I am unable to recognise great singing that is a purely subjective remark on your part and I would thank you not to keep making personal remarks. Of course have contributed things of value to this discussion and said that Mozart and the period before him is done better than before. Unfortunately you seem to be able to take no disagreement of opinion. Sorry but it's very disappointing when people like you do that


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

amfortas said:


> Share some; maybe that will put the argument to rest.


I did say to people to tune into the Met broadcasts this week when Mozart is being sung so you can get it in context. Anyone done that?

Just reading a review of the Tito: " Elina Garanca is heart-wrenchingly convincing as the tormented Sesto, conveying his agony and inspiring sympathy while simultaneously singing the difficult music effortlessly. Barbara Frittoli pulls off the practically impossible role of Vitellia with appropriate haughtiness and a ringing chest voice on her low notes. As Sesto's long-suffering friend Annio, Kate Lindsey adds further support to her reputation as a rising star in the opera world - one who will hopefully return to sing Sesto in future seasons. Giuseppe Filianoti's Tito starts shakily but shines in the second act, especially during his extended sections of conflicted solo recitative. Lucy Crowe makes much of the small role of Servilia, with especially convincing acting in her duet with Annio and her subsequent scene with Tito. As Publio, Oren Gradus delivers his one aria gracefully and lends a strong bass voice to several ensembles. The cast is supported by a powerful and beautiful-voiced (if somewhat blank-faced) chorus."
Agree!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The Conte said:


> What a shame! This could have been such an interesting thread, but someone seems determined just to be argumentative for no constructive reason.
> 
> N.


Well come on Mr Conte, I have made one statement - that we do Mozart is better - and certain people argue. I also direct people to the Met broadcast (which is the topic - see the mod) to hear it done. Yet people just argue. How am I being argumentative for no constructive reason?


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

Parsifal98 said:


> To be honest, I feel rether impuissant. I can hardly go to my local conservatoire to tell the students that their teachers are not properly developing their voices (which is actually the case). But TC being a forum for lovers of classical music, it is, I believe, the best place to have a proper discussion regarding voices. A lot of the participants on this forum are singers or know singers and can therefore spread the message. Knowing this, I try to support my claim that modern voices are not as well developed as the ones of older singers with elaborated arguments, like the ones presented in the videos that I posted earlier (see above).


Perfect- that's the whole idea.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Parsifal98 said:


> To be honest, I feel rether impuissant. *I can hardly go to my local conservatoire to tell the students that their teachers are not properly developing their voices (which is actually the case).* But TC being a forum for lovers of classical music, it is, I believe, the best place to have a proper discussion regarding voices. A lot of the participants on this forum are singers or know singers and can therefore spread the message. Knowing this, I try to support my claim that modern voices are not as well developed as the ones of older singers with elaborated arguments, like the ones presented in the videos that I posted earlier (see above).


Why not? Are you a voice coach? Have you qualifications in singing? Experience? What have you got to support your claim apart from your own subjective opinion?


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

DavidA said:


> I read John Steane with interest and I have one of his books. But I do not share his interest in singers of the past who are recorded very inadequately. My wife incidentally is a professional musician and also a trained singer and she has the same opinion as I do!
> Now if that is your hobby and your interest and that is great. I have contributed to the discussion but all you can say is personal remarks. When you say that I am unable to recognise great singing that is a purely subjective remark on your part and I would thank you not to keep making personal remarks. Of course have contributed things of value to this discussion and said that Mozart and the period before him is done better than before. Unfortunately you seem to be able to take no disagreement of opinion. Sorry but it's very disappointing when people like you do that


It's disappointing to me when someone who won't put the time and effort into a particular topic thinks their opinion should hold as much weight as those that do. You seem to be unable to accept that some of us are simply more knowledgeable than you when it comes to voice. We say the old school is better based on things that we hear. Things that can be pointed out and discussed...

I think it would be great if you would listen to the Mozart examples Viva selected and provide for us modern performances of the pieces that you think are better. Then perhaps we can compare and explain to you what we hear. Would you be open to that? I think we could all learn a lot from that.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> It's disappointing to me when someone who won't put the time and effort into a particular topic thinks their opinion should hold as much weight as those that do. You seem to be unable to accept that some of us are simply more knowledgeable than you when it comes to voice. We say the old school is better based on things that we hear. Things that can be pointed out and discussed...
> 
> I think it would be great if you would listen to the Mozart examples Viva selected and provide for us modern performances of the pieces that you think are better. Then perhaps we can compare and explain to you what we hear. Would you be open to that? I think we could all learn a lot from that.


As no-one has given me too much of a reason why people's opinion should hold more weight than my own it is puzzling why the pictures keep coming. OK you guys have a hobby of listening to elderly recordings which I don't care for. Why should I listen to them when I get far more pleasure out of those with better sonics? It always comes down to this get-out 'we are more knowledgeable than you. This is a typical response. But it doesn't improve what I hear.
So why do you think the example Via gave us of 'Dove Sono' is better than Gens' performance? Frankly it would take some explaining to me as it certainly doesn't sound like it. Apart from the fact that it is 'old and therefore it must be better'. That I know is an article of faith.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

DavidA said:


> As no-one has given me too much of a reason why people's opinion should hold more weight than my own it is puzzling why the pictures keep coming. OK you guys have a hobby of listening to elderly recordings which I don't care for. Why should I listen to them when I get far more pleasure out of those with better sonics? It always comes down to this get-out 'we are more knowledgeable than you. This is a typical response. But it doesn't improve what I hear.
> So why do you think the example Via gave us of 'Dove Sono' is better than Gens' performance? Frankly it would take some explaining to me as it certainly doesn't sound like it. Apart from the fact that it is 'old and therefore it must be better'. That I know is an article of faith.


You've been given both great singers to listen to and been told what to listen for. What else do you require? If someone has put more time and effort into researching a subject are they not generally more knowledgeable than you?

Please post the recording you're referring to and we can go through it. If you already have, I'm sorry for having overlooked it.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> You've been given both great singers to listen to and been told what to listen for. What else do you require? If someone has put more time and effort into researching a subject are they not generally more knowledgeable than you?
> 
> Please post the recording you're referring to and we can go through it. If you already have, I'm sorry for having overlooked it.


So have you listened to the Met broadcasts I recommended? Don't you realise there are some really good singers (at least of Mozart and before) around today? Have you put some time and effort into researching what I was referring to? I have been recommending them as they are so well sung. The problem is that you seem to think this all should be one way. Gens is the best performance of Dove Sono I have heard and there are others on You Tube which are pretty outstanding. But I know you and your friends will not like them on principle!


----------



## Parsifal98 (Apr 29, 2020)

Where is Wooduck when we need him! Even though it has been said to you a thousand times, let me say it again. You DO NOT need to be a professionnal voice coach to know about voices. Last year, I went to a performance by the students of my local conservatoire. Guess what repertoire they were singing? Baroque! How suprising! And from what I could hear, their voices were not well-developed at all. None of them, even the men, had proper chest voice, which is the core of all voices. None of them were singing with a lowered larynx, which is needed to open the pharyngeal space as much as possible and thus create resonance. Instead, there were all singing in their speaking voice. The lack of core and proper pharyngeal space therefore led to a lack of declamatory power and thus a lack of dramatic impact. As for the women, without core, they were all singing in a falsetto-dominant voice, meaning they were wobbly from the bottom to the top. Most importantly, none of theses singers, because of a lack of core, had any squillo. They were barely hearable even with a small baroque orchestra. Worst of all, many of these young singers have won prizes by the past and will one day dominate the operatic stages all over Canada. At the end of the day, I pity them, for they are losing their time. And the only people willing to spend their friday evening listening to them are their parents and close friends. No one in my city is interested by our future operatic singers, because they are uninteresting.

As for the Met, I watched parts of _La clemenza di Tito_ yesterday, and all that I have aformentioned could be applied to this performance as well. No core, which means wobble from top to bottom, which means no declamatory capacities which leads to no dramatic impact. If such voices please you, then so be it. But believing that they are proper operatic voices is a subjective opinion which has no basis in reality. For those who have not listened to said performance, here's a short clip.






The wobble is not as easily hearable here as previously mentioned, but one can clearly hear that the vibrato is not under control, which is one of the first characteristics of a wobble. Furthermore, one other thing that you can hear is how Garanca's voice lacks clarity. The dominant sound we hear is "ooooohh" (like an owl). This is a sign of a lack of core (meaning chest voice, which is needed for a proper headvoice). There is no squillo. We can hear her because it is a live broadcast, but imagine being in the house listening to such a voice. I am sorry, but it must have been terribly boring and hard to understand the lyrics because yes, understanding what a singer is singing is one of the most important things in opera. Now listen to Teresa Berganza singing the same aria. Can you hear the differences?


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

DavidA said:


> So have you listened to the Met broadcasts I recommended? Don't you realise there are some really good singers (at least of Mozart and before) around today? Have you put some time and effort into researching what I was referring to? I have been recommending them as they are so well sung. The problem is that you seem to think this all should be one way. Gens is the best performance of Dove Sono I have heard and there are others on You Tube which are pretty outstanding. But I know you and your friends will not like them on principle!


I'm not going to search for the Met broadcasts, no. That doesn't seem necessary when we can compare arias from YouTube right here on TC. But I am familiar with modern Mozart singing. Simply post your examples to counter those provided by Viva. We can explain to you what we hear and everyone who has been a part of the discussion can come to their own conclusions.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

You are very peculiar in your opinions. I don’t know what it is you listen with but they are different to mine. The performance of Tito was extremely well sung and was extremely well reviewed at the time.
One review: 

Elina Garanca is heart-wrenchingly convincing as the tormented Sesto, conveying his agony and inspiring sympathy while simultaneously singing the difficult music effortlessly. Barbara Frittoli pulls off the practically impossible role of Vitellia with appropriate haughtiness and a ringing chest voice on her low notes. As Sesto’s long-suffering friend Annio, Kate Lindsey adds further support to her reputation as a rising star in the opera world – one who will hopefully return to sing Sesto in future seasons. 
The only reservations were in the tenor at the beginning but his tone opened out as the opera progressed. 
But you know better of course!

Sorry but I think you’re sticking your head in the past and I really feel sorry for you being unable to appreciate what is in the present. And no, the performance wasn’t boring at all - in fact I watched it twice! You seem to think that the concert performance though is the same as one sung on a big stage with a resonant acoustic. Berganza is actually in front of the orchestra. I think that’s where your problem lies in that you would listen to too many concert performances and not enough actual opera in performance. I believe that opera is a dramatic experience but you believe it is just a vocal recital. I’m sorry about that but that is how we differ. What you really need to do is to go to that Academy of yours and tell them that they are teaching it all wrong. You really owe it to them if you feel strongly about it. The fact is that opera bores you though as a drama. You should therefore not listen to it but go in for vocal recitals


----------



## Parsifal98 (Apr 29, 2020)

DavidA said:


> You are very peculiar in your opinions. I don't know what it is you listen with but they are different to mine. The performance of Tito was extremely well sung and was extremely well reviewed at the time. The only reservations were in the tenor at the beginning but his tone opened out as the opera progressed. Sorry but I think you're sticking your head in the past and I really feel sorry for you being unable to appreciate what is in the present. And no, the performance wasn't boring at all - in fact I watched it twice!


What do you mean by "peculiar opinions"? Could you elaborate?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Parsifal98 said:


> What do you mean by "peculiar opinions"? Could you elaborate?


Well you don't seem to go to opera to enjoy it but rather to find fault with it. Of course you need to be a professional voice coach to know about voices properly. I do you happen to know this as my wife is a professional musician and a trained singer and has been singing for over half a century! Your opinion is that of an amateur - like mine. Unless you're actually done it how can you judge it as a professional? I just go to opera to enjoy it not nitpick. So what qualifies you to be a better judge of the Met performance than the review I quoted?


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

Edit. Post not satisfactory. Never mind.


----------



## Parsifal98 (Apr 29, 2020)

DavidA said:


> You are very peculiar in your opinions. I don't know what it is you listen with but they are different to mine. The performance of Tito was extremely well sung and was extremely well reviewed at the time.
> One review:
> 
> Elina Garanca is heart-wrenchingly convincing as the tormented Sesto, conveying his agony and inspiring sympathy while simultaneously singing the difficult music effortlessly. Barbara Frittoli pulls off the practically impossible role of Vitellia with appropriate haughtiness and a ringing chest voice on her low notes. As Sesto's long-suffering friend Annio, Kate Lindsey adds further support to her reputation as a rising star in the opera world - one who will hopefully return to sing Sesto in future seasons.
> ...


Oh wow so many assumptions. You should know that I primarly like opera because it is a dramatic art. This is why I do not appreciate Garanca's performance because it has no dramatic impact. And I would appreciate what is in the present if it would be up to the proper operatic standards. Now because you are not convinced by this recital performance, let me give you another example, this time using an other opera. Here is Callas singing Lady Macbeth at la Scala in 1952. She is behind the orchestra, just as you like singers to be...






Even though the sound may not be good enough for you, we can clearly hear what I was mentioning in my previous post. The voice has a strong core. Everything is clear and there is no wobble. She is easily hearable above the orchestra, even when she uses primarly her chest voice (when she declamates but also to add a dramatic impact to her performance). Her high notes are thrilling because she has core (well developed chest voice used in all registers). Even the diction is excellent. Now, I know this is not Mozart, so let's transpose all that I have mentioned in this post and the previous ones in another performance, this time of Mozart and with other singers. Here is an entire performance of Don Giovanni in 1954 in Salzburg.

Here is the cast: 
Don Giovanni - Cesare Siepi
Leporello - Otto Edelmann
Donna Anna - Elisabeth Grümmer
Donna Elvira - Lisa Della Casa
Don Ottavio - Anton Dermota
Zerlina - Erna Berger
Masetto - Walter Berry
Commendatore - Deszö Ernster
Wiener Staatsopernchor; Wiener Philharmoniker 
cond. Wilhelm Furtwängler






You can listen to the entire performance or just snippets of it. Listen to the qualitites of the voices. Clear, with squillo and well-developed chest voices.


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

^ I've seen some of that before. Just listen to Elisabeth Grümmer!


----------



## Parsifal98 (Apr 29, 2020)

adriesba said:


> ^ I've seen some of that before. Just listen to Elisabeth Grümmer!


Such a clear voice with a beautiful tone!

Compare it to this. The differences are evident.


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

DavidA said:


> So have you listened to the Met broadcasts I recommended? Don't you realise there are some really good singers (at least of Mozart and before) around today? Have you put some time and effort into researching what I was referring to? I have been recommending them as they are so well sung. The problem is that you seem to think this all should be one way. Gens is the best performance of Dove Sono I have heard and there are others on You Tube which are pretty outstanding. But I know you and your friends will not like them on principle!


I've been keeping up with Met broadcasts for years. They include Zauberflote in 2017-2018, Figaro in 2014-2015, Cosi in 2012-2013, Tito in 2012-2013, the Flute in 2006... On the radio we had Cosi in 2018, and I believe there was another Figaro in 2017.

I watched/listened along and enjoyed myself just fine, thanks, and when I do not rate them so highly it is from research: not out of ignorance.

Let's take a couple of comparisons...

There is only a short clip of Amanda Majeski as the Countess in 2014 (Dress Rehearsal):





Her performance is fine.

Does it match Fleming 22 years ago?





I don't think so... Do you?

That's good you enjoyed Gens' performance in Figaro. It is an enjoyable performance. It is also sixteen years old: got anything more recent?

To make some of the pronouncements you make, it would behove you to also listen to Lemnitz, Teschemacher, Reining, Rethberg, Schwarzkopf, Grummer, della Casa, de los Angeles, Jurinac, Caballe, Te Kanawa, Janowitz... among others.

Or do you "not like them on principle"?

Polenzani sang in the Cosi 





Compare to Jerry Hadley in the same production from 1996





Better than Hadley? Worse?

Then factor in Nash, Tucker, Dermota, Simoneau, Valletti, Shirley, Kraus, Haeflinger, Davies and Gedda among other Ferrandos? Still better?

Have you got a young tenor like Fritz Wunderlich stashed somewhere you haven't told us about...







> The performance of Tito was extremely well sung and was extremely well reviewed at the time.


Yes, it was fine.

You'll be able to tell us how it compares to performances by Baker, Minton, Troyanos, Neblett, Malfitano, Berganza, Varady, Popp, Von Stade, Lloyd?

They were all just as "extremely" well received in their time and perhaps even more "extremely well sung" - no?


----------



## Parsifal98 (Apr 29, 2020)

Jerry Hadley is another great Mozart singer with a beautiful dark pharyngeal voice!
Listen to this:


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

DavidA said:


> Why not? Are you a voice coach? Have you qualifications in singing? Experience? What have you got to support your claim apart from your own subjective opinion?


I have the qualifications you're looking for, but until I took a deep dive into the old recordings I was as clueless as any fan. People tell you that Milnes is a great baritone, and you believe it...until you have Battistini, Stracciari, De Luca and others to compare him to.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Parsifal98 said:


> Oh wow so many assumptions. You should know that I primarly like opera because it is a dramatic art. This is why I do not appreciate Garanca's performance because it has no dramatic impact. And I would appreciate what is in the present if it would be up to the proper operatic standards. Now because you are not convinced by this recital performance, let me give you another example, this time using an other opera. Here is Callas singing Lady Macbeth at la Scala in 1952. She is behind the orchestra, just as you like singers to be...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So many assumption? Oh don't make me laugh! You are totally full of assumptions people outside your little circle don't appear to share. We are not talking about Callas singing Lady Macbeth. I have that on disc if I want to hear it. The recording is vile btw. 
Furtwangler's Giovanni is how Mozart used to be done. Some of us prefer it how it is done now. It is not Mozart how the composer would recognise. Actually Giulini's Giovanni is better if you want it in that style. I have that on my shelf too. There is also a couple from Karajan - both very different. Your problem is you need to come out of the glories and legends of the past. I am a historian but for me the past remains there.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> I have the qualifications you're looking for, but until I took a deep dive into the old recordings I was as clueless as any fan. People tell you that Milnes is a great baritone, and you believe it...until you have Battistini, Stracciari, De Luca and others to compare him to.


Well of course you can't hear them properly! :lol:

Look mate, I respect your liking for old recordings but frankly I'm not interested. My wife isn't either as they irritate her because she has the qualifications and doesn't see why she should put up with defective sound quality. You and your colleagues are like people who collect old stamps. That's fine. Your hobby. I'm a historian but for me history is in the past and when I've written about it I leave it there. When I relax I like something a bit more modern that I can enjoy and I don't particularly enjoy ancient sound. You go ahead though! 

Anyway, let's leave out there as I don't want to continue in a negative vein. You have your enjoyment and I'll have mine. Every good wish my friend! I hope your career has not been too interrupted by the pandemic btw?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Revitalized Classics said:


> I've been keeping up with Met broadcasts for years. They include Zauberflote in 2017-2018, Figaro in 2014-2015, Cosi in 2012-2013, Tito in 2012-2013, the Flute in 2006... On the radio we had Cosi in 2018, and I believe there was another Figaro in 2017.
> 
> ?


"If it's old, it's gold!
If it's new, it cannot be true!"


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

DavidA said:


> Well of course you can't hear them properly! :lol:


This goes to show that no matter what we say, no matter what evidence we provide, no matter what qualifications we have, your opinion can't be changed. You're too stubborn to be reasoned with on this particular topic. Willful ignorance.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> This goes to show that no matter what we say, no matter what evidence we provide, no matter what qualifications we have, your opinion can't be changed. You're too stubborn to be reasoned with on this particular topic. Willful ignorance.


You cannot hear them properly. You are deluding yourself and that statement is the usual get-out. You said you had to 'get into' old recordings. Of course you do as the sonics are so bad you cannot hear all that is going on. As a musician you surely must admit that. You have ton know the piece and then put it together. For goodness sake I know enough to know the process.

Why can';t you for goodness sake leave it as I tried to ask you in a polite fashion rather reverting to name calling? I don't go in for this.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

DavidA said:


> I hope your career has not been too interrupted by the pandemic btw?


Totally interrupted lol. But I can use the time to improve and return to the stage at a higher level! I appreciate you asking


----------



## Parsifal98 (Apr 29, 2020)

DavidA said:


> So many assumption? Oh don't make me laugh! You are totally full of assumptions people outside your little circle don't appear to share. We are not talking about Callas singing Lady Macbeth. I have that on disc if I want to hear it. The recording is vile btw.
> Furtwangler's Giovanni is how Mozart used to be done. Some of us prefer it how it is done now. It is not Mozart how the composer would recognise. Actually Giulini's Giovanni is better if you want it in that style. I have that on my shelf too. There is also a couple from Karajan. Your problem is you need to come out of the past. I am a historian but for me the past remains there.


But I am not talking about how things "used to be done" (whatever that means). I am talking about how things used to be sung! Callas is a great example of a powerful declamatory voice. The qualities of her voice in that "vile recording" are the same as those found in the voices of Grümmer and Siepi and even Tebaldi and Christoff. Here are other arguments to further support my point.






The Met should spend the next year trying to find a voice possessing the same qualitites as Tebaldi or Callas. This would help them jump back on their feet when they open again.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

DavidA said:


> You cannot hear them properly. You are deluding yourself and that statement is the usual get-out. You said you had to 'get into' old recordings. Of course you do as the sonics are so bad you cannot hear all that is going on. As a musician you surely must admit that. You have ton know the piece and then put it together. For goodness sake I know enough to know the process.


YOU can't hear them properly. Fortunately many of us can.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> YOU can't hear them properly. Fortunately many of us can.


Sorry but it's pointless arguing with you. The science is against you.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Parsifal98 said:


> But I am not talking about how things "used to be done" (whatever that means). I am talking about how things used to be sung! Callas is a great example of a powerful declamatory voice. The qualities of her voice in that "vile recordings" are the same as those found in the voices of Grümmer and Siepi and even Tebaldi and Christoff. Here are other arguments to further support my point.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh form crying out loud another of your amateur critics having a go? :lol:

These guys know better than Pappano whose father Pasquale Pappano, was by vocation a singing teacher! :lol:

I mean, who are these guys and what have they done which qualifies them to criticise a guy like Pappano?


----------



## Parsifal98 (Apr 29, 2020)

Here is a contemporary singer with a well-developed chest voice. Now, she is not perfect but this is much more thrilling than a coreless voice.






Her name is Saioa Hernandez and this was in 2019. She has some problems with her head voice (her high notes), but listen to the power and the clarity of her voice.

This one was in 2018.






I think the sound is good enough for DavidA.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

DavidA said:


> Sorry but it's pointless arguing with you. The science is against you.


What science? I asked if you could post videos to counter those provided by Viva and you won't do it. We could easily go through those, prove whatever points we may have, and put this to rest. Why won't you?


----------



## Dick Johnson (Apr 14, 2020)

This discussion on the relative merits of old versus new singers/productions/recordings is turning into quite a little dust-up - at least by Talk Classical standards. Not sure if it is wise to wade in but here goes...
Interesting points on both sides (how's that for political) but I have to say that I have more sympathy for the newer is better (or at least equal) argument. 
First of all, I am not a music scholar and not much of a musician- so this is just the perspective of a devoted fan. With that disclaimer, I doubt I would be an opera fan today if it wasn't for the stage presence of the current generation of singers - Anna Netrebko, Juan Diego Florez, Max Emmanuel Cencic, Elena Garanca, Jonas Kaufmann etc. etc.. I never had the privilege of seeing Callas or Sutherland or Corelli in their prime - but I personally don't enjoy their recordings as much as those by contemporary singers. Furthermore, I really value high-definition video and high-quality audio. Given a choice of recordings, I'll take a recording of Netrebko over Callas, or Garanca over Horne any day. Not saying the new generation is better - just more enjoyable to me in terms of what is available to watch now. Sorry- sacrilege to many on the board but that's just how I feel. 

/hiding and taking cover


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

Bonetan said:


> What science? I asked if you could post videos to counter those provided by Viva and you won't do it. We could easily go through those, prove whatever points we may have, and put this to rest. Why won't you?


Old recordings, including acoustic recordings, have obvious utility. It is the reason that the artists made them in the first place and it's why historians appreciate them as primary sources.

Acoustic recording with horn from 1923. Good enough for these stars of the Metropolitan to approve. Perhaps you will note the singers' timbre, phrasing, diction etc





Electrical recording with microphone from 1928. 





Were any of the conclusions you draw from the acoustic version disproved by hearing the electrical version? No. The bass is better captured and the main beneficiary is the orchestra.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

Dick Johnson said:


> This discussion on the relative merits of old versus new singers/productions/recordings is turning into quite a little dust-up - at least by Talk Classical standards. Not sure if it is wise to wade in but here goes...
> Interesting points on both sides (how's that for political) but I have to say that I have more sympathy for the newer is better (or at least equal) argument.
> First of all, I am not a music scholar and not much of a musician- so this is just the perspective of a devoted fan. With that disclaimer, I doubt I would be an opera fan today if it wasn't for the stage presence of the current generation of singers - Anna Netrebko, Juan Diego Florez, Max Emmanuel Cencic, Elena Garanca, Jonas Kaufmann etc. etc.. I never had the privilege of seeing Callas or Sutherland or Corelli in their prime - but I personally don't enjoy their recordings as much as those by contemporary singers. Furthermore, I really value high-definition video and high-quality audio. Given a choice of recordings, I'll take a recording of Netrebko over Callas, or Garanca over Horne any day. Not saying the new generation is better - just more enjoyable to me in terms of what is available to watch now. Sorry- sacrilege to many on the board but that's just how I feel.
> 
> /hiding and taking cover


You haven't said anything that requires you to take cover. You prefer high definition video and high-quality audio. Hell, so do I. But you're willing to accept a lower level of singing than some of us are, and if you try telling me Netrebko, Kaufmann etc are great singers historically, I'm definitely going to throw things at you!!


----------



## Dick Johnson (Apr 14, 2020)

Bonetan said:


> if you try telling me Netrebko, Kaufmann etc are great singers historically, I'm definitely going to throw things at you!!


ok - whether or not Netrebko's voice is great by historical standards, I'm not qualified to say. What about suggesting that she has an excellent voice and has a magnetic stage presence by historical standards? She is a better actress than any older singer that I have seen on video. How about Cencic or Sabata in the baroque repertoire? I've never heard older recordings of Handel/Vivaldi etc. better than the current generation. How about Florez in the bel canto repertoire? Seems historically great to me.

/back to my bunker


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

Dick Johnson said:


> This discussion on the relative merits of old versus new singers/productions/recordings is turning into quite a little dust-up - at least by Talk Classical standards. Not sure if it is wise to wade in but here goes...
> Interesting points on both sides (how's that for political) but I have to say that I have more sympathy for the newer is better (or at least equal) argument.
> First of all, I am not a music scholar and not much of a musician- so this is just the perspective of a devoted fan. With that disclaimer, I doubt I would be an opera fan today if it wasn't for the stage presence of the current generation of singers - Anna Netrebko, Juan Diego Florez, Max Emmanuel Cencic, Elena Garanca, Jonas Kaufmann etc. etc.. I never had the privilege of seeing Callas or Sutherland or Corelli in their prime - but I personally don't enjoy their recordings as much as those by contemporary singers. Furthermore, I really value high-definition video and high-quality audio. Given a choice of recordings, I'll take a recording of Netrebko over Callas, or Garanca over Horne any day. Not saying the new generation is better - just more enjoyable to me in terms of what is available to watch now. Sorry- sacrilege to many on the board but that's just how I feel.
> 
> /hiding and taking cover


That's perfectly understandable: glad you are enjoying yourself!

HD recording both in terms of picture and sound are obviously a terrific bonus and nobody's advocating going _back_ to wax cylinders and recordings made with a horn any time soon 

With this thread it is more of a spat that some of us are rather critical of the status quo in opera and, I guess, hope things will be different after the pandemic rather than go back to how they were.

Personally, I wonder if lessons cannot be learned from what worked after previous traumas e.g. World War 1, the Great Depression and World War 2 because as dark as those times looked there was a marvellous flourishing in opera in the Post-War period into the 50s, 60s, 70s and perhaps lessons can be learned from that? Is somebody trying to work out what worked then?

Trouble is that looking-back has led to being called snobs, geeks and probably taken for luddites...

Hence the dust-up lol


----------



## silentio (Nov 10, 2014)

Bonetan said:


> You haven't said anything that requires you to take cover. You prefer high-definition video and high-quality audio. Hell, so do I. But you're willing to accept a lower level of singing than some of us are, and if you try telling me Netrebko, Kaufmann, etc. are great singers historically, I'm definitely going to *throw things at you*!!


How dare you??? Netrebko is _the_ Rosa Ponselle or Claudia Muzio of this generation. You have to be thankful that we are her contemporaries, and forgive her minor shortcomings, such as being constantly off-pitch, the weird tongue tension, mushy dictions, and the wobbles she is developing.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

silentio said:


> How dare you??? Netrebko is _the_ Rosa Ponselle or Claudia Muzio of this generation. You have to be thankful that we are her contemporaries, and forgive her minor shortcomings, such as being constantly off-pitch, the weird tongue tension, mushy dictions, and the wobbles she is developing.


This made me laugh out loud :lol:


----------



## Parsifal98 (Apr 29, 2020)

Seing the name Dick Johnson made me remember an amazing performance by Mario del Monaco in la_ Fanciulla del West_ in 1954.
Here it is!






Such an amazing voice! This is what opera needs!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> What science? I asked if you could post videos to counter those provided by Viva and you won't do it. We could easily go through those, prove whatever points we may have, and put this to rest. Why won't you?


Surely even you know why high Fidelity is called high Fidelity. Why don't you have your own voice recorded on a wAx cylinder. And I'm assuming that you apply the same standards to your own singing as you do to every other modern singer in that you are not nearly as good as every body else in the past.
I do not want to particularly go through some favourite recordings and hear your negativity on them. I know you have a rule of faith that the old is best and you have an evangelical zeal to convert everyone else to that point of view. So to be honest I'd sooner just leave it and just enjoy opera. I made one statement that we do Mozart better than we did before in that the productions are more enjoyable to me than older productions. This statement was apparently sacrilege to some of you who worship the past. Now please leave the past as the past. I have plenty of Mozart recordings from many years ago which were contemporary with my boy hood which I enjoy anyway. I also enjoy a lot of modern productions as long as Reggie theatre hasn't taken over too much. I just enjoy opera what is put before me without a lot of nitpicking. No doubt you don't but I don't want to become like that thank you very much. So thank you for your concern but let's leave it. It's not that I'm ignorant because I'm very well qualified with multiple degrees. But I just want to be left to pursue my hobby


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Dick Johnson said:


> This discussion on the relative merits of old versus new singers/productions/recordings is turning into quite a little dust-up - at least by Talk Classical standards. Not sure if it is wise to wade in but here goes...
> Interesting points on both sides (how's that for political) but I have to say that I have more sympathy for the newer is better (or at least equal) argument.
> First of all, I am not a music scholar and not much of a musician- so this is just the perspective of a devoted fan. With that disclaimer, I doubt I would be an opera fan today if it wasn't for the stage presence of the current generation of singers - Anna Netrebko, Juan Diego Florez, Max Emmanuel Cencic, Elena Garanca, Jonas Kaufmann etc. etc.. I never had the privilege of seeing Callas or Sutherland or Corelli in their prime - but I personally don't enjoy their recordings as much as those by contemporary singers. Furthermore, I really value high-definition video and high-quality audio. Given a choice of recordings, I'll take a recording of Netrebko over Callas, or Garanca over Horne any day. Not saying the new generation is better - just more enjoyable to me in terms of what is available to watch now. Sorry- sacrilege to many on the board but that's just how I feel.
> 
> /hiding and taking cover


Not sacrilege just but preference but you are dealing with a fundamentalism with those whose faith statement says the old is better. Don't forget my statement was that we do Mozart better. In other words the all-round experience. Don't forget it was Marilyn Horn herself who said that HD was the menace to the singer as it exposed the elderly and the large singer to scrutiny. It also insisted that singers act in rather better than in the past


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Revitalized Classics said:


> That's perfectly understandable: glad you are enjoying yourself!
> 
> HD recording both in terms of picture and sound are obviously a terrific bonus and nobody's advocating going _back_ to wax cylinders and recordings made with a horn any time soon
> 
> ...


I don't believe that anyone has used the word stops, geeks or Luddites. There has been rather an unfortunate lot of name-calling of people being called 'ignorant' if they do not worship the ground of elderly recordings. It is a most unfortunate example of snobbery


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Dick Johnson said:


> ok - whether or not Netrebko's voice is great by historical standards, I'm not qualified to say. What about suggesting that she has an excellent voice and has a magnetic stage presence by historical standards? She is a better actress than any older singer that I have seen on video. How about Cencic or Sabata in the baroque repertoire? I've never heard older recordings of Handel/Vivaldi etc. better than the current generation. How about Florez in the bel canto repertoire? Seems historically great to me.
> 
> /back to my bunker


Netrebko is a stage animal with a magnetic stage presence. I can remember Sir Georg Solti saying the same about Callas that she hadn't a great voice compared with Tebaldi bit her stage presence was magnetic. Read it in his autobiography. But of course as he was only an opera conductor he probably didn't know what he was talking about


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Revitalized Classics said:


> Old recordings, including acoustic recordings, have obvious utility. It is the reason that the artists made them in the first place and it's why historians appreciate them as primary sources.
> 
> Acoustic recording with horn from 1923. Good enough for these stars of the Metropolitan to approve. Perhaps you will note the singers' timbre, phrasing, diction etc
> 
> ...


I am a historian but old recordings are not my field. Music is my relaxation so I prefer not to work when I'm listening to music


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Parsifal98 said:


> Here is a contemporary singer with a well-developed chest voice. Now, she is not perfect but this is much more thrilling than a coreless voice.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I would ask you what your qualifications are for assessing this voice? Are you a voice coach? Are you a singer yourself? Just what are your qualifications? Or are you just one of these who looked on the Internet and tries to get some hints and repeats certain phrases?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Parsifal98 said:


> Seing the name Dick Johnson made me remember an amazing performance by Mario del Monaco in la_ Fanciulla del West_ in 1954.
> Here it is!
> 
> 
> ...


You believe in con belto singing! :lol:

Glorious voice but not the most subtle artist. I've got his recording with Tebalidi. One of his best but not my favourite operas. No it's interesting that he was an artist who was far more effective on the stage than in recording


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

DavidA said:


> Surely even you know why high Fidelity is called high Fidelity. Why don't you have your own voice recorded on a wAx cylinder. And I'm assuming that you apply the same standards to your own singing as you do to every other modern singer in that you are not nearly as good as every body else in the past.
> I do not want to particularly go through some favourite recordings and hear your negativity on them. I know you have a rule of faith that the old is best and you have an evangelical zeal to convert everyone else to that point of view. So to be honest I'd sooner just leave it and just enjoy opera. I made one statement that we do Mozart better than we did before in that the productions are more enjoyable to me than older productions. This statement was apparently sacrilege to some of you who worship the past. Now please leave the past as the past. I have plenty of Mozart recordings from many years ago which were contemporary with my boy hood which I enjoy anyway. I also enjoy a lot of modern productions as long as Reggie theatre hasn't taken over too much. I just enjoy opera what is put before me without a lot of nitpicking. No doubt you don't but I don't want to become like that thank you very much. So thank you for your concern but let's leave it. It's not that I'm ignorant because I'm very well qualified with multiple degrees. But I just want to be left to pursue my hobby


You've got me all wrong. I've never been an 'old is best' guy and I didn't understand what I was missing until the past year. I was ignorant to be quite honest. This is no rule of faith. This isn't worshipping the past. I got here by listening and listening alone. I can't convince you to try it. I understand.

As far as my own singing, the singers on those ancient recordings are the ones I emulate because they set the highest standard. The freedom they sing with is always first and foremost on my mind every time I onset.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> You've got me all wrong. I've never been an 'old is best' guy and I didn't understand what I was missing until the past year. I was ignorant to be quite honest. This is no rule of faith. This isn't worshipping the past. I got here by listening and listening alone. I can't convince you to try it. I understand.
> 
> As far as my own singing, the singers on those ancient recordings are the ones I emulate because they set the highest standard. The freedom they sing with is always first and foremost on my mind every time I onset.


That's fine for you if you think you can learn something from them. Like the ancient texts I study for research. But I don't expect everyone to study them. Not everyone enjoys that sort of thing but many people enjoy reading popular history. If you feel it helps you're seeing that is great but I must confess I don't get any enjoyment out of hearing snippets from operas on ancient recordings. I take it you don't have a voice coach because of course they all teach the wrong things these days?


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

DavidA said:


> I am a historian but old recordings are not my field. Music is my relaxation so I prefer not to work when I'm listening to music


Thank you for confirming that you have zero professional or personal interest in the conversation I had with someone else...

Means a lot.


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

Bonetan said:


> You've got me all wrong. I've never been an 'old is best' guy and I didn't understand what I was missing until the past year. I was ignorant to be quite honest. This is no rule of faith. This isn't worshipping the past. I got here by listening and listening alone. I can't convince you to try it. I understand.
> 
> As far as my own singing, the singers on those ancient recordings are the ones I emulate because they set the highest standard. The freedom they sing with is always first and foremost on my mind every time I onset.


Lots of luck with your singing Bonetan: that's great the recordings are serving a didactic role.


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

Parsifal98 said:


> Here is a contemporary singer with a well-developed chest voice. Now, she is not perfect but this is much more thrilling than a coreless voice.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Definitely a career on the ascent: this year would have meant _Tosca, _Abigaille in _Nabucco_, Amelia in _Ballo in Maschera_, _Aida_, _La Gioconda_ all at La Scala, Berlin, Palermo etc.

Very interesting


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

Parsifal98 said:


> Seing the name Dick Johnson made me remember an amazing performance by Mario del Monaco in la_ Fanciulla del West_ in 1954.
> Here it is!
> 
> 
> ...


He had a few fans at the Met too...


----------



## Parsifal98 (Apr 29, 2020)

DavidA said:


> You believe in con belto singing! :lol:
> 
> Glorious voice but not the most subtle artist. I've got his recording with Tebalidi. One of his best but not my favourite operas. No it's interesting that he was an artist who was far more effective on the stage than in recording


You've said it yourself! A "glorious voice"! At least we agree on that This is what I believe opera needs right now: glorious voices. And he was indeed effective on stage. You are right that he was not so subtle but I do not remember theatre being a subtle art. One needs to see what is going on on stage. As for your question regarding my qualifications, I have already given my answer.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Revitalized Classics said:


> Thank you for confirming that you have zero professional or personal interest in the conversation I had with someone else...
> 
> Means a lot.


Why should I have any professional interest in a conversation with you? Any more than you should be interested in having a conversation with me on a professional level


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Revitalized Classics said:


> He had a few fans at the Met too...


Of course when Culshaw made Aida with Karajan Rosengaten wanted del M as Radames but Culshaw and Karajan made it clear their concept was very different and chose Bergonzi.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Parsifal98 said:


> You've said it yourself! A "glorious voice"! At least we agree on that This is what I believe opera needs right now: glorious voices. And he was indeed effective on stage. You are right that he was not so subtle but I do not remember theatre being a subtle art. One needs to see what is going on on stage. As for your question regarding my qualifications, I have already given my answer.


I see you have as many qualifications as I have. Along with a few others here who are giving their expertise


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

DavidA said:


> Why should I have any professional interest in a conversation with you? Any more than you should be interested in having a conversation with me on a professional level


Well, if you aren't interested in having a conversation...

N.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The Conte said:


> Well, if you aren't interested in having a conversation...
> 
> N.


Well as you just said you weren't.......


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

DavidA said:


> That's fine for you if you think you can learn something from them. Like the ancient texts I study for research. But I don't expect everyone to study them. Not everyone enjoys that sort of thing but many people enjoy reading popular history. If you feel it helps you're seeing that is great but I must confess I don't get any enjoyment out of hearing snippets from operas on ancient recordings. I take it you don't have a voice coach because of course they all teach the wrong things these days?


Even if you won't study them, I would expect you to be able to acknowledge their worth. But that's ok. We move on...I've had one main teacher since I began and she's a good one. No one before her had a chance to teach me the wrong things. My colleagues envy me for that reason. Perhaps a better way to put it is to say teachers these days aren't teaching all of the right things. They've forgotten the old singing traditions as well. Only connoisseurs remember them at this point.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

DavidA said:


> I see you have as many qualifications as I have. Along with a few others here who are giving their expertise


Do you think it's right to use the qualifications response when I have the qualifications and you still dismiss my opinion?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> Even if you won't study them, I would expect you to be able to acknowledge their worth. But that's ok. We move on...I've had one main teacher since I began and she's a good one. No one before her had a chance to teach me the wrong things. My colleagues envy me for that reason. Perhaps a better way to put it is to say teachers these days aren't teaching all of the right things. They've forgotten the old singing traditions as well. Only connoisseurs remember them at this point.


Of course it depends on what one considers the 'right' things. My wife had an absolutely brilliant coach who set her voice up. Her present one is good she says but of course now things have gone pear shaped.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> Do you think it's right to use the qualifications response when I have the qualifications and you still dismiss my opinion?


I don't dismiss your opinion but don't share your enthusiasm for elderly recordings. Besides, your opinion is shaped by your own preferences.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

DavidA said:


> Of course it depends on what one considers the 'right' things. My wife had an absolutely brilliant coach who set her voice up. Her present one is good she says but of course now things have gone pear shaped.


And of course this depends on what one considers 'absolutely brilliant' and 'good'...I came to TC knowing that others here are much more knowledgeable than me. I listened, learned, and took it a step further. You come into discussions set in your ways, unwilling to budge. It makes me wonder what you get out of these talks...


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

DavidA said:


> I don't dismiss your opinion but don't share your enthusiasm for elderly recordings. Besides, your opinion is shaped by your own preferences.


So why use the qualifications response if your next response is to say they're shaped by personal preferences? Our qualifications mean nothing to you, obviously.


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

DavidA said:


> Why should I have any professional interest in a conversation with you? Any more than you should be interested in having a conversation with me on a professional level


I wrote to Bonetan about historians using old recordings as primary sources.

You quoted me, saying you are a historian in a different field and prefer listening to music for relaxation.

What precisely do qualifications in _another_ field lend to your answer? Why would your personal listening patterns be at all relevant?

I don't know why my discussing old recordings as primary sources with Bonetan required a conditioned response from you at all...


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> So why use the qualifications response if your next response is to say they're shaped by personal preferences? Our qualifications mean nothing to you, obviously.


You have qualifications. No-one else I think.


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

DavidA said:


> Of course when Culshaw made Aida with Karajan Rosengaten wanted del M as Radames but Culshaw and Karajan made it clear their concept was very different and chose Bergonzi.


That's right, the same Rosengaten, Culshaw and Karajan who subsequently booked Del Monaco for the studio recording of _Otello_ which Culshaw said was the most significant recording project they worked on that whole year...


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Revitalized Classics said:


> I wrote to Bonetan about historians using old recordings as primary sources.
> 
> You quoted me, saying you are a historian in a different field and prefer listening to music for relaxation.
> 
> ...


And I don't know why I get a conditioned response from you. You say you don't want to talk to me yet this is the second compulsive reply I've had from you. My listening patterns are not at all relevant to you so why are you bothering me?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Revitalized Classics said:


> That's right, the same Rosengaten, Culshaw and Karajan who subsequently booked Del Monaco for the studio recording of _Otello_ which Culshaw said was the most significant recording project they worked on that whole year...


Thanks we did know that. Because Otello is a different opera requiring a different type of tenor. Also Karajan's conception of Otello was different from that of Aida. You don't appear to have read Culshaw's 'Putting the Record straight' in which he explains his reasons. Please refer if you can find a copy. You are obviously a 'one size fits all guy as I suspected!


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

DavidA said:


> Thanks we did know that. Because Otello is a different opera requiring a different type of tenor. You don't appear to have read Culshaw's 'Putting the Record straight' in which he explains his reasons. Please refer if you can find a copy. You are obviously a 'one size fits all guy as I suspected!


Did you though?

_Funny_ that you chose the ominous reference to recasting Del Monaco rather the whole chapter in Culshaw's book on recording _Otello_. Positively obtuse.

Or the other 25 complete operas Del Monaco recorded with Decca. You know, he did all that despite your insistence that "he was an artist who was far more effective on the stage than in recording"... are you a recording producer by the way?

When you say it takes a different type of tenor, do you think De Fabritiis, Cleva, Erede, Capuana were wrong to cast him? Does one Culshaw trump the rest or does 4:1 balance out? How does that work _exactly_...

By the way, could you tell us who today is singing Radames better than Del Monaco? Thanks a bunch.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Revitalized Classics said:


> Did you though?
> 
> _Funny_ that you chose the ominous reference to recasting Del Monaco rather the whole chapter in Culshaw's book on recording _Otello_. Positively obtuse.
> 
> ...


Thanks for confirming you do not know what Culshaw was talking about. Del Monaco was never recast for Otello, of course. He was always the Otello. There was of course a recasting which happened after the recording had begun. 
The conductors you mention did not cast del Monaco. He was cast by Decca as he was Decca's Italian star at the time. By the time Karajan made Aida Bergonzi was on the horizon so he was a far better fit for Karajan and Culshaw's concept of Aida. rather than del Monaco's 'con belto' approach. I can remember a contemporary review of the Erede Aida saying 'his [DM's] Celeste Aida is simply awful'. Of course he shone in other roles and was a specialist Otello which is why Culshaw had him, but he was certainly no Vickers for subtlety. He did manage to get into the Carmen under Schippers which he just about ruined with his constant forte singing. Culshaw wanted Di Stefano for that but Rosengarton overruled him. Pity as that could have been an excellent set.
No I am not a record producer. But a historian needn't be my friend!


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

Parsifal98 said:


> You've said it yourself! A "glorious voice"! At least we agree on that This is what I believe opera needs right now: glorious voices. And he was indeed effective on stage. You are right that he was not so subtle but I do not remember theatre being a subtle art. One needs to see what is going on on stage. As for your question regarding my qualifications, I have already given my answer.


I'm not sure Parsifal98...

It's 2020 and I worry we have reached _saturation point_: we are just overrun with great dramatic tenors 

It's like...c'mon guys! enough with the squillo already!


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

DavidA said:


> Thanks for confirming you do not know what Culshaw was talking about. Del Monaco was never recast for Otello, of course. He was always the Otello. There was of course a recasting which happened after the recording had begun.
> The conductors you mention did not cast del Monaco. He was cast by Decca as he was Decca's Italian star at the time. By the time Karajan made Aida Bergonzi was on the horizon so he was a far better fit for Karajan and Culshaw's concept of Aida. rather than del Monaco's 'con belto' approach. I can remember a contemporary review of the Erede Aida saying 'his [DM's] Celeste Aida is simply awful'. Of course he shone in other roles and was a specialist Otello which is why Culshaw had him, but he was certainly no Vickers for subtlety. He did manage to get into the Carmen under Schippers which he just about ruined with his constant forte singing. Culshaw wanted Di Stefano for that but Rosengarton overruled him. Pity as that could have been an excellent set.
> No I am not a record producer. But a historian needn't be my friend!


Read the message 

You referenced the one recording - _Aida_- where we know Del Monaco was in contention and replaced by another tenor (Bergonzi).

You did not mention _Otello_ at that point with the same record manager, producer and conductor. Or Del Monaco's _25 other recordings_ for Decca. I know he was always Otello, read my message...

Del Monaco sang Radames with De Fabritiis, Cleva, Erede, Capuana in Mexico, the Met, recording the opera in 1952 and in Tokyo. Are you _at all_ familiar with his recorded legacy?

Yeah, right 'can belto': was that ever funny? Del Monaco was mysteriously good enough for De Sabata, Serafin, Votto, Mitropoulos, Reiner, Gavazzeni and many others. What do you make of that?

Then you mention Vickers and di Stefano... Name one person who is better today? Isn't that the premise of everything you've said in this thread?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Revitalized Classics said:


> Read the message
> 
> You referenced the one recording - _Aida_- where we know Del Monaco was in contention and replaced by another tenor (Bergonzi).
> 
> ...


You are of course completely wrong. you don't know. Del Monaco was not replaced by Bergonzi because he was never in contention. You really need to get your facts right.
you really need to read what people say not assume you know. The only conductor who conducted Otello for Decca was Erede. He conducted the previous Aida too. Of course there are many recordings of del M but you will find they are mostly live apart *I think) from those he made for Decca as he was the Italianhouse tenor.
Again please read what I said. You would save yourself a lot of stress. I never said we do everything better. I said we do Mozart and composersbefore him better.


----------



## Parsifal98 (Apr 29, 2020)

Revitalized Classics said:


> I'm not sure Parsifal98...
> 
> It's 2020 and I worry we have reached _saturation point_: we are just overrun with great dramatic tenors
> 
> It's like...c'mon guys! enough with the squillo already!


I know right! I mean listen to this incredible Pollione that I've just found! So much squillo, so much resonance, so much depth... What a time to be alive!






For those who may not understand sarcasm, Calleja is not a bad tenor because he is still alive. He is a bad tenor (meaning has a bad tenor voice) because of a lack of proper technique. Those of us asking for better voices have no desire to raise the deads. We only want the old singing tradition to be taught properly again.


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

DavidA said:


> You are of course completely wrong. you don't know. Del Monaco was not replaced by Bergonzi because he was never in contention. You really need to get your facts right.
> you really need to read what people say not assume you know. The only conductor who conducted Otello for Decca was Erede. He conducted the previous Aida too. Of course there are many recordings of del M but you will find they are mostly live apart *I think) from those he made for Decca as he was the Italianhouse tenor.
> Again please read what I said. You would save yourself a lot of stress. I never said we do everything better. I said we do Mozart and composersbefore him better.


'He was never in contention'...

Rosengaten wanted him. The same Rosengaten who you just said forced the point on _Carmen_ and Del Monaco got the gig. Rosengaten who needed _persuaded out of it_ by Culshaw and Karajan. How is that 'never in contention' for goodness sake?

That's what I said, live performances in theatres. Out of all the available tenors De Fabritiis, Cleva and Capuana chose Del Monaco. Rosengaten and Erede chose Del Monaco for the recording with Decca in 1952. Were they all wrong? You are putting a lot of faith in your copy of 'Putting the Record straight'



> I never said we do everything better. I said we do Mozart and composersbefore him better.


And what good, pray tell, is that? What were your first lines in the thread?:



> I've been looking at the Met broadcasts and I wouldn't say it is dead at all.


What you were _actually_ saying was operas are doing great...so long as they are from before the nineteenth century...


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Revitalized Classics said:


> 'He was never in contention'...
> 
> Rosengaten wanted him. The same Rosengaten who you just said forced the point on _Carmen_ and Del Monaco got the gig. Rosengaten who needed _persuaded out of it_ by Culshaw and Karajan. How is that 'never in contention' for goodness sake?
> 
> ...


You are totally wrong. He was never in contention in Aida because it was Culshaw's and HvK's project. Carmen was Rosengarton's project that he foisted on Culshaw. You would know that if you knew your history my friend. There were different circumstances for each recording. Culshaw never wanted to do the Carmen as he had one lined up with Karajan and Price in Vienna for RCA.
As for the earlier recordings of course Culshaw was with Capitol until 1955 until he returned to Decca. I'm not saying they were all wrong but I am saying you need to get your history straight.

You are the one riding in negativity I am just trying to be positive. You're the one who likes to be negative about everything in the present but I'm just the one who says that not everything is dead and there is some very enjoyable performances. Now if you want to be negative that's fine but don't bring it round me because I enjoyed the performances. You don't seem to be able to grasp anything of sense even the simplest statements you want to twist. The fact is that you are typical of the breed he wants to glory in the past and say nothing in the present is right. It's a negative mindset. If you do been around in del Monaco's time You'dhave been saying that he was all wrong and Callas was all wrong and looking back to the past. And pointing people to the 'great singers' of the past. Why? It's a mindset.


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

DavidA said:


> You are totally wrong. He was never in contention in Aida because it was Culshaw's and HvK's project. Carmen was Rosengarton's project that he foisted on Culshaw. You would know that if you knew your history my friend. There were different circumstances for each recording. Culshaw never wanted to do the Carmen as he had one lined up with Karajan and Price in Vienna for RCA.
> As for the earlier recordings of course Culshaw was with Capitol until 1955 until he returned to Decca. I'm not saying they were all wrong but I am saying you need to get your history straight.
> 
> You are the one riding in negativity I am just trying to be positive. You're the one who likes to be negative about everything in the present but I'm just the one who says that not everything is dead and there is some very enjoyable performances. Now if you want to be negative that's fine but don't bring it round me because I enjoyed the performances. You don't seem to be able to grasp anything of sense even the simplest statements you want to twist. *The fact is that you are typical of the breed he wants to glory in the past and say nothing in the present is right*. It's a negative mindset. If you do been around in del Monaco's time You'dhave been saying that he was all wrong and Callas was all wrong and looking back to the past. And pointing people to the 'great singers' of the past. Why? It's mindset.


If I was around when Del Monaco and Callas were performing...I'd have been first in line to see them. That is why I own all the commercial operas he recorded with Decca and all those Callas recorded with EMI. Plus a sizeable chunk of their live recordings... I'm sharing videos of him 45 years after he retired...

I appreciated the videos of Saioa Hernandez shared by Parsifal98: that was a distinct step in the right direction. Much more of that would be very welcome.

It is your myth that an awareness of the past _presumes_ the present will be worse.

Yes, I'm conscious of Tamagno, Caruso's records, Lauri-Volpi, or however far back you want to go when discussing _Otello_. But it didn't preclude me from enjoying Vinay, Del Monaco, McCracken, Vickers, Giacomini, Cecchele, Bonisolli, Domingo etc.

Who've we got today?: Kaufmann, Alagna, Antonenko, Kunde, Sartori is trying it in Florence, Thomas sang it last year in Canada.
I've seen/listened to the ones available to me and sometimes they are fine. Mostly I don't find them either as exciting _or_ polished as we have come to know. Kaufmann, for instance, is fine, but if I want an Otello with that veiled sound and much more charisma I'd listen to Vinay's recordings, not Kaufmann's recent one.

It isn't a 'mindset', it is not that cerebral: the sound, the phrasing, the energy of the performance either grabs you, or not, whether it is 1920 or 2020. Unfortunately for me, and some others, it has been mostly 'not' for some years: among tenors since perhaps the retirement of singers like Pavarotti, Aragall, Giacomini, Carreras. It belittles _their_ talent to say things are swell.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Revitalized Classics said:


> If I was around when Del Monaco and Callas were performing...I'd have been first in line to see them. That is why I own all the commercial operas he recorded with Decca and all those Callas recorded with EMI. Plus a sizeable chunk of their live recordings... I'm sharing videos of him 45 years after he retired...
> 
> I appreciated the videos of Saioa Hernandez shared by Parsifal98: that was a distinct step in the right direction. Much more of that would be very welcome.
> 
> ...


Psychology dear boy. You might be first in line to see Callas but you'd still be harking back to the 'good old days'. It's a mindset. The old is gold, if it's new it can't be true. I can remember in the days of Callas people like you harking back to the good old days. It was around then too. You see some of us have heard it all before!


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

David: So I can better understand where you are coming from:
Are you suggesting that Maria Callas (she, of the wobbly highs), was not a dedicated musician and a consummate performer with a unique, instantly recognizable sound and a talent for getting to the depths of a character? Do these qualities count for anything at all to you above the exquisite sound of, say, Renee Fleming of the velvet throat? 
Or do you feel, instead, that the beauty of the voice itself is enough to override all of the other distinguished attributes above?
And are you saying that you would be more comforted by a voice clean and clear, enhanced today by a professionally engineered technician, to that of the older, lesser sound, to the point of diminishing your pleasure, even if the older sound contained all of the requisites above?
It seems from your posts that that is what you are trying to convey? Or did I misunderstand your meanings?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

nina foresti said:


> David: So I can better understand where you are coming from:
> Are you suggesting that Maria Callas (she, of the wobbly highs), was not a dedicated musician and a consummate performer with a unique, instantly recognizable sound and a talent for getting to the depths of a character? Do these qualities count for anything at all to you above the exquisite sound of, say, Renee Fleming of the velvet throat?
> Or do you feel, instead, that the beauty of the voice itself is enough to override all of the other distinguished attributes above?
> And are you saying that you would be more comforted by a voice clean and clear, enhanced today by a professionally engineered technician, to that of the older, lesser sound, to the point of diminishing your pleasure, even if the older sound contained all of the requisites above?
> It seems from your posts that that is what you are trying to convey? Or did I misunderstand your meanings?


It's very difficult Nina to express an opinion with certain people who take to an extreme everything you say so I can understand your confusion. Of course Callas was a tremendous artist but did not have the voice of, say, Tebaldi or Fleming. So you pay your money and takes your choice. Unfortunately many of her best recordings are in not such good sound. But they are acceptable like the Rigoletto which is a favourite of mine. She is very much like Gobbi - others had better instruments but he again was a great artist. 
When it comes to recordings as long as the recording is acceptable that is fine by me although obviously the better the sound the better the experience. Fortunately much of the stuff I like is in good sound. Reading Callas' biography one is struck by the tragedy of the woman. A very successful artist and a very unsuccessful woman.


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

DavidA said:


> Psychology dear boy. You might be first in line to see Callas but you'd still be harking back to the 'good old days'. It's a mindset. The old is gold, if it's new it can't be true. I can remember in the days of Callas people like you harking back to the good old days. It was around then too. You see some of us have heard it all before!


Long Post...

Your age is irrelevant and your experience is anecdotal... imagining how you think I would react is a waste of everyone's time.

By all means accuse me of excessive nostalgia when you provide contemporary examples of singers in Bellini, Donizetti, Verdi, Wagner, the verismo tradition which make the records of preceding generations redundant.

There _is_ a long tradition, to which I aspire, of discriminating listeners having both an awareness of the past and using that knowledge to really appreciate when new is better.

Examples:
Review of Joan Sutherland's Gala at the Met in 1987


> *Melba*'s Covent Garden farewell was recorded for posterity; so was yesterday's gala. Difficulties and all, it is clear in both cases what all the fuss was about. And though one will have to await the broadcast for cool evaluation, the impression on the spot is that *Miss Sutherland* is giving performances still more musical, more expert and more memorable than those of her memorable predecessor.


Review of Barbiere di Siviglia at the Met in 1982


> From such soprano star Rosinas as *Amelita Galli-Curci* to *Lily Pons* to the recent Anna Moffo, this has been a Hall (of fame) qualification. "Do it well, and you're in."
> In recent years, it has also been sung by such contemporary mezzos as Giulietta Simionato and Teresa Berganza. *But Horne simply surpasses all of them* for a sure, if rather subtle, reason. When she was growing up, she aspired to be a soprano. And, as her evening's effort demonstrated time and again, she can lighten her normally dark sound, take the throb out of the throat, and make the tone float out as the ward of an elderly Dr. Batolo should-youthful, impulsive, even virginal.


Review of Rigoletto in 1960 at the Met


> [*Moffo's*] "Caro nome" was a demonstration of cultivated style that sent my mind back through memories of countless Gildas, beginning with *Amelita Galli-Curci* (whom I remember in her final years as a brilliant and evocative singer with an unfortunate tendency to get off pitch), and nowhere could I find a more charming version of this aria.


Review of Mignon at the Met in 1938


> Add* Rïse Stevens* to the ever-lengthening roll of first rate American opera singers [...] About this Mignon was an illusion and an appeal to place it justly beside the cherished Mignons of *Lucrezia Bori and Geraldine Farrar**.*


Review of Faust at the Met in 1937


> There was much to admire in the Marguerite of *Miss Burke*. She was artless and simple and ingratiating maidenly and tender, quietly intense. She did not make the mistake that was made by so famous a Marguerite as *Melba*, for example, who presented that guileless and unfortunate damsel as a "grand dame" who sang like an angel, but who evidently knew her way about, and probably wondered if the jewels were real or imitation.


Review of Zauberflote at the Met in 1926


> Such singers as *Sembrich, Ternina, Melba and Plançon* are reminiscences, not realities, although here and there the standards of sincere artistry are admirably upheld *as in the instance of Elisabeth Rethberg*, who last night moved the audience to prolonged applause with her aria in the sixth scene of the second act. Indeed, the wealth of tone, beauty of color, artistry of expression and sense of scene that she brought to her singing of the "Ach, ich fühls" aria were all that anybody could ask and, if authenticity of acting had been possible, she would have supplied it.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Revitalized Classics said:


> Long Post...
> 
> Your age is irrelevant and your experience is anecdotal... imagining how you think I would react is a waste of everyone's time.
> 
> ...


Your entire post is irrelevant. If you consider my experience irrelevant why on earth waste time on a long post! What logic! :lol:

Your English makes no sense btw.

I just cannot see what you are trying to do apart from demonstrating extraordinary irrelevance. You are not addressing the point I raised at all but just proceed to ramble off on a series of irrelevant side alleys. I'd hate to be the chairman if you were debating. :lol:


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

DavidA said:


> You are the one riding in negativity I am just trying to be positive. You're the one who likes to be negative about everything in the present but I'm just the one who says that not everything is dead and there is some very enjoyable performances. Now if you want to be negative that's fine but don't bring it round me because I enjoyed the performances. You don't seem to be able to grasp anything of sense even the simplest statements you want to twist. The fact is that you are typical of the breed he wants to glory in the past and say nothing in the present is right. It's a negative mindset. If you do been around in del Monaco's time You'dhave been saying that he was all wrong and Callas was all wrong and looking back to the past. And pointing people to the 'great singers' of the past. Why? It's a mindset.


This is so annoying. I swear if I told you the US was having problems in 2020 you'd say I have a negative mindset. It's not a mindset to say that something bad is bad. The US has reached a new low in 2020 and so has operatic singing. I've already stated the things we can listen for and recordings have been provided, but still you insist that it's our mindsets rather than our ears that we use to make the determination. And perhaps the craziest part is that you're not willing to put the time in that would allow you to possibly understand our perspective. Given all that it's a bit audacious to say "it's a mindset".


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> This is so annoying. I swear if I told you the US was having problems in 2020 you'd say I have a negative mindset. It's not a mindset to say that something bad is bad. The US has reached a new low in 2020 and so has operatic singing. I've already stated the things we can listen for and recordings have been provided, but still you insist that it's our mindsets rather than our ears that we use to make the determination. And perhaps the craziest part is that you're not willing to put the time in that would allow you to possibly understand our perspective. Given all that it's a bit audacious to say "it's a mindset".


I note the people who agree with you are all of that mindset too! I'm enjoying Jacobs' recording of 'La Finta Giardiniera' so rather taken up at the moment! Pretty good singing. Sorry it's a modern recording, though. 

But maybe you need to investigate?


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

DavidA said:


> I note the people who agree with you are all of that mindset too! I'm enjoying Jacobs' recording of 'La Finta Giardiniera' so rather taken up at the moment! Pretty good singing. Sorry it's a modern recording, though.
> 
> But maybe you need to investigate?


AND you've gone full troll.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> AND you've gone full troll.


Now that is a typically defensive post made by someone who has run out of argument. Aren't you any better than that? You haven't answered my point at all and you're calling me a troll! Oh my! Physician heal thyself! :lol:


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

DavidA said:


> It's very difficult Nina to express an opinion with certain people who take to an extreme everything you say so I can understand your confusion. Of course Callas was a tremendous artist but did not have the voice of, say, Tebaldi or Fleming. So you pay your money and takes your choice. Unfortunately many of her best recordings are in not such good sound. But they are acceptable like the Rigoletto which is a favorite of mine. She is very much like Gobbi - others had better instruments but he again was a great artist.
> When it comes to recordings as long as the recording is acceptable that is fine by me although obviously the better the sound the better the experience. Fortunately much of the stuff I like is in good sound. Reading Callas' biography one is struck by the tragedy of the woman. A very successful artist and a very unsuccessful woman.


So you have answered my question with the above underlined statement. 
I see that you are saying that the more beautiful sounding voices of both Tebaldi and Fleming (and the like) are very much more important to you than acknowledging the magic quality of a singer with some vocals flaws but who is, without a doubt, an exciting, charismatic, mesmerizing persona that attracts an incredible majority of opera aficionados. Certainly yours is an opinion to be respected despite the fact that it sits in the shadow of the dedication of true opera devotees.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

DavidA said:


> Now that is a typically defensive post made by someone who has run out of argument. Aren't you any better than that? You haven't answered my point at all and you're calling me a troll! Oh my! Physician heal thyself! :lol:


It's bizarre. We've provided details, evidence, qualifications, while you've provided none and still you say "mindset". Set in your ways is a mindset.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> It's bizarre. We've provided details, evidence, qualifications, while you've provided none and still you say "mindset". Set in your ways is a mindset.


It doesn't matter what evidence I provide, you're stuck in a mindset. Have you listened to 'La Finta Giardiniera'?


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Most posts now involve inappropriate personal comments. The thread is closed temporarily.


----------

