# Singers who were clearly misclassified vocally



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

this forum seems to have an aversion to highly nuanced discussions of vocal fach(ex: "she was a dramatic coloratura soprano with a mezzo extension!" vs "no, she was a dramatic soprano d'aghillita!"), so, with that in mind, I will stick to fairly obvious examples.

first up Eula Beal. she could easily be a lyric mezzo or even lyric soprano, but _contralto_? ....are you serious? a contralto a deep, smoky voice with a chest voice rivaling the power of a baritone. I have on no idea how anyone can listen to such a bright, florid voice (the timbre is like a meadow full of spring flowers. it's possibly the most feminine thing I've heard in my entire life) and hear contralto.





as an alternate possibility, she could be a maturing spinto soprano. as seen here, there is a more heroic quality to the voice and more richness in the middle register than most lyric sopranos (with exceptions. Schwarzkopf or Moffo for example. Eula Beal reminds me of both in many ways). anyway, there are a few options open for debate here, but I think we can at least agree that this is nothing close to a contralto.





next up, a _real_ contralto (as opposed to mezzo), Marilyn Horne. despite her wide and impressive vocal range, she is most comfortable in the chest register and has an androgynous timbre almost like a countertenor. her high notes also lack the spin of a higher voice compared with the lower and lower-middle range, which has plenty of resonance and distinctive timbre. 


Spoiler











third, Jessye Norman. she is not a soprano, but a rich, cavernous dramatic mezzo (with a deep contralto-y timbre). she is about as close to a soprano as Dmitri Hvorostovsky is to a tenor





lastly, Edita Gruberova, clearly a lyric coloratura or light lyric soprano (probably the latter). there is nowhere near enough dramatic heft in the voice to call it a dramatic instrument in any capacity.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> Singers who were clearly misclassified vocally


Any singer that you ever attempted to classify :tiphat:


----------



## Il Maestro (Oct 27, 2015)

I think it comes across as a little arrogant on your part to say that these singers were _clearly_ misclassified. These singers worked with professionals in the industry who probably had a lot more experience in classifying voices, with the added benefits of working with them, extensively hearing them sing _live_ (recordings do not necessarily capture all the qualities in a voice), and who therefore really knew their voices better than most people. I also think that the singers themselves would know their voice better than you do. It's okay to have an opinion about things, but in this instance one would expect such an opinion to be offered with a little more humility.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> lastly, Edita Gruberova, clearly a lyric coloratura or light lyric soprano (probably the latter). there is nowhere near enough dramatic heft in the voice to call it a dramatic instrument in any capacity.


I thought that the role of Gilda was more a light lyric role. Ernest Newman calls her a 'coloratura soprano as well as an affectionate daughter'.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> this forum seems to have an aversion to highly nuanced discussions of vocal fach


Might it not just be that most forum members are less obsessed with categorisation and _fach_?

Personally I couldn't care less whether Jessye Norman was a mezzo, contralto or dramatic soprano. Whilst, for the most part, preferring her in repertory more associated with mezzos, I absolutely love her singing of the soprano solo in a live performance of the Verdi Requiem from Munich. She soars through the part with no apparent effort, but, more than that, sings with such passion and involvement, that I don't question for one moment whether she should be singing it or not. Her performance is its own justification, just as it is in Strauss's very soprano _Vier letzte Lieder_.

Ditto, when listening to Christa Ludwig singing Leonore in *Fidelio*. I can't say it's ever bothered me that she was a mezzo, and certainly thought of herself as one. I'd rather just enjoy her performance.

If singers and conductors got too wound up about _fach_ then Serafin probably wouldn't have asked Callas to deputise for Margerita Carosio in *I Puritani* whilst she was still singing Brunnhilde in *Die Walkure* and the operatic world would have been denied one of its greatest miracles.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

I was misclassified as a bass even though really I am a soprano.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Il Maestro said:


> I think it comes across as a little arrogant on your part to say that these singers were _clearly_ misclassified. These singers worked with professionals in the industry who probably had a lot more experience in classifying voices, with the added benefits of working with them, extensively hearing them sing _live_ (recordings do not necessarily capture all the qualities in a voice), and who therefore really knew their voices better than most people. I also think that the singers themselves would know their voice better than you do. It's okay to have an opinion about things, but in this instance one would expect such an opinion to be offered with a little more humility.


I never have opinions if they have the right voice for a certain role just based on a recording. The only thing I can go by is if they sound good in the recording and of the fact that they have been cast in the role.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Dim7 said:


> I was misclassified as a bass even though really I am a soprano.


The pitfalls of assigning _fach_ pre-surgery.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

Woodduck said:


> The pitfalls of assigning _fach_ pre-surgery.


They really fached up that one. Seriously though I'm a contraltenor who actually sounds like a hermaphrodite.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

A singer generally gets classified, or classifies herself, according the range and repertoire where she feels most vocally comfortable. These classifications are convenient handles and there's nothing absolute or rigid about them. If Jessye Norman, having a rich, dark lower register, feels comfortable singing roles designated for soprano and makes a successful career out of doing so, then she is a soprano with mezzo-like qualities (similar to many other dramatic/spinto sopranos - Ponselle, Flagstad, Traubel, Farrell). If she chooses instead to sing roles designated for mezzo and does so comfortably and successfully, then she is a mezzo with a good upper extension (Christa Ludwig would be so designated by most people).

It's mainly a question of a singer's comfort with a certain tessitura and their ability to do justice to the music they sing, not their vocal timbre which will always be a topic for (rather pointless) debate.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Dim7 said:


> They really fached up that one. Seriously though I'm a contraltenor who actually sounds like a hermaphrodite.


Are you sure you aren't really a light Russian style tenor with a mezzoish extension d'ilarita'?

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> A singer generally gets classified, or classifies herself, according the range and repertoire where she feels most vocally comfortable. These classifications are convenient handles and there's nothing absolute or rigid about them. If Jessye Norman, having a rich, dark lower register, feels comfortable singing roles designated for soprano and makes a successful career out of doing so, then she is a soprano with mezzo-like qualities (similar to many other dramatic/spinto sopranos - Ponselle, Flagstad, Traubel, Farrell). If she chooses instead to sing roles designated for mezzo and does so comfortably and successfully, then she is a mezzo with a good upper extension (Christa Ludwig would be so designated by most people).
> 
> It's mainly a question of a singer's comfort with a certain tessitura and their ability to do justice to the music they sing, not their vocal timbre which will always be a topic for (rather pointless) debate.


I have to say I disagree. I feel it's the opposite: timbre = fach. A pretty young actress with long blonde hair can classify herself as somebody who should play the male villain, but she's far more likely to be cast as the young love interest. If one of my favourite singers isn't the right voice type for a role then I find it reduces my enjoyment of them in that role (Waltraud Meier as Sieglinde comes to mind).

That said, I have quite an open view about fach and I believe that there are only twelve voice types (although each voice type will change slightly with age and therefore some repertoire will only become appropriate later on in a singer's life). Voices can be roughly divided into soprano, mezzo, contralto, tenor, baritone and bass. Each of these voices can be further separated into lyric or dramatic. I really do think it is as simple as that. As soon as you start to categorise further you do so on the basis of what the singer CAN'T do rather than the vocal type they are.

N.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The Conte said:


> I have to say I disagree. I feel it's the opposite: timbre = fach. A pretty young actress with long blonde hair can classify herself as somebody who should play the male villain, but she's far more likely to be cast as the young love interest. If one of my favourite singers isn't the right voice type for a role then I find it reduces my enjoyment of them in that role (Waltraud Meier as Sieglinde comes to mind).
> 
> That said, I have quite an open view about fach and I believe that there are only twelve voice types (although each voice type will change slightly with age and therefore some repertoire will only become appropriate later on in a singer's life). Voices can be roughly divided into soprano, mezzo, contralto, tenor, baritone and bass. Each of these voices can be further separated into lyric or dramatic. I really do think it is as simple as that. As soon as you start to categorise further you do so on the basis of what the singer CAN'T do rather than the vocal type they are.
> 
> N.


I think your twelve basic classifications are very sensible, always remembering that all classifications are artifices and expedients and have blurred edges. Some voices simply don't fit cleanly into the categories.

When you speak of "the right voice type for a role," you are not talking about fach but about a more limited suitability for a specific musical/dramatic effect. Waltraud Meier's timbral suitability for the role of Sieglinde won't tell us anything about her suitability for any other role with similar requirements of vocal weight, range, or agility. That particular role has in fact been sung effectively by sopranos of very different vocal character, from heavy dramatic sopranos like Flagstad and Varnay to medium-weights like Lehmann and Brouwenstijn (or even lyrics like Gundula Janowitz, as on the Karajan recording). We'll all have our preferred singers for certain roles, based on what we consider a suitable timbre, but that may have nothing to do with fach.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> A singer generally gets classified, or classifies herself, according the range and repertoire where she feels most vocally comfortable. These classifications are convenient handles and there's nothing absolute or rigid about them. If Jessye Norman, having a rich, dark lower register, feels comfortable singing roles designated for soprano and makes a successful career out of doing so, then she is a soprano with mezzo-like qualities (similar to many other dramatic/spinto sopranos - Ponselle, Flagstad, Traubel, Farrell). If she chooses instead to sing roles designated for mezzo and does so comfortably and successfully, then she is a mezzo with a good upper extension (Christa Ludwig would be so designated by most people).
> 
> It's mainly a question of a singer's comfort with a certain tessitura and their ability to do justice to the music they sing, not their vocal timbre which will always be a topic for (rather pointless) debate.


no. a mezzo who sings soprano parts is still a mezzo. fach is an inherent thing that does not change solely based on opinion (though it might change with age. ex: lyric soprano deepening into a spinto, high baritone retraining as a heldentenor etc)


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> no. a mezzo who sings soprano parts is still a mezzo. fach is an inherent thing that does not change solely based on opinion (though it might change with age. ex: lyric soprano deepening into a spinto, high baritone retraining as a heldentenor etc)


You are contradicting yourself here.

When you say "a mezzo who sings soprano parts is still a mezzo," you fail to point out that someone has to determine that she's a mezzo to begin with. And who is to do that, and by what criteria? I asserted that "fach" (how a singer is classified) is based on what repertoire a singer feels most comfortable with and is musically most effective in, which is based mainly on tessitura (in what vocal range is she most comfortable) and vocal power. That is not mainly a matter of opinion but of suitability, as determined primarily by the singer, who is most qualified to judge. It's you, not I, who are using opinion to determine fach: vocal timbre is very much a matter of opinion, which can vary from one listener to the next or within one's own mind.

But let's consider timbre if we must. Eula Beale bills herself as a contralto because that is the range in which she is presumably most comfortable and effective. That she fails to sound boomingly baritonal enough for you is irrelevant. And where is it written that a contralto should sound like that? As I listen to those recordings I am aware that her voice is of a lovely, warm, even quality from her highest notes, which are not very high in these pieces, all the way down to the lowest notes she sings in the Schubert song, and I can well believe that in person the tone has more depth than is apparent on these sonically imperfect recordings. By contrast, Marilyn Horne's best range is precisely that of a mezzo-soprano; when she ventures into the soprano range her voice sounds tight, and her chest tones are certainly powerful and impressive but have a brassy edge which I frankly don't want to hear in anyone I'd consider a contralto. Certainly Marian Anderson, Maureen Forrester and Kathleen Ferrier do not sound brassy, and neither does Eula Beale. As for Jessye Norman, she is entitled to consider herself a soprano, a mezzo-soprano, either, or both. Voices don't come with labels glued on them.

You want to assign fach based on your own conception of what vocal timbre is suitable to each category. That is a purely subjective criterion. I prefer to trust the singer to know what she ought to be singing, which she will discover by singing it. She can bill herself however it strikes her fancy, and some singers bill themselves differently at different times, according to the music they are singing. What could possibly be objectionable about that?


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> You are contradicting yourself here.


if you want to argue that I'm making claims based on insufficient objective evidence, that would be a fair assertion (albeit one of questionable relevance), but I did not contradict myself



> You want to assign fach based on your own conception of what vocal timbre is suitable to each category. That is a purely subjective criterion. I prefer to trust the singer to know what she ought to be singing, which she will discover by singing it.


you assume it's based solely on timbre. it's also based on vocal weight, register shifts and general tessitura.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> if you want to argue that I'm making claims based on insufficient objective evidence, that would be a fair assertion (albeit one of questionable relevance), but I did not contradict myself
> 
> you assume it's based solely on timbre. it's also based on vocal weight, register shifts and general tessitura.


Wha...? _You_ began this thread by trying to classify several singers solely by timbre. I responded by saying that voices should not be classified by timbre and that tessitura and vocal weight are more objective criteria. So now you're informing me that _I'm_ the one assuming that fach is based solely on timbre, and _you're _the one telling _me_ it's also based on tessitura and vocal weight?

Have I just walked Through the Looking Glass?


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> no. a mezzo who sings soprano parts is still a mezzo


To claim that any singer actually "is" <insert any specific fach here> is the major fallacy. Apart from the few fundamental categories, all fachs, especially those including various adjectives (dramatic, lyric, leggero...), are very vague orientation marks in vocal terminology. X years ago, term of mezzo-soprano didn't even exist. Did lower female voices in that time lack knowledge about what they really are? Did we discover existence of such thing as "mezzo-soprano" later on? We didn't discover a thing, we just decided to use another assistant term to describe voices. Your most bizzare inclination is to use such assistant denominations as if they were scientific terms, as if saying "it is a mezzo!" could bear as explicit sense as saying "it is an amphibian!" about animal. You might just as well go to literature forum to start a crusade about Byron being misclassified as "disturbed romantic poet", because, in fact, he is "elegaic landscaper of sentiments".

Now, you come and claim that Norman isn't a soprano but... "rich, cavernous dramatic mezzo". Wow! Do you really believe that "rich, cavernous dramatic mezzo" is a valid vocal category, a musicological term? That it means anything? I wonder if Jessye Norman knows she is "cavernous mezzo", because it's essential for her professional decisions. Totally different repertoire from "underground-lake mezzo".


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> I think your twelve basic classifications are very sensible, always remembering that all classifications are artifices and expedients and have blurred edges. Some voices simply don't fit cleanly into the categories.
> 
> When you speak of "the right voice type for a role," you are not talking about fach but about a more limited suitability for a specific musical/dramatic effect. Waltraud Meier's timbral suitability for the role of Sieglinde won't tell us anything about her suitability for any other role with similar requirements of vocal weight, range, or agility. That particular role has in fact been sung effectively by sopranos of very different vocal character, from heavy dramatic sopranos like Flagstad and Varnay to medium-weights like Lehmann and Brouwenstijn (or even lyrics like Gundula Janowitz, as on the Karajan recording). We'll all have our preferred singers for certain roles, based on what we consider a suitable timbre, but that may have nothing to do with fach.


That's the thing though, I have quite a distinctive idea for the role of Sieglinde. I perceive it as a lyric soprano role (according to my scheme) and of the sopranos you mention I like Lehmann, Brouwenstijn and Janowitz. Whereas Flagstad and Varnay don't convince me in the role (neither does Marjorie Lawrence). So dramatic sopranos or mezzos don't work in the role for me. That said, it's better to have an artist who can do something meaningful with the role than a somebody from the 'correct' fach who makes little of the role.

N.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

I suspect with Jessye hubris played a part. She wanted to take top bill and top dollar so she chose soprano parts where she didn't have to sing C's. I love her in the Brahms Requiem, though clearly she sounds like a mezzo instead of a soprano. Same for her Sieglinde. Not the right sound but who cares.... she sounded fabulous!!!!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The Conte said:


> That's the thing though, I have quite a distinctive idea for the role of Sieglinde. I perceive it as a lyric soprano role (according to my scheme) and of the sopranos you mention I like Lehmann, Brouwenstijn and Janowitz. Whereas Flagstad and Varnay don't convince me in the role (neither does Marjorie Lawrence). So dramatic sopranos or mezzos don't work in the role for me. That said, it's better to have an artist who can do something meaningful with the role than a somebody from the 'correct' fach who makes little of the role.
> 
> N.


Questions of fach aside (I loathe the whole concept anyway - who the fach thought it up to begin with?), we agree about Sieglinde to the extent that she needs a lighter voice than Brunnhilde. I find the Karajan _Walkure_ interesting, in that Regine Crespin's middle-weight, very feminine voice is for me a natural for Sieglinde, but casting her as Brunnhilde necessitated an even lighter voice for that role. Hence Janowitz, whose flutey flower-maiden purity is unique and a little odd opposite Vickers' heroic Siegmund. But then Karajan's casting notions were frequently odd.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> But then Karajan's casting notions were frequently odd.


Ricciarelli as Turandot immediately springs to mind.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

One thing I have wondered is that are a significant amount of very high tenors actually altos, and some very low contraltos actually tenors, if we were to ignore the gender of the singers.


----------



## Barelytenor (Nov 19, 2011)

counteraltos and contratenors :lol:

alto profondo?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Dim7 said:


> One thing I have wondered is that are a significant amount of very high tenors actually altos, and some very low contraltos actually tenors, if we were to ignore the gender of the singers.


There can be a significant overlap in range, and the chest tones of some female singers can sound very male. Without knowing who's singing it would be easy to mistake them. I suppose a composer could play with that gender ambiguity.

Oh dear... What have I just said? Tell me there aren't more fachs on the way!


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> Might it not just be that most forum members are less obsessed with categorisation and _fach_?
> 
> *Personally I couldn't care less whether Jessye Norman was a mezzo, contralto or dramatic soprano*. Whilst, for the most part, preferring her in repertory more associated with mezzos, I absolutely love her singing of the soprano solo in a live performance of the Verdi Requiem from Munich. She soars through the part with no apparent effort, but, more than that, sings with such passion and involvement, that I don't question for one moment whether she should be singing it or not. Her performance is its own justification, just as it is in Strauss's very soprano _Vier letzte Lieder_.
> 
> ...


I don't so much mind people not caring (I ignore plenty of threads on this forum which don't interest me), it's more that I sense a subtle sense of defensiveness from many users whenever I attempt to talk about it.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> I don't so much mind people not caring (I ignore plenty of threads on this forum which don't interest me), it's more that I sense a subtle sense of defensiveness from many users whenever I attempt to talk about it.


It isn't that some of us are defensive. I think I can speak for more than myself when I say that some of us believe that attempting to assign singers objectively to these artificial categories is not only pointless under most circumstances but misleading - that it not only gives us as listeners little useful information about a singer, but implies that the singer's actual vocal qualities need to conform to someone's idea of their "fach," and that her choice of repertoire can be judged correct or incorrect, not by her individual capabilities, but by what "fach" she falls into.

The fach system is nothing more than a convenience, a shortcut to make casting decisions easier for opera companies, and to make it less likely that roles will be inappropriately cast. It is no substitute for knowing the individual qualities and capabilities of a singer, and any attempt to use these categories for anything but their intended practical purpose, any attempt to assign singers to fachs according to how we think singers in those categories ought to sound, and to argue over who should or shouldn't be categorized thus or thus, is nothing more than a game.

Games are fun to play, but while we play our game of deciding whether Singer X "is" a dramatic soprano, a dramatic mezzo, a contralto, or something else, the real Singer X, a flesh-and-blood woman with a unique voice and unique personal aptitudes and inclinations, will sing whatever she wishes to sing and call herself whatever she wishes to be called. If her judgment results in her taking on a role which doesn't suit her and she fails in attempting it, she will presumably correct her course and may change the way she is billed: she might, for example, decide that she is not really comfortable in the dramatic soprano roles she has been singing and focus on roles with a lower tessitura. Will she call herself a mezzo-soprano or a contralto? If she can sing effectively a wide range of low-voice roles, it will make no difference what she's called, and she may legitimately call herself either or both. What you or I prefer to call her, because we think a mezzo or a contralto should sound a certain way, is irrelevant.

Of course we all use terms to describe vocal ranges and capabilities. It's a necessary convenience. But we all realize that we are always having to qualify our terms when confronted with actual singers, and we are always disagreeing on our classifications. This is all perfectly acceptable if we remember that fachs do not exist - that fachs are not real things. Only voices exist and are real, and voices care nothing for our idle games of hairsplitting.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Oh dear... What have I just said? Tell me there aren't more fachs on the way!


As a matter of fach ...


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Of course we all use terms to describe vocal ranges and capabilities. It's a necessary convenience. But we all realize that we are always having to qualify our terms when confronted with actual singers, and we are always disagreeing on our classifications. This is all perfectly acceptable if we remember that fachs do not exist - that fachs are not real things. Only voices exist and are real, and voices care nothing for our idle games of hairsplitting.


I would go further and say that trying to categorize voices into arbitrary voice types can be very unhelpful. It must be remembered that we are using our contemporary ideas of voice ranges which, in many cases, do not correspond to what was current when a work was composed. An example, the role of Carmen was originally intended for a voice type common in 19th century French opera which was between what we now consider as mezzo & soprano.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Becca said:


> I would go further and say that trying to categorize voices into arbitrary voice types can be very unhelpful. It must be remembered that we are using our contemporary ideas of voice ranges which, in many cases, do not correspond to what was current when a work was composed. An example, the role of Carmen was originally intended for a voice type common in 19th century French opera which was between what we now consider as mezzo & soprano.


I'm gonna be blunt, apart from Callas (who is the gold standard in that role), most sopranos sound absolutely dreadful trying to sing it. the entire piece is lower-middle tessitura with occasional dips below middle C.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Of course we all use terms to describe vocal ranges and capabilities. It's a necessary convenience. But we all realize that we are always having to qualify our terms when confronted with actual singers, and we are always disagreeing on our classifications. This is all perfectly acceptable if we remember that fachs do not exist - that fachs are not real things. Only voices exist and are real, and voices care nothing for our idle games of hairsplitting.


it's not always "hairsplitting". this is why I chose a number of more obvious examples as opposed to something more like "is this a contralto or a dramatic mezzo?" "is this a dramatic tenor or a spinto tenor?" etc when you have, say, a light soprano identifying as a contralto, that's more of a big deal.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

the other main difference between myself and most on this thread is that I prefer very specific types of voices in a given role


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> it's not always "hairsplitting". this is why I chose a number of more obvious examples as opposed to something more like "is this a contralto or a dramatic mezzo?" "is this a dramatic tenor or a spinto tenor?" etc when you have, say, a light soprano identifying as a contralto, that's more of a big deal.


Sorry, to me it is, you like to open cans of worms.
Doesn't matter .

Don't mind me, but be honest about it.:cheers:


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Pugg said:


> Sorry, to me it is, you like to open cans of worms.
> Doesn't matter.
> Don't mind me, but be honest about it.:cheers:


oh I have no objection to being told I'm controversial (in fact, my presence on this forum pales in comparison to my facebook page or most of the other less "classy" forums I'm a part of lmao), but "hairsplitting" implies longwinded debate over immaterial minutia, which I am not fond of.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> oh I have no objection to being told I'm controversial (in fact, my presence on this forum pales in comparison to my facebook page or most of the other less "classy" forums I'm a part of lmao), but "hairsplitting" implies longwinded debate over immaterial minutia, which I am not fond of.


Fair enough :tiphat:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> I'm gonna be blunt, apart from Callas (who is the gold standard in that role), most sopranos sound absolutely dreadful trying to sing it. the entire piece is lower-middle tessitura with occasional dips below middle C.


I agree that Carmen lies wrong for a high soprano to make the right effect. But fuller-voiced sopranos can do it. Besides Callas, Price and de los Angeles are effective in their different ways, I think, and Ponselle had a good voice for it. I haven't heard Norman, who would seem suitable - but then her voice is, as we've observed, unclassifiable.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> I agree that Carmen lies wrong for a high soprano to make the right effect. But fuller-voiced sopranos can do it. Besides Callas, Price and de los Angeles are effective in their different ways, I think, and Ponselle had a good voice for it. I haven't heard Norman, who would seem suitable - but then her voice is, as we've observed, unclassifiable.


at the risk of this coming across as condescending: congratulations, you just realized the point of this thread.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I have the Norman Carmen. She sounds terrific but there is little character to the role. She's not helped by the cast around her either. Very much a recording built round a superstar!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> at the risk of this coming across as condescending: congratulations, you just realized the point of this thread.


The point of the thread was presumably stated in your title:_ "Singers who were clearly misclassified vocally." _Everyone here, including me, got the point right away. I believe we all disagreed, not only with your examples, but with your underlying premise: that the classifications you are assuming - otherwise known as "fach" - have any objective existence and can be used to judge these singers as being "clearly" anything in particular. Since none of the singers you mentioned were "clearly" misclassified, but only misclassified according to your personal tastes, it was obvious to everyone from the beginning, including me, that the point of the thread was invalid.

So much for my just now getting the point. Don't let the fact that we agree on something - that Carmen is more a mezzo than a soprano role - make you overconfident. Actually, I thought that by agreeing on something I was being friendly. Truly, no good deed goes unpunished.

:tiphat:


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> I'm gonna be blunt, apart from Callas (who is the gold standard in that role), most sopranos sound absolutely dreadful trying to sing it. the entire piece is lower-middle tessitura with occasional dips below middle C.


Carmen is a dramatic mezzo role in in my fach system and I would consider Callas a dramatic mezzo. However, I wouldn't want to be without her Norma, Sonnambula or Puritani... I agree with you that fach is important and only very talented singers can ignore the natural splendours of their voice. However, if a fach system has too many categories it becomes unhelpful and constraining for singers.

N.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> I'm gonna be blunt, apart from Callas (who is the gold standard in that role), most sopranos sound absolutely dreadful trying to sing it. the entire piece is lower-middle tessitura with occasional dips below middle C.


I think that's far too sweeping a statement. What about Price? For smokey toned sensuality she is up there with the best. De Los Angeles is a very different Carmen but the role lies well for her - she sang mezzo in her Rossini roles. As for Callas being the 'gold standard' I just wish she had recorded the role much earlier then we'd know. By the time she recorded it the voice was too far gone and even her great artistry doesn't make up for it. Anyway Callas was a soprano who could sing mezzo.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Not to be a nag, but there seems to be some misunderstanding about the term "fach." "Fach" is not a way of describing anyone's voice or assessing it's specific, personal qualities or capabilities. "Fach" is an artificial system for categorizing voices, and it exists solely as a rather crude device for sorting through the variety of voices available to an opera company in order to avoid major mistakes in casting. It tells us little about the actual suitability or effectiveness of a given voice in a given role or piece of music, and is completely incapable of predicting that. A soprano assigned to the "fach" called "lyric coloratura" is probably, in theory and in conformity with the fach system, going to be more successful in the role of, say, Gilda than is a soprano assigned to the fach called "lyrico-spinto," but in actual practice the reverse may turn out to be the case. "Fach" can be no more than a rough guide to who might potentially sing what, and it's foolish to rip the idea of "fach" out of the context in which it's intended to function and to start describing voices as belonging to some category we carry inside our heads and pretending that there's anything objectively real or necessary about this. Any singer who chooses her repertoire according to this artificial system instead of observing carefully her own unique set of capabilities is asking for trouble. Her proper response to anyone trying to cram her into a "fach" should be: "Don't tell me what I am. Here's what I can do. Do you want to hear me or not?"

I don't know when the "fach system" came into existence. It is most prevalent in Germany, I believe. It has certainly not always existed, and I have no doubt that we got along, and still get along, quite well without it. If I'm casting an opera and need a last minute substitute for an ailing Cassio in _Otello_, having a list of generic "lyric tenors" at hand is useful. But if some of the tenors on that list have aspirations to sing Manrico, it doesn't matter a damn whether they're called "lyric," "lyrico-spinto," "spinto," or anything else, or nothing at all. And if they're sensible they won't look to see what "fach" list they're on.

I can assure them that I won't be judging them according to any such list.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

DavidA said:


> I think that's far too sweeping a statement. What about Price? For smokey toned sensuality she is up there with the best. De Los Angeles is a very different Carmen but the role lies well for her - she sang mezzo in her Rossini roles. As for Callas being the 'gold standard' I just wish she had recorded the role much earlier then we'd know. By the time she recorded it the voice was too far gone and even her great artistry doesn't make up for it. Anyway Callas was a soprano who could sing mezzo.


Hera, Hear :tiphat:


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Not to be a nag, but there seems to be some misunderstanding about the term "fach." "Fach" is not a way of describing anyone's voice or assessing it's specific, personal qualities or capabilities. "Fach" is an artificial system for categorizing voices, and it exists solely as a rather crude device for sorting through the variety of voices available to an opera company in order to avoid major mistakes in casting. It tells us little about the actual suitability or effectiveness of a given voice in a given role or piece of music, and is completely incapable of predicting that. A soprano assigned to the "fach" called "lyric coloratura" is probably, in theory and in conformity with the fach system, going to be more successful in the role of, say, Gilda than is a soprano assigned to the fach called "lyrico-spinto," but in actual practice the reverse may turn out to be the case. "Fach" can be no more than a rough guide to who might potentially sing what, and it's foolish to rip the idea of "fach" out of the context in which it's intended to function and to start describing voices as belonging to some category we carry inside our heads and pretending that there's anything objectively real or necessary about this. Any singer who chooses her repertoire according to this artificial system instead of observing carefully her own unique set of capabilities is asking for trouble. Her proper response to anyone trying to cram her into a "fach" should be: "Don't tell me what I am. Here's what I can do. Do you want to hear me or not?"
> 
> I don't know when the "fach system" came into existence. It is most prevalent in Germany, I believe. It has certainly not always existed, and I have no doubt that we got along, and still get along, quite well without it. If I'm casting an opera and need a last minute substitute for an ailing Cassio in _Otello_, having a list of generic "lyric tenors" at hand is useful. But if some of the tenors on that list have aspirations to sing Manrico, it doesn't matter a damn whether they're called "lyric," "lyrico-spinto," "spinto," or anything else, or nothing at all. And if they're sensible they won't look to see what "fach" list they're on.
> 
> I can assure them that I won't be judging them according to any such list.


Thanks for the reminder. It's true that 'fach' is different from categorisation. So, if I were a young singer trying to work out what arias may be open to me what would you advise? I feel a total lack of vocal categories puts one in just as wrong a boat as the overly defined fach system.

N.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The Conte said:


> Thanks for the reminder. It's true that 'fach' is different from categorisation. So, if I were a young singer trying to work out what arias may be open to me what would you advise? I feel a total lack of vocal categories puts one in just as wrong a boat as the overly defined fach system.
> 
> N.


We all use categorical terms to talk about voices - to talk about anything, really. We just have to remember that the map is not the territory. It's only a guide to the territory - a guide for casting directors, primarily, and only loosely and incidentally for singers.

Opera company A that uses the fach system knows that not everyone on their list of "lyric coloraturas" is going to be an effective Gilda, and they'll be aware that soprano X, whom they list as a "spinto" because she is best-known for a number of Verdi, Puccini and verismo roles, has superb coloratura abilities and sang a magnificent Gilda at opera house B last year, and that it would be a coup to get her for their new _Rigoletto_ even before calling soprano Z, their top "lyric-coloratura."

As for sopranos X and Z, they've been training their voices and singing for years, have been constantly aware of how their voices function and what they can do, have had help and advice from their teachers and other singers, have learned what roles are commonly sung by singers with voices similar to theirs in range and power, and know what kinds of music and drama feel comfortable to them. As singers train, they may be told by their teachers and colleagues "you have a light voice with great coloratura facility, so don't try to force the sound into a more dramatic mold," or "you have dramatic soprano potential, and we'll work on your chest voice." But at no point in their careers is it necessary for them to _define_ themselves as a category, and if they apply categorical terms to themselves at all, it means nothing more rigid or confining than that they're generally most comfortable singing roles that are usually classified as "lyric-coloratura" or "lyrico-spinto." But I see no value in calling oneself by these names, and I doubt very much that singers themselves take these terms very seriously. As the versatile Mme. Callas pointed out, back in the pre-fach universe a soprano was a soprano, and within your individual capacity you sang whatever was written for the soprano voice. Of course even the category "soprano" is a variable one, and if you're one of those singers who can succeed in mezzo-soprano roles as well, what difference does it make what you're called? How you bill yourself on programs and record labels will be your choice. And then all the little "experts" out here in fan country can have fun debating what you "are."

I don't know how Wagner found the von Carolsfelds, his first Tristan and Isolde, but I know he didn't pick them from a list of "hochdramatische sopranos" and "heldentenors." Malvina Schnorr von Carolsfeld studied with the great vocal pedagogue Manuel Garcia; she sang Norma, among other things, and I have no doubt that as a pupil of Garcia she was up to the coloratura demands of that role. Did she categorize herself as a "dramatic coloratura"? I don't know, but if she had, and Wagner had been concerned about "fach," he might have passed her by in his search for an Isolde. As it happens, sopranos who sang the big Wagner parts into the early years of the 20th century had thorough vocal techniques, complete with trills, that allowed them to sing roles as diverse as Donna Anna, Aida, Norma, and even, in the case of Lilli Lehmann, the Queen of the Night. I defy anyone to listen to Lehmann, Johanna Gadski, and Frida Leider and tell them they should stick to their "fach." They were simply well-schooled sopranos with large voices, and they sang whatever they could sing. That was good enough for them and their happy audiences, and it's good enough for me.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

DavidA said:


> I think that's far too sweeping a statement. What about Price? For smokey toned sensuality she is up there with the best. De Los Angeles is a very different Carmen but the role lies well for her - she sang mezzo in her Rossini roles. As for Callas being the 'gold standard' I just wish she had recorded the role much earlier then we'd know. By the time she recorded it the voice was too far gone and even her great artistry doesn't make up for it. Anyway Callas was a soprano who could sing mezzo.


I said "most" for good reason. sopranos like Leontyne Price (ie, sopranos with the timbre of a dramatic mezzo) are the exception, not the rule.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

*Woodduck*, it looks like you didn't get the point after all. look, no one is claiming that the map is the territory or that we can be 100% objective about voice types, but 
1) it's intellectually dismissive to pull the "it's all subjective, so we shouldn't analyze it at all" card. we would know next to nothing about human psychology if that were an excusable rationalization 
2) even if they're not completely objective, different types of voices are different types of instruments. you wouldn't ask a flutist to play an oboe solo, a violinist to play the viola part in an orchestra or a trumpeter to play Kenny G. that isn't any different than asking a light soprano to sing Norma, a mezzo to sing Zerlina or a baritone to sing Calaf.
3) no, the map does not 100% represent the territory, but it does a good job, or it wouldn't be there after hundreds of years of the development of classical vocal technique. with the possible exception of Marilyn Horne (coloratura contraltos and coloratura mezzos sing each other's rep with no problems all the time), the examples I chose vastly impact appropriate repertoire. no map has 100% captured the landscape of Antarctica, but in this case, it can tell me enough to know that I'm definitely not there if it's 28C and humid with lush vegetation and monkeys swinging from trees in the background.
PS: as I've stated in previous threads, I have no problem with stretching the limits of repertoire if it's done correctly (ex: lyric sopranos like Anna Moffo or Renee Fleming singing coloratura rep. Schwarzkopf dipping into the Verdi Requiem, Pavarotti singing spinto roles, etc). even more outlandish examples like Cecilia Bartoli recording Norma make for good fun every once in awhile, but all of these singers are examples of prudent individuals who knew their voices and respected the relevance of fach (which no one has claimed is supposed to be completely black and white. there are, for instance, plenty of sopranos who are a sort of coloratura/full lyric hybrid).
Edit: it looks like we're getting a bit technical with terms here. for the sake of simplicity, when I say "fach", I really mean "voice type". not necessarily in the strict German sense of the word.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> a mezzo to sing Zerlina


Berganza sang Zerlina in the Losey film and Horne has recorded it. The role doesn't lie particularly high. In any case, when Mozart was writing, there was no distinction between soprano and mezzo, as has been pointed out several times before.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> Berganza sang Zerlina in the Losey film and Horne has recorded it. The role doesn't lie particularly high. In any case, when Mozart was writing, there was no distinction between soprano and mezzo, as has been pointed out several times before.


Horne sounds completely out of place singing soprano roles, especially one like Zerlina who is supposed to be cute and girly.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

A mezzo is wrong for Zerlina - makes her sound too mature. She is a soubrette soprano a la Scutti.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> A mezzo is wrong for Zerlina - makes her sound too mature. She is a soubrette soprano a la Scutti.


I like Sciutti in the role too, but, as I pointed out, the role doesn't lie very high. A mezzo can sing it easily. A light-voiced mezzo like Von Stade might have managed it very well. Berganza is, I think, a mite too mature in the Losey film, but I think she might have been charming in it when she was younger.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> *Woodduck*, it looks like you didn't get the point after all. look, no one is claiming that the map is the territory or that we can be 100% objective about voice types, but
> 1) it's intellectually dismissive to pull the "it's all subjective, so we shouldn't analyze it at all" card. we would know next to nothing about human psychology if that were an excusable rationalization
> 2) even if they're not completely objective, different types of voices are different types of instruments. you wouldn't ask a flutist to play an oboe solo, a violinist to play the viola part in an orchestra or a trumpeter to play Kenny G. that isn't any different than asking a light soprano to sing Norma, a mezzo to sing Zerlina or a baritone to sing Calaf.
> 3) no, the map does not 100% represent the territory, but it does a good job, or it wouldn't be there after hundreds of years of the development of classical vocal technique. with the possible exception of Marilyn Horne (coloratura contraltos and coloratura mezzos sing each other's rep with no problems all the time), the examples I chose vastly impact appropriate repertoire. no map has 100% captured the landscape of Antarctica, but in this case, it can tell me enough to know that I'm definitely not there if it's 28C and humid with lush vegetation and monkeys swinging from trees in the background.
> ...


Who on earth has ever said that the suitability of certain voices for certain roles is "100% subjective and we shouldn't analyze it at all"? Certainly not I. What I have said is...

Oh never mind.

And, by the way, Eula Beale, Marilyn Horne, and Jessye Norman were _not_ "clearly misclassified." They just didn't fit your personal classification system. Pity you weren't around to set them straight.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Who on earth has ever said that the suitability of certain voices for certain roles is "100% subjective and we shouldn't analyze it at all"? Certainly not I. What I have said is...
> 
> Oh never mind.
> 
> And, by the way, Eula Beale, Marilyn Horne, and Jessye Norman were _not_ "clearly misclassified." They just didn't fit your personal classification system. Pity you weren't around to set them straight.


I apologize if I mischaracterized you, but you did strongly imply that


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

One of the problems with this conversation - and some earlier ones we've had on the subject of "fach" - is illuminated by your last statement in post #47: *"it looks like we're getting a bit technical with terms here. For the sake of simplicity, when I say "fach", I really mean "voice type", not necessarily in the strict German sense of the word."*

If we're going to use terms we ought to be clear, to ourselves and others, about how we are using them. _"Fach"_ is not just a matter of "voice type." It's a specific concept : it refers to classification of voices as a convenient tool, which involves labeling individual voices and roles according to their likely suitability for each other. The identity of the standard fachs is pretty well established, and though fachs can be subdivided endlessly, doing so only becomes cumbersome and counterproductive in the practical context of casting singers in appropriate roles. _"Voice type,"_ on the other hand, which need imply no definite repertoire choices, is a matter of personal preference within broad generally accepted categories; where you draw the line between "types" really is mostly subjective, and depends on your tastes and the way you define certain terms ("dramatic," "lyric," "dark," etc.). Your "types" and my "types" may not match up very closely.

It's confusing (and pointless) to use "fach" loosely to mean your own idea of what, say, a mezzo-soprano should sound like. Singers who sound very different from each other can and do sing the same medium-voiced female roles, and we'll all have opinions as to whose voice best suits this role or that, but the arguments about them will be about personal preferences and not, in the main, about "fach." Presumably, all these singers are very comfortable with the vocal requirements of those roles, and opera companies will be pleased to cast any of them under the general fach "mezzo" (or perhaps some subdivision such as "coloratura mezzo"), regardless of their vocal differences and regardless of the distinctions and preferences existing in the minds of various listeners.

What system of "voice types" you or I have created in our minds is our own business. But it's just incorrect to confuse your personal typology with "fach," and it's simply presumptuous to speak of singers with established careers and repertoires as having been "clearly misclassified." Singers ultimately classify themselves, to the extent that they find it useful to be classified at all. It's absurd to argue that, say, Rosa Ponselle was "really" a mezzo-soprano, based on one's perception of her strong lower register, rich timbre, and increasing caution about high notes as her career progressed. The fact is that she made a splendid career singing soprano roles as gloriously as any of us have ever heard them sung, and was billed, and billed herself, as a soprano. She certainly had the capacity to sing mezzo-soprano roles, and said in later years that if she had not retired she would have done so. At that point she might have billed herself, appropriately but at her own discretion, as a mezzo-soprano, and she would then have met the criteria of two "fachs," while still and always possessing only one "voice type," - namely, the "voice type" of Rosa Ponselle, which any half-dozen listeners are at liberty to describe and classify in half a dozen different ways if it amuses them.

As another example, I have no objection to speculating about whether Marilyn Horne was "most comfortable in the chest register" (maybe she was, maybe she wasn't) and should therefore have sung more contralto repertoire. Personally, I happen to think she chose her repertoire (her fach) very well, and imagine too that she could have expanded it successfully within the medium-voiced repertoire of female roles (I can imagine her as a fine Ortrud, for example). What I do object to is any cocksure statement that Miss Horne was "really" a contralto and that she just didn't understand what "fach" she really belonged in. I can just imagine what the outspoken and good-humored Miss Horne would have to say to that!

I will take the liberty of suggesting that your thread would more accurately have been titled: _"Which great and famous singers, along with their teachers, advisors, colleagues, and critics, were not smart enough to know what repertoire best suited their voices - and how would you, in hindsight based on your superior insight into their qualities and capabilities, have advised them and moved them toward even greater artistic and popular success?" _

It's a little cumbersome, but it might have aroused a more appropriate level of general indignation and amusement.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

I read a comment on Price in this conversation but can't find it. She had a smokey voice for sure, but her foray into recording Carmen nearly undid her voice, according to her. Yes the middle has a mezzo quality, but the top is pure soprano and the very top almost lyric soprano. The most interesting case was Rosa Bampton who's voice changed after an illness and she went from a soprano to a contralto and then later back to a contralto. You don't hear about that type of thing everyday. She was supposedly successful in each career. She knew when to change her parts to fit her voice.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Seattleoperafan said:


> I read a comment on Price in this conversation but can't find it. She had a smokey voice for sure, but her foray into recording Carmen nearly undid her voice, according to her. Yes the middle has a mezzo quality, but the top is pure soprano and the very top almost lyric soprano. The most interesting case was Rosa Bampton who's voice changed after an illness and she went from a soprano to a contralto and then later back to a contralto. You don't hear about that type of thing everyday. She was supposedly successful in each career. She knew when to change her parts to fit her voice.


Good article on Price for those interested:

http://www.gramophone.co.uk/feature/happy-birthday-leontyne-price


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Good article on Price for those interested:
> 
> http://www.gramophone.co.uk/feature/happy-birthday-leontyne-price


Thank you very much, gratefully appreciated:tiphat:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Two singers who were clearly miscast on this occasion:






del Monaco makes Corelli sound like a Francophile! :lol:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Mind you, put del Monaco on stage and he was a very dangerous animal!


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Two singers who were clearly miscast on this occasion:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


young Joan Sutherland as Micaela isn't a terrible miscasting. she could sound lyrical and feminine and has a pleasant middle register. what WAS a terrible miscast was her as Rosina in the mid 70s. she sounded like Almaviva's mother XD
PS: thank you for sharing that piece. it was lovely


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> young Joan Sutherland as Micaela isn't a terrible miscasting. she could sound lyrical and feminine and has a pleasant middle register. what WAS a terrible miscast was her as Rosina in the mid 70s. she sounded like Almaviva's mother XD
> PS: thank you for sharing that piece. it was lovely


Did you actuality hear the woman sing, other then on the Bel canto CD?


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Pugg said:


> Did you actuality hear the woman sing, other then on the Bel canto CD?


you mean did I hear her in real life? no, she retired a year before I was born XD


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

to be fair, the line between mezzo and contralto is generally more blurred than with other voice types. like, I think we can all agree that Joyce DiDonato, Brigitte Fassbaender and Sophie von Otter are not contraltos and that Ewa Podles, Ernastine Schumann-Heink and Nathalie Stutzmann are not mezzos, but other times the distinction is less obvious. a few of my favorite singers flirt with the mezzo/contralto line on a regular basis. for example:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> to be fair, the line between mezzo and contralto is generally more blurred than with other voice types. like, I think we can all agree that Joyce DiDonato, Brigitte Fassbaender and Sophie von Otter are not contraltos and that Ewa Podles, Ernastine Schumann-Heink and Nathalie Stutzmann are not mezzos, but other times the distinction is less obvious. a few of my favorite singers flirt with the mezzo/contralto line on a regular basis. for example:


The "lines" are not between voices themselves but between the categories we impose. Throughout history we've changed the categories. When I first looked at scores of some of Wagner's operas I noticed that his categories were different from the ones we're used to. To begin with, he didn't use the terms "mezzo-soprano" or "contralto." His female roles were designated "Sopran" or "Alt"; he sometimes subdivided soprano into "Sopran" (soprano) and "tiefer Sopran" (lower soprano), but not always. Some roles which we consider mezzo-soprano roles, such as Ortrud, are designated simply "Sopran." The role of Erda, which we associate with deep-voiced contraltos, is designated "tiefer Sopran." Kundry has always been sung by both sopranos and mezzos, but probably more effectively by the latter, if they can manage its rather few high-lying moments. But Wagner calls Kundry simply "Sopran." A great many female singers successful in Wagner have moved comfortably between our familiar categories of soprano, mezzo-soprano, and contralto.

Much the same lack of fussy distinctions pertains in Wagner's low-voice men's roles, which are all for "Bass" but are sometimes refined to "hoher Bass" or "tiefer Bass." Wagner had no terms to differentiate tenors, and the roles we now call "Heldentenor" require not only considerable weight of tone but also lie lower, and call for musical climaxes at lower pitches, than most other roles for tenor, including Wagner's own. The difference between Siegmund and Walther is such that Lauritz Melchior quickly dropped the latter from his repertoire. It would seem that an ideal "Heldentenor" falls somewhere between "Tenor" and "hoher Bass," and many of the singers most noted in these parts began their careers not as tenors but as baritones. Ramon Vinay, I believe, switched back and forth.

All this is just to show that voices are not tailor-made to fall into the categories imposed at any particular historical moment, and that when we say that a given singer straddles a "line," it's we, and not nature, who are creating that line. Moreover, we are all free to draw our lines in different places, or to decline to draw them at all.

ADDENDUM: I suspect we've more or less settled on the six standard vocal categories because they satisfy our sense of symmetry: three types for women, three for men, each containing high, medium, and low voices. It's all very neat, but it's just an artifice. Voices, and roles, don't conform.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

DavidA said:


> I thought that the role of Gilda was more a light lyric role. Ernest Newman calls her a 'coloratura soprano as well as an affectionate daughter'.


that's the point. early Gruberova is a marvelous Gilda.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> The "lines" are not between voices themselves but between the categories we impose. Throughout history we've changed the categories. When I first looked at scores of some of Wagner's operas I noticed that his categories were different from the ones we're used to. To begin with, he didn't use the terms "mezzo-soprano" or "contralto." His female roles were designated "Sopran" or "Alt"; he sometimes subdivided soprano into "Sopran" (soprano) and "tiefer Sopran" (lower soprano), but not always. Some roles which we consider mezzo-soprano roles, such as Ortrud, are designated simply "Sopran." The role of Erda, which we associate with deep-voiced contraltos, is designated "tiefer Sopran." Kundry has always been sung by both sopranos and mezzos, but probably more effectively by the latter, if they can manage its rather few high-lying moments. But Wagner calls Kundry simply "Sopran." A great many female singers successful in Wagner have moved comfortably between our familiar categories of soprano, mezzo-soprano, and contralto.
> 
> Much the same lack of fussy distinctions pertains in Wagner's low-voice men's roles, which are all for "Bass" but are sometimes refined to "hoher Bass" or "tiefer Bass." Wagner had no terms to differentiate tenors, and the roles we now call "Heldentenor" require not only considerable weight of tone but also lie lower, and call for musical climaxes at lower pitches, than most other roles for tenor, including Wagner's own. The difference between Siegmund and Walther is such that Lauritz Melchior quickly dropped the latter from his repertoire. It would seem that an ideal "Heldentenor" falls somewhere between "Tenor" and "hoher Bass," and many of the singers most noted in these parts began their careers not as tenors but as baritones. Ramon Vinay, I believe, switched back and forth.
> 
> ...


part of this might have to do with the fact that, for the most part, Wagner's work is less varied in terms of tessitura, range and preferred timbre (with obvious exceptions). if you compare him with, say, Verdi, the variation within Verdi soprano roles alone is greater than for the entirety of female Wagner roles in terms of weight, range and tessitura (ex: Gilda, Lady Macbeth, Aida and Violetta place very different demands on the singer and would be unlikely to be taken on by the same soprano). if placed in the Italian or English voice classification system, you could pretty much sum most of them up in dramatic mezzo/contralto, dramatic soprano/mezzo (ranging from mezzos like Astrid Varnay to sopranos like Kirsten Flagstad), spinto soprano, low dramatic tenor (ranging down to a bit more baritonal on the lower end) and dramatic bass-baritone, so it makes less sense he'd be less **** about fach (he seems to have almost completely ignored lighter voiced singers lol).


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> part of this might have to do with the fact that, for the most part, Wagner's work is less varied in terms of tessitura, range and preferred timbre (with obvious exceptions). if you compare him with, say, Verdi, the variation within Verdi soprano roles alone is greater than for the entirety of female Wagner roles in terms of weight, range and tessitura (ex: Gilda, Lady Macbeth, Aida and Violetta place very different demands on the singer and would be unlikely to be taken on by the same soprano). if placed in the Italian or English voice classification system, you could pretty much sum most of them up in dramatic mezzo/contralto, dramatic soprano/mezzo (ranging from mezzos like Astrid Varnay to sopranos like Kirsten Flagstad), spinto soprano, low dramatic tenor (ranging down to a bit more baritonal on the lower end) and dramatic bass-baritone, so it makes less sense he'd be less **** about fach (he seems to have almost completely ignored lighter voiced singers lol).


You've lost me here. Wagner's soprano roles do not all call for the same voice type. A soprano who sings Eva is not likely to sing Brunnhilde or Isolde, though she may well graduate to Elsa. And though some Elsas, Sieglindes and Elisabeths might well go on to sing Brunhilde or Isolde, many of them don't. And what of Senta and Kundry? It would seem to me that there is quite a lot of variation in Wagner's soprano roles.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> You've lost me here. Wagner's soprano roles do not all call for the same voice type. A soprano who sings Eva is not likely to sing Brunnhilde or Isolde, though she may well graduate to Elsa. And though some Elsas, Sieglindes and Elisabeths might well go on to sing Brunhilde or Isolde, many of them don't. And what of Senta and Kundry? It would seem to me that there is quite a lot of variation in Wagner's soprano roles.


Indeed. There are a number of soprano parts in Wagner suitable for lighter, if not necessarily the lightest, voices: the shepherd and pages in _Tannhauser_; Woglinde, Wellgunde, Freia and the forest bird in the _Ring_; and the flower maidens in _Parsifal_. Granted, these are not leading roles: light sopranos seem to be his choice for young girls (or boys - I think the shepherd is a pants role, sometimes actually sung by a boy) and mythical beings. We'd expect a composer of epics who emphasizes the orchestra to gravitate toward heavier voices, but except for Isolde and Brunnhilde, his other soprano roles require a variety of vocal weights and are successfully sung, as Greg points out, by a diverse lot of sopranos, lighter and heavier. The only thing Wagner doesn't ask of sopranos is coloratura, but he does ask occasionally for trills, apparently on the assumption that singers can execute them! Which, in his day, they probably could.

I could say much the same about Wagner's roles for other voice ranges. Look beyond the heldentenors and dramatic bass-baritones at Erik, the Steersman, Wolfram, Lohengrin, Loge, Mime, Walther, David, the shepherd and steersman (in Tristan), and Parsifal. Some good roles for a variety of voices.

A comparison with Verdi isn't quite to the point. Several of the Italians (Rossini, Donizetti, Verdi) wrote a lot more operas than Wagner. If we compare the variety of vocal types in Wagner with that in Puccini, I think we'd find considerably more in the former's works.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> If we compare the variety of vocal types in Wagner with that in Puccini, I think we'd find considerably more in the former's works.


Fascinating observation, and I think you've got a good point.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

Since we're talking about soprano Ruth Ann Swenson in another thread, it occurred to me to wonder how she might have sounded had she trained as a mezzo-soprano. She always seemed to have a weightier middle register than many sopranos, particularly coloraturas:


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Bellinilover said:


> Since we're talking about soprano Ruth Ann Swenson in another thread, it occurred to me to wonder how she might have sounded had she trained as a mezzo-soprano. She always seemed to have a weightier middle register than many sopranos, particularly coloraturas.


there is something a touch mezzo-y about her. she is actually a great example of the "coloratura-full lyric hybrid" I mentioned previously (ex: Anna Moffo), but trained as a mezzo....no, that wouldn't have worked. once she gets past the lower-middle range, the "lift" in the voice becomes much more pronounced like a high soprano


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> there is something a touch mezzo-y about her. she is actually a great example of the "coloratura-full lyric hybrid" I mentioned previously (ex: Anna Moffo), but trained as a mezzo....no, that wouldn't have worked. once she gets past the lower-middle range, the "lift" in the voice becomes much more pronounced like a high soprano


Elise Guttierez, one of my favorite current coloraturas has a voice like that as well. Smoky and mezzoy in the middle and bright and soaring on the top. Check her out. She'll win you over.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Seattleoperafan said:


> Elise Guttierez, one of my favorite current coloraturas has a voice like that as well. Smoky and mezzoy in the middle and bright and soaring on the top. Check her out. She'll win you over.


I do have Linda di Chamounix on Opera Rara sung by her.
It's on later , thanks for reminding me. :tiphat:


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Pugg said:


> I do have Linda di Chamounix on Opera Rara sung by her.
> It's on later , thanks for reminding me. :tiphat:


I saw Elize's Violetta in Seattle and she was stunning both vocally and as a stage actress.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Seattleoperafan said:


> Elise Guttierez, one of my favorite current coloraturas has a voice like that as well. Smoky and mezzoy in the middle and bright and soaring on the top. Check her out. She'll win you over.


I am already a fine


----------

