# which composers, singers or operas do you believe are overrated?



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

to start things off, the first person who comes to my mind is *Mozart*: I have great respect for his classical compositions, but his vocal music in general just doesn't do it for me for a number of reasons
1) with a few notable exceptions (such as Der Hölle Rache and or Sai Che Lonore), his music comes across as less passionate and fiery than other composers (others may disagree).
2) the rhythm is seldom to my liking, seeming more like an instrumental work than the lyrical, flowing phrases I expect from an opera. 
3) from the perspective of actually singing it, most of the Mozart pieces I've learned/dipped into felt a bit metallic and mechanical. supposedly, his work is "great for young voices", but I feel like it can have a tendency to train "tightness" into the voice if not approached correctly, particularly for bigger voices.
4) from my observations (correct me if I'm wrong), Mozart rarely utilized much of the singer's lower register (again, with exceptions, such as in Non piu di fiori and, obviously, the role of Zarastro) .

PS: 
1) try not to be _too_ mean (though, from my limited experience on this forum, most disagreements here have been pretty civil, so I don't foresee many issues). that said, you are no under no obligation to sugar coat, so long as commentary is not malicious. 
2) naturally, this is all a matter of opinion. disagreement is welcome, but it should be assumed that the person means "this is not my taste" rather than "this singer has terrible technique" unless clearly stated (which is fine if you wish to do so)


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Mozart? MOZART???
Have you lost your senses man? (keeping it civil)


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

This should be fun! 

I'm going to be a spectator on this thread and no more, at least when it comes to composers. If some operas sound awful to me (Tristan und Isolde for instance) I tend to assume I'm not clever enough to understand the music, rather than the composer isn't clever enough to write accessibly. Better to accept that some stuff has little to offer the ordinary unsophisticated punter than try to make out a case for it being overrated- unless one has the requisite technical knowledge to make such an argument, in which case bring it on! All reputations need to be reevaluated periodically, if only to dust off an unhelpful accumulation of hyperbole.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

next up, lyric voices who think they are spinto/dramatic or spinto voices who think they are dramatic: 
*severely*
- Angela Gheorghiu 
- Roberto Alagna 
- Renata Scotto
- Edita Gruberova
- Deborah Voight 
- Renata Tebaldi
- basically every tenor singing today who is not Jonas Kaufmann (I haven't even bothered remembering any of them. the current tenor situation is so hopeless :lol: )

*less severely* (ie: respectable singers performing rep which they don't quite have the dramatic punch for)
- Diana Damrau
- Natalie Dessay
- Mariella Devia



nina foresti said:


> Mozart? MOZART???
> Have you lost your senses man? (keeping it civil)


he just doesn't do it for me. my preferred style has always been that of Italianate composers whose work tends to be more sensual, sit "warmer" on the voice, and contain more extensive legato. listening to a Mozart opera feels more like listening to a classical orchestra than listening to an opera (which I suppose is fine for some people).


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> he just doesn't do it for me. my preferred style has always been that of Italianate composers whose work tends to be more sensual, sit "warmer" on the voice, and contain more extensive legato. listening to a Mozart opera feels more like listening to a classical orchestra than listening to an opera (which I suppose is fine for some people).


Certainly you have a right not to prefer Mozart's operas but you used the word "overrated" and I take strong exception to that.
Mozart was nothing less than a genius.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> he just doesn't do it for me. my preferred style has always been that of Italianate composers whose work tends to be more sensual, sit "warmer" on the voice, and contain more extensive legato. listening to a Mozart opera feels more like listening to a classical orchestra than listening to an opera (which I suppose is fine for some people).


I wonder if that's because of current received opinion on 'Mozartian' performance style, which tends to be rather chilly. 100 odd years ago, nobody knew that they were supposed to sound like an automaton when singing Mozart, so they (usually) didn't. At any rate there was a greater diversity in matters of interpretation.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

I will not complain over operas I don´t like because they have a style I don´t prefer.
But there is one opera that I can´t understand why it is so popular and that is Carmen. Yes it have its highlights but then there is the rest of the opera.
I can understand why it is a popular opera but I can´t see why it is that popular.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Personally I think threads like this are overrated! They breed negativity, which is something I don't like. Presumably the idea is to upset as many people as possible, because of course the moment, you say singer A or opera B or composer C is overrated, someone will, no doubt rightfully, leap to their defence.

Why are threads like this even necessary?


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> Personally I think threads like this are overrated! They breed negativity, which is something I don't like. Presumably the idea is to upset as many people as possible, because of course the moment, you say singer A or opera B or composer C is overrated, someone will, no doubt rightfully, leap to their defence.
> 
> Why are threads like this even necessary?


Why is _ressentiment_ even necessary?

Two words: bad breeding.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

"Overrated," to me, means "considered by a significant number of people to be better than it is."

I really have no idea who thinks what is better than it is, or how good, in fact, it is.

But from your comments on Mozart I think what you really mean to ask is "What do a lot of other people like a lot that you like less?"

Well, like you, I'm less fond of Mozart's operas than many other people seem to be.

But Mozart is not now, never was, and never will be, overrated.

Edited for postscript: Mozart may be overrated if someone comes on the forum and claims that his German Dances are "certainly masterpieces." That could start a dispute over what a "masterpiece" is. Let us pray that this will not happen.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> Personally I think threads like this are overrated! They breed negativity, which is something I don't like. Presumably the idea is to upset as many people as possible, because of course the moment, you say singer A or opera B or composer C is overrated, someone will, no doubt rightfully, leap to their defence.
> 
> Why are threads like this even necessary?


did you read the last bit?
"PS:
1) try not to be too mean (though, from my limited experience on this forum, most disagreements here have been pretty civil, so I don't foresee many issues). that said, you are no under no obligation to sugar coat, so long as commentary is not malicious. 
2) naturally, this is all a matter of opinion. disagreement is welcome, but it should be assumed that the person means "this is not my taste" rather than "this singer has terrible technique" unless clearly stated (which is fine if you wish to do so)"

even if you look at the glass half full, you still can't ignore the other half of the glass. honestly discussing the negative side of things is necessary to get the full picture


----------



## Blue Miasma (Oct 17, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> to start things off, the first person who comes to my mind is *Mozart*: I have great respect for his classical compositions, but his vocal music in general just doesn't do it for me for a number of reasons
> 1) with a few notable exceptions (such as Der Hölle Rache and or Sai Che Lonore), his music comes across as less passionate and fiery than other composers (others may disagree).
> 2) the rhythm is seldom to my liking, seeming more like an instrumental work than the lyrical, flowing phrases I expect from an opera.
> 3) from the perspective of actually singing it, most of the Mozart pieces I've learned/dipped into felt a bit metallic and mechanical. supposedly, his work is "great for young voices", but I feel like it can have a tendency to train "tightness" into the voice if not approached correctly, particularly for bigger voices.
> ...


Have you considered that more than often less = more, the simplicity of some of Mozart's compositions allow for greater lyrical impact (maybe simplicity is the wrong word as Mozart is not simple at all in any sense) but it's more about knowing when to hold back and when to deliver the goods and maintaining a balance to achieve the best results

I haven't much knowledge in with regards to low/high registers, Fach's and all that jazz (guess I'm gonna have to start learning about that stuff quickly) but even if you are true in that he rarely utilised the lower register is that really important like I don't complain that Puccini rarely utilised Coloratura's in his operas but I could well be wrong about that as I haven't listened to all of Puccini's stuff yet and seeing that Mozart has over 20 operas under his belt I'd rightly assume that you haven't heard all of his stuff yet and therefore you will have probably missed some of this lower registers but I think it's more a case of the singers capabilities than the composers fault but I read this last night when listening to it

from Wikipedia on Die Entführung aus dem Serail. 
The music includes some of the composer's most spectacular and difficult arias. Osmin's act 3 aria "O, wie will ich triumphieren" includes characteristic 18th century coloratura passage work, and twice goes down to a low D (D2), one of the lowest notes demanded of any voice in opera.[13] Perhaps the most famous aria in the opera is the long and elaborate "Martern aller Arten" ("Tortures of all kinds") for Konstanze, an outstanding challenge for sopranos. Konstanze sings in a kind of sinfonia concertante with four solo players from the orchestra; the strikingly long orchestral introduction, without stage action, also poses problems for stage directors.[14]

The virtuosity of these roles is perhaps attributable to the fact that when he took up the task of composing the opera, Mozart already knew the outstanding reputations of the singers for whom he was writing, and he tailored the arias to their strengths.[2] The first Osmin was Ludwig Fischer, a bass noted for his wide range and skill in leaping over large intervals with ease. Similarly, Mozart wrote of the first Konstanze, Caterina Cavalieri, "I have sacrificed Konstanze's aria a little to the flexible throat of Mlle. Cavalieri."

Anyway I can now start to answer the initial question which was - Which composers, singers or operas do you believe are overrated?

Composers: 
SalIeri (lol) but seriously none imo, if I don't like a composers work I won't listen to it again until later down the line when I have a better understanding as some composers may not be right for me at the time of listening but might be just what I need later on example, Shostakovich, Berg and Strauss, R their work is too much for me to fully appreciate and understand at this stage but I know it's gonna be right for me in later stages

Singers: 
With singers I could name a few that I see being praised a bit too much but what good will that do and what will it prove, I rate singers on their voice not ability if I like the voice I listen to them whether they can hit a high/low D doesn't matter to me at this stage I listen to enjoy not to find faults

Operas: 
Anything in French (it's just personal preference nothing against the French or French opera in general) I don't know why but apart from the Séguedille from Carmen anything else in French is detestable to my ears, Italian and German is the proper language for Opera but that doesn't mean I find any Opera overrated.

At the end of the day we listen and like what we do and dislike what we don't and even if we dislike a certain Opera I'm sure that we can appreciate or learn something from it, sometimes some of the members on this forum go too deep into things like just enjoy the beauty of the music and lyrics why the need to go so deep into things it's not fun like that


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Figleaf said:


> This should be fun!
> 
> I'm going to be a spectator on this thread and no more, at least when it comes to composers. If some operas sound awful to me (Tristan und Isolde for instance)


Tristan and Isolde took me five years to get into. When I first heard it I thought it was disorganised noise.I now this it is one of the greatest operas ever written.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> did you read the last bit?
> "PS:
> 1) try not to be too mean (though, from my limited experience on this forum, most disagreements here have been pretty civil, so I don't foresee many issues). that said, you are no under no obligation to sugar coat, so long as commentary is not malicious.
> 2) naturally, this is all a matter of opinion. disagreement is welcome, but it should be assumed that the person means "this is not my taste" rather than "this singer has terrible technique" unless clearly stated (which is fine if you wish to do so)"
> ...


I still think that threads like this are unnecessary and cruel. You adore singer A. I can't bear him or her. But rather than weigh in with my objections, I'll leave you to your adoration. I have no desire to go round trying to burst people's bubbles.

We had another similar thread not so long ago (really good singers you don't like), and I tried to be reasonable and talk about singers I didn't personally respond to rather than actively liked. Needless to say, most ignored that epithet and launched into diatribes about those singers they didn't like. I'm sure this thread will go the same way and, for that reason I'm staying out of it.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

mamascarlatti said:


> Tristan and Isolde took me five years to get into. When I first heard it I thought it was disorganised noise.I now this it is one of the greatest operas ever written.


I am not that fond of Tristan und Isolde. But I have never thought of it as disorganised noise.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> I still think that threads like this are unnecessary and cruel. You adore singer A. I can't bear him or her. But rather than weigh in with my objections, I'll leave you to your adoration. I have no desire to go round trying to burst people's bubbles.
> 
> We had another similar thread not so long ago (really good singers you don't like), and I tried to be reasonable and talk about singers I didn't personally respond to rather than actively liked. Needless to say, most ignored that epithet and launched into diatribes about those singers they didn't like. I'm sure this thread will go the same way and, for that reason I'm staying out of it.


you don't have to "burst people's bubble" in order to simply disagree with them. clearly tastes in singers is a more personal issue for you than it is for me.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> you don't have to "burst people's bubble" in order to simply disagree with them. clearly tastes in singers is a more personal issue for you than it is for me.


Culture is very much applied to peoples feelings and what we identify ourselves with. I can say that I personally don´t enjoy the performances of a singer, the works of a composer or something with an opera but I know other hold them very dear therefore I restrain myself for saying that something is bad or using similar words.


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

B-B-Bellini!

Great tunes and beautiful singing, but the music is just boring to me.


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> next up, lyric voices who think they are spinto/dramatic or spinto voices who think they are dramatic:
> *severely*
> - Angela Gheorghiu
> - Roberto Alagna
> ...


Kaufmann is an odd singer, which is not a bad thing. I don't think he is a dramatic tenor in the sense of Del Monaco or Vinay, I think even Corelli had a heavier voice than him, in fact I suspect he is more like Domingo. A lyric tenor whose voice has enough darkness in the low range to 'take on' dramatic roles, and is bright enough to effortlessly hit the high notes.

You can see in this video, the darkness of his lower register is at the price of projection. Compare him to Vargas, who sings roughly the same passage with a much brighter, projecting sound.






I think its to do with his vowel production; his tongue is very often raised and pulled back in his mouth, and I think it cuts of the upper overtones in his low/middle register which makes it sound 'dark' but loses brilliance.

This is the reason I'd say that I'm not too fond of him, but I respect the fact others enjoy his voice.

My two cents.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> Personally I think threads like this are overrated! They breed negativity, which is something I don't like. Presumably the idea is to upset as many people as possible, because of course the moment, you say singer A or opera B or composer C is overrated, someone will, no doubt rightfully, leap to their defence.
> 
> Why are threads like this even necessary?


Well they are not strictly necessary, but then forums like this and the arts themselves aren't strictly necessary. It's a bit of fun, which I suppose will sound lame to people who don't find it fun. If somebody posts that they don't like X, I wouldn't necessarily take that as a declaration of war on X and his/her/its admirers. It's more like a debating society sort of thing, you know, 'This house believes that [insert ridiculous or controversial statement]' and people can argue for or against the motion. It shouldn't be rancorous, provided that certain hot button political and religious topics are avoided. Anything in the realms of aesthetics ought to be fair game- unless all debate is going to be taboo?


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Sloe said:


> But there is one opera that I can´t understand why it is so popular and that is Carmen. Yes it have its highlights but then there is the rest of the opera.


Try fast forwarding the dialogue and choruses plus the orchestral bits, unless you happen to enjoy those of course. Works for me!


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

Jobis said:


> B-B-Bellini!
> 
> Great tunes and beautiful singing, but the music is just boring to me.


Oh wow! For me, bel canto music is some of the most exciting there is, and as a novice opera-lover I responded to it immediately. As for Bellini in particular, maybe for your taste he's just too consistently sad and reflective. Even as a lover of Bellini I can hear how he probably comes across that way to some people.

Operas: Don't get me wrong, I love OTELLO. But I do feel that it's overrated in the sense that many opera aficionados seem to consider its plot _superior_ to those of Verdi's earlier operas -- as though the plot is "less absurd," or something, just because it has its basis in Shakespeare. Actually, the events of OTELLO's plot don't strike me as much more likely to happen in "real life" than those of the plots of LUISA MILLER or ERNANI. Again, OTELLO is a superb opera; I just don't like the pretentious (IMO) way it (and FALSTAFF) is sometimes spoken of.

Singers: As GregMitchell said, there are some opera singers _I_ don't especially "respond" to -- Zinka Milanov, Leonard Warren, Licia Albanese, Piero Cappuccilli, and Mariella Devia come immediately to mind -- but I'd never say they're overrated; they definitely deserved their fame. A singer who I do feel is overrated -- and I always feel guilty saying this, because a great many people adore him -- is Leo Nucci. To be frank, I find him a trial to listen to, with his "lifting" to notes and his shouting as though he's trying very hard to sound "dramatic." He's a remarkable actor, but his singing has never appealed to me in the slightest.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

Sloe said:


> I will not complain over operas I don´t like because they have a style I don´t prefer.
> But there is one opera that I can´t understand why it is so popular and that is Carmen. Yes it have its highlights but then there is the rest of the opera.
> I can understand why it is a popular opera but I can´t see why it is that popular.


Personally, I only really enjoy the "opera comique" version of CARMEN (the one with the spoken dialogue).


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

GregMitchell said:


> Personally I think threads like this are overrated! They breed negativity, which is something I don't like. Presumably the idea is to upset as many people as possible, because of course the moment, you say singer A or opera B or composer C is overrated, someone will, no doubt rightfully, leap to their defence.
> 
> Why are threads like this even necessary?


Bravissississimo!


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Blue Miasma said:


> Have you considered that more than often less = more, the simplicity of some of Mozart's compositions allow for greater lyrical impact (maybe simplicity is the wrong word as Mozart is not simple at all in any sense) but it's more about knowing when to hold back and when to deliver the goods and maintaining a balance to achieve the best results


simplicity had nothing to do with my critique (it does with my criticism of some other composers and singers, but not Mozart)



> I haven't much knowledge in with regards to low/high registers, Fach's and all that jazz (guess I'm gonna have to start learning about that stuff quickly) but even if you are true in that he rarely utilised the lower register is that really important like I don't complain that Puccini rarely utilised Coloratura's in his operas but I could well be wrong about that as I haven't listened to all of Puccini's stuff yet, and seeing that Mozart has over 20 operas under his belt I'd rightly assume that you haven't heard all of his stuff yet and therefore you will have probably missed some of this lower registers but I think it's more a case of the singers capabilities than the composers fault but I read this last night when listening to it


1) I actually think Puccini is (slightly) overrated as well, I just chose start with Mozart. apart from the reason you mentioned (too much coloratura is overrated, but ZERO coloratura gets boring to my ears after awhile), it's a bit too slow and simple for my tastes. some of it is still beautiful music, but I can't listen to it for hours like I can some of the earlier composers (while I'm at it Verismo in general is overrated  )
2) there is a difference between complaining and critiquing. OP clearly states that I have respect for Mozart's musical genius. 
3) "singers' capabilities" are not the issue, because there have to be actual low notes/points of low tessitura to sing in the first place.



> from Wikipedia on Die Entführung aus dem Serail.
> The music includes some of the composer's most spectacular and difficult arias. Osmin's act 3 aria "O, wie will ich triumphieren" includes characteristic 18th century coloratura passage work, and twice goes down to a low D (D2), one of the lowest notes demanded of any voice in opera.[13] Perhaps the most famous aria in the opera is the long and elaborate "Martern aller Arten" ("Tortures of all kinds") for Konstanze, an outstanding challenge for sopranos. Konstanze sings in a kind of sinfonia concertante with four solo players from the orchestra; the strikingly long orchestral introduction, without stage action, also poses problems for stage directors.[14]


I just might have a look


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> while I'm at it Verismo in general is overrated


That's one genie I wouldn't mind putting back in its bottle. I refer to the singing style rather than the verismo repertoire.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

You all know my feelings on this thread.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> to start things off, the first person who comes to my mind is *Mozart*: I have great respect for his classical compositions, but his vocal music in general just doesn't do it for me for a number of reasons
> 1) with a few notable exceptions (such as Der Hölle Rache and or Sai Che Lonore), his music comes across as less passionate and fiery than other composers (others may disagree).
> 2) the rhythm is seldom to my liking, seeming more like an instrumental work than the lyrical, flowing phrases I expect from an opera.
> 3) from the perspective of actually singing it, most of the Mozart pieces I've learned/dipped into felt a bit metallic and mechanical. supposedly, his work is "great for young voices", but I feel like it can have a tendency to train "tightness" into the voice if not approached correctly, particularly for bigger voices.
> ...


Please please please, if you ever get the opportunity to go and SEE Mozart's 'The Marriage Of Figaro' in whatever is your native tongue (your English is perfect but you call yourself BalalaikaBoy (?))- with a good seat near the front where you can hear and understand every word. I promise you that you will come consider Mozart to be rather _underrated_.
It is in a work like that, in the ensembles, duets, trios and in the solo arias where his genius really is evident. His dramatic genius.

Opera, after all, is a dramatic (or comic) enterprise requiring great singers who can also act. Figaro, acted well, will have you laughing out loud, not just at the farcical goings on of the characters but at the deft way Mozart's music heightens the action.
If you can follow all the dialogue word for word as it is acted out in front of you I promise you will change your mind about Mozart. The magnitude of his genius will be revealed.


----------



## Loge (Oct 30, 2014)

When people claim that Mozart can turn your unborn child into a genius, you know he is overrated.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Loge said:


> When people claim that Mozart can turn your unborn child into a genius, you know he is overrated.


I once played Adelina Patti's recording of 'Batti, batti' to a child just over one year old and he exclaimed, 'Mummy, that's a silly lady! Turn it off!' which was the most words he'd ever strung together at that time. Evidence of the power of Mozart to inspire coherent speech in young infants?


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Deleted- accidental double post.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Petwhac said:


> Please please please, if you ever get the opportunity to go and SEE Mozart's 'The Marriage Of Figaro' in whatever is your native tongue (*your English is perfect but you call yourself BalalaikaBoy* (?))- with a good seat near the front where you can hear and understand every word. I promise you that you will come consider Mozart to be rather _underrated_.
> It is in a work like that, in the ensembles, duets, trios and in the solo arias where his genius really is evident. His dramatic genius.
> Opera, after all, is a dramatic (or comic) enterprise requiring great singers who can also act. Figaro, acted well, will have you laughing out loud, not just at the farcical goings on of the characters but at the deft way Mozart's music heightens the action.
> If you can follow all the dialogue word for word as it is acted out in front of you I promise you will change your mind about Mozart. The magnitude of his genius will be revealed.


lmao! it's all explained in my introduction 
I am American. in fact, I have neither Russian heritage nor do I even speak the language. I just kinda...stumbled across traditional Eastern European music in general and fell in love with it.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> lmao! it's all explained in my introduction
> I am American. in fact, I have neither Russian heritage nor do I even speak the language. I just kinda...stumbled across traditional Eastern European music in general and fell in love with it.


Haha! I must have missed that. 
See Mozart in English then, you'll have a ball (as you say in America)!


----------



## jdcbr (Jul 21, 2014)

I'm wondering how you think Tebaldi and Devia sing/sang beyond their capabilities. Both ladies, it seems to me, stayed well within their natural fach. If anything, Tebaldi could have kept some of the lighter Wagner in her repertoire.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Petwhac said:


> Haha! I must have missed that.
> See Mozart in English then


I certainly plan to at some point, but, while I can appreciate quality plot, humor, acting etc, that's really not the main thing that draws me to opera. mostly, I go to hear elegant, flowing phrases, pristine, spinning high notes, formidle lower/middle register singing and vocal acrobatics that make my jaw drop (in a lot of ways, I get the same appreciation out of opera that black people get when listening to rap music and go "OHHHH!" whenever they hear a tight verse)



> you'll have a ball (as you say in America)!


no one actually says that, but ok XD


----------



## Posie (Aug 18, 2013)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> no one actually says that, but ok XD


I hear the older peeps say it.

About Mozart, it could be that the neo-Classical style just doesn't appeal to you right now. I went through a phase in which I found most neo-Classical music boring compared to Medieval, Renaissance, and Baroque music. (Le Nozze was an exception.) I also disliked the Romantic period. I thought it was sloppy and neurotic compared to the previous genres. My taste has definitely changed.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

marinasabina said:


> I hear the older peeps say it.
> 
> About Mozart, it could be that the neo-Classical style just doesn't appeal to you right now. I went through a phase in which I found most neo-Classical music boring compared to Medieval, Renaissance, and Baroque music. (Le Nozze was an exception.) I also disliked the Romantic period. I thought it was sloppy and neurotic compared to the previous genres. My taste has definitely changed.


my current tastes are more toward the (early) romantic period. I also like baroque, but more as background music for drinking tea and discussing the world than as something I'm really into overall. my tastes in all genres leans more toward the romantic and sensual, and classical is, overall, a bit dry for me.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

mamascarlatti said:


> Tristan and Isolde took me five years to get into. When I first heard it I thought it was disorganised noise.I now this it is one of the greatest operas ever written.


I used to have reservations about Tristan und Isolde, not being sure whether I would enjoy an opera that was strictly and exclusively a love story (too many cheesy love stories all around in popular culture can make one a bit cynical). After a couple listens I became convinced I simply had not known anything about love before


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

jdcbr said:


> I'm wondering how you think Tebaldi and Devia sing/sang beyond their capabilities. Both ladies, it seems to me, stayed well within their natural fach. If anything, Tebaldi could have kept some of the lighter Wagner in her repertoire.


Tebaldi only worked with Italian opera as far as I'm aware.


----------



## MAuer (Feb 6, 2011)

DavidA said:


> Tebaldi only worked with Italian opera as far as I'm aware.


Tebaldi did indeed sing arias from some of Wagner's operas, such as this rendition of Elsa's "_Einsam in trüben Tagen_" (warning -- the sound quality is poor):






Of course, she sang them in Italian translation, and I don't know whether or not she actually ever performed any of the complete roles onstage. But in spite of the lousy recording quality, one can hear how beautifully she sang this music.


----------



## Dupamplont (Nov 2, 2014)

*"Reminded" corrected*

I'm reminded of Renee Fleming's comments about Maria Callas and Elisabeth Schwarzkopf in Fleming's book THE INNER VOICE: THE MAKING OF A SINGER:

_"The first time I heard a Callas recording-and for that matter Elisabeth Schwarzkopf-I didn't understand why they were considered iconic when to my ear they weren't even particularly accomplished singers. Callas's voice seemed unattractive, with its overly covered, steely edge and its wide vibrato on top, and Schwarzkopf's vocal production struck me as uneven and eccentric, however beautiful the voice. But as is often the case with things that are unusual and unfamiliar, we develop a taste for them. We come to love certain voices because of their very flaws, their strangeness, and, most important, the way they can be identified by little more than a single note."_


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

jdcbr said:


> I'm wondering how you think Tebaldi and Devia sing/sang beyond their capabilities. Both ladies, it seems to me, stayed well within their natural fach. If anything, Tebaldi could have kept some of the lighter Wagner in her repertoire.


While I can't speak for BalalaikaBoy, I can give my perspective on Devia. To me she seems like a technically first-class singer but one whose singing lacks personality, or "face." So though she probably had the purely vocal capabilities for the heavier Donizetti roles, etc. her temperament wasn't especially dramatic. That's how she strikes me, anyway.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

I've rarely listened through the second and third acts of Die Walkure, but whenever I have (twice?), it has seemed like there's barely any music there. They're such a let-down after the first act. So I'd say the opera, as a whole (though not the first act as such), is overrated.

I'm also not a huge fan of Mozart's operas as contrasted with many of his piano sonatas, piano concertos, some quartets, quintets, and symphonies. They have their highlights of course, but to me these are too few to make the operas very interesting purely as compositions.

I think Italian opera is overrated. Wagner is just so much better, but is more like a film with a cult following compared with the summer blockbusters of Verdi and Puccini.


----------



## tgtr0660 (Jan 29, 2010)

I love Wagner and most of his operas but Parsifal kind of bores me to death. I have to get more and more into it but so far it's a hopeless situation.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I sincerely intended to avoid this thread until this morning, when something shocked me into reconsidering.

I tuned into my local public radio's Saturday opera, which happened to be a performance from the Caramoor Festival of Donizetti's _Lucrezia Borgia_, featuring the young American soprano Angela Meade. Miss Meade has apparently sung Norma as well, and the announcers were describing her rather enthusiastically as a gift to bel canto, so I awaited eagerly her first entrance while enjoying a very good mezzo named Tamara Mumford in the role of Orsini. Her clean and nicely shaded vocalism, unfortunately, was not matched by the highly touted Miss Meade, who disappointed me in almost every respect. From what I heard this morning, I have to say that neither vocally nor musically does she make the cut in this repertoire. Her voice is the epitome of the contemporary "opera voice" that everyone seems to aspire to nowadays: loud, weighty, and vibrato-ridden, with the kind of vibrato that often leaves the core of the sung pitch virtually undetectable and is sometimes indistinguishable from a trill. I know of no tactful way to put this: a vibrato like Miss Meade's has no place in bel canto. But beyond the question of vibrato, I found her phrasing often heavy and sluggish, especially in recitatives; I heard no variety of color in her sound; and, not least important, some of her coloratura was hit or miss. I will say that she has an impressive high extension for such a large(ish) voice - hence, no doubt, the idea that she should be singing bel canto roles - but sometimes the high notes felt a little detached from the rest of the voice. Finally, what I missed constantly was the sense that the voice really _moved_, with ease and fleetness and a lack of the need to prepare, vocally, for what comes next.

I gather that Miss Meade is young. There is always the possibility of growth, and always the hope that it will occur without the countervailing force of premature vocal deterioration. I suppose we'll be hearing more from her. But I have to say, on this rather brief acquaintance, that her early claim to the bel canto repertoire leaves me entirely unconvinced.

Now: why do I write this under this thread? After hearing as much of Miss Meade as I cared to (act one of the opera) I looked up some reviews of the performance on the internet. And here's the kicker: the praise was unanimous and fulsome. Yes! The critics thought she was marvelous. No, there were no risky comparisons with Caballe or Fleming; there were merely a lot of very complimentary remarks. There was not one word of criticism! Not one observation that matched my impressions of her voice, musicianship or style! I could only stare agape at my computer screen and assume that the critics were incapable of knowledgeable criticism, or that they did not feel it was the job of a critic to criticize. What was I to conclude? Well, how about this: Angela Meade is overrated. Already.

Really, though, my purpose here is not to single out Angela Meade. She is only the example immediately to hand of what I perceive - and I'm ready to dodge rotten tomatoes for this! - to be the deterioration of standards in singing in our time. Honestly, now: when the singers can't sing effectively the music they're being hired to sing, and the critics from the New York Times and the Huffington Post either refuse to criticize them or just don't know enough about singing to do so, don't we have to know, if we didn't already know, that something is wrong?

I would like to offer the following conclusion, to which I have tended for many years now. In answer to the question: "Who, among contemporary singers, do you consider overrated?"

My answer is: almost everybody.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> I sincerely intended to avoid this thread until this morning, when something shocked me into reconsidering.
> 
> I tuned into my local public radio's Saturday opera, which happened to be a performance from the Caramoor Festival of Donizetti's _Lucrezia Borgia_, featuring the young American soprano Angela Meade. Miss Meade has apparently sung Norma as well, and the announcers were describing her rather enthusiastically as a gift to bel canto, so I awaited eagerly her first entrance while enjoying a very good mezzo named Tamara Mumford in the role of Orsini. Her clean and nicely shaded vocalism, unfortunately, was not matched by the highly touted Miss Meade, who disappointed me in almost every respect. From what I heard this morning, I have to say that neither vocally nor musically does she make the cut in this repertoire. Her voice is the epitome of the contemporary "opera voice" that everyone seems to aspire to nowadays: loud, weighty, and vibrato-ridden, with the kind of vibrato that often leaves the core of the sung pitch virtually undetectable and is sometimes indistinguishable from a trill. I know of no tactful way to put this: a vibrato like Miss Meade's has no place in bel canto. But beyond the question of vibrato, I found her phrasing often heavy and sluggish, especially in recitatives; I heard no variety of color in her sound; and, not least important, some of her coloratura was hit or miss. I will say that she has an impressive high extension for such a large(ish) voice - hence, no doubt, the idea that she should be singing bel canto roles - but sometimes the high notes felt a little detached from the rest of the voice. Finally, what I missed constantly was the sense that the voice really _moved_, with ease and fleetness and a lack of the need to prepare, vocally, for what comes next.
> 
> ...


She has been touted as the "wonderful" Angela Meade by some members of this forum too, often the same people who profess a profound appreciation of the art of Joan Sutherland. Can't they hear the difference?


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> I sincerely intended to avoid this thread until this morning, when something shocked me into reconsidering.
> 
> I tuned into my local public radio's Saturday opera, which happened to be a performance from the Caramoor Festival of Donizetti's _Lucrezia Borgia_, featuring the young American soprano Angela Meade. Miss Meade has apparently sung Norma as well, and the announcers were describing her rather enthusiastically as a gift to bel canto, so I awaited eagerly her first entrance while enjoying a very good mezzo named Tamara Mumford in the role of Orsini. Her clean and nicely shaded vocalism, unfortunately, was not matched by the highly touted Miss Meade, who disappointed me in almost every respect. From what I heard this morning, I have to say that neither vocally nor musically does she make the cut in this repertoire. Her voice is the epitome of the contemporary "opera voice" that everyone seems to aspire to nowadays: loud, weighty, and vibrato-ridden, with the kind of vibrato that often leaves the core of the sung pitch virtually undetectable and is sometimes indistinguishable from a trill. I know of no tactful way to put this: a vibrato like Miss Meade's has no place in bel canto. But beyond the question of vibrato, I found her phrasing often heavy and sluggish, especially in recitatives; I heard no variety of color in her sound; and, not least important, some of her coloratura was hit or miss. I will say that she has an impressive high extension for such a large(ish) voice - hence, no doubt, the idea that she should be singing bel canto roles - but sometimes the high notes felt a little detached from the rest of the voice. Finally, what I missed constantly was the sense that the voice really _moved_, with ease and fleetness and a lack of the need to prepare, vocally, for what comes next.
> 
> ...


No need to be reluctant to contribute here- threads like these don't have the power to make or break either careers or posthumous reputations. Only professional critics can do that, and only then when there is some degree of unanimity. So when reviewers limit themselves to discussing only the directing of an opera with only a couple of vague and complimentary adjectives for each singer by way of analysis, it would be foolish to expect improvement. Although this forum does not have the same degree of influence as the critics who write for the broadsheets, there is a similar (if fortunately not universal) reluctance to engage critically with the realities of modern performance practice: I would attribute this to the misplaced zeal of certain posters who have dedicated themselves to extirpating that greatest of modern sins, Negativity, which in this context is simply the voicing of adverse criticism. Fortunately some contributors at least are immune to the chilling effects of those who very assertively regard all non-sycophantic discussion of singers as ill bred or possibly even immoral.

While I'm being negative- I think the term 'bel canto' is overrated! 'Bel' as opposed to what- brutto canto?! I'm not attacking anyone for using the term- like all commonly understood terms, it saves an undesirable amount of circumlocution. But it does also tend to patronise and ghettoize singing which aspires to be beautiful, which of course all singing should aspire to be.

That vibrato which is so extreme and wide is the bane of modern singing and the single reason why people in general think that they don't like opera. Almost as bad is the distortion of vowels so that they all sound nearly the same- a sort of 'oor' sound. The widespread nature of these defects combined with a lack of historical awareness means that even people who should know better (I'm guessing many though not all opera critics fall into this category) assume that this is how it's supposed to sound, which, together with the prissy attitude to 'negativity' which I mentioned already, militates against any analysis (whether of particular performances or of singing in general) which is sufficiently in-depth to be useful.

I am glad that it was Woodduck, who has clearly done the legwork as both performer and listener, who voiced the criticisms of modern singing that he did. The faults in question are obvious to the most casual listener, but not everybody has the scholarly and intellectual heft necessary to broach such delicate matters with authority. Being less disinterested and more polemically-inclined than is probably ideal, I personally am not averse to criticizing singers based on very little acquaintance with their work- one Lied can be enough- because such major and fundamental faults as the wide vibrato and 'oor' vowels are not likely to be confined to one performance. The trouble is, this leaves me open to accusations of not giving the singer in question a fair hearing. The alternative, however, which would add the appropriate amount of gravitas to my hitherto casual negativity, is to spend a good deal of time and effort studying the work of a singer of this type, in order to have plenty of evidence for his or her overratedness: a pyrrhic victory if ever there was one! So thank you Woodduck.:tiphat:


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Sorry, accidentally clicked 'reply' to Woodduck again, when I wanted to address Greg Mitchell's point.

Greg asks why a poster who admires Joan Sutherland would also express admiration for Angela Meade: doesn't s/he know the difference? Whoever wrote that can certainly speak for themselves, but my guess is that they are (probably consciously) applying a double standard whereby the singers of the past are held to a higher standard than those currently active. It makes sense: when standards have fallen, you either adjust your expectations downwards or give up on living singers entirely. Judging past and present singers by the same standards while defending the star status of some of the biggest names of the present is only going to result in painful cognitive dissonance in my opinion.


----------



## BaronScarpia (Apr 2, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> She has been touted as the "wonderful" Angela Meade by some members of this forum too, often the same people who profess a profound appreciation of the art of Joan Sutherland. Can't they hear the difference?


Well, I "profess a profound appreciation of the art of Joan Sutherland" and think Angela Meade's pretty great! I think Bellinilover likes her too. Her voice isn't one to which I immediately warmed, but it's rich, powerful and sultry, her technique is impeccable as far as I can tell, and intense emotional involvement in what she singing is for me reminiscent of that seen in great singers of bygone eras. But I think she should definitely think about _refining_ her voice a little - that vibrato gets a little *too* wide at times.

EDIT - Meade does actually remind me of Renee Fleming in the method of her vocal production, but I wouldn't compare the two. Aspects of her voice remind me of Christine Goerke's. And Miss Meade can float high notes too.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

BaronScarpia said:


> Well, I "profess a profound appreciation of the art of Joan Sutherland" and think Angela Meade's pretty great! I think Bellinilover likes her too. Her voice isn't one to which I immediately warmed, but it's rich, powerful and sultry, her technique is impeccable as far as I can tell, and intense emotional involvement in what she singing is for me reminiscent of that seen in great singers of bygone eras. But I think she should definitely think about _refining_ her voice a little - that vibrato gets a little *too* wide at times.
> 
> EDIT - Meade does actually remind me of Renee Fleming in the method of her vocal production, but I wouldn't compare the two. Aspects of her voice remind me of Christine Goerke's. And Miss Meade can float high notes too.


I simply don't understand this post and agree with everything Woodduck has to say about her. Fleming's voice is way more steady as was Sutherland's in the upper register, though not so much lower down, especially in later years. Nor does Meade have anything like Sutherland's (or Fleming's for that matter) flexibility in coloratura. I don't get it. I really don't.


----------



## Idit (Nov 9, 2014)

the long and the short of it is that you have completely lost you mind. Mozart is simply the greatest operatic composer ever was, ever will be!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Figleaf said:


> Sorry, accidentally clicked 'reply' to Woodduck again, when I wanted to address Greg Mitchell's point.
> 
> Greg asks why a poster who admires Joan Sutherland would also express admiration for Angela Meade: doesn't s/he know the difference? Whoever wrote that can certainly speak for themselves, but my guess is that they are (probably consciously) applying a double standard whereby the singers of the past are held to a higher standard than those currently active. It makes sense: when standards have fallen, you either adjust your expectations downwards or give up on living singers entirely. Judging past and present singers by the same standards while defending the star status of some of the biggest names of the present is only going to result in painful cognitive dissonance in my opinion.


My three criteria for singing are: 'excellence,' 'excellence,'. . . _aaaaaand_ 'excellence'-- and not: 'hyped,' 'here today,' and 'gone later today.'

The time period of the singer is irrelevant.

Greatness echoes in eternity.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> I sincerely intended to avoid this thread until this morning, when something shocked me into reconsidering.
> 
> I tuned into my local public radio's Saturday opera, which happened to be a performance from the Caramoor Festival of Donizetti's _Lucrezia Borgia_, featuring the young American soprano Angela Meade. Miss Meade has apparently sung Norma as well, and the announcers were describing her rather enthusiastically as a gift to bel canto, so I awaited eagerly her first entrance while enjoying a very good mezzo named Tamara Mumford in the role of Orsini. Her clean and nicely shaded vocalism, unfortunately, was not matched by the highly touted Miss Meade, who disappointed me in almost every respect. From what I heard this morning, I have to say that neither vocally nor musically does she make the cut in this repertoire. Her voice is the epitome of the contemporary "opera voice" that everyone seems to aspire to nowadays: loud, weighty, and vibrato-ridden, with the kind of vibrato that often leaves the core of the sung pitch virtually undetectable and is sometimes indistinguishable from a trill. I know of no tactful way to put this: a vibrato like Miss Meade's has no place in bel canto. But beyond the question of vibrato, I found her phrasing often heavy and sluggish, especially in recitatives; I heard no variety of color in her sound; and, not least important, some of her coloratura was hit or miss. I will say that she has an impressive high extension for such a large(ish) voice - hence, no doubt, the idea that she should be singing bel canto roles - but sometimes the high notes felt a little detached from the rest of the voice. Finally, what I missed constantly was the sense that the voice really _moved_, with ease and fleetness and a lack of the need to prepare, vocally, for what comes next.
> 
> ...


No tomatoes from me, Tito; only laurels.

Thanks for saving Athens from the Madison Avenue Sophists. . . _a-gain.__ ;D_


----------



## BaronScarpia (Apr 2, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> I simply don't understand this post and agree with everything Woodduck has to say about her. Fleming's voice is way more steady as was Sutherland's in the upper register, though not so much lower down, especially in later years. Nor does Meade have anything like Sutherland's (or Fleming's for that matter) flexibility in coloratura. I don't get it. I really don't.


What's not to understand?


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

As someone who heard Meade's Norma live in the Kennedy Center Opera House, I agree with the good things BaronScarpia says about her voice but don't think she should delve further into "bel canto opera"; anyway, I believe that in Bellini and Donizetti she has only Norma and Anna Bolena in her repertoire. I don't think her gushing vibrato makes her an ideal Norma, though I do admit to enjoying her voice quite a lot in the performance. Even next to the formidable voice of Dolora Zajick (Adalgisa) Meade's voice had real presence and sheen. Considering that so few sopranos have ever been able to or will ever be able to sing Norma, I believe that Meade gets cast in that role because she's a big-voiced soprano and people want to hear NORMA. But a soprano with Meade's wider type of vibrato, I think, sounds better against a lusher orchestration like those heard in later Verdi, in Wagner, or in Richard Strauss. Also, on Youtube I found a video of her singing the soprano role in Verdi's I DUE FOSCARI, and in that I find her singing truly bracing -- not generic at all.

I would be wary of saying things like a singer with Meade's vibrato "shouldn't" be singing bel canto opera, because someone else could come back with something like, "Caballe shouldn't have sung bel canto because she used a lot of chest voice and lacked a trill," or "Callas shouldn't have sung bel canto because her voice was imperfectly equalized," or "Sutherland shouldn't have sung bel canto because in unadorned cantabile passages her 'line' tended to sag"; or "Gruberova shouldn't have sung bel canto because she had that 'squeezed' Eastern European sound rather than an Italianate one" -- or "Milanov shouldn't have sung Norma because (on the evidence of a recording of a Met broadcast, which you can hear on Youtube) she wasn't really inside the style and her phrasing lacked breadth."

But what I most want to say is this: with increasing frequency I'm getting the feeling that certain posters on Talkclassical Opera regard other posters as rubes who wouldn't know _genuinely_ great singing if it was blasting in their ears, who are too young/inexperienced to know what's worth liking, who don't warm to certain things due to lack of good taste, or who need to answer for their own preferences, like commoners being summoned before the elite. Just because I greatly admire mostly "modern" singers and aim for a positive tone in my posts doesn't make me a sycophant or someone who's blind to the supposedly dire realities of modern singing, or something like that. In fact, I deliberately try not to talk too much about any one artist precisely because I want to come across not as sycophantic or boring but as balanced. While I'm not in the habit of taking what goes on in this forum personally, I do often feel as though I and certain others are being condescended to -- _that we're not just being disagreed with but actually scoffed at_ -- and I resent that. True, it's just a feeling, and probably someone will respond that really they're only interested in promoting excellent, objective standards in singing and that it was never their intention to be proscriptive or belittling. Maybe not, but that's how it comes across. In short, the impression I get is that no matter what I do or say I'll never really be the equal of certain posters here, who have the advantage of age and/or "right knowledge."


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

BaronScarpia said:


> What's not to understand?


I don't understand because you clearly hear voices differently from me (and Woodduck coincidentally).

I hear this (quoted from Woodduck earlier in the post).

_Her voice is the epitome of the contemporary "opera voice" that everyone seems to aspire to nowadays: loud, weighty, and vibrato-ridden, with the kind of vibrato that often leaves the core of the sung pitch virtually undetectable and is sometimes indistinguishable from a trill._

You evidently don't. Or maybe what Woodduck talks about is actually your definition of impeccable.

I also fail to understand how you can find any similarity to Fleming's beautiful, secure, cleanly focused, pure stream of sound.

But what do I know? I've only been going to the opera and collecting music for the best part of 50 years! I'm clearly just an old fogey, lost in the mists of my memories. When I say that I can hear a definite deterioration in vocal standards from the voice of Ponselle (active long before I was born, incidentally) to that of Meade, I must evidently have deffective ears.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Bellinilover said:


> But what I most want to say is this: with increasing frequency I'm getting the feeling that certain posters on Talkclassical Opera regard other posters as rubes who wouldn't know _genuinely_ great singing if it was blasting in their ears, who are too young/inexperienced to know what's worth liking, who don't warm to certain things due to lack of good taste, or who need to answer for their own preferences, like commoners being summoned before the elite. Just because I greatly admire mostly "modern" singers and aim for a positive tone in my posts doesn't make me a sycophant or someone who's blind to the supposedly dire realities of modern singing, or something like that. In fact, I deliberately try not to talk too much about any one artist precisely because I want to come across not as sycophantic or boring but as balanced. While I'm not in the habit of taking what goes on in this forum personally, I do often feel as though I and certain others are being condescended to -- _that we're not just being disagreed with but actually scoffed at_ -- and I resent that. True, it's just a feeling, and probably someone will respond that really they're only interested in promoting excellent, objective standards in singing and that it was never their intention to be proscriptive or belittling. Maybe not, but that's how it comes across. In short, the impression I get is that no matter what I do or say I'll never really be the equal of certain posters here, who have the advantage of age and/or "right knowledge."


It's interesting you say that because I feel that it is the younger contributors who are usually doing the scoffing (though I exclude your good self), and I have certainly been the recipient of quite a few jibes.

So if you feel it, then I have felt it too on many occasions. Scoffing jibes are not restricted to the old.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

A couple more things. First -- _bel canto_. I've noticed over the years that many people seem to think it's the opposite of "brutta canto" (as Figleaf said), or that it's a specific quality of vocal timbre exemplified only by Callas, or Sutherland, or Caballe, or some other past diva. But I've always understood bel canto to be a particular mode of musical-dramatic expression, wherein the drama is expressed essentially through the vocal lines themselves, and that these expressive vocal lines are more important than what the orchestra is "saying" or than an action-filled plot. One example out of numerous possible aria examples would be Enrico's "Cruda, funesta smania" in LUCIA DI LAMMERMOOR, with its tightly wound vocal line reflecting the anxiety and anger the character feels at that particular moment in the story. I suspect that many people who don't respond to bel canto opera are probably looking for the drama in the wrong place, so to speak. I bring this up because I agree that "bel canto" is one of those terms that's thrown around so often and so casually that it's become almost meaningless. It's not constant tonal purity so much as a mode of conveying drama.

In a post above, Figleaf referred to adjusting one's own personal standards down to match supposedly dropping modern standards. But I wonder whether every generation hasn't done this to some degree. For instance, let's say it's 1964 and you've just bought Joan Sutherland's new recording of NORMA. You've known Callas' iconic Norma for years, and now here's this new Norma whose enunciation is indistinct, who tends to let the legato line sag, who doesn't have the same variety of vocal color, and whose temperament is considerably less fiery. It all adds up, it seems, to a Norma who doesn't live up to the "standards of the past," and so you conclude that "modern singing" is in a bad state and that the art of bel canto is dying. You'll continue to listen to the album because, after all, it's better than nothing; at least she can encompass the role's range, which is more than you can imagine other current sopranos doing. It might be a decade before you finally come to appreciate Sutherland's Norma for what it is, and stop comparing it to Callas's -- but by then a new dramatic-coloratura has come along, with her own set of strengths and weaknesses. True, her basic sound is lovely, she conveys real pathos, and she has remarkable _piannismi_...but what's the use of that if her highest notes are less easy than Sutherland's were, her trill absent, and she doesn't seem to exhibit the same "sheer joy in singing" that to you made up for Sutherland's lack of dramatic fire? Clearly, this new soprano is overrated; standards have fallen, and the art of singing is on its way out. It could go on and on. The point I'm trying to make is that to my mind it's not as simple as saying that with each new generation standards fall a bit more, so that eventually (but who knows precisely when?) there will be nothing left. It would be more accurate, I think, to say that each new generation brings singers with their own individual gifts and weaknesses, and that some of the gifts will (rather sadly, IMO) only be truly appreciated in retrospect because at the time the singer was actually singing the weaknesses were deemed too great.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

A couple more things. First -- _bel canto_. I've noticed over the years that many people seem to think it's the opposite of "brutta canto" (as Figleaf said), or that it's a specific quality of vocal timbre exemplified only by Callas, or Sutherland, or Caballe, or some other past diva. But I've always understood bel canto to be a particular mode of musical-dramatic expression, wherein the drama is expressed essentially through the vocal lines themselves, and that these expressive vocal lines are more important than what the orchestra is "saying" or than an action-filled plot. One example out of numerous possible aria examples would be Enrico's "Cruda, funesta smania" in LUCIA DI LAMMERMOOR, with its tightly wound vocal line reflecting the anxiety and anger the character feels at that particular moment in the story. I suspect that many people who don't respond to bel canto opera are probably looking for the drama in the wrong place, so to speak. I bring this up because I agree that "bel canto" is one of those terms that's thrown around so often and so casually that it's become almost meaningless. It's not constant tonal purity so much as a mode of conveying drama.

In a post above, Figleaf referred to adjusting one's own personal standards down to match supposedly dropping modern standards. But I wonder whether every generation hasn't done this to some degree. For instance, let's say it's 1964 and you've just bought Joan Sutherland's new recording of NORMA. You've known Callas' iconic Norma for years, and now here's this new Norma whose enunciation is indistinct, who tends to let the legato line sag, who doesn't have the same variety of vocal color, and whose temperament is considerably less fiery. It all adds up, it seems, to a Norma who doesn't live up to the "standards of the past," and so you conclude that "modern singing" is in a bad state and that the art of bel canto is dying. You'll continue to listen to the album because, after all, it's better than nothing; at least she can encompass the role's range, which is more than you can imagine any of the other current sopranos doing. It might be a decade before you finally come to appreciate Sutherland's Norma for what it is, and stop comparing it to Callas's -- but by then a new dramatic-coloratura has come along, with her own set of strengths and weaknesses. True, her basic sound is lovely, she conveys real pathos, and she has remarkable _piannismi_...but what's the use of that if her highest notes are less easy than Sutherland's were, her trill absent, and she doesn't seem to exhibit the same "sheer joy in singing" that to you made up for Sutherland's lack of dramatic fire? Clearly, this new soprano is overrated; standards have fallen, and the art of singing is on its way out. But you suppose you should at least be grateful for the new singer's control of dynamics, which no other soprano today can manage...

It could go on and on, and it does. The point I'm trying to make is that to my mind it's not as simple as saying that with each new generation standards fall a bit more, so that eventually (but who knows precisely when?) there will be nothing left. It would be more accurate, I think, to say that each new generation brings singers with their own individual gifts and weaknesses, and that some of the gifts will (rather sadly, IMO) only be truly appreciated in retrospect because at the time the singer was actually singing the weaknesses were deemed too great.


----------



## BaronScarpia (Apr 2, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> I don't understand because you clearly hear voices differently from me (and Woodduck coincidentally).
> 
> I hear this (quoted from Woodduck earlier in the post).
> 
> ...


It's a shame that you've taken such a defensive stance. Once again, a civilised discussion descends into a collection of passive-aggressive jibes! I personally try to refrain from making such sweeping statements as "X must hear voices differently from me" and the like - it rather comes across as an attempt to be condescending to "X".

I think there is no difference between the way you and I hear voices; we simply have different preferences. I appreciate the passion of her singing; I don't however, like her wide vibrato (eliminating excess vibrato comes into the category of 'refining one's voice', which I mentioned earlier). She's not faultless - what singer is? (rhetorical question )

I said Angela Meade's _technique_ is, *as far as I can tell*, impeccable. Not her _"loud, weighty, and vibrato-ridden [voice], with the kind of vibrato that often leaves the core of the sung pitch virtually undetectable and is sometimes indistinguishable from a trill"_.

As for Renee Fleming, I said that the method of Meade's _vocal production_ seems similar to hers. I can't really explain it - those are the only two voices in which I can say I've heard it. It's a sort of very well-supported, 'floaty-but-*grounded*' sound. But Fleming is one of my all-time favourite sopranos, whereas Meade is for me just a very good soprano.

I agree with you about the deterioration in vocal standards. In my opinion, and yours, I gather, it has led to an unfortunate dearth of really, *really* good, incredible, great singers! There are a few, yes, but Angela Meade isn't on my list.


----------



## BaronScarpia (Apr 2, 2014)

Bellinilover said:


> As someone who heard Meade's Norma live in the Kennedy Center Opera House, I agree with the good things BaronScarpia says about her voice but don't think she should delve further into "bel canto opera"; anyway, I believe that in Bellini and Donizetti she has only Norma and Anna Bolena in her repertoire. I don't think her gushing vibrato makes her an ideal Norma, though I do admit to enjoying her voice quite a lot in the performance. Even next to the formidable voice of Dolora Zajick (Adalgisa) Meade's voice had real presence and sheen. Considering that so few sopranos have ever been able to or will ever be able to sing Norma, I believe that Meade gets cast in that role because she's a big-voiced soprano and people want to hear NORMA. But a soprano with Meade's wider type of vibrato, I think, sounds better against a lusher orchestration like those heard in later Verdi, in Wagner, or in Richard Strauss. Also, on Youtube I found a video of her singing the soprano role in Verdi's I DUE FOSCARI, and in that I find her singing truly bracing -- not generic at all.
> 
> I would be wary of saying things like a singer with Meade's vibrato "shouldn't" be singing bel canto opera, because someone else could come back with something like, "Caballe shouldn't have sung bel canto because she used a lot of chest voice and lacked a trill," or "Callas shouldn't have sung bel canto because her voice was imperfectly equalized," or "Sutherland shouldn't have sung bel canto because in unadorned cantabile passages her 'line' tended to sag"; or "Gruberova shouldn't have sung bel canto because she had that 'squeezed' Eastern European sound rather than an Italianate one" -- or "Milanov shouldn't have sung Norma because (on the evidence of a recording of a Met broadcast, which you can hear on Youtube) she wasn't really inside the style and her phrasing lacked breadth."
> 
> But what I most want to say is this: with increasing frequency I'm getting the feeling that certain posters on Talkclassical Opera regard other posters as rubes who wouldn't know _genuinely_ great singing if it was blasting in their ears, who are too young/inexperienced to know what's worth liking, who don't warm to certain things due to lack of good taste, or who need to answer for their own preferences, like commoners being summoned before the elite. Just because I greatly admire mostly "modern" singers and aim for a positive tone in my posts doesn't make me a sycophant or someone who's blind to the supposedly dire realities of modern singing, or something like that. In fact, I deliberately try not to talk too much about any one artist precisely because I want to come across not as sycophantic or boring but as balanced. While I'm not in the habit of taking what goes on in this forum personally, I do often feel as though I and certain others are being condescended to -- _that we're not just being disagreed with but actually scoffed at_ -- and I resent that. True, it's just a feeling, and probably someone will respond that really they're only interested in promoting excellent, objective standards in singing and that it was never their intention to be proscriptive or belittling. Maybe not, but that's how it comes across. In short, the impression I get is that no matter what I do or say I'll never really be the equal of certain posters here, who have the advantage of age and/or "right knowledge."


Paragraph one - YES!
Paragraph two - YES!!!
Paragraph three - YES!!!!!

I am young, and inexperienced, I admit it; indeed I have never denied it! But surely I am allowed to express my views, adequately-reasoned views at that, without fear of being looked down upon?

I like Anna Netrebko - a lot! I prefer Renata Tebaldi's Cio-Cio San to that of Maria Callas! Jonas Kaufmann sounds to me as if he's swallowed his larynx! And yes, I think Angela Meade is a wonderful singer! Do these things make me a philistine?

I have no doubt that in a year's time some of my views will have changed, even more in five or ten years' time. But I would be very grateful if people took me a little more seriously  I thought I was the only one that felt this way, but apparently not, as evidenced by Bellinilover's post^^


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

BaronScarpia said:


> I like Anna Netrebko - a lot! I prefer Renata Tebaldi's Cio-Cio San to that of Maria Callas! Jonas Kaufmann sounds to me as if he's swallowed his larynx! And yes, I think Angela Meade is a wonderful singer! Do these things make me a philistine?
> 
> I have no doubt that in a year's time some of my views will have changed, even more in five or ten years' time. But I would be very grateful if people took me a little more seriously  I thought I was the only one that felt this way, but apparently not, as evidenced by Bellinilover's post^^


I must say there is something with Anna Netrebko that holds down my interest in her and the ability to find joy in her singing but but I would not say that I don´t like her instead I like her in some way and I think Jonas Kaufman is a wonderful singer.


----------



## BaronScarpia (Apr 2, 2014)

Sloe said:


> I must say I found Anna Netrebko a bit boring sometimes but at the same time I can enjoy her and I think Jonas Kaufman is a wonderful singer.


Anna Netrebko's interpretations may be obvious, but I think she does them exquisitely  What's the point in moving on to more complex interpretations if one can't perfect the 'traditional' ones? (That's just my opinion )

But Jonas Kaufmann... he has the voice, the looks, the personality, the musicality, the intelligence... but not the vocal technique. That's less a matter of opinion. But why can't I enjoy him even if he has all of these (and more) positive qualities?


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

*BaronScarpia:* As you know, I teach reading comprehension and writing to people of about your age. I would be absolutely overjoyed if they were all as articulate as you are. Also, I have heard a resemblance between Fleming and Meade, too. I don't know how to describe it either, except to say that it sounds to me as though their speaking voices might be similar in timbre.

I need to correct something I said above: in bel canto Meade currently sings not just Norma and Anna Bolena but also Lucrezia Borgia (duh, since an earlier post mentioned Lucrezia Borgia!).

And finally, sorry for the double post above. I just now saw it.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

*Turandot*. the title role is a sociopathic narcissist who kills anyone who doesn't correctly answer questions or submit to her Nazi-esque interrogations. the tenor is of the "lover boy without a brain" variety who does not know the difference between getting a boner and real love. additionally, Nessun Dorma is probably the most butchered aria in all of history. I think I'm going to assassinate the next wimpy *** lyric tenor who tries to be a fach post modernist with this piece


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> *Turandot*. the title role is a sociopathic narcissist who kills anyone who doesn't correctly answer questions or submit to her Nazi-esque interrogations. the tenor is of the "lover boy without a brain" variety who does not know the difference between getting a boner and real love. additionally, Nessun Dorma is probably the most butchered aria in all of history.


You really like to shock , don't you?


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> *Turandot*. the title role is a sociopathic narcissist who kills anyone who doesn't correctly answer questions or submit to her Nazi-esque interrogations. the tenor is of the "lover boy without a brain" variety who does not know the difference between getting a boner and real love. additionally, Nessun Dorma is probably the most butchered aria in all of history.


You don´t like the opera because it is about people you don´t like.
I agree with what you say about Calaf but at least he makes Turandot stop with her behaviour.
Yes it is sad that Nessun Dorma which I don´t like much anyway have become a popera anthem.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Pugg said:


> You really like to shock , don't you?


well, I certainly don't sugar coat if that's what you mean (though this is hardly one of my more "shocking" opinions)



Sloe said:


> You don´t like the opera because it is about people you don´t like.


exactly, that's the point



> I agree with what you say about Calaf but at least he makes Turandot stop with her behaviour.
> Yes it is sad that Nessun Dorma which I don´t like much anyway have become a popera anthem.


it's so terrible it's offensive >.<


----------



## DonAlfonso (Oct 4, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> well, I certainly don't sugar coat if that's what you mean (though this is hardly one of my more "shocking" opinions)
> 
> exactly, that's the point
> 
> it's so terrible it's offensive >.<


I don't think shock or shocking are the correct terms - I'd have said opinionated.

Your reasons for not liking Turandot (which I'm not that fond of myself) sound like justifications. You don't like the opera so make up reasons not to like it. There are plenty of other odious characters in opera - some of which you probably like.

Nessun Dorma may have become a popera anthem but is that the fault of the composition? Puccini, had he lived to see it, would have been delighted as it would have sold more sheet music. Composers, as well as being artists, were businessmen who wrote (and rewrote) their operas to be commercial successes. To do so they (mostly) wrote in prevailing styles. Over time popular styles change so we cannot blame Mozart for not inventing bel canto or verisimo.

In regard to the discussion of singers I confess I don't worship at the altar of the 'great' singer. Opera is so much more than the singing. I attend as much live opera as I can get to or afford. I watch a great deal of broadcast/DVD performances. It's great when you can see a 'major' talent in a signature role (I live in Sydney and saw 'our Joan' a number of times) but it's really just icing on the cake. If the blend of singing/conducting/acting/staging etc is good there are dozens (hundreds?) of singers to sing any role and produce a memorable live performance.

As to your original post. You used the term "overrated" in the title and then wrote that Mozart comes to mind. You then listed a number of reasons why Mozart 'doesn't do it for you'. Is that your criteria for overrated? That it's popular but not to your taste? Sorry to be harsh, but dude, you started it.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

DonAlfonso said:


> Nessun Dorma may have become a popera anthem but is that the fault of the composition? Puccini, had he lived to see it, would have been delighted as it would have sold more sheet music. Composers, as well as being artists, were businessmen who wrote (and rewrote) their operas to be commercial successes. To do so they (mostly) wrote in prevailing styles. Over time popular styles change so we cannot blame Mozart for not inventing bel canto or verisimo.
> .


I did not say it is the fault of the composition I just think it is sad that it is so often sung by singers who make it sound rather boring. That I prefer nearly every other aria in Turandot before Nessun Dorma might have to do with the associations I have with it. Puccini would probably be thrilled over making more money but should we base our opinions of what a composer would like or not.


----------



## DonAlfonso (Oct 4, 2014)

Sloe, I wasn't commenting on your post, which I agree with, but rather more to BalalaikaBoy's characterization of it as terrible and offensive.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

DonAlfonso said:


> Sloe, I wasn't commenting on your post, which I agree with, but rather more to BalalaikaBoy's characterization of it as terrible and offensive.


Since you used my wording to describe how Nessun Dorma is treated I felt misunderstood and felt that it was necessary to explain myself.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> *Turandot*. the title role is a sociopathic narcissist who kills anyone who doesn't correctly answer questions or submit to her Nazi-esque interrogations. the tenor is of the "lover boy without a brain" variety who does not know the difference between getting a boner and real love. additionally, Nessun Dorma is probably the most butchered aria in all of history. I think I'm going to assassinate the next wimpy *** lyric tenor who tries to be a fach post modernist with this piece


Brilliant and funny post- I don't know about Turandot, as I've never got past Nessun Dorma. I can't tell whether it's intrinsically unappealing or simply overexposed. Too bad nearly all the tenors who might have made me think differently were dead or long retired by the time Turandot came along! In fact, I know that John McCormack broadly agreed with you about the opera- I wish I could locate the reference just now, it's in one of the biographies- although we don't know to what extent it was sour grapes because his own operatic days were over (not that he was probably a Calaf to begin with) and his friend and idol Caruso was in an early grave.

Your wit and iconoclasm remind me a little of Bernard Shaw's music criticism- he said something like 'I have never given an impartial review, and I hope I never shall'. It's a shame he didn't live long enough to be able to incorporate such expressions as 'post modernism' and 'boner' into his writing


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Figleaf said:


> Brilliant and funny post- I don't know about Turandot, as I've never got past Nessun Dorma. I can't tell whether it's intrinsically unappealing or simply overexposed.


Turandot is much more than Nessun Dorma it is full of music that fills at least me with excitement. It has several fine scenes and arias like Signore ascolta sung by Liu, Non piangere, Liu sung by Calaf, Turandots magnificent entrance followed by In questa reggia sung by Turandot, Tanto amore segreto followed by Tu che di gel sei sinta sung by Liu followed by Lius death for me are Tu che di gel cinta and Lius death the most affecting scene of all of Puccinis operas. It all ends with Franco Alfanos wonderful ending. Calafs obsession over Turandot might seem a bit unhealthy and makes him unsympathic but that is how it is when you love someone you don´t know why and can´t find a reason for it. Turandot is cruel but she is an ancient Chinese princess they are still executing more people in China than in any other country in the world. It would be odd if she was not cruel.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

DonAlfonso said:


> To do so they (mostly) wrote in prevailing styles. Over time popular styles change so we cannot blame Mozart for not inventing bel canto or verisimo.
> 
> As to your original post. You used the term "overrated" in the title and then wrote that Mozart comes to mind. You then listed a number of reasons why Mozart 'doesn't do it for you'. Is that your criteria for overrated? That it's popular but not to your taste? Sorry to be harsh, but dude, you started it.


Very well said.
There are many operas that I don´t like but mostly it is because they are of a style I don´t like and therefore I don´t consider myself to be in the right position to complain over their popularity. I mentioned Carmen as overrated because it is of a type that I like. Another opera I can mention as overrated is Il Trovatore. Why is that one of Verdis most popular operas. Verdi wrote so many good operas but Il Trovatore is really not one of his best operas. It is the same as Carmen it have some highlights but the rest is not so fantastic.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Sloe said:


> Another opera I can mention as overrated is Il Trovatore. Why is that one of Verdis most popular operas. Verdi wrote so many good operas but Il Trovatore is really not one of his best operas.


It does have a lot of Verdi's most appealing melodies, especially when you can listen to singers who can really do it justice. Take Deserto Sulla Terra, sung as a real cri de coeur and not in the perfunctory manner it sometimes is:

Francesco Tamagno (unbelievably heartrending)





Agustarello Affre:





Stride la vampa, which can be attractive music in the right hands. Eugenia Mantelli:





Il Balen del suo Sorriso. Quite a favourite of baritones today, but I'll stick with Pavel Lisitsian:





Or Jean Noté:





Ah si ben mio. One of my favourite records ever, sung so tenderly here by Agustarello Affre:





Di Quella Pira, that tenors' graveyard- who would not find this exciting when sung by the right kind of big, bright, high tenor voice? Tamagno again (possibly sparing himself on the high climaxes, not being in the best of health):





Leon Escalaïs, recorded as a younger man than Tamagno, is peerless in this music:





Ai nostri Monti, sung by Francesco Signorini, another great heroic tenor in the 19thC style:


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

BaronScarpia said:


> I am young, and inexperienced, I admit it; indeed I have never denied it! But surely I am allowed to express my views, adequately-reasoned views at that, without fear of being looked down upon?


I would certainly hope nobody is looking down on you. I'm probably twice your age; I wish that meant I was twice as clever and well informed, but I doubt that's the case!



BaronScarpia said:


> Jonas Kaufmann sounds to me as if he's swallowed his larynx!


He sounds like that to me too. Yikes!



BaronScarpia said:


> I would be very grateful if people took me a little more seriously


Join the club!


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

DonAlfonso said:


> I don't think shock or shocking are the correct terms - I'd have said opinionated.


no argument there



> Your reasons for not liking Turandot (which I'm not that fond of myself) sound like justifications. You don't like the opera so make up reasons not to like it. There are plenty of other odious characters in opera - some of which you probably like.


except that opinion came after I understood what the opera was about. some of the music itself is lovely (in particular, I like Liu's aria and the Riddle Scene). it's not even that Turandot is a sociopath, as much as that I am expected to feel sympathy for her even though she is 
a) a sociopath 
and
b) a princess who likely has little to no real problems to begin with
I'm fine with evil people who know they're evil, it's the ones who pretend to be self righteous that are a major pet peeve of mine.



> Nessun Dorma may have become a popera anthem but is that the fault of the composition? Puccini, had he lived to see it, would have been delighted as it would have sold more sheet music. Composers, as well as being artists, were businessmen who wrote (and rewrote) their operas to be commercial successes. To do so they (mostly) wrote in prevailing styles.


perhaps I need to clarify, Nessun Dorma itself is not inherently "offensive", rather the way it has been butchered by all the popera wannabes out there.

you have a point though, my impression of the piece is probably ruined by all the X Factor performances which make me want to throw my teacup at the screen. in a few instances (when sung by a _spinto_ tenor), I've quite enjoyed the piece, but overall, it tends to come across as boring and one dimensional to me.



> Over time popular styles change so we cannot blame Mozart for not inventing bel canto or verisimo.


the point isn't "blame". that would be much more personal than the intent of this discussion.



> In regard to the discussion of singers I confess I don't worship at the altar of the 'great' singer. Opera is so much more than the singing. I attend as much live opera as I can get to or afford. I watch a great deal of broadcast/DVD performances. It's great when you can see a 'major' talent in a signature role (I live in Sydney and saw 'our Joan' a number of times) but it's really just icing on the cake. If the blend of singing/conducting/acting/staging etc is good there are dozens (hundreds?) of singers to sing any role and produce a memorable live performance.


the reverse is true for me (not that that's not a valid set of priorities). if I wanted to see those things, I'd go to a play. they are a nice bonus when going to listen to an opera, but I'm going in order to do just that: to _listen_ to an opera. in a sense, I'm like a more sophisticated version of rap/hip hop culture. I want to hear a voice that is the operatic version of what would make a black guy go "OHHHHHHHHH!" 

in all seriousness though, that's what I'm there for. I want to hear a solid, stentorian voice which at once exudes power, but also elegant legato and lyrical prowess (I am partial to spinto voices of all types due to this combination, but there are examples of every fach which I am impressed by). I want something that is epic and captivating. the "human" element, if you will, is less important to me (for this reason, I like the _idea_ of Wagner's operas, but, unless you're Frieda Lieder, Kirsten or Flagstad, they vocal elegance tends to be lacking).



> As to your original post. You used the term "overrated" in the title and then wrote that Mozart comes to mind. You then listed a number of reasons why Mozart 'doesn't do it for you'. Is that your criteria for overrated? That it's popular but not to your taste?


basically, yes. I like to consider my opinions at least somewhat informed, but, at the end of the day, they are just that, opinions and tastes (something I find a continually have to re-emphasize because, apparently, I come across as arrogant lol.



> Sorry to be harsh, but dude, you started it.


this conversation hasn't even begun to get harsh. you're fine mate, I welcome disagreement.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Figleaf said:


> Brilliant and funny post- I don't know about Turandot, as I've never got past Nessun Dorma. I can't tell whether it's intrinsically unappealing or simply overexposed. Too bad nearly all the tenors who might have made me think differently were dead or long retired by the time Turandot came along! In fact, I know that John McCormack broadly agreed with you about the opera- I wish I could locate the reference just now, it's in one of the biographies- although we don't know to what extent it was sour grapes because his own operatic days were over (not that he was probably a Calaf to begin with) and his friend and idol Caruso was in an early grave.
> 
> Your wit and iconoclasm remind me a little of Bernard Shaw's music criticism- he said something like 'I have never given an impartial review, and I hope I never shall'. It's a shame he didn't live long enough to be able to incorporate such expressions as 'post modernism' and 'boner' into his writing


I'm glad someone appreciated the "fach post modernism" comment. I was expecting people to look at me like "dafuq..."


----------



## DonAlfonso (Oct 4, 2014)

You're right "blame" was the wrong word - I should have used "fault".

We're obviously on opposite sides of the 'opera goer' and 'opera audiophile' divide. Since the vast majority of the repertoire was written to be staged and acted I'm claiming the moral high ground in the debate. I do, obviously, listen to audio versions of operas but having seen the opera is what puts the singing and music in context for me. Without the other elements it's a different art form, vocal music perhaps rather than opera. Beautiful no doubt, but in a recital what's the difference between an aria and a Cantaloube folk song? It's just not opera.


----------



## Posie (Aug 18, 2013)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> *Turandot*. the title role is a sociopathic narcissist who kills anyone who doesn't correctly answer questions or submit to her Nazi-esque interrogations. the tenor is of the "lover boy without a brain" variety who does not know the difference between getting a boner and real love. additionally, Nessun Dorma is probably the most butchered aria in all of history. I think I'm going to assassinate the next wimpy *** lyric tenor who tries to be a fach post modernist with this piece


Thank You!!! That male prototype is the scourge of the narrative! It almost keeps me from enjoying L'Orfeo and La Traviata, among other things.


----------



## DonAlfonso (Oct 4, 2014)

marinasabina said:


> Thank You!!! That male prototype is the scourge of the narrative! It almost keeps me from enjoying L'Orfeo and La Traviata, among other things.


Three of the most odious (to me) characters in opera are boobs who fall in love from afar or on first sight (but not having met the object of desire). Calaf, Alfredo and Pinkerton. I don't include the Duke of Mantua, odious as he is, because I don't believe he thinks himself in love with Gilda for a moment.
Then I get pissed at the women for falling for them. If it wasn't for Germont senior I'd give Traviata a miss entirely.


----------



## Posie (Aug 18, 2013)

DonAlfonso said:


> Three of the most odious (to me) characters in opera are boobs who fall in love from afar or on first sight (but not having met the object of desire). Calaf, Alfredo and Pinkerton. I don't include the Duke of Mantua, odious as he is, because I don't believe he thinks himself in love with Gilda for a moment.
> Then I get pissed at the women for falling for them. If it wasn't for Germont senior I'd give Traviata a miss entirely.


I agree about M. Germont. Even if Verdi had intended him to be a bad bad hypocrite, he'd be a crummy father if he let the situation go.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

DonAlfonso said:


> Three of the most odious (to me) characters in opera are boobs who fall in love from afar or on first sight (but not having met the object of desire).


I can´t see what is odious with that.
There are many men that have loved women from afar it is just that most of us eventually give up.
My ideal operatic woman is Senta she loves a man she has only seen on a picture.
That is how it is to be a man we may desire Turandot but learn to be happy with Senta.


----------



## DonAlfonso (Oct 4, 2014)

Sloe said:


> I can´t see what is odious with that.
> There are many men that have loved women from afar it is just that most of us eventually give up.
> My ideal operatic woman is Senta she loves a man she has only seen on a picture.
> That is how it is to be a man we may desire Turandot but learn to be happy with Senta.


I didn't mean the act of falling in love was odious just that these characters, whom I do find odious, have that characteristic in common.
However I do doubt the quality of a love based on appearance alone.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

*Baron Scarpia*, *Figleaf*
I don't think Jonas Kaufmann sounds that way at all. admittedly, his passaggio notes (from around E4-G4) sound a bit strange, but I find his production much healthier than all those wimpy tenors who try to push themselves into the spinto tenor repertory.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

DonAlfonso said:


> I didn't mean the act of falling in love was odious just that these characters, whom I do find odious, have that characteristic in common.
> However I do doubt the quality of a love based on appearance alone.


Ok misunderstandings are too common here.
I really don´t see how Alfredo is so horrible comparing to Calaf who seems to be completely ruthless in his desire to get Turandot. Most of what he sings including Nessun Dorma could be exchanged to "I want Turandot" over and over again.

I don´t think you can measure quality like that.


----------



## DonAlfonso (Oct 4, 2014)

Alfredo is a stalker. He's been stalking Violetta for a year. When he gets his victim he has her support him for a couple of years because he's too feckless to realise it takes money to live. When she leaves him (admittedly he's not told the real reason why but what difference does that make) he treats her so shamefully in public (throwing his money at her) that his father banishes him. Presumably the father still supports him as we have no knowledge of his ever having a job or any job skills. It's all about "me" with Alfredo but without Pinkerton's calculation - I think he's too stupid and self-obsessed for that.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

DonAlfonso said:


> Alfredo is a stalker. He's been stalking Violetta for a year. When he gets his victim he has her support him for a couple of years because he's too feckless to realise it takes money to live. When she leaves him (admittedly he's not told the real reason why but what difference does that make) he treats her so shamefully in public (throwing his money at her) that his father banishes him. Presumably the father still supports him as we have no knowledge of his ever having a job or any job skills. It's all about "me" with Alfredo but without Pinkerton's calculation - I think he's too stupid and self-obsessed for that.


He is not stalking and Violetta is no victim of Alfredo. He has been trying to be close to her and he have been discreet. It is not like Violetta will call the police. Stalking is when you send several letters everyday or trying to visit someone over and over again without that persons will. That is not the case with Alfredo. Yes it makes a big different that he is not told the reason she is leaving him. And shamefully he is hurt and expresses his feelings what is wrong with that. He is probably not even thinking of what he is doing.
There are several opera characters that have no job or job skills mentioned. Considering that it probably would take 10 minutes to read the libretto of a two hour opera I can see why.
The only thing I read is how important it is to behave right and have the right feelings. I hate that sort of judgemental reasoning it hurts people. There are those who don´t know the complicated rules on how to behave, think, interact and reason. These people are hurt and suffers greatly by such attitudes.

I don´t Pinkerton is that bad either. He is simply not aware of the consequences of his actions. But he learns that and therefore he regrets what he has done.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DonAlfonso said:


> Alfredo is a stalker. He's been stalking Violetta for a year. When he gets his victim he has her support him for a couple of years because he's too feckless to realise it takes money to live. When she leaves him (admittedly he's not told the real reason why but what difference does that make) he treats her so shamefully in public (throwing his money at her) that his father banishes him. Presumably the father still supports him as we have no knowledge of his ever having a job or any job skills. It's all about "me" with Alfredo but without Pinkerton's calculation - I think he's too stupid and self-obsessed for that.


"I love it to death. Isn't _Traviata_ an absolute _treasure_?"-- is usually how _I_ begin my fulsome praise of Verdi's dramatic masterpiece.

That in mind, when coming across some posts one can only wonder: "Asperger's or dyspraxia?"

Anyway, _I'll_ hedge my bet and do all the waving: _'BYYYYYYYYYY-eeeeeeeeee_."


----------



## DonAlfonso (Oct 4, 2014)

Sloe said:


> He is not stalking and Violetta is no victim of Alfredo. He has been trying to be close to her and he have been discreet. It is not like Violetta will call the police. Stalking is when you send several letters everyday or trying to visit someone over and over again without that persons will. That is not the case with Alfredo. Yes it makes a big different that he is not told the reason she is leaving him. And shamefully he is hurt and expresses his feelings what is wrong with that. He is probably not even thinking of what he is doing.
> There are several opera characters that have no job or job skills mentioned. Considering that it probably would take 10 minutes to read the libretto of a two hour opera I can see why.
> The only thing I read is how important it is to behave right and have the right feelings. I hate that sort of judgemental reasoning it hurts people. There are those who don´t know the complicated rules on how to behave, think, interact and reason. These people are hurt and suffers greatly by such attitudes.
> 
> I don´t Pinkerton is that bad either. He is simply not aware of the consequences of his actions. But he learns that and therefore he regrets what he has done.


OK I promise this will be my last post on this as we've wandered way off the subject of this thread.

"he is hurt and expresses his feelings what is wrong with that" - you seriously believe he's done no wrong?
"He is probably not even thinking of what he is doing." - he never thinks of what he's doing, he never seems to think at all!
"There are those who don´t know the complicated rules on how to behave, think, interact and reason." - there's no evidence Alfredo is one of those, indeed given he's accepted in that society we can assume he knows those rules.

"I don´t Pinkerton is that bad either. He is simply not aware of the consequences of his actions." - 
From the libretto Act 1

PINKERTON
I don't know! It depends on the degree of infatuation!
Love or passing fancy - I couldn't say.
She's certainly bewitched me with her innocent arts.
....................................
like a butterfly she flutters and settles with such quiet grace that a madness seizes me to pursue her,
even though I might damage her wings.

SHARPLESS
Another little glassful.
Here's to your family at home.

PINKERTON
And to the day when I shall get married in real earnest to a real American bride.

Is this cultural insensitivity or calculation? Either he's a racist who thinks Japanese women are incapable of being hurt by being abandoned or he just doesn't give a damn. But he's definitely aware.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

DonAlfonso said:


> OK I promise this will be my last post on this as we've wandered way off the subject of this thread.


Ok I can agree about Pinkerton even if he is not *all *bad and also he says might not will.
You have not convinced me about Alfredo.
Alfredo have on the other hand a reason to be calculative. If he wanted to. We know from the start that there is a high risk he will not live with Violetta forever if she leaves him or not since she might die soon. He can think of getting a "real" wife Pinkerton cant not. Of course he should not talk about it with his friend or sing about it. I know there was so called "marriages" in Japan with foreigners and that is probably how Pinkerton sees it but that is not how those seeing the opera thinks or how Cio-Cio San thinks.
The most important part that saves Pinkerton from being a completely bad character is that he regrets. Alfredos father regrets too and this is the ultimate way of showing that Alfredos father really is a good man. He does not say that he is happy for saving her from his horrible son.

Something that I have thought of for a long time is that it is really not that odd for Pinkerton to be away for that long time. He is sailor and sailors were away from their families for years. This is of course out of the context of the opera but a thought.

I would rather talk about composers, singers and operas that are underrated.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> *Baron Scarpia*, *Figleaf*
> I don't think Jonas Kaufmann sounds that way at all. admittedly, his passaggio notes (from around E4-G4) sound a bit strange, but I find his production much healthier than all those wimpy tenors who try to push themselves into the spinto tenor repertory.


Agree about wimpy tenors.

Perhaps you are used to Kaufmann's sound, but it is extremely striking to say the least if you're used to tenors of the 78rpm era. Even today's cohort, who I admit I usually avoid, don't seem to use anything like that gulpy Mr Bean voice that Kaufmann does. Perhaps when his looks go, a career in comedy beckons: the Ministry of Silly Voices, anyone? :lol:


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

Figleaf said:


> Agree about wimpy tenors.
> 
> Perhaps you are used to Kaufmann's sound, but it is extremely striking to say the least if you're used to tenors of the 78rpm era. Even today's cohort, who I admit I usually avoid, don't seem to use anything like that gulpy Mr Bean voice that Kaufmann does. Perhaps when his looks go, a career in comedy beckons: the Ministry of Silly Voices, anyone? :lol:


Maybe I'm humorless, but I didn't think that was very funny.

I suspect Kaufmann's method of vocal production is unique to him. In one of his books on singing, the highly respected American voice teacher Richard Miller writes that, while Enrico Caruso was undoubtedly a great tenor, he (Miller) would hesitate to recommend him as a "model" for young tenors to follow -- implying that Caruso's technique was in some way inimitable. Were Miller alive today I suspect he'd say the same about Kaufmann. Personally, I recognize Kaufmann's production as unusual -- but he's a singer who often moves me, and I can honestly say that the only thing I've heard him sing that I haven't liked is that aria from MARTHA "Ach, so fromm," which I don't think suits his voice.

And by the way, there are tenors from the 78 rpm era that don't appeal to me at all. Alessandro Bonci is one whom I've found a trial to listen to, with what I'm hearing as an over-bright, nasal, bleating sound. I also find Caruso's singing wearying at times, while Aureliano Pertile sounds unmusical and forced to me. But hey, to each his own.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Figleaf said:


> Agree about wimpy tenors.
> 
> Perhaps you are used to Kaufmann's sound, but it is extremely striking to say the least if you're used to tenors of the 78rpm era. Even today's cohort, who I admit I usually avoid, don't seem to use anything like that gulpy Mr Bean voice that Kaufmann does. Perhaps when his looks go, a career in comedy beckons: the Ministry of Silly Voices, anyone? :lol:


Granted a throaty, somewhat muffled mezza voce (nonetheless often used most expressively) what is it about this voice:






that some of us find to be the most thrilling tenor voice before the public today? If opera always sounded like this I'd stop ranting about the good old days.

Mr. Bean indeed! Line up for your spanking.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Bellinilover said:


> Maybe I'm humorless, but I didn't think that was very funny.
> 
> I suspect Kaufmann's method of vocal production is unique to him. In one of his books on singing, the highly respected American voice teacher Richard Miller writes that, while Enrico Caruso was undoubtedly a great tenor, he (Miller) would hesitate to recommend him as a "model" for young tenors to follow -- implying that Caruso's technique was in some way inimitable. Were Miller alive today I suspect he'd say the same about Kaufmann. Personally, I recognize Kaufmann's production as unusual -- but he's a singer who often moves me, and I can honestly say that the only thing I've heard him sing that I haven't liked is that aria from MARTHA "Ach, so fromm," which I don't think suits his voice.
> 
> And by the way, there are tenors from the 78 rpm era that don't appeal to me at all. Alessandro Bonci is one whom I've found a trial to listen to, with what I'm hearing as an over-bright, nasal, bleating sound. *I also find Caruso's singing wearying at times*, while Aureliano Pertile sounds unmusical and forced to me. But hey, to each his own.


Greatness can be exhausting to us mere mortals, can't it?

No accounting for tastes, but I share your taste for Der Jonas, and agree with your comparison to Caruso (which mustn't be taken too far, of course! There is only one God.) If you watch him sing, as in the clip from _Werther_ I posted above, you do not see any exterior signs of poor vocal habits. His manner of singing seems to be working just fine for him. I hope we'll go on enjoying him for years to come.


----------



## BaronScarpia (Apr 2, 2014)

The way Jonas Kaufmann produces his sound is technically... how does one put it? Not *wrong* _per se_ but not exactly correct! I agree with what Bellinilover says about not recommending Caruso as a model (as least a technical model) for young singers; I think the same could be said for Kaufmann. But whereas Caruso's voice was naturally dark and baritonal, it seems that Kaufmann, among others, has a 'voce ingolata', characterised by an artificial darkness and 'throaty sound', and caused by the tongue pressing down on the hyoid bone. I think Kaufmann is more of a lyric tenor who manufactures a more spinto-sounding timbre.

Just listen to this clip from 1993, before Kaufmann acquired his 'voce ingolata':





He produces such a beautifully free and natural sound here. In his autobiography Kaufmann says that singing like this was giving him sore throats all the time, but I think this was most likely due to a lack of breath support, as well as tension, as opposed to due to what was going on in his mouth and throat.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

*Woodduck:* What I'm talking about with Caruso is the great emotional intensity coupled with the very "close" recording acoustic and, in some of the bel canto excerpts (like the Act II duet from L'ELISIR D'AMORE he made with Giuseppe de Luca) a lack of grace, as though he was trying to bring verismo style to the music. With Pertile it's _sort of _the same thing but _much_ more so. After reading the chapter in John Steane's THE GRAND TRADITION where Steane is very critical of him, accusing him of imposing emotion and destroying the legato line, I tried listening to him in Otello's Monologue...and all I can say is, I agree with Steane. Basically, Pertile sounds to me as though he's trying to "act out" the piece rather than sing it, and the basic tone sounds unstable. And yet others rave over that same recording, so evidently they're hearing completely different in it. Me, I had to turn it off before it ended because I just couldn't take any more.

Kaufmann's recording, on the other hand, was another story. I found it both intense _and _musical.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BaronScarpia said:


> The way Jonas Kaufmann produces his sound is technically... how does one put it? Not *wrong* _per se_ but not exactly correct! I agree with what Bellinilover says about not recommending Caruso as a model (as least a technical model) for young singers; I think the same could be said for Kaufmann. But whereas Caruso's voice was naturally dark and baritonal, it seems that Kaufmann, among others, has a 'voce ingolata', characterised by an artificial darkness and 'throaty sound', and caused by the tongue pressing down on the hyoid bone. I think Kaufmann is more of a lyric tenor who manufactures a more spinto-sounding timbre.
> 
> Just listen to this clip from 1993, before Kaufmann acquired his 'voce ingolata':
> 
> ...


I've heard people express the idea that his sound is "artificially" darkened. I think he might be the best person to opine on that question. He says that he used to try to keep his voice "light" and that it tired him, and claims to have found now the way of singing that's natural for him, that feels right and enables him to sing well and not tire. Why would anyone want to argue with him? He's a very intelligent man and I trust him to know what works.

There is no set configuration of the vocal mechanism which is right for everyone. Bodies differ. The proof is in the pudding, not in the cookbook. I happen to like his baritonal quality and don't care how it's achieved. I've heard several examples of his earlier, lighter sound, and I feel he was not quite "finished" and was riding on his youthful resilience. At his current age he needs a technique that works well in order to keep going, and I've heard none of the usual signs of vocal distress that commonly afflict middle-aged tenors (most of them nowadays, it seems).

If his technique is right for him, it's right.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Bellinilover said:


> *Woodduck:* What I'm talking about with Caruso is the great emotional intensity coupled with the very "close" recording acoustic and, in some of the bel canto excerpts (like the Act II duet from L'ELISIR D'AMORE he made with Giuseppe de Luca) a lack of grace, as though he was trying to bring verismo style to the music. With Pertile it's _sort of _the same thing but _much_ more so. After reading the chapter in John Steane's THE GRAND TRADITION where Steane is very critical of him, accusing him of imposing emotion and destroying the legato line, I tried listening to him in Otello's Monologue...and all I can say is, I agree with Steane. Basically, Pertile sounds to me as though he's trying to "act out" the piece rather than sing it, and the basic tone sounds unstable. And yet others rave over that same recording, so evidently they're hearing completely different in it. Me, I had to turn it off before it ended because I just couldn't take any more.
> 
> Kaufmann's recording, on the other hand, was another story. I found it both intense _and _musical.


I know what you mean about Pertile. Verismo was in full flower, and he's a good representative of the kind of over-the-top intensity singers were cultivating. When the music is suitable, I can enjoy him. Caruso, of course, bridged verismo and the end of the previous era, and shows the transition. His technique was polished - clean runs, ease with quick notes, a superb legato, even a fine trill - and over the course of his career he sang well every style he attempted, from Donizetti to Puccini. His own intensity is not manic, as Pertile's can be; it's just Enrico's huge, uninhibited heart bursting from his chest. Ya gotta love the paesan, eh?


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Caruso is an interesting case. Inimitable? I wish he had been, because the course of tenor history would be very different without all the Caruso imitators. He did have an unusual method which emphasised the heaviness and baritonality of his voice, and imitation of this 'heavy' sound has changed what we expect from tenors. I'm personally a fan of the high, bright tenor sound- say what you like about Bonci, but it's not the brightness or tenor-ness of his voice that upsets me. I would probably offer Francisco Viñas as the best example of a high, bright, Italianate pre verismo tenor voice which is both of a quality to be considered ideal and yet seems to lack any 'freakish' quality in its production which might render it unsuitable for imitation. Regarding the baritonality of Caruso, there is a dividing line between a baritonal sounding tenor and a tenor who should have become a baritone (the latter category being predictably full of ex-baritones) and I suspect that I would draw this line at a different point from those who enjoy a baritonal sound, as of course they have every right to do. The 'baritonal tenor versus pushed up baritone' dividing line does seem to have shifted post-Caruso, as you can hear quite clearly if you compare the first Werther Ernest van Dijck's 'Pourquoi me reveiller' with Kaufmann's. Van Dijck was baritonal by the standards of his time, and was sometimes imputed to be not a proper tenor, but his voice (which, as recorded, is generally considered ungrateful) does have the brightness I look for in a heroic tenor. Kaufmann, in the extract posted by Woodduck, performs pretty well if one can get past the voice: charismatic and powerful acting, although I don't really like such a dark voice in this music. Perhaps it doesn't do to be too prescriptive, though: I have Georges Thill's complete Werther, but never listen to it because I find his singing a bit boring. He doesn't do anything particularly bad or wrong that I remember (although he sounds better in more purely lyric roles) but there's a slight lack of personality there which means that I only seek out his recordings when they cover repertoire which was not recorded by more charismatic (and generally earlier) singers. The Werther of my dreams would be Emile Scaramberg, who had all the dramatic intensity one could wish for, combined with a proper high tenor voice of greater power and beauty than Thill's. He only recorded two extracts from the opera, 'Pourquoi me reveiller' and 'J'aurais sur ma poitrine', but to me they represent an ideal of how this music should sound.

Pertile: I disliked him so much on first acquaintance that I hadn't listened to him since, so when Bellinilover brought up his name I had to consult YouTube. I listened to 3/4 of his 'A te, o cara' (the first result that came up, though presumably not his core repertoire) and I can forgive his unattractive timbre and lack of legato, but the intrusive aspirates place him way beyond the pale as far as I'm concerned. No doubt Woodduck is right that he's better in more suitable music, but I can't see myself diving further into his recorded legacy when there are so many greater singers whose records I still haven't heard all of.

Caruso's records impressed me very much when I first discovered them, one by one, on 78rpm discs, but listening to the Pearl complete CD edition, I experienced the same wearying effect that Bellinilover speaks of. I attributed this not to a fatiguing surfeit of greatness (pace Woodduck) but the fact that all his performances sound pretty much the same. Specifically, the problem is an overblown, generalised emoting which doesn't express real emotions or differentiate much between emotions, and he frequently sounds strenuous. I don't think I would be judging him quite so harshly if he wasn't The Great Caruso, though: perhaps there is something in the hyperbole that brings out a certain iconoclasm in some listeners, as all hype certainly should. I definitely wouldn't regard him as a god- there is only one true tenor God, and his name is Tamagno- and no possessor of such an unusual voice as either of those should be directly imitated.

Emile Scaramberg, 'J'aurais sur ma poitrine', in a transfer that doesn't flatter his voice. He sounds pretty good on Marston and Symposium.





Ernest van Dijck, 'Pourquoi me reveiller':





Georges Thill, 'Pourquoi me reveiller':


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Figleaf said:


> Caruso is an interesting case. Inimitable? I wish he had been, because the course of tenor history would be very different without all the Caruso imitators. He did have an unusual method which emphasised the heaviness and baritonality of his voice, and imitation of this 'heavy' sound has changed what we expect from tenors. I'm personally a fan of the high, bright tenor sound- say what you like about Bonci, but it's not the brightness or tenor-ness of his voice that upsets me. I would probably offer Francisco Viñas as the best example of a high, bright, Italianate pre verismo tenor voice which is both of a quality to be considered ideal and yet seems to lack any 'freakish' quality in its production which might render it unsuitable for imitation. Regarding the baritonality of Caruso, there is a dividing line between a baritonal sounding tenor and a tenor who should have become a baritone (the latter category being predictably full of ex-baritones) and I suspect that I would draw this line at a different point from those who enjoy a baritonal sound, as of course they have every right to do. The 'baritonal tenor versus pushed up baritone' dividing line does seem to have shifted post-Caruso, as you can hear quite clearly if you compare the first Werther Ernest van Dijck's 'Pourquoi me reveiller' with Kaufmann's. Van Dijck was baritonal by the standards of his time, and was sometimes imputed to be not a proper tenor, but his voice (which, as recorded, is generally considered ungrateful) does have the brightness I look for in a heroic tenor. Kaufmann, in the extract posted by Woodduck, performs pretty well if one can get past the voice: charismatic and powerful acting, although I don't really like such a dark voice in this music. Perhaps it doesn't do to be too prescriptive, though: I have Georges Thill's complete Werther, but never listen to it because I find his singing a bit boring. He doesn't do anything particularly bad or wrong that I remember (although he sounds better in more purely lyric roles) but there's a slight lack of personality there which means that I only seek out his recordings when they cover repertoire which was not recorded by more charismatic (and generally earlier) singers. The Werther of my dreams would be Emile Scaramberg, who had all the dramatic intensity one could wish for, combined with a proper high tenor voice of greater power and beauty than Thill's. He only recorded two extracts from the opera, 'Pourquoi me reveiller' and 'J'aurais sur ma poitrine', but to me they represent an ideal of how this music should sound.
> 
> Pertile: I disliked him so much on first acquaintance that I hadn't listened to him since, so when Bellinilover brought up his name I had to consult YouTube. I listened to 3/4 of his 'A te, o cara' (the first result that came up, though presumably not his core repertoire) and I can forgive his unattractive timbre and lack of legato, but the intrusive aspirates place him way beyond the pale as far as I'm concerned. No doubt Woodduck is right that he's better in more suitable music, but I can't see myself diving further into his recorded legacy when there are so many greater singers whose records I still haven't heard all of.
> 
> ...


Scaremberg was a superb singer and a fine stylist, but I don't think the recording quality of that excerpt does his sound any favors.
This shows it better:






Personally, I prefer a darker voice for Werther. The character can come across as an adolescent whiner, but Kauffmann rescues him for me. I've always found Thill vocally impressive but, as you say, lacking in personality. Van Dijck sounds a bit strained, even in his early forties. Too much Wagner too soon?

We do not agree on Caruso. For me the man never uttered a note than didn't throb with life. I do prefer some of his earlier recordings, in which he reveals best his bel canto side, but to be able to hear that astonishing timbre, which seemed to blend depth, warmth and brilliance as no other tenor voice, in his late recordings remains an incomparable experience. Frankly, a full recital of any singer, except someone with the artistic variety of a Callas, is wearing for me. But Caruso's expression is no more generalized than that of most singers, and more heartfelt and personal than most, never sparing himself to the slightest degree. I guess one either responds to that diapason of a voice, and that generous temperament, or not. I confess that if I haven't heard him for a while, and put on a simple song like this:






I can feel the tears come almost instantly. This is something beyond singing. Perhaps Bjorling, different in personality but simply beautiful of voice, is the only other tenor who can do that to me.

If we're nominating tenor Gods, I can't see where we have enough of Tamagno for a fair comparison on all points, though I grant you he was a vocal phenomenon - though, I have to say, quite tiring to me in his constant brilliant trumpeting. A few selections are enough, as there's just too little depth or warmth to the voice as recorded. I want a more loving God!

Tastes aside, let's agree that we've heard nothing like Scaremberg, Thill, Caruso, or Tamagno for a long, long time.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Scaremberg was a superb singer and a fine stylist, but I don't think the recording quality of that excerpt does his sound any favors.
> This shows it better:
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you for the Scaramberg link: it's the best sounding transfer of one of his records I've heard, and makes the commercial CD transfers sound pallid in comparison. It's hard to believe that both that and the one I posted (which I know made him sound comically bleaty and lilliputian, but I stubbornly wanted to share his Werther) were both taken from Fonotipia originals- such are the vagaries of 78 rpm reproduction. I'm glad you like him, as he seems to divide people, though I don't know why. He always sounds like Werther to me, always the passionate young lover- even in the Reine de Saba aria, which Edward Lloyd sings like it's a Handel oratorio.

I like Caruso's earliest recordings too, when the voice was at its most beautiful and his style at its most chaste, though I confess I haven't listened the later ones for years. (Not counting when his 'Over There' came on the radio the other day and I completely failed to identify the mystery baritone until he started to sing the verse in Italian!) I've always found his singing impressive rather than moving. His Musica Proibita is very good, but he can't compete with de Lucia's artistry any more than de Lucia can compete with Caruso's voice. Here is de Lucia at a slightly higher speed than on the Opal CD that I have:






The way FDL sings the words in that song is magnificent. Like Tamagno, he makes me feel like I understand Italian, even though I don't. His phrasing, the light and shade of his performance compared to Caruso's or probably anyone's, is truly miraculous. Yes, I'm aware of the irony of criticizing Caruso's baritonal quality while admiring de Lucia- 'if Caruso is a baritone, then de Lucia is a basso profundo' or however the witticism went! I also really like Fiorello Giraud, whose dark, baritonal voice was like a sexier version of de Lucia's.

Obviously Tamagno's recorded legacy can't compete with Caruso's in size or diversity, for the obvious reason that the records were made in semi retirement at the very end of his short life and because the contract only specified a small number of records, which explains the focus on signature roles as well as a couple of selections of personal significance. It would be good to have recordings of his Alfredo, Fernando, and Duke of Mantua, none of which are easy to imagine from his actual records, which are taken from the exclusively heroic tenor repertoire. I find him almost unbearably moving in music of an emotional character, like 'Niun mi tema' and 'O muto asil'. It never occurred to me that he isn't a sufficiently loving God (I love your turn of phrase!) In fact, as an admirer of metallic voiced, warlike heroic tenors, my ideal deity is more of a bronze Zeus poised to hurl a thunderbolt. 

We can certainly agree that there is nobody left like any of these tenors! :tiphat:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Figleaf said:


> Thank you for the Scaramberg link: it's the best sounding transfer of one of his records I've heard, and makes the commercial CD transfers sound pallid in comparison. It's hard to believe that both that and the one I posted (which I know made him sound comically bleaty and lilliputian, but I stubbornly wanted to share his Werther) were both taken from Fonotipia originals- such are the vagaries of 78 rpm reproduction. I'm glad you like him, as he seems to divide people, though I don't know why. He always sounds like Werther to me, always the passionate young lover- even in the Reine de Saba aria, which Edward Lloyd sings like it's a Handel oratorio.
> 
> I like Caruso's earliest recordings too, when the voice was at its most beautiful and his style at its most chaste, though I confess I haven't listened the later ones for years. (Not counting when his 'Over There' came on the radio the other day and I completely failed to identify the mystery baritone until he started to sing the verse in Italian!) I've always found his singing impressive rather than moving. His Musica Proibita is very good, but he can't compete with de Lucia's artistry any more than de Lucia can compete with Caruso's voice. Here is de Lucia at a slightly higher speed than on the Opal CD that I have:
> 
> ...


Well, your fondness for De Lucia's version of "Musica proibita" baffles me a it. It's heartfelt but rhythmically rigid and vocally monochrome, and the phrases seem detached from one another as if he's always taking breaths, while Caruso rolls the phrases out smoothly, bends the rhythm constantly (something he was a master of), and shades his voice accordingly. You also tolerate more "bleating" vibrato than I do. I have to say that De Lucia's sound is not one I've ever been fond of, but I realize that it would have been more impressive live than on these old recordings. Caruso's voice, it's often been noted, was quite "phonogenic"; deeper, richer timbres recorded with less loss of quality than higher, brighter ones, and Caruso's vibrato (which I love) had no "bleat" to be exaggerated by the recording process.

Actually I didn't know Scaremberg before this, and was prompted to look for recordings which sounded more natural than that Werther one. Thanks for bringing him to my attention.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Well, your fondness for De Lucia's version of "Musica proibita" baffles me a it. It's heartfelt but rhythmically rigid and vocally monochrome, and the phrases seem detached from one another as if he's always taking breaths, while Caruso rolls the phrases out smoothly, bends the rhythm constantly (something he was a master of), and shades his voice accordingly. You also tolerate more "bleating" vibrato than I do. I have to say that De Lucia's sound is not one I've ever been fond of, but I realize that it would have been more impressive live than on these old recordings. Caruso's voice, it's often been noted, was quite "phonogenic"; deeper, richer timbres recorded with less loss of quality than higher, brighter ones, and Caruso's vibrato (which I love) had no "bleat" to be exaggerated by the recording process.
> 
> Actually I didn't know Scaremberg before this, and was prompted to look for recordings which sounded more natural than that Werther one. Thanks for bringing him to my attention.


That's funny, because Caruso's phrasing sounds flabby to me in comparison with the older singer. De Lucia certainly sings very short phrases in that recording- maybe he had no choice- but he shapes them so magnificently that I don't mind. That emphasis on elegant phrasing that the 19thC Italian singers had certainly came in handy for some singers in later years when it came to compensating for and concealing a shortness of breath: Francesco Marconi's recordings are an excellent example of this. Back to Musica Proibita: de Lucia achieves variation and expression by varying the dynamics and using rubato, such as in the line 'Vorrei baciare i tuoi capilli neri'-apologies if I've butchered the Italian spelling. We don't hear in this record the mezza voce which he often used to express tenderness, and which was probably the most vocally attractive aspect of his singing, but there's much else to enjoy, like the decoration he sings at the very end of the song, a bit which Caruso sings too loudly for my taste. Both use dynamic variation well: unfortunately there are modern recordings by tenors (OK, Bocelli) who simply bawl the whole song with no nuance or expression. I do think that Caruso's diction is a lot less good than it could be: while an Italian speaker could probably understand him, I wouldn't have a clue what the words of the song were (not saying I understand them perfectly now!) if it wasn't for de Lucia. De Lucia revolutionised the way I think about singing and pretty much annihilated the admiration I had for Caruso, who sounds so much more convincing when compared with his successors than with his predecessors, who show us that a completely different approach is possible.

On 'bleating' voices: you are probably right that I have quite a high tolerance for this. It's not a quality I actively seek out, but I can listen past it when the trade off is sufficiently rewarding, as with de Lucia. The bleating is less evident at the slower speeds favoured by Michael Henstock, although the tide of opinion seems to be turning against him on this. De Lucia isn't a singer anyone listens to for vocal beauty alone, although he offers glimpses of purely vocal beauty, generally when not singing in full voice.

I've noticed that I prefer a more controlled and even perhaps severe style of phrasing than that of Caruso or certainly of his successors, and that is perhaps why I enjoy certain early French singers whose reputations are not as high as they should be, since their style is so foreign to verismo-accustomed ears. Scaramberg is fortunately not one of those whose reputations has suffered too much. Partly this is because his records, like those of Leon Escalaïs, are in remarkably good sound (thank God those two excellent tenors were signed by Fonotipia and not Pathé!) and are rare in their original form, a fact which is perversely and snobbishly valued by the record collecting fraternity. The last factor that contributes to what popularity he has today is the relatively high emotional temperature of his performances, which make him a good French singer for people who don't normally like French singers. I would recommend Marston's Early French Tenors double CD which has all his extant recordings apart from an unissued 'Plus blanche' which Symposium have released. I'm surprised you hadn't listened to him before- I really thought you literally knew everything about singing :tiphat:- but this old stuff is so niche that it's probably not that surprising really. Anyway, you are in for a treat, because all his records are beautiful!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Figleaf said:


> That's funny, because Caruso's phrasing sounds flabby to me in comparison with the older singer. De Lucia certainly sings very short phrases in that recording- maybe he had no choice- but he shapes them so magnificently that I don't mind. That emphasis on elegant phrasing that the 19thC Italian singers had certainly came in handy for some singers in later years when it came to compensating for and concealing a shortness of breath: Francesco Marconi's recordings are an excellent example of this. Back to Musica Proibita: de Lucia achieves variation and expression by varying the dynamics and using rubato, such as in the line 'Vorrei baciare i tuoi capilli neri'-apologies if I've butchered the Italian spelling. We don't hear in this record the mezza voce which he often used to express tenderness, and which was probably the most vocally attractive aspect of his singing, but there's much else to enjoy, like the decoration he sings at the very end of the song, a bit which Caruso sings too loudly for my taste. Both use dynamic variation well: unfortunately there are modern recordings by tenors (OK, Bocelli) who simply bawl the whole song with no nuance or expression. I do think that Caruso's diction is a lot less good than it could be: while an Italian speaker could probably understand him, I wouldn't have a clue what the words of the song were (not saying I understand them perfectly now!) if it wasn't for de Lucia. De Lucia revolutionised the way I think about singing and pretty much annihilated the admiration I had for Caruso, who sounds so much more convincing when compared with his successors than with his predecessors, who show us that a completely different approach is possible.
> 
> On 'bleating' voices: you are probably right that I have quite a high tolerance for this. It's not a quality I actively seek out, but I can listen past it when the trade off is sufficiently rewarding, as with de Lucia. The bleating is less evident at the slower speeds favoured by Michael Henstock, although the tide of opinion seems to be turning against him on this. De Lucia isn't a singer anyone listens to for vocal beauty alone, although he offers glimpses of purely vocal beauty, generally when not singing in full voice.
> 
> I've noticed that I prefer a more controlled and even perhaps severe style of phrasing than that of Caruso or certainly of his successors, and that is perhaps why I enjoy certain early French singers whose reputations are not as high as they should be, since their style is so foreign to verismo-accustomed ears. Scaramberg is fortunately not one of those whose reputations has suffered too much. Partly this is because his records, like those of Leon Escalaïs, are in remarkably good sound (thank God those two excellent tenors were signed by Fonotipia and not Pathé!) and are rare in their original form, a fact which is perversely and snobbishly valued by the record collecting fraternity. The last factor that contributes to what popularity he has today is the relatively high emotional temperature of his performances, which make him a good French singer for people who don't normally like French singers. I would recommend Marston's Early French Tenors double CD which has all his extant recordings apart from an unissued 'Plus blanche' which Symposium have released. I'm surprised you hadn't listened to him before- I really thought you literally knew everything about singing :tiphat:- but this old stuff is so niche that it's probably not that surprising really. Anyway, you are in for a treat, because all his records are beautiful!


I do know a lot about singing but have never been a huge collector of singers, so I depend on wild-eyed vocal fanatics like you to fill in the gaps for me. I'm always delighted to discover "new" fine singers of the past. Now if someone would please direct me to comparable singers of the present! I really don't like being an old fogey; the old part I can do nothing about, but the fogey part I'd happily shed. I can't express how ecstatic I was when the Met, last season, broadcast _Cosi fan tutte_ and Matthew Polenzani gave a finely-shaded performance of "Un aura amorosa" that I actually enjoyed. I have a recital disc of his that's full of truly beautiful singing (though I should add that his "Una furtive lagrima" on YouTube disappoints me). Of course Polenzani is a light lyric tenor, barely equal to Alfredo in _Traviata_. Which takes us to the subject of big voices - but let's not go there...


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> I do know a lot about singing but have never been a huge collector of singers, so I depend on wild-eyed vocal fanatics like you to fill in the gaps for me. I'm always delighted to discover "new" fine singers of the past. Now if someone would please direct me to comparable singers of the present! I really don't like being an old fogey; the old part I can do nothing about, but the fogey part I'd happily shed. I can't express how ecstatic I was when the Met, last season, broadcast _Cosi fan tutte_ and Matthew Polenzani gave a finely-shaded performance of "Un aura amorosa" that I actually enjoyed. I have a recital disc of his that's full of truly beautiful singing (though I should add that his "Una furtive lagrima" on YouTube disappoints me). Of course Polenzani is a light lyric tenor, barely equal to Alfredo in _Traviata_. Which takes us to the subject of big voices - but let's not go there...


I'm the opposite of you in this respect: I actively cultivate and cherish my fogey status, although being an old fogey is less fun than being a young one was. Cheers for the 'wild eyed vocal fanatic' bit!  It's a compliment I will treasure! I will have to check out this Matthew Polenzani: I'm sure he is safe from the subject matter of 'overrated singers' as I'd never heard his name before.

What happened to this thread? It's turning into a mutual backslapping session. I will have to go away and muster some more negativity


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Figleaf said:


> I'm the opposite of you in this respect: I actively cultivate and cherish my fogey status, although being an old fogey is less fun than being a young one was. Cheers for the 'wild eyed vocal fanatic' bit!  It's a compliment I will treasure! I will have to check out this Matthew Polenzani: I'm sure he is safe from the subject matter of 'overrated singers' as I'd never heard his name before.
> 
> What happened to this thread? It's turning into a mutual backslapping session. I will have to go away and muster some more negativity


So true. There's so much mutual backslapping on TC that the analgesics industry must be having its best year ever. We shouldn't be encouraging it.

I think a little more butt-kicking or knife-twisting might be fun. But no disemboweling, please.


----------



## BaronScarpia (Apr 2, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> I've heard people express the idea that his sound is "artificially" darkened. I think he might be the best person to opine on that question. He says that he used to try to keep his voice "light" and that it tired him, and claims to have found now the way of singing that's natural for him, that feels right and enables him to sing well and not tire. Why would anyone want to argue with him? He's a very intelligent man and I trust him to know what works.
> 
> There is no set configuration of the vocal mechanism which is right for everyone. Bodies differ. The proof is in the pudding, not in the cookbook. I happen to like his baritonal quality and don't care how it's achieved. I've heard several examples of his earlier, lighter sound, and I feel he was not quite "finished" and was riding on his youthful resilience. At his current age he needs a technique that works well in order to keep going, and I've heard none of the usual signs of vocal distress that commonly afflict middle-aged tenors (most of them nowadays, it seems).
> 
> If his technique is right for him, it's right.


The only problem (well, for me at least) is that it's *very* easy to darken/lighten one's voice artificially; one can do it without realising. As for there not being a set vocal technique, I would disagree. Some aspects of singing technique (e.g. breathing and support, coloratura) can be approached in different ways, but there are some things you just _don't_ do! And pressing your tongue down on your hyoid bone seems to be one of them! I may be wrong to say that, but my research suggests that this is considered bad technique. But if a singer can sing 'sustainably', as Kaufmann can, then perhaps it doesn't matter if his or her technique is unorthodox.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

BaronScarpia said:


> The only problem (well, for me at least) is that it's *very* easy to darken/lighten one's voice artificially; one can do it without realising. As for there not being a set vocal technique, I would disagree. Some aspects of singing technique (e.g. breathing and support, coloratura) can be approached in different ways, but there are some things you just _don't_ do! And pressing your tongue down on your hyoid bone seems to be one of them! I may be wrong to say that, but my research suggests that this is considered bad technique. But if a singer can sing 'sustainably', as Kaufmann can, then perhaps it doesn't matter if his or her technique is unorthodox.


I wonder what you mean by 'artificially' darkening or lightening the voice- intentionally changing the natural timbre of the voice for effect? I think it's fine to colour the voice differently for a variety of expressive effects, but putting on a 'funny voice' all the time as Kaufmann sounds to me like he's doing is very off putting. Woodduck is right about the proof of the pudding: Kaufmann should be judged on the attractiveness of the sound he produces (this seems to be the controversial part) and also on longevity. He hasn't yet achieved the latter, as a 45 year old tenor is not yet too old to decline prematurely. If he makes it into his 50s with his voice in unimpaired condition, as he may well do, than his technique will have been shown to be not actually damaging.

I don't know how much a faulty technique is to blame for the early vocal deterioration of some singers, as it is often claimed to be. Usually the evidence for the aforementioned faultiness is the early decline itself, which sounds like a suspiciously circular argument to me- not one I've noticed on here, but you see it in books from time to time. Surely there are many other factors that lead to vocal deterioration: overwork, too heavy roles, general health etc. What do people on here think?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BaronScarpia said:


> The only problem (well, for me at least) is that it's *very* easy to darken/lighten one's voice artificially; one can do it without realising. As for there not being a set vocal technique, I would disagree. Some aspects of singing technique (e.g. breathing and support, coloratura) can be approached in different ways, but* there are some things you just *[I*]don't[/I] do! And pressing your tongue down on your hyoid bone seems to be one of them!* I may be wrong to say that, but my research suggests that this is considered bad technique. But* if a singer can sing 'sustainably', as Kaufmann can, then perhaps it** doesn't matter if his or her technique is unorthodox.*




Isn't it really a little hard to judge from out here just how intimate a relationship Kaufmann's tongue and hyoid bone are having? I try not to look to closely into the relationships of others. 

As for your last statement, that was exactly my point. Thanks for agreeing with it.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Figleaf said:


> I wonder what you mean by 'artificially' darkening or lightening the voice- intentionally changing the natural timbre of the voice for effect? I think it's fine to colour the voice differently for a variety of expressive effects, but putting on a 'funny voice' all the time as Kaufmann sounds to me like he's doing is very off putting. Woodduck is right about the proof of the pudding: Kaufmann should be judged on the attractiveness of the sound he produces (this seems to be the controversial part) and also on longevity. He hasn't yet achieved the latter, as a 45 year old tenor is not yet too old to decline prematurely. If he makes it into his 50s with his voice in unimpaired condition, as he may well do, than his technique will have been shown to be not actually damaging.
> 
> I don't know how much a faulty technique is to blame for the early vocal deterioration of some singers, as it is often claimed to be. Usually the evidence for the aforementioned faultiness is the early decline itself, which sounds like a suspiciously circular argument to me- not one I've noticed on here, but you see it in books from time to time.* Surely there are many other factors that lead to vocal deterioration: overwork, too heavy roles, general health etc. *What do people on here think?


I think this is completely valid. Probably it's often a combination of factors and we shoudn't be too quick to diagnose. Look at all the diagnoses of Callas's decline that are still being tossed around. I suspect in her case it was some combination of factors, though my predominant feeling is that her driven nature and her unique sense of the outer limits of musical and dramatic expression simply led her to ask more of her voice than it could bear. Listen to some of her live performances; you have to wonder how such intensity is even possible, and how a vocal mechanism can ever maintain proper coordination under the pressure of it. I'd say much the same about Beverly Sills, whose light voice was forced to do more than nature ever intended it to. She was well aware of this of course, and wittily said that she was born with the mind of Birgit Nilsson and the voice of Beverly Sills. Sensibly, she retired early and found other things to do.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> I think this is completely valid. Probably it's often a combination of factors and we shoudn't be too quick to diagnose. Look at all the diagnoses of Callas's decline that are still being tossed around. I suspect in her case it was some combination of factors, though my predominant feeling is that her driven nature and her unique sense of the outer limits of musical and dramatic expression simply led her to ask more of her voice than it could bear. Listen to some of her live performances; you have to wonder how such intensity is even possible, and how a vocal mechanism can ever maintain proper coordination under the pressure of it. I'd say much the same about Beverly Sills, whose light voice was forced to do more than nature ever intended it to. She was well aware of this of course, and wittily said that she was born with the mind of Birgit Nilsson and the voice of Beverly Sills. Sensibly, she retired early and found other things to do.


I'm quite sure you know this, but for the benefit of those who may not: _La Callas_ not only would give 110% in her live performances, but in every one of her operatic _rehearsals_ as well.

She's the ultimate.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

While I currently stand by my opinion that Puccini is overrated, I may very well change my mind in the near future. he is growing on me (because sometimes, it's nice to just hear a simple, beautifully sung lyrical line as opposed to only ornate runs, trills and chords)


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> While I currently stand by my opinion that Puccini is overrated, I may very well change my mind in the near future. he is growing on me (because* sometimes, it's nice to just hear a simple, beautifully sung lyrical line as opposed to only ornate runs, trills and chords)*




Gluck certainly thought so.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Puccini is a terrific opera composer to introduce the great unwashed to opera. Melodic; approachable; easy to follow "action".

Once hooked on that, strap the dude into a chair; put tape over his mouth and lay the stylus on side one of Die Meistersinger.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I find Das Rheingold overrated. After the wonderful prelude, it's downhill for me.

I find La Traviata overrated. It always bores me.

Same with Turandot.

Meistersinger is too long. What goes on there could be condensed to 2 1/2 hours. Siegfried too!

Parsifal? Don't get me started on that one.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

All French and Russian operas.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Since it's looking by now as if _everything_ is overrated, I think we might reasonably come to the conclusion that everything is_ underrated._ Which means there are wonderful discoveries and revelations ahead for all of us.

But meanwhile, what could be more thigh-slappingly fun than flaunting our ignorance, narrowness, intolerance, and insensitivity?

Although, of course, we're just pretending...


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Since it's looking by now as if _everything_ is overrated, I think we might reasonably come to the conclusion that everything is_ underrated._ Which means there are wonderful discoveries and revelations ahead for all of us.
> 
> But meanwhile, what could be more thigh-slappingly fun than flaunting our ignorance, narrowness, intolerance, and insensitivity?
> 
> Although, of course, we're just pretending...


People that never have their act together will never finish their play.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

hpowders said:


> I find Das Rheingold overrated. After the wonderful prelude, it's downhill for me.
> I find La Traviata overrated. It always bores me.
> Same with Turandot.
> Meistersinger is too long. What goes on there could be condensed to 2 1/2 hours. Siegfried too!
> Parsifal? Don't get me started on that one.


my problem with Wagner's works is not the works themselves, it's more that people use them as an excuse to sing with nails on a chalkboard technique, zero elegance, zero sensuality and a tremolo so wide you could drive a truck through it. when performed by the greats (Hotter, Melchior, Lieder, and, of course, Flagstad), I could listen to it for hours. but today's Wagner singers....for every 20 minutes I listen I need an hour of Joan Sutherland vocal therapy.


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

In terms of operas, off the back, I would say Bizet's "Carmen." A wonderful opera in many respects, but my goodness how overplayed it is. What's wrong with Massenet's operas, like say, Esclarmonde, or Herodiade or Lalo's L'Roi d'Ys or Dukas' Ariane et Barbe-bleue?


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

Itullian said:


> All French and Russian operas.


Overrated? 
No way, can't be.

Underrated?
Most definitely!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

dholling said:


> Overrated?
> No way, can't be.
> 
> Underrated?
> Most definitely!


Yes! Yes! COMPLETELY UNDERRATED!!!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

dholling said:


> In terms of operas, off the back, I would say Bizet's "Carmen." A wonderful opera in many respects, but my goodness how overplayed it is. What's wrong with Massenet's operas, like say, Esclarmonde, or Herodiade or Lalo's L'Roi d'Ys or Dukas' Ariane et Barbe-bleue?


If I hear one more performance of Carmen in my lifetime, I will absolutely* SCREAM!!!!*


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

hpowders said:


> If I hear one more performance of Carmen in my lifetime, I will absolutely* SCREAM!!!!*


I hear you......


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

dholling said:


> In terms of operas, off the back, I would say Bizet's "Carmen." A wonderful opera in many respects, but my goodness how overplayed it is. What's wrong with Massenet's operas, like say, Esclarmonde, or Herodiade or Lalo's L'Roi d'Ys or Dukas' Ariane et Barbe-bleue?


How can two operas about Spanish Gypsies Carmen and Il Trovatore be among the most popular operas?


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

As much as I dig Puccini, the fact that Utah Opera does Tosca almost every year makes me want to switch it up. Gimme some Lady MacBeth of Mtensk instead!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

One more performance of Carmen and it's adiós muchachos! I'm going Pearl Fishing!


----------



## Speranza (Nov 22, 2014)

Rigoletto, I have watched it a few times and enjoy it until the final act which just doesn't move me at all, I don't know why. I think La Boheme is over done it is a nice opera but it doesn't have to be on all the time.


----------



## Solitudine (Aug 6, 2021)

*Some elder female singers*
- Elisabeth Schwarzkopf（technique flaws）
- Ernestine Schumann-Heink（technique flaws）
- Lily Pons（technique flaws）
- Kathleen Ferrier（technique flaws）
- Nellie Melba（vocal machine）


----------



## amadeus1928 (Jun 16, 2021)

Hot take: I don't like Richard Strauss.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Solitudine said:


> *Some elder female singers*
> - Elisabeth Schwarzkopf（technique flaws）


agreed



> - Ernestine Schumann-Heink（technique flaws）


....huh? 



> - Lily Pons（technique flaws


yes



> - Kathleen Ferrier（technique flaws）


maybe



> - Nellie Melba（vocal machine）


yes


----------



## Solitudine (Aug 6, 2021)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> ....huh?


yes. I'm quite sure of my opinion.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Solitudine said:


> yes. I'm quite sure of my opinion.


I would expect as much. It's just a puzzling opinion, as I can't see any major flaws in her technique, so I am confused as to your rationale thereof.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

If you want to hear a spirited discussion on over-rated singers, just take a gander next door at Opera-L. The place is steaming!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

nina foresti said:


> If you want to hear a spirited discussion on over-rated singers, just take a gander next door at Opera-L. The place is steaming!


That might be fun, but we can save some time simply by realizing that almost everyone singing in the last fifty years is overrated.


----------



## Solitudine (Aug 6, 2021)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> I would expect as much. It's just a puzzling opinion, as I can't see any major flaws in her technique, so I am confused as to your rationale thereof.


The term "major defect" may be too exaggerated... I feel most uncomfortable about Schumann-Heink's early recordings was that her intonation in the passaggio (between the middle and chest register) was often erratic. At the same time, the timbre of this register often sounds strange and seems to float too much breath. I know her recording very well, otherwise I wouldn't come to this conclusion easily.
The female singers in the 19th century did not pay much attention to the smooth connection between the register, They often sent out "Yodel" when they sang in the passaggio. On this basis, some female singers also had the phenomenon that the timbre of each register was not uniform ( such as Eugenia mantelli, but her voice was stable in the whole range), and Schumann-Heink was no exception. I don't hate these characteristics. However, Schumann-heink's passaggio had some factors that destroy the beauty of music melody. To be frank, I can't stand a beautiful melody being played with inaccurate notes for no reason. I have some doubts that the unstable state of her passaggio may be related to contains more "u" components in her voice and too many natural voices in her chest register. I feel that her chest register sounds stiff. It lacks a sense of elastic and mellow. It seems to be a bit like the sound made when talking loudly. This is evident in the electric recordings left by her in her later years. but due to the recording technology, I can't draw a positive conclusion for the timbre of her chest register through those earlier recordings. Of the mezzo-soprano and contralto singers I've heard of her contemporaries and later, none sounds very similar to her voice.


----------

