# Why do many opera lovers have an aversion to orchestral music and vice versa?



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

I noticed that when I was working in classical music telemarketing that a lot of opera lovers didn't care for orchestral music (or attending the symphony) for that matter. Vice versa... I've noticed a lot of orchestral listener have an aversion to opera.

Why is that? This from a guy who listens to nearly everything.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I've really never come across the opera (or vocal music) aficionado with no liking for instrumental/orchestral music, but I have come across plenty of lovers of classical instrumental/orchestral music who have no interest in... or an open distaste for opera and vocal music. I remember some time back having a member who dismissed Schubert as a minor composer. Any attempts to draw attention to the magnificent array of his lieder were pointless... as he had no interest in vocal music.


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit (Oct 20, 2014)

Some genres I don't have that much interest in, but opera and symphonic both rank very highly for me.


----------



## Dustin (Mar 30, 2012)

I don't understand either but I've wondered this as well. The voice is just another instrument so that's how I view it when listening to opera. The only thing that makes opera difficult to listen to for me is the recitative. When I'm watching the visual aspect as well, the recitative is perfectly fine with me but I find it a laborious task to wade through the uninteresting parts of operas when I'm only listening to the audio, which is 99% of the time. However, minor quibbles aside, I would never let that keep me away from the astounding music that exists in the huge opera repertoire.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

I find that non vocal music sounds pretty samey to me and has nothing whatsoever to hold my interest. I wish I could appreciate it, but I can't. I seem to be a minority of one on here- fair enough, it's a classical music forum! But if the same question was asked on a specialist opera forum with more of a singer focus, there might be more listeners like me. The opera forum on here seems to be tacked on to the main forum almost as an afterthought, and, with a handful of exceptions, seems to attract mostly composer-focused listeners who couldn't care less who's singing. OK, I exaggerate, but only slightly!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Dislike for operatic singing seems pretty common. I suspect that's based partly on a lack of exposure to really great operatic voices; I dislike mediocre ones myself.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

I think that a lot of listeners initially come to classical music as an escape from the insistent, repetitive chatter of popular music. They want instrumental music: music that is simply music for its own sake; music that permits a personal interpretation. When they encounter opera, they are confronted anew with a telling of something, combined with a very idiosyncratic singing style that is rarely intelligible, often in a foreign language.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Most people have limited tastes. Being open to different types of music is the exception, not the rule. Everyone says, "I like all types of music." but very few people actually mean it.

Music (and art) are very important to me, so when I meet a new friend, I always ask "What kind of music do you like?" They always reply, "All kinds!" Then I ask "What is your favorite country music performer? Or your favorite opera?" Then I get the blank stares as the truth comes out.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

I know a couple people who listen regularly to classical music but will turn it off as soon as there is any singing. I think it is viewed as kind of creepy by most people, not like the "cool" vocals on the pop radio station. Beethoven's Ninth was my first exposure to vocals in classical music. I turned to opera because back then I was bored just listening to instrumental music. Now I listen to both.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Florestan said:


> I know a couple people who listen regularly to classical music but will turn it off as soon as there is any singing. *I think it is viewed as kind of creepy by most people*, not like the "cool" vocals on the pop radio station. Beethoven's Ninth was my first exposure to vocals in classical music. I turned to opera because back then I was bored just listening to instrumental music. Now I listen to both.


Kind of creepy! -------  

:lol::lol::lol::lol:


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

I enjoy opera and pure instrumental music because I think I am a versatile listener, balanced listener without prejudice and open minded.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

There are many people who just don't get instrumental music, classical, pop or otherwise. The words are an essential element for them and music without them seems pointless or bewildering. A milder form of this phenomenon even occurs occasionally among professional singers and musicologists, although they are loathe to acknowledge it.


----------



## Skilmarilion (Apr 6, 2013)

I'm the opposite of the thread title. Opera is musical theatre, and so you have to be interested in all of that to fully appreciate it -- the plot, the costumes, the choreography, etc. I'm not very interested in that because if I wanted that, I'd go and see a play.

Also sometimes the music may still be appreciated but by ignoring its operatic context -- e.g. the profoundly beautiful "largo" aria from Handel's Xerxes. Simply fantastic, as long as you can forget that the aria is about someone's love for a tree. 

Instrumental / Orchestral music is king, because it is entirely self-sufficient. :tiphat:


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Some people's aversion to opera is an aesthetic sensibility so completely_ removed _from my own-- that I wouldn't even begin to know how to answer why some people can't get into it.

For me, opera is the _ultimate _synthesis of visuals, drama, and music.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Skilmarilion said:


> I'm the opposite of the thread title. Opera is musical theatre, and so you have to be interested in all of that to fully appreciate it -- the plot, the costumes, the choreography, etc. I'm not very interested in that because if I wanted that, I'd go and see a play.
> 
> Also sometimes the music may still be appreciated but by ignoring its operatic context -- e.g. the profoundly beautiful "largo" aria from Handel's Xerxes. Simply fantastic, as long as you can forget that the aria is about someone's love for a tree.
> 
> Instrumental / Orchestral music is king, because it is entirely self-sufficient. :tiphat:


I thought in this day and age we had evolved beyond disparaging the sexual preferences of historically based opera characters


----------



## OlivierM (Jul 31, 2014)

On my side, I strongly prefer chamber music, for its intimacy.
It's not that I can't listen to symphonic music, I have quite a few cds, but it's more the type of music that I will listen to every once in a while.
Regarding opera, let's be completely honest : if I want a good story, I'll open a book.

But that's not just that. Most of the time, I read the story of an opera, I can only feel the incredible gap between the text and the chant : for instance, the queen of the night's solo in Mozart's Zauberflöte. You listen to this incredible vocal explosion, it's marvelous. Then you remember the text is about a mother threatening her daughter to disown her if she won't marry a guy: the difference between the emotion suggested by the voice (joyous, excited) and the text's content (threatening, black heart) is so ridiculously overwhelming that it puts everything down for me. 
Now, when I hear that air, I can only think about the idiocy that led to associate such a ridiculous text to such an amazing vocal performance.
It's like, I don't know... Nathalie Dessay, who absolutely outperforms this air, could as well read a shopping list.
Ah ah ah ah ah I neeeeed carrooooots... Ah ah ah ah an' washing poooowder. Ah ah ah ah ah ah ah ah ah ah ah ah ah ah ah ah ah ah.... damn, I for---for-gooooot the toilet papeeeeer.... now... it's time... for me... to get to the cashier....

Now, you see what I mean. Opera is pop from the past centuries, to my eyes. 

Of course, as usual, there are exceptions. I profoundly like Delibes' Lakmé for instance. And choral music. Now that's something.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

In general, I am a fan of vocal and instrumental music. 

But when it comes to classical, so far the vast majority of my listening has been instrumental. Most of the reason for this is because I listen almost exclusively to 20th century and contemporary classical, and I just haven't gotten around to exploring opera of this time period.

I don't have an aversion to opera in general, it's just the music of the time period of most opera does not interest me.

I recently bought a copy of Britten's "War Requiem" and have not had time to give it a full listen, but what I've heard, sounds great. I am sure I will add more opera to my collection as soon as I explore more from the 20th century.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

OlivierM said:


> On my side, I strongly prefer chamber music, for its intimacy.
> It's not that I can't listen to symphonic music, I have quite a few cds, but it's more the type of music that I will listen to every once in a while.
> Regarding opera, let's be completely honest : if I want a good story, I'll open a book.
> 
> ...


You are of course right-- at least in this instance; of which I couldn't agree more.

But then, the play-acting fantasy of this fairy tale is so exuberantly wonderful, I really don't care either.

_Die Zauberflote_ doesn't have to be _Don Carlos_.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

There's no simple answer. There are people who, from the beginning, consider the human voice to be the ultimate musical expression -- and anything other than that hovers perilously close to begin not even music. There are others, who got into musical originally from the instrumental (usually orchestral) side who don't get the intimacy of vocal expression (and to a lesser extent chamber music), or who recoil from the cartoon caricatures of Wagnerian Brunhildes or dumb fat tenors or weirdly artificial bel canto stuff, or who, used to other kinds of singing, hear it as screechy and, because of the language barrier, incomprehensible. Given enough time, most people eventually meet in the middle -- but there are those, like today's Congress, who are incorrigible.


----------



## Giordano (Aug 10, 2014)

I like the music from (some) operas. _Die Zauberflöte_, _Don Giovanni_, and _King Arthur_ are three operas I do not mind listening/sitting through.

There are Chinese dramas (especially the quasi-historical-fantasy-martial-arts-romance-comedy ones), Korean dramas, Japanese dramas, and BBC dramas, to fill my drama needs.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Recently I've watched an interview to Jake Heggie ("an evening with Jake Heggie", is on youtube) who as probably many know he's a very successful opera composer, who at first wasn't a great fan of operas because as he correctly says in the video, very few operas can be appreciated only listening to the work. Opera is not only music but words, scenography, action etc. 
So if someone doesn't go often at the theatre it's not impossible but certainly much more difficult to fully appreciate the genre.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

It is often a personality thing. There are some people who find it very difficult to perform the suspension of disbelief which is needed for opera. These folk may be lovers of serious music but they find it somehow irritating when people sing rather than speak. When people take so long to 'say' things! It is chiefly a personality thing. I know as my wife is like that!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> There are many people who just don't get instrumental music, classical, pop or otherwise. The words are an essential element for them and music without them seems pointless or bewildering. A milder form of this phenomenon even occurs occasionally among professional singers and musicologists, although they are loathe to acknowledge it.


This is spot on, and I can only (and wish to) elaborate upon it.

Just as it is for many who listen to pop music, if it does not have vocals and a text, 'music alone,' makes no sense to such a listener.

Instrumental music (not based on any song where the text is known or remembered) is for those who find 'meaning' from the interactivity of the notes. This is of course at a level of abstraction not everyone is wanting, willing, or able to go. Jazz listeners are very much of the same ilk, the level of abstract quite the same as the listener of classical instrumental music, i.e. interactivity of the notes alone is what imparts meaning to the music.

One quick glance through several entries in the Opera category will demonstrate that some opera listeners can not imagine 'just listening' to an opera, even when they know the story... for them it is the drama, the spectacle, and if I dare say it, though the music is critical, it is not the prime interest, but rather 'all of it together,' or nothing.

One comment in this column was a near complaint that in TC's opera category, too many were talking about the music and not discussing the voices. Opera fans will and do get down to hairsplitting discussions on Fach, whether a singer is a "true mezzo spinto coloratura, etc.

Some, not all, of Opera fans could no more wish to or get anything from listening to a Beethoven string quartet. Some won't even get any pleasure from other classical choral works, because a cantata or oratorio or symphonic piece with vocal soloists and chorus is still not a literal story / drama.

Instrumental classical devotees often find vocal music 'problematic,' some of that in degrees of the singing style, i.e. lieder, choral music, cantata and oratorio use singers with equal training and voices just like the operatic singers (many singers 'do' all the genres), but the stylistic delivery is usually with far less vibrato than in many an opera. Some can not handle any vocal music at all!

It is all music to me, first and foremost, but for some the story and drama are first. Just as some classical instrumental devotees gravitate toward tone poems or other music which has some 'tag' of at least an implication to supply either image or story, the opera fan who can only listen if the story and staging are in front of them are a similar sort, having their particular requirements.

I imagine to those who can not imagine music without the words, or music which does not tell a story, they might think those who listen to the wholly abstract absolute music are "missing a processor chip" -- and I imagine there are some who like the absolute music who think the same about those who want and need the words, or at least a story, with their music.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

EdwardBast said:


> There are many people who just don't get instrumental music, classical, pop or otherwise. The *words* are an essential element for them and music without them seems pointless or bewildering..


I'd imagine there are also people who don't care about the words themselves yet music without human voice is pointless for them. Or are there?

I find it funny that for a lot of people who hear death metal, their first complaint is that they can't "comprehend what the vocalist is saying." How about complaining that it sounds like vomiting?


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Dustin said:


> I don't understand either but I've wondered this as well. The voice is just another instrument so that's how I view it when listening to opera. The only thing that makes opera difficult to listen to for me is the recitative. When I'm watching the visual aspect as well, the recitative is perfectly fine with me but I find it a laborious task to wade through the uninteresting parts of operas when I'm only listening to the audio, which is 99% of the time. However, minor quibbles aside, I would never let that keep me away from the astounding music that exists in the huge opera repertoire.


Maybe you haven't listened to Callas singing recitative


----------



## papsrus (Oct 7, 2014)

Hm.

Before I started attending operas (and subsequently began to enjoy them, to my mild surprise), a friend cautioned me that all operas basically told the same story -- boy meets girl; jealous suitor tries to sabotage budding romance; calamity ensues.

Not terribly complicated stories, for the most part.

Oversimplification, obviously, but for the most part it seems to me the stories and staging of an opera are most often/usually/sometimes simply a vehicle for the _music_, which remains primary. -- I can enjoy listening to an opera with my eyes closed as much as seeing a live performance. ... Well, maybe not quite as exciting, but there's certainly no "wanting" on my part for costumed characters to dance around my living room as I'm listening (although, come to think of it, that would be nice, occasionally).

I find myself more interested in all forms of vocal music, and love the interplay between instruments and voice in all so-called classical forms -- opera, lieder, choral music, etc.

So, no. I don't shun vocal in favor of purely instrumental music and find great enjoyment in both. Happily.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

papsrus said:


> Hm.
> 
> Before I started attending operas (and subsequently began to enjoy them, to my mild surprise), a friend cautioned me that all operas basically told the same story -- boy meets girl; jealous suitor tries to sabotage budding romance; calamity ensues.
> 
> ...


Schoenberg's Moses und Aron breaks that love story in operatic form


----------



## Skilmarilion (Apr 6, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Just as it is for many who listen to pop music, if it does not have vocals and a text, 'music alone,' makes no sense to such a listener.


True.

For me personally, something like Rachmaninov's _Vocalise_ -- a wordless song of circa 6 minutes, "makes more sense" and has "more to say", than any 3-hour opera.

Call me crazy.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> Maybe you haven't listened to Callas singing recitative


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Dim7 said:


> I'd imagine there are also people who don't care about the words themselves yet music without human voice is pointless for them. Or are there?
> 
> I find it funny that for a lot of people who hear death metal, their first complaint is that they can't "comprehend what the vocalist is saying." How about complaining that it sounds like vomiting?


I haven't yet met anyone fitting that description, Dim7, and it would surprise me if there are many. I've heard the bit about the human voice being the greatest instrument, but I'm not impressed. Greatest for what, exactly?


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

My original point: I'd imagine there are also people who don't care about the words themselves yet music without human voice is pointless for them. Or are there?



EdwardBast said:


> I haven't yet met anyone fitting that description, Dim7, and it would surprise me if there are many. I've heard the bit about the human voice being the greatest instrument, but I'm not impressed. Greatest for what, exactly?


There has been times when I haven't cared for instrumental music very much yet even then I never cared about lyrics, so it's easy for me to imagine someone who has been always like that. Human voice makes the music more, duh, human. We can relate to human voice better than to say, a cello because we aren't cellos. Really deep s*it isn't it 

Also it's very difficult for me to think that lyrics of popular music are so important to people when they are so stupid/cheesy.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Some people's aversion to opera is an aesthetic sensibility so completely_ removed _from my own-- that I wouldn't even begin to know how to answer why some people can't get into it.
> 
> For me, opera is the _ultimate _synthesis of visuals, drama, and music.


If you want to understand why some people think they don't like opera, just watch a Three Tenors concert. It's the _ultimate _ synthesis of bawling, gurning and hankie-waving. :devil:


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

bigshot said:


> Most people have limited tastes. Being open to different types of music is the exception, not the rule. Everyone says, "I like all types of music." but very few people actually mean it.
> 
> Music (and art) are very important to me, so when I meet a new friend, I always ask "What kind of music do you like?" They always reply, "All kinds!" Then I ask "What is your favorite country music performer? Or your favorite opera?" Then I get the blank stares as the truth comes out.


Wait. 
Taste has nothing to do with open-mindedness.
If that was the case, you either like every work you put your ears on, or you are not open-minded?

If one is willing to get himself to carefully listen to any type of work - _that_ is open-mindedness. But since when does this require to _like _everything?

I am sure anyone here who states his aversion to opera has given the genre multiple tries (I, for one, have).


----------



## Fagotterdammerung (Jan 15, 2015)

My answer is going to be full of gross oversimplifications, but having mingled with both types ( opera lovers who have no interest in instrumental and vice versa ):

Opera-only music lovers _tend_ to:

- Be more focused on a wide number of interpretations of a narrow range of works. Chances are they'll know dozens of interpretations of the most famous arias.
- Focused on the singers versus composers. Many would rather see a singer they love in a work they don't than vice versa. 
- Very involved with the narrative of the work, the storyline, and the drama. These are elements they feel lacking in, say, a symphony.
- Often, but not always, came to opera via an non-musical route i.e. started listening because of a connection to the theatre, to Broadway, or even a favorite movie that featured an opera or the like. 
 - Are focused on the _emotional_ quality of music. They're certainly capable of judging voices, but ultimately it's how something makes them feel that draws them in.

Instrumental-only music lovers _tend_ to:

- Be more focused on abstract works. Even programmatic instrumental works they tend to view as a needless complication that they listen to as "pure" music.
- Relate easier to the vocal timbres in popular music, finding operatic singing "distorted" or "artificial" compared to a vocal style closer to speaking. 
- Tend to attend live music a lot less. They'd rather listen in the quiet of their own home, most days, than mingle with the crowds of an auditorium. 
- Tend to view opera as not "serious" classical music. You're more likely to lure them into the opera house with Wagner than Bellini.

An odd commonality I've found in both? Fairly conservative tastes. They tend to be really focused on the Romantic period above others. I don't know why. One's world typically starts with Mozart and ends in Puccini, and the other starts at Beethoven and ends in Mahler, with _some_ Mozart and Bach as the only exceptions.

Again, gross generalizations based on anecdotal mingling. I'm sure there's someone who will jump in saying I'm entirely wrong and that may be true from their experience.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

EdwardBast said:


> I haven't yet met anyone fitting that description, Dim7, and it would surprise me if there are many. I've heard the bit about the human voice being the greatest instrument, but I'm not impressed. Greatest for what, exactly?


The voice is the greatest 'instrument' for communicating meaning and emotion. Instrumental music is just mathematics in aural form, isn't it? Mental ************, like sudoku? I don't really know what it is or what it's for, but I can't see the appeal. No offence to those who do appreciate it, I'm just coming clean about a particular blind spot that I have. For the record, Dim7's description is true of me. I need a voice in music and I need words, even if the language sung is unintelligible to me!

I see TC's puritanical software has censored out a word I used in the preceding paragraph, beginning with the letter M and denoting self abuse. I hope my meaning is clear nonetheless.


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

For me, there is a number of factors that, I think, have determined my aversion (at least, for the time being) to opera.

The main one was mentioned by Skilmarillion - too many variables that have little to do with "music", the plot, the costumes, the choreography, etc. I've really had a hard time perceiving it as a musical genre. Of course there are parts that can be fully appreciated even without "all the rest" and those, I gladly explore.

One is minor, but still valid and has been mentioned multiple times - operatic singing. I generally do not like the timbre and the "fullness" of operatic singers' voice. Their expressiveness sounds always very samey to me, compared to other styles of singing, which don't require singers to stick to (for me, very constraining) technical rules. There is a lot of expressiveness to be found in the technical imperfections of -say- sadcore singers or tweefolk singers. This is the same reason I tend to dislike lieder.
In this sense I agree with Dim7, and I for one am a lot into non-classical music with vocals, regardless of the actual lyrics, because I really like human voice as an instrument - but, like I said, not quite so if it is from classical singers.
(I like choirs though, there's a lot more "fuzziness" in the combined voice of a choir than in any individual classical voice.)


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

The status of the human body in the arts tends to divide people. Take Kant, who thought that anything that represents a human body cannot be classified as pure beauty. Then Hegel, who thought that the representation of the human body (in Greek sculpture) is the epitome of art, the ultimate synthesis of form and content. We have our symphony and opera people right there!

There's a lot of psychology in it, of course. If a solo voice in music is the ultimate expression of individual will, then your attraction to or aversion from it... well, draw your own conclusions. Anyhow, it's much more than "I just don't like how it sounds".


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Stavrogin said:


> For me, there is a number of factors that, I think, have determined my aversion (at least, for the time being) to opera...
> 
> One is minor, but still valid and has been mentioned multiple times - operatic singing. I generally do not like the timbre and the "fullness" of operatic singers' voice. Their expressiveness sounds always very samey to me, compared to other styles of singing, which don't require singers to stick to (for me, very constraining) technical rules. There is a lot of expressiveness to be found in the technical imperfections of -say- sadcore singers or tweefolk singers. This is the same reason I tend to dislike lieder.


Listen to early operatic recordings, say pre 1910, ideally of singers born pre 1870. You will find different and better technique(s), permitting more expressivity, not less. Modern operatic singing is a grotesque parody of itself which has nothing to do with what the nineteenth century repertoire would have sounded like to its original audiences. The repertoire may be nominally the same, but the shift in singing styles has made modern operatic performance a separate musical genre in its own right- and one whose lack of popularity comes as no surprise to me. Your criticisms of modern operatic singing are perceptive and correct, but I think you are wrong to equate expressivity with imperfection, or with a lack of technique. (Unfortunately I don't know what sadcore or tweefolk are.) Listen to Francesco Tamagno singing 'Niun mi tema' from Otello. You won't hear any of that rounded, darkened covered sound that bothers you, no wide flapping vibrato, and every single word is crystal clear. It's deeply felt and heartbreaking, and unconstrained by a metronomic conductor (another reason why modern operatic performance fails to move emotionally). Like all the great singers of that time, his voice is instantly recognisable, with a technique which is not just formidable but highly individual: there were no cookie cutter singers in those days, though of course there were plenty of very ordinary ones.


----------



## Fagotterdammerung (Jan 15, 2015)

I definitely agree with Figleaf's take on the modern style of operatic singing ... though the recordings are rare, it seems my favorite style of singing for 19th century repertoire was dying out by the '10s and '20s. I prefer some of these recordings to modern, even though the audio is of terrible quality!

To be fair, it's not entirely the singers' fault. Modern orchestras have grown considerably louder throughout the 20th century, and concert halls have gotten huge, leading to force and carrying power being more intensely important than interpretation.

I see a much broader range of vocal timbres used in early music / HIP performances. I think we'll see more and more great voices gaining a foothold starting there.


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

Figleaf said:


> Listen to early operatic recordings, say pre 1910, ideally of singers born pre 1870. You will find different and better technique(s), permitting more expressivity, not less. Modern operatic singing is a grotesque parody of itself which has nothing to do with what the nineteenth century repertoire would have sounded like to its original audiences. The repertoire may be nominally the same, but the shift in singing styles has made modern operatic performance a separate musical genre in its own right- and one whose lack of popularity comes as no surprise to me. Your criticisms of modern operatic singing are perceptive and correct, but I think you are wrong to equate expressivity with imperfection, or with a lack of technique. (Unfortunately I don't know what sadcore or tweefolk are.) Listen to Francesco Tamagno singing 'Niun mi tema' from Otello. You won't hear any of that rounded, darkened covered sound that bothers you, no wide flapping vibrato, and every single word is crystal clear. It's deeply felt and heartbreaking, and unconstrained by a metronomic conductor (another reason why modern operatic performance fails to move emotionally). Like all the great singers of that time, his voice is instantly recognisable, with a technique which is not just formidable but highly individual: there were no cookie cutter singers in those days, though of course there were plenty of very ordinary ones.


Thanks a lot.
I will check it out.
I wanted to make clear, however, that I do not equate expressivity with imperfection. I said that expressivity can be found there as well - not only there. Of course 

Let me give an example from the "sadcore" genre (so I take the chance to tell you that it's basically guitar-based singing-songwriting in a very slow, repetitive and sad fashion).
This is Sparklehorse's "Saint Mary".




Mark Linkous' singing is surely imperfect, or at least there is no technical virtue whatsoever, but it's so intimate (even physically: you can almost hear the saliva between his lips, tongue and his palate) and heartfelt.

Different genre, but speaking of awesomely touching imperfect voices, how not to mention Tom Waits...


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Figleaf said:


> Listen to Francesco Tamagno singing 'Niun mi tema' from Otello. You won't hear any of that rounded, darkened covered sound that bothers you, no wide flapping vibrato, and every single word is crystal clear. It's deeply felt and heartbreaking, and unconstrained by a metronomic conductor (another reason why modern operatic performance fails to move emotionally). Like all the great singers of that time, his voice is instantly recognisable, with a technique which is not just formidable but highly individual: there were no cookie cutter singers in those days, though of course there were plenty of very ordinary ones.


+

That was quite interesting and quite enjoyable even tho the music is not really my cup of tea. In general in these oldies the singing style seems to more intimate with less extreme of dynamic or timbre - more line focused and song-like which is one of the big reasons why people like them asI understand it. And listening to this, it is appealing. The narrow and very fast vibrato seems to be "of its time" - and I don't like that so much.

However, I don't see how this voice is sufficiently different from what's on offer today to swing those who don't like classical voices. Also I expect this type of singing is highly suited to C19 Italian and French opera, but I don't see it working well in Mozart or Wagner or Strauss...

Aside from all the well made points about opera being weird old music theatre in forign languages (and with funny voices) it's also worth pointing out that the typical opera "entry points" - Mozart to Puccini - don't share the range of musical styles as the "entry points" to instrumental music - Bach/Vivaldi to, say, Prokofiev. It's all too easy, even after a honest attempt to introduce oneself to it, to see opera as limited in scope - numbers-based, highly stylised and simply tuneful - compared to instrumental music. Certainly what happened to me - discovering the good in opera through the harder edged, beter orchestrated Tosca was eye-opening for me but it still took me a while after that to find the Strauss operas and more happiness outside the opera mainstream

My advice to people who think they don't like opera is to look wider than just the warhorses - there's a world of opera out there beyond what you'll hear by the three tenors!


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

dgee said:


> +
> 
> That was quite interesting and quite enjoyable even tho the music is not really my cup of tea. In general in these oldies the singing style seems to more intimate with less extreme of dynamic or timbre - more line focused and song-like which is one of the big reasons why people like them asI understand it. And listening to this, it is appealing. The narrow and very fast vibrato seems to be "of its time" - and I don't like that so much.
> 
> ...


I'm glad you enjoyed the Tamagno record. The vibrato you mentioned was indeed of its time, and furthermore, of its place: such a vibrato was popular in the Latin world but not so much in the English speaking world, where many Italianate singers sang with success but tended to polarise critical opinion. All this is of course a far cry from today's standardised, international singing style. Tamagno himself never sang Wagner: partly perhaps because of that composer's fearsome contemporary reputation as a wrecker of voices, but mostly because the tessitura of those roles was too low for him. Tamagno's type of high heroic tenor, so important in the later nineteenth century repertoire, has died out: now such roles are sung by baritenors and/or lighter lyric voices, another reason to go back to the early records. I mentioned Tamagno as an excellent example of what has been lost, but of course he was not a Mozartian, though other big-voiced tenors were. 'Extremes of dynamics and timbre' can of course be found on early recordings too- perhaps I should have played you de Lucia instead- but Tamagno's singing was essentially declamatory and speech-like even though it was very definitely sung. A sense of line was of course very important then- listen to Pol Plançon for a peerless example of legato- as was phrasing, which was highly personal to each singer and not yet delegated to the all-powerful conductor.

I would have thought that Tamagno was about as far from today's singers as it's possible to get without coming from a different species, or planet! But if your ears tell you it isn't so, I of course respect that. 'Numbers-based, highly stylised and tuneful' is of course why opera was a popular art form, not requiring an advanced musical education to appreciate it any more than does the three minute pop song of today. I guess this is either an advantage or a drawback, depending on one's perspective. I know that I, as a musical illiterate, welcome anything which is both high quality and accessible!


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Still bugged by my stepdad always tending to play opera nearly 90% of the time rather than opera 50%/orchestral 50% .


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Xaltotun said:


> The status of the human body in the arts tends to divide people. Take Kant, who thought that anything that represents a human body cannot be classified as pure beauty. Then Hegel, who thought that the representation of the human body (in Greek sculpture) is the epitome of art, the ultimate synthesis of form and content. We have our symphony and opera people right there!
> 
> There's a lot of psychology in it, of course. *If a solo voice in music is the ultimate expression of individual will, then your attraction to or aversion from it... well, draw your own conclusions.* Anyhow, it's much more than "I just don't like how it sounds".


This is rather tantalizing. Having always loved equally vocal and instrumental music, I can't draw any conclusions and am not convinced that there are any conclusions to draw! Have you drawn any? Do you think that people who prefer vocal to instrumental music might have some sense of reality that fixates on "the individual will"? Might it not be some aspect of individuality other than "will, "whatever you mean by that? And are people who prefer instrumental music less "individualistic" in some way?

I have to question the parallel you draw between the body in visual art and the voice in music, since I am a lover of singing who, as a visual artist, am not much attracted to the human form as a subject.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Figleaf said:


> I'm glad you enjoyed the Tamagno record. The vibrato you mentioned was indeed of its time, and furthermore, of its place: such a vibrato was popular in the Latin world but not so much in the English speaking world, where many Italianate singers sang with success but tended to polarise critical opinion. All this is of course a far cry from today's standardised, international singing style. Tamagno himself never sang Wagner: partly perhaps because of that composer's fearsome contemporary reputation as a wrecker of voices, but mostly because the tessitura of those roles was too low for him. Tamagno's type of high heroic tenor, so important in the later nineteenth century repertoire, has died out: now such roles are sung by baritenors and/or lighter lyric voices, another reason to go back to the early records. I mentioned Tamagno as an excellent example of what has been lost, but of course he was not a Mozartian, though other big-voiced tenors were. 'Extremes of dynamics and timbre' can of course be found on early recordings too- perhaps I should have played you de Lucia instead- but Tamagno's singing was essentially declamatory and speech-like even though it was very definitely sung. A sense of line was of course very important then- listen to Pol Plançon for a peerless example of legato- as was phrasing, which was highly personal to each singer and not yet delegated to the all-powerful conductor.
> 
> I would have thought that Tamagno was about as far from today's singers as it's possible to get without coming from a different species, or planet! But if your ears tell you it isn't so, I of course respect that. 'Numbers-based, highly stylised and tuneful' is of course why opera was a popular art form, not requiring an advanced musical education to appreciate it any more than does the three minute pop song of today. I guess this is either an advantage or a drawback, depending on one's perspective. I know that I, as a musical illiterate, welcome anything which is both high quality and accessible!


I absolutely think the Tamagno excerpt is different to what is heard nowadays! Just not, I think, so different that someone who can't connect with today's operatic vocals would be won over. And I probably didn't make my other point about standard opera repertoire very well. Salient is that it has very different charms to the Brandenburg concertos, Beethoven symphonies, Tchaikovsky ballet suites or Strauss tone poems - they really are highly distinct. So, to me, it's no wonder people can enjoy opera but not orchestral - and vice versa!

Having seen the enthusiasm for historic singers here, I think I'll keep dabbling - some good threads with youtube videos and I might learn something!


----------



## Il_Penseroso (Nov 20, 2010)

I'm a big big  opera fan, and my favorite composer - if I had to choose only one - would be Sibelius who is mostly famous for his notable symphonic works (He composed only one complete opera which received only three or four performances and never took a place in the standard opera repertory).


----------



## Guest (Jan 28, 2015)

I really don't understand the basis for the question. People have discerning minds; just because a person enjoys one form of classical music they will not automatically enjoy other forms. Substitute popular for classical; I may enjoy metal but that won't automatically mean I like bluegrass: my love may be bebop jazz but I may hate trad jazz...


----------



## Giordano (Aug 10, 2014)

^^ I think the question is about *actual reasons*, not about "how can they possibly...?"


----------



## Guest (Jan 28, 2015)

Giordano said:


> ^^ I think the question is about *actual reasons*, not about "how can they possibly...?"


Oh OK. 
I can't stand fat Italians over-emoting.


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

:lol::lol::lol:


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Dim7 said:


> My original point: I'd imagine there are also people who don't care about the words themselves yet music without human voice is pointless for them. Or are there?
> 
> There has been times when I haven't cared for instrumental music very much yet even then I never cared about lyrics, so it's easy for me to imagine someone who has been always like that. Human voice makes the music more, duh, human. We can relate to human voice better than to say, a cello because we aren't cellos. Really deep s*it isn't it


We? I relate better to cellos. They are, by and large, better at performing musical ideas I find interesting, they blend better with other instruments, and they don't suffer from ego problems because they are made mostly of wood. And, speaking of wood, don't forget that aria from Xerxes, mentioned earlier in the thread 



Dim7 said:


> Also it's very difficult for me to think that lyrics of popular music are so important to people when they are so stupid/cheesy.


I understand and sympathize. Nevertheless, they are important to many people, even the stupid/cheesy ones. And, of course, there are good, intelligent lyrics as well. Some of us prefer those to the stupid and cheesy ones.


----------



## Badinerie (May 3, 2008)

> a friend cautioned me that all operas basically told the same story -- boy meets girl; jealous suitor tries to sabotage budding romance; calamity ensues.


See, _Thats_ why I like Richard Strauss. Far more believable plots. Like y'know Girl meets boy,wants to shag boy, boy shuns girl, girl dances naked for dad. girl has boy beheaded then has extended and noisy romantic interlude with boys severed head, annoyed dad has girl squashed to death. Much better!

Opera and Orchestra are my main loves. I know many Opera lovers non of them shun Orchestral. I do know Orchestral fans who shun Opera. Maybe I should have them Squashed?


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Figleaf said:


> The voice is the greatest 'instrument' for communicating meaning and emotion. Instrumental music is just mathematics in aural form, isn't it? Mental ************, like sudoku?


No, it is not mathematics and it is not mental ************. And when people use this expression, I always wonder: What could they possibly have against ************? Terrorized by nuns at a young age? Interrupted by mom one too many times? Sent to bed wearing those horrible asbestos gloves? Bad technique? Caught 'hanging a rat' in the laundromat?

Seriously though, the voice is better at communicating literal meaning, which is not what one tends to seek from instrumental music. Eduard Hanslick observed that the general expressive concentration of instrumental music is much more intense than in opera, and that in composing opera one must be prepared to liberally dilute it. He suggested this might be why Beethoven found the form uncongenial.



Figleaf said:


> I don't really know what it is or what it's for, but I can't see the appeal. No offence to those who do appreciate it, I'm just coming clean about a particular blind spot that I have. For the record, Dim7's description is true of me. I need a voice in music and I need words, even if the language sung is unintelligible to me!


You needn't worry about offending anyone. By and large, I suspect those who appreciate instrumental music will simply find this point of view too foreign and strange to be offensive.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Badinerie said:


> See, _Thats_ why I like Richard Strauss. Far more believable plots. Like y'know Girl meets boy,wants to shag boy, boy shuns girl, girl dances naked for dad. girl has boy beheaded then has extended and noisy romantic interlude with boys severed head, annoyed dad has girl squashed to death. Much better!
> 
> Opera and Orchestra are my main loves. I know many Opera lovers non of them shun Orchestral. I do know Orchestral fans who shun Opera. Maybe I should have them Squashed?


I think this whole artificial and stilted dichotomy of 'orchestral versus opera'; or even 'formal music versus film score music'-- is just ridiculous.

To me, there's merely 'great music' and 'music that frankly doesn't matter.'


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

It's not that opera lovers have an "aversion" to orchestral music.

It's simply that opera lovers are among the most fanatical and passionate music lovers and consider the human voice the greatest musical instrument ever conceived. Therefore, they prefer opera to orchestral music. Simply a personal preference.


----------



## Giordano (Aug 10, 2014)

Both voice and instruments can connect you to the vibrations of the universe. However, in practice, voices rarely do because of the ego. Instruments are a step removed from the ego, so they are not as much affected by the celebrity mentality.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Marschallin Blair said:


> I think this whole artificial and stilted dichotomy of 'orchestral versus opera'; or even 'formal music versus film score music'-- is just ridiculous.
> 
> To me, there's merely 'great music' and 'music that frankly doesn't matter.'


It might seem ridiculous if one is focused only on value and value judgments. But making distinctions about types of music based on their aesthetic purposes, their intended audiences, their relation to broader humanistic concerns, and their interdependence with or independence from other art forms serves many useful purposes, including exploring and bridging the gaps between those who only appreciate one type or another - which is how I read the OP's intention for this thread.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

EdwardBast said:


> No, it is not mathematics and it is not mental ************. And when people use this expression, I always wonder: What could they possibly have against ************? Terrorized by nuns at a young age? Interrupted by mom one too many times? Sent to bed wearing those horrible asbestos gloves? Bad technique? Caught 'hanging a rat' in the laundromat?
> 
> Seriously though, the voice is better at communicating literal meaning, which is not what one tends to seek from instrumental music. Eduard Hanslick observed that the general expressive concentration of instrumental music is much more intense than in opera, and that in composing opera one must be prepared to liberally dilute it. He suggested this might be why Beethoven found the form uncongenial.
> 
> You needn't worry about offending anyone. By and large, I suspect those who appreciate instrumental music will simply find this point of view too foreign and strange to be offensive.


Ha ha- luckily I don't have any such traumatic memories of being caught in the act of self abuse. That's probably more of a male rite of passage.  By 'mental ************' I meant something that's intellectually self indulgent and doesn't produce anything of interest to the wider world- like doing crosswords, solving maths problems for fun (get a life!) or indeed composing symphonies. The sexual nature of the metaphor is actually pretty inappropriate, since opera has a strongly erotic as well as emotional appeal and this is precisely what instrumental music lacks, at least as far as my (deficient) perception of it goes. So that's the way I've always thought about it, rather solipsistically it seems: finding this forum was the first thing that proved to me that some people do really like orchestral and instrumental classical music, as opposed to certain pretentious people I know in the real world who buy and prominently display a couple of classical CDs of music which they clearly have no more understanding or genuine enjoyment of than I do.

I don't know about expressive concentration in instrumental music. My expression on hearing it is along the lines of 'Aargh! Make it stop!' and my concentration is focused on hitting the off button as quickly as possible.  And I certainly suspected from his über-dreary Fidelio that Beethoven wasn't feeling much love for the medium of opera. In fact if German opera was the only game in town I'd probably stick with Elvis (and maybe a little Wagner en français).


----------



## dantejones (Jan 14, 2015)

Fagotterdammerung said:


> My answer is going to be full of gross oversimplifications, but having mingled with both types ( opera lovers who have no interest in instrumental and vice versa ):
> 
> Opera-only music lovers _tend_ to:
> 
> ...


Good post. A lot of those generalizations i find to be true. For me the biggest reason for this 'disconnect,' if it truly exists, is because the operatic and the symphonic have their own distinct repertoires, often with distinct composers and certainly very distinct artists/heroes. Each is its own world, and often when someone enters one or the other, it's easier to stay there and benefit from the lifetime of listening and learning unique to each one.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Giordano said:


> Both voice and instruments can connect you to the vibrations of the universe. However, in practice, voices rarely do because of the ego. Instruments are a step removed from the ego, so they are not as much affected by the celebrity mentality.


Instrumentalists don't have ego? Surely if you follow that line of reasoning conductors should be the least egotistical musicians in existence since they don't even have an instrument, just a little stick. 

I know that I have felt most alive when listening to certain voices- whether that's equivalent to being connected to the vibrations of the universe I'm not sure, not being of a mystical nature myself. Regarding vibrations, I know that I sometimes I put one hand on the speaker so that I can touch the vibrations of a beloved voice as well as listening to it, and that's both an intensely erotic and spiritual experience. I don't do that for all singers though- I'm not that sort of girl.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Badinerie said:


> See, _Thats_ why I like Richard Strauss. Far more believable plots. Like y'know Girl meets boy,wants to shag boy, boy shuns girl, girl dances naked for dad. girl has boy beheaded then has extended and noisy romantic interlude with boys severed head, annoyed dad has girl squashed to death. Much better!
> 
> Opera and Orchestra are my main loves. I know many Opera lovers non of them shun Orchestral. I do know Orchestral fans who shun Opera. Maybe I should have them Squashed?


I love Richard Strauss' music/operas too. For the depth of his psychological insight.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Figleaf said:


> Ha ha- luckily I don't have any such traumatic memories of being caught in the act of self abuse. That's probably more of a male rite of passage.


Those weren't memories. I was just trying, speculatively, to be empathetic with those inclined to use that term in pejorative constructions or to regard it as "abuse." The asbestos glove thing I think (I fervently hope!) I just made up. Aside from one regrettable public incident under the influence of a massive dose of LSD, I have experienced no such trauma, and even that was probably more traumatic for the neighbors than for me.



Figleaf said:


> I don't know about expressive concentration in instrumental music. My expression on hearing it is along the lines of 'Aargh! Make it stop!' and my concentration is focused on hitting the off button as quickly as possible.  And I certainly suspected from his über-dreary Fidelio that Beethoven wasn't feeling much love for the medium of opera. In fact if German opera was the only game in town I'd probably stick with Elvis (and maybe a little Wagner en français).


Just speculating here, but I wonder if you could be missing something fundamental about how human content and expressiveness inhabits instrumental music?; specifically, its temporal qualities. This is difficult to explain but, briefly: Whereas human emotion and expressiveness in opera occurs in real time, in an approximation of "external" clock time, and is thus, temporally speaking, just like ordinary experience, emotion and expressiveness in instrumental music does not. Instrumental music runs on what philosopher Susanne Langer referred to as _virtual time_, according to which:

"musical duration is an image of what might be termed "lived" or "experienced" time-the passage of life we feel as expectations become "now," and "now" turns into unalterable fact. Such passage is measurable only in terms of sensibilities, tensions, and emotions; and it is not merely a different measure, but an altogether different structure from practical or scientific time."

Practically speaking, a single instrumental movement, to the extent it can be said to be about human emotional experience, often compresses years of experience into a few minutes. It isn't about any particular experience, but about the default conditions of the soul played out in abstract terms. Thus Tchaikovsky hears the first movement of his Fourth Symphony as

"a continual alternation between grim truth [Fate theme and principal theme] and fleeting dreams of happiness [second theme group]. There is no haven. The waves drive us hither and thither, until the sea engulfs us." 

The movement dramatizes the tenor of a whole life in abstract terms. This kind of temporal compression or concentration is why the first movement of Brahms's Third Symphony can end with a nostalgic look back at its principal theme, despite the fact that nostalgia for an event just twelve minutes in the past would be absurd in real life or opera. Instrumental music encompasses life outside of the flow of everyday time. Grasping this fundamental principle of musical (Langer's _virtual_) time is something most listeners do intuitively, but I suspect not everyone.


----------



## Wood (Feb 21, 2013)

Some of the posts on this thread are getting me chortling into my laptop. Nice to see an interesting and amusing debate on here which is devoid of the usual whinging.

I'm inexperienced with opera (not to mention mental, er, mathematics) but I've noticed that I prefer male singers from the acoustic and early electric recordings to anything that has come later. I've put it down to the snaps, crackles and hisses of the recordings resulting in some kind of unconcious deep seated nostalgia for a place and time that I haven't lived in, but reading the above it sounds quite likely that the old singers were simply better.

It would be good to hear recordings of modern singers being recorded with the old methods. This has surely been done and it would make an interesting like for like comparison. Is anyone aware of any such YT links or CDs?


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

So much of what I'm reading here seems totally counter to my own experience.

I love music, all types of music, though not all composers, and there may be works by composers I generally like that I don't enjoy, just as there may be works by composers that I don't generally like that I do, if you can follow that logic.

That said, though opera is my first love, I don't want to listen to it all the time. I love orchestral music, instrumental music, chamber music, lieder and choral music. I don't see the necessity to go into a discussion of either/or. What I listen to at any given time will largely depend on my mood, and sometimes the time of day (one has to think of one's neighbours). 

And incidentally I most opera lovers I know also love orchestral music, though I'm not sure the reverse is true.


----------



## Giordano (Aug 10, 2014)

Figleaf said:


> Instrumentalists don't have ego?





Giordano said:


> Both voice and instruments can connect you to the vibrations of the universe. However, in practice, voices rarely do because of the ego. *Instruments* are a step removed from the ego, so they *are not as much affected* by the celebrity mentality.


But they are *of course* affected by the ego, but they are a step removed as they are not organically part of the performer's body, as well as having their own characteristics.

The quality of the voice is directly determined by the state of the singer's body, mind, emotions, etc. You cannot hide yourself. Your voice is you.

A musician puts the ego aside in performance by sincerely intending to serve the music. That's the kind of performance I am drawn to, rather than the "Hear *me* play/sing this music" kind.



Figleaf said:


> Surely if you follow that line of reasoning conductors should be the least egotistical musicians in existence since they don't even have an instrument, just a little stick.


I am not sure what reasoning this is.... ??? Isn't the whole orchestra a conductor's instrument? Anyway, conductors who do not intend to serve the music are obviously going to inject all of their stupidities into the performance.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Giordano said:


> A musician puts the ego aside in performance by sincerely intending to serve the music. That's the kind of performance I am drawn to.


So, by your reckoning, singers are not musicians, which is a truly outrageous suggestion.


----------



## Giordano (Aug 10, 2014)

Giordano said:


> A musician puts the ego aside in performance by sincerely intending to serve the music. That's the kind of performance I am drawn to, rather than the "Hear *me* play/*sing* this music" kind.





GregMitchell said:


> So, by your reckoning, singers are not musicians, which is a truly outrageous suggestion.


I used the general word "musician" to include singers and all others.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Wood said:


> It would be good to hear recordings of modern singers being recorded with the old methods. This has surely been done and it would make an interesting like for like comparison. Is anyone aware of any such YT links or CDs?


Here is a clip were Rolando Willazon record himself on a wax roll:






I don´t like all the complaints towards modern singers. I am of the opinion that every professional opera singer is an amazing singer including those I don´t like to listen to.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Giordano said:


> I used the general word "musician" to include singers and all others.


I think I'm right in saying that
_rather than the "Hear *me* play/*sing* this music" kind _

was added after or at the same time I added my response. You edited at 17.47. I edited my post at 17.48 immediately after seeing I'd written "or" instead of _are_. That would account for my interpretation of your statement. The previous two paragraphs of your post would in any case suggest that you see singers as somehow being different from (and possibly inferior to) other musicians. If my inference was wrong then I apologise.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> So, by your reckoning, singers are not musicians, which is a truly outrageous suggestion.


Of course, one of the most_ SUPREMELY MUSICAL _people of all time was a singer. And what was her name again?--- That's right: Thank you Maestro De Sabata: 'Maria Callas.'

She touches me in a way not even Heifitz or Menuhin can.


----------



## Giordano (Aug 10, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> The previous two paragraphs of your post would in any case suggest that you see singers as somehow being different from (and possibly inferior to) other musicians. If my inference was wrong then I apologise.


I will rephrase:

A musician can put the ego aside in a performance if he/she sincerely intends to serve the music.

Also originally, I said, "Both voice and instruments can connect you to the vibrations of the universe." That is a statement on the fundamental equality of all musicians.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Giordano said:


> I will rephrase:
> 
> A musician can put the ego aside in a performance if he/she sincerely intends to serve the music.
> 
> Also originally, I said, "Both voice and instruments can connect you to the vibrations of the universe." That is a statement on the fundamental equality of all musicians.


Yes that is much clearer.

I would only add that it is surely the job of _all_ musicians, be they singers, instrumentalists or conductors to serve the music.

My favourite musician happened also to be a singer. Callas the musician, was a million miles away from the capricious, egotistical prima donna the press liked to paint her as. She was often the first to arrive at rehearsal and the last to leave. In several recorded interviews she refers to the artist as servant of the composer, stating that fidelity to the score was paramount.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Since I have made several posts without mentioning my preferences: I enjoy opera (Purcell, Mozart, Mussorgsky, Strauss, Britten, Berg, Janacek, Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Shostakovich — even Wagner in small doses. Italian opera, not so much, at least not before Puccini.) I listen to more instrumental music.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> Yes that is much clearer.
> 
> I would only add that it is surely the job of _all_ musicians, be they singers, instrumentalists or conductors to serve the music.
> 
> My favourite musician happened also to be a singer. Callas the musician, was a million miles away from the capricious, egotistical prima donna the press liked to paint her as. She was often the first to arrive at rehearsal and the last to leave. In several recorded interviews she refers to the artist as servant of the composer, stating that fidelity to the score was paramount.


She was the consummate professional in every way. Everyone who's worked with her has said so. And though I get all ga-ga calling her Divina all the time because I just can't help myself--- Callas said that she didn't like being called 'Divina,' and that she was simply a woman.

- Well, Her and I can agree to disagree _;D_ -- but one just doesn't see the modest and professional character traits of the woman being talked about in the press. No, that doesn't sell. Only the impetuous Diva and the ferocious tigress sells. . . however untrue the fables may be.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Wood said:


> Some of the posts on this thread are getting me chortling into my laptop. Nice to see an interesting and amusing debate on here which is devoid of the usual whinging.
> 
> I'm inexperienced with opera (not to mention mental, er, mathematics) but I've noticed that I prefer male singers from the acoustic and early electric recordings to anything that has come later. I've put it down to the snaps, crackles and hisses of the recordings resulting in some kind of unconcious deep seated nostalgia for a place and time that I haven't lived in, but reading the above it sounds quite likely that the old singers were simply better.
> 
> It would be good to hear recordings of modern singers being recorded with the old methods. This has surely been done and it would make an interesting like for like comparison. Is anyone aware of any such YT links or CDs?


Sloe's link to the BBC tenor documentary answers your question very nicely. It gets interesting 45 minutes in, when Villazon plays a clip of Tamagno's 'Esultate', which is in such amazing sound I presume it comes from the Historic Masters repressing rather than a CD transfer. 'It's not the _darkest_ voice', huffs Villazon disapprovingly- no $hit, $herlock!  At 49 minutes, Villazon gets his opportunity to record on a phonograph. He opens his mouth and bellows the first bars of 'Amor ti vieta', with a vibrato so wide that those unfamiliar with the aria will not be able to tell which notes the tenor is presumably aiming at. Already it doesn't sound good, and we haven't even heard the playback of the acoustic recording yet. Now, the moment of truth, as the recording horn is switched for the one used for playing. The vibrato and its attendant pitch problems are not only still there, but are exaggerated somewhat by the cylinder recording, as has frequently been remarked on in the context of early 20thC records. It gives one renewed sympathy for tenors such as Alessandro Bonci, whose vibrato seems so intrusive on his acoustic recordings, although it was far more rapid and narrow than Villazon's. 'This is great!'  exclaims Rolando when his cylinder has finished. I doubt that the contemporaries of Tamagno or possibly even of Caruso would have agreed- however provincial the theatre or insignificant the role, that sort of relentlessly loud bellowing and pitch-obscuring slow wobble would simply not have been tolerated. If you would like to compare Villazon's acoustic 'Amor ti Vieta' with an original from that period, you could do worse than listen to Enrico Caruso or Giuseppe Anselmi. However, I would choose this gorgeous, seductive performance by Emile Scaramberg. It's better than mathematics!


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Dustin , operas with long patches of recitative are pretty much confined to those of the baroque and classical period ; the practice of arias, choruses and ensembles being separated by secco recitative pretty much died out by the early 19th century . 
The ones in Mozart operas may seem boring on CD , but when you them in the theater or on DVD , the singers often do a lot of mugging and fooling around on stage which make them much more interesting ..


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Wagner is one of those geniuses who could combine great singing with marvelous orchestration.


----------



## Badinerie (May 3, 2008)

Opera's were written to be attended, so sometimes there are sections when you think" This is going on a bit!" but if you were there at the live performance you would get it!
If I was going to see an opera I used to always book a seat for the last night at covent garden. Practical jokes and grotesque mugging abounding. Haven't been there since the late eighties mind so I dont know what happens now.Here in the provinces we only get one or two performances by touring companies, so no funny stuff!


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

superhorn said:


> The ones in Mozart operas may seem boring on CD , but when you them in the theater or on DVD , the singers often do a lot of mugging and fooling around on stage which make them much more interesting ..


I don´t think they are interesting on DVD.
I listen a lot to opera but when it comes to earlier operas with secco recitatives it stops there. I can´t like it no matter how great other says Mozarts operas are I don´t like seeing them or listening to them. My mind says stop.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> This is rather tantalizing. Having always loved equally vocal and instrumental music, I can't draw any conclusions and am not convinced that there are any conclusions to draw! Have you drawn any? Do you think that people who prefer vocal to instrumental music might have some sense of reality that fixates on "the individual will"? Might it not be some aspect of individuality other than "will, "whatever you mean by that? And are people who prefer instrumental music less "individualistic" in some way?
> 
> I have to question the parallel you draw between the body in visual art and the voice in music, since I am a lover of singing who, as a visual artist, am not much attracted to the human form as a subject.


First of all, there might not be any conclusions to draw indeed - I'm merely playing as a devil's advocate. Also, I prefer just asking questions or answering vaguely to actually giving my own opinion. Sometimes I only reveal my opinion when cornered, and when I do I usually regret it then. I'm not even much of a forum conversationalist, I usually prefer to give amusing (hopefully) aphorisms, paradoxes, contradictions etc. and hope that someone finds them to be fruitful ground for further thinking (and if not, it's not a great loss, nobody suffers). I also rarely post more than once in a thread and that's just how I like it. I am certainly not a great debater but I aspire to be an amusing commentator, a court jester if you will.

But I do think that there is an art of "being human beings" and an art of "thinking abstract things" and that they do not always overlap (although when they do, it's a beautiful thing). With "will", here, I mean a primal life-energy more connected to basic needs and emotions than abstract purposes. I'm just suggesting that it might be plausible to claim that the exclusive opera-lovers are more into the former sort of art and that the exclusive instrumental music lovers are more into the latter. Do I think it's so? I don't know. It was just a thought that occurred to me.

Also with the parallels between human voice and the human body, I didn't mean it that literally. I meant to use it as a symbol of focusing one's attention to being human (again, meaning more primal needs and emotions), and as a point of contention between Kant and Hegel. Human form as a subject in the visual arts is of course dependent on the current point in (art) history. But today's climate of "anything goes" might render this point moot if we're talking about today's artists. I'll conclude that if you, Woodduck, love singing and are not, as a visual artist, much attracted to the human form as a subject, then, you are probably very balanced in your tastes in art (as are most of us, I presume), since you are attracted to an expression of the "will" in one art form and to non-human expressions in another.

It all might be put in a form of questions we ask ourselves when confronting a work of art. Group "A" has these kinds of questions:

"What is this person feeling?" "Is there a conflict between what this person is feeling and what this person is expressing?" "What is this person wanting?" "How would I feel and what would I want if I was put there?" "Why would someone act like that?" "Is this ethical?"

And group "B" would have these kinds of questions:

"What does this mean/symbolize?" "What is the structure of this thing?" "Is this beautiful?" "How is this related to history?" "What is this referring to?" "Is this insinuating something?" "What is the context of this thing?"

Most people would, then, ask themselves questions from both groups, A and B. But some would dwell more in the "A" group of questions or the "B" group of questions, and this is why we have these exclusive listening groups.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Xaltotun said:


> First of all, there might not be any conclusions to draw indeed - I'm merely playing as a devil's advocate. Also, I prefer just asking questions or answering vaguely to actually giving my own opinion. Sometimes I only reveal my opinion when cornered, and when I do I usually regret it then. I'm not even much of a forum conversationalist, I usually prefer to give amusing (hopefully) aphorisms, paradoxes, contradictions etc. and hope that someone finds them to be fruitful ground for further thinking (and if not, it's not a great loss, nobody suffers). I also rarely post more than once in a thread and that's just how I like it. I am certainly not a great debater but I aspire to be an amusing commentator, a *court jester* if you will.
> 
> But I do think that there is an art of "being human beings" and an art of "thinking abstract things" and that they do not always overlap (although when they do, it's a beautiful thing). With "will", here, I mean a primal life-energy more connected to basic needs and emotions than abstract purposes. I'm just suggesting that it might be plausible to claim that the exclusive opera-lovers are more into the former sort of art and that the exclusive instrumental music lovers are more into the latter. Do I think it's so? I don't know. It was just a thought that occurred to me.
> 
> ...


I do appreciate your explaining further what you're about here. I won't comment on most of it, but your A and B questions at the end interest me. I think there is a real temperamental/intellectual difference there, and I can say that I relate most to the B group and that despite my love of classical singing and opera I do listen more to purely instrumental music in which I'm not confronted with the person of the performer. This correspondence really does feel like something real to me. I don't think I can expand on this at the moment, but I'm pleased to have it brought to my attention. Thanks, court jester.


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

Think I am in group B.
I do struggle with opera, the beauty of the human voice is evident, the music I get, but once I read the words the struggle starts.
I am aware that I can choose not to follow them, but the problem is I know they are there and I just have to look.
I do keep giving opera a go, as my wife enjoys it


----------



## wagner4evr (Jul 10, 2010)

That's really interesting. I've met lots of classical listeners who aren't into opera, but only one group of seasoned opera goers who are averse to orchestral--my family :lol: Full disclosure--I'm with them up to a point, but to say that I "dislike" instrumental would be gross hyperbole. Sonatas and concertos do little/nothing for me, while symphony I consider divine.

My guess is that instrumental purists' aversion to opera lies in the voice, as mentioned. My experience suggests that there's either a simple distaste for the comparatively unrestrained vocal stye, or that it's distracting rather than complementary to the orchestration. For others, the marriage of fabulous music to often absurdly silly storylines is vexing, as is the required suspension of disbelief. Understandable.

As to how an opera purist might be averse to orchestral is a question that hits close to home. For me, the answer might be summed up in one ambiguous word: context. I grew up studying and attending opera almost exclusively. Because of this, I believe I was conditioned from a very early age to insist that music have a very specific raison d'être and that its source of inspiration be provided _for_ me. A composition can have all the structural brilliance and virtuosity in the world, but if it describes no event, evokes no imagery, or conjures any specific memory, etc. then it's just notes being pushed on a page to me. Emotional impact (what I seek most) is at its height when there's a compelling marriage of music to the aforementioned. Take Bernard Herrmann's Vertigo score, for example. Great by itself, but it was the film that gave its score context, especially for an idiot like me. So in the end, as much as I adore instrumental and can appreciate it on an intellectual level, it rarely has the same ravishing, soul-ripping effects of say, the Tristan Chord or the Parsifal finale.


----------



## Skilmarilion (Apr 6, 2013)

Figleaf said:


> The voice is the greatest 'instrument' for communicating meaning and emotion. Instrumental music is just mathematics in aural form, isn't it? Mental ************, like sudoku? I don't really know what it is or what it's for, but I can't see the appeal.


Given that the voice is the only instrument that can 'communicate' (i.e. with language) then that statement is neither here nor there.

The appeal of instrumental music for those who enjoy it is exactly the sort of notion that it can express something that words cannot. The irony here is that despite instruments being unable to convey what a voice can with language, their expressive possibilities are endless because they go beyond the limitations of so-called "meaning". Words are ultimately limited by their definitions, no?

I don't know what you mean by "mathematics in aural forum", we're talking about *music* here.


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

wagner4evr said:


> That's really interesting. I've met lots of classical listeners who aren't into opera, but only one group of seasoned opera goers who are averse to orchestral--my family :lol: Full disclosure--I'm with them up to a point, but to say that I "dislike" instrumental would be gross hyperbole. *Sonatas and concertos do little/nothing for me, while symphony I consider divine*.
> 
> My guess is that instrumental purists' aversion to opera lies in the voice, as mentioned. My experience suggests that there's either a simple distaste for the comparatively unrestrained vocal stye, or that it's distracting rather than complementary to the orchestration. For others, the marriage of fabulous music to often absurdly silly storylines is vexing, as is the required suspension of disbelief. Understandable.
> 
> As to how an opera purist might be averse to orchestral is a question that hits close to home. For me, the answer might be summed up in one ambiguous word: context. I grew up studying and attending opera almost exclusively. Because of this, I believe I was conditioned from a very early age to insist that music have a very specific raison d'être and that its source of inspiration be provided _for_ me. A composition can have all the structural brilliance and virtuosity in the world, but if it describes no event, evokes no imagery, or conjures any specific memory, etc. then *it's just notes being pushed on a page to me*. Emotional impact (what I seek most) is at its height when there's a compelling marriage of music to the aforementioned. Take Bernard Herrmann's Vertigo score, for example. Great by itself, but it was the film that gave its score context, especially for an idiot like me. So in the end, as much as I adore instrumental and can appreciate it on an intellectual level, it rarely has the same ravishing, soul-ripping effects of say, the Tristan Chord or the Parsifal finale.


Curious about the two bolded parts.
How about those orchestral works that are borderline between concertos and symphonies?
And why are symphonies divine and not just "notes being pushed on a page"?


----------



## wagner4evr (Jul 10, 2010)

Stavrogin said:


> Curious about the two bolded parts.
> How about those orchestral works that are borderline between concertos and symphonies?
> And why are symphonies divine and not just "notes being pushed on a page"?


Yeah that's pretty messed up, isn't it? I wish I had a logical answer to this.

To be completely honest, my comments above aren't entirely accurate; I was speaking _very_ generally. There are lots of concertos and sonatas that I love, and by the same token, many symphonies I can't connect with at all. I _usually_ get more enjoyment from the latter, but in truth the form is largely inconsequential compared to the visual imagery it can evoke, memory it recalls, or tangible event/emotion to which I can tie it. I have a harder time when there's no definite theme, the composer's inspiration is unknown, or I can't internalize a work's abstract ideas. When it comes down to it, I'm very imaginatively challenged.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Skilmarilion said:


> Given that the voice is the only instrument that can 'communicate' (i.e. with language) then that statement is neither here nor there.


It's pretty germane to the subject of this thread. The uniquely communicative power of the voice is what exclusive listeners to vocal music love. Did I misunderstand your point?


Skilmarilion said:


> The appeal of instrumental music for those who enjoy it is exactly the sort of notion that it can express something that words cannot. The irony here is that despite instruments being unable to convey what a voice can with language, their expressive possibilities are endless because they go beyond the limitations of so-called "meaning". Words are ultimately limited by their definitions, no?


Well of course words are limited by their definitions- otherwise they wouldn't mean anything at all. All meaning is limited: any 'meaning' includes certain characteristics or ideas and thus necessarily excludes others which are contradictory or irrelevant. If something goes 'beyond the limitations of so-called meaning' then surely it would not be unfair to regard it as meaning_less_?


Skilmarilion said:


> I don't know what you mean by "mathematics in aural forum", we're talking about *music* here.


In the sense that both non-vocal music and mathematics are purely abstract and intellectual, and as such tend to baffle and alienate most ordinary people. Neither satisfies a craving for emotional meaning, nor relates to anything outside of itself. The statement one often hears that 'maths is a language' is obviously untrue in the literal sense, just as the claim that certain musical compositions literally represent somebody going for a walk in the country (or whatever) strains one's credulity and turns indifference towards the noise source to irritation with those who make such exaggerated claims on its behalf.


Skilmarilion said:


> I'm the opposite of the thread title. Opera is musical theatre, and so you have to be interested in all of that to fully appreciate it -- the plot, the costumes, the choreography, etc. I'm not very interested in that because if I wanted that, I'd go and see a play.


Opera is indeed musical theatre, but you can take away the theatrical aspects and it's still opera. Nowadays of course live performances have mostly been supplanted by at-home listening to broadcasts and recordings, and in the nineteenth century piano scores were sold so that opera lovers could explore the music for themselves. In the latter example (as well as in most sound recordings up to about 1906) we can see that not only the theatrical trappings but even the orchestral accompaniment can be dispensed with, and it's still recognizably opera. I would argue that opera in its purest form consists of the solo voice with the most stripped-back of piano accompaniments, although I would expect this to be a minority view.


Skilmarilion said:


> Also sometimes the music may still be appreciated but by ignoring its operatic context -- e.g. the profoundly beautiful "largo" aria from Handel's Xerxes. Simply fantastic, as long as you can forget that the aria is about someone's love for a tree.
> 
> Instrumental / Orchestral music is king, because it is entirely self-sufficient. :tiphat:





Skilmarilion said:


> For me personally, something like Rachmaninov's _Vocalise_ -- a wordless song of circa 6 minutes, "makes more sense" and has "more to say", than any 3-hour opera.
> 
> Call me crazy.


As one of the more eccentric posters here, I would probably not go around calling _other_ people crazy.  Words set to music, not necessarily in a theatrical context, a kind of augmented speech which is more expressive together than either words or music separately- might that not work for you, as it does for me? Since you like Rachmaninov's 'Vocalise' and are intrigued by the possibilities of love songs addressed to trees, I have found you another such song by that very composer. It's one of a series of duets between the violinist Fritz Kreisler and the tenor John McCormack, and it raises an interesting question which is relevant to the discussion of the affective possibilities of the voice versus that of the man-made musical instrument. Is it a violin-like voice, or a voice-like violin? Would it work without words, or without music? Personally I think the poem without the music would seem rather absurd (admittedly it may lose something in translation from the Russian) whereas the music without the words (or at any rate without John McCormack's beautifully plangent voice) would be merely superficially pretty, like one of Mantovani's violin records. Here it is, then, Rachmaninov's 'Before My Window':


----------



## Wood (Feb 21, 2013)

Sloe said:


> Here is a clip were Rolando Willazon record himself on a wax roll:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That is great, thank you Sloe, just what I was looking for.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Deleted message.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Figleaf said:


> In the sense that both non-vocal music and mathematics are purely abstract and intellectual, and as such tend to baffle and alienate most ordinary people. Neither satisfies a craving for emotional meaning, nor relates to anything outside of itself. The statement one often hears that 'maths is a language' is obviously untrue in the literal sense, just as the claim that certain musical compositions literally represent somebody going for a walk in the country (or whatever) strains one's credulity and turns indifference towards the noise source to irritation with those who make such exaggerated claims on its behalf.


Non vocal music is not purely abstract and intellectual, but rather highly expressive and deeply tied to the life of the mind and the emotions. This has been affirmed by countless composers, musicians, and listeners for hundreds of years. It is clear you don't get it. And, judging from an earlier post, you seem to have assumed that because you don't get it, it must not be true and that those who claim it is are deluded or pretentious. To me this is like someone who has been blind since birth denying the existence of color.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

EdwardBast said:


> Non vocal music is not purely abstract and intellectual, but rather highly expressive and deeply tied to the life of the mind and the emotions. This has been affirmed by countless composers, musicians, and listeners for hundreds of years. It is clear you don't get it. And, judging from an earlier post, you seem to have assumed that because you don't get it, it must not be true and that those who claim it is are deluded or pretentious. To me this is like someone who has been blind since birth denying the existence of color.


No, since finding this forum I'm quite satisfied that some people are emotionally affected by instrumental music- _even though_ I personally don't understand its appeal. The only thing that annoys me is when they claim that some piece of orchestral and instrumental music is _about_ something highly specific, instead of being pure sound. It might evoke something very particular for them, but who's to say it conveys the same thing to everyone? Surely a piece of wordless music is as abstract a work of art as it's possible to get, and hardly amenable to the discovery within it of very precise non-musical meanings?

I don't think that listeners to non-vocal music are necessarily deluded (why would they be?) but I have known people in the real world who talked up their practically nonexistent enthusiasm for and knowledge of CM because they thought it made them sound clever. I don't think that reflects badly on people who _actually_ like non-vocal music, any more than people who pretend to have read Joyce's Ulysses reflect badly on people who actually _have_ read Ulysses.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Figleaf said:


> No, since finding this forum I'm quite satisfied that some people are emotionally affected by instrumental music- _even though_ I personally don't understand its appeal. The only thing that annoys me is when they claim that some piece of orchestral and instrumental music is _about_ something highly specific, instead of being pure sound. It might evoke something very particular for them, but who's to say it conveys the same thing to everyone? Surely a piece of wordless music is as abstract a work of art as it's possible to get, and hardly amenable to the discovery within it of very precise non-musical meanings?


I understand your position. I find the over-specification of meaning in instrumental music annoying as well. But there are very important imprecise meanings - or, as I would explain it: the formal coherence of some instrumental works depends on and is impossible to disentangle from the sequential coherence of their non-specific expressive properties. Ask for further explanation at your peril and mine


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

EdwardBast said:


> I understand your position. I find the over-specification of meaning in instrumental music annoying as well. But there are *very important imprecise meanings* - or, as I would explain it: *the formal coherence of some instrumental works depends on and is impossible to disentangle from the sequential coherence of their non-specific expressive properties.* Ask for further explanation at your peril and mine


"Imprecise meanings"... "Non-specific expressive properties"... How brave! Try floating that concept around here and you'd better run to get out of the way as the lead balloon falls.

Don't you know that there's nothing between program music (for weak and untutored minds) and music that's "just about sound"?

:tiphat:


----------



## GhenghisKhan (Dec 25, 2014)

I don't have an aversion to it.but I don't like theater and I can barely sit still during movies(which is a much better version of theater)

I'm happy enough to hear the music /w vocals without either context,theater or libretto.I would probably watch opera if I had a lot more free time.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> "Imprecise meanings"... "Non-specific expressive properties"... How brave! Try floating that concept around here and you'd better run to get out of the way as the lead balloon falls.
> 
> Don't you know that there's nothing between program music (for weak and untutored minds) and music that's "just about sound"?
> 
> :tiphat:


Some of these ideas will soon set sail in the _British Journal of Aesthetics_ under the title: "Yet Again 'Between Absolute and Program Music'," or so I've heard  - not to be confused with the famous article from the 1980s: "Once Again 'Between Absolute and Program Music': Schumann's Second Symphony," by Anthony Newcomb.

I wrote most of a little essay about this for local consumption a couple of weeks back for that thread about intent but the moment passed before it was finished.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> "Imprecise meanings"... "Non-specific expressive properties"... How brave! Try floating that concept around here and you'd better run to get out of the way as the lead balloon falls.
> 
> Don't you know that there's nothing between program music (for weak and untutored minds) and music that's "just about sound"?
> 
> :tiphat:


Is that in the Ten Commandments?

Or just by someone who thought that they wrote the Ten Commandments?


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

I really like operas with solid music and not just great plot lines.


----------



## MoonlightSonata (Mar 29, 2014)

I don't have any aversion to opera. I just prefer orchestral music for some reason. It probably helps that I don't have much time and orchestral music is shorter, but there's more to it then that.


----------



## Wood (Feb 21, 2013)

Figleaf said:


> Sloe's link to the BBC tenor documentary answers your question very nicely. It gets interesting 45 minutes in, when Villazon plays a clip of Tamagno's 'Esultate', which is in such amazing sound I presume it comes from the Historic Masters repressing rather than a CD transfer. 'It's not the _darkest_ voice', huffs Villazon disapprovingly- no $hit, $herlock!  At 49 minutes, Villazon gets his opportunity to record on a phonograph. He opens his mouth and bellows the first bars of 'Amor ti vieta', with a vibrato so wide that those unfamiliar with the aria will not be able to tell which notes the tenor is presumably aiming at. Already it doesn't sound good, and we haven't even heard the playback of the acoustic recording yet. Now, the moment of truth, as the recording horn is switched for the one used for playing. The vibrato and its attendant pitch problems are not only still there, but are exaggerated somewhat by the cylinder recording, as has frequently been remarked on in the context of early 20thC records. It gives one renewed sympathy for tenors such as Alessandro Bonci, whose vibrato seems so intrusive on his acoustic recordings, although it was far more rapid and narrow than Villazon's. 'This is great!'  exclaims Rolando when his cylinder has finished. I doubt that the contemporaries of Tamagno or possibly even of Caruso would have agreed- however provincial the theatre or insignificant the role, that sort of relentlessly loud bellowing and pitch-obscuring slow wobble would simply not have been tolerated. If you would like to compare Villazon's acoustic 'Amor ti Vieta' with an original from that period, you could do worse than listen to Enrico Caruso or Giuseppe Anselmi. However, I would choose this gorgeous, seductive performance by Emile Scaramberg. It's better than mathematics!


That was rather brave of Villazon. His version sounded to my untutored ears rather strained, shrill and unpleasant. Thank you for the explanation of why that is the case. The clip you linked to sounded great, hard to see it as the same piece.

This is certainly good evidence, albeit just one example, of the superiority of singers of a century ago compared to today. Fascinating.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Wood said:


> That was rather brave of Villazon. His version sounded to my untutored ears rather strained, shrill and unpleasant. Thank you for the explanation of why that is the case. The clip you linked to sounded great, hard to see it as the same piece.
> 
> This is certainly good evidence, albeit just one example, of the superiority of singers of a century ago compared to today. Fascinating.


Forget Villazon. Jonas Kaufmanm would have killed that track much better on the gramophone easily. More fluid.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Personally I prefer to listen to Cage's 4'33" as I don't have to worry about whether it's orchestral or vocal 

I was first exposed to classical music via my grandfather's collection of pre-WW2 78rpm recordings. It was only in my teens when I discovered that opera was more than a couple of 4 minute arias, and that was due to discovering Maria Callas. Over the years the pendulum has swung between listening to mostly vocal or orchestral. Currently it is about 80/20 orchestral. No doubt it will swing back again!


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

albertfallickwang said:


> Forget Villazon. Jonas Kaufmanm would have killed that track much better on the gramophone easily. More fluid.


That would make an interesting programme- I wonder if Kaufmann could be persuaded to participate. What would he sound like on a cylinder? Not great, I'll bet- but then I'm not really a fan, as pretty as he undoubtedly is.It's hard to know who to compare him with as that distinctive lowered larynx sound only originated with Del Monaco I think, (c. 1950 or thereabouts- after my time, anyway ). I read on another forum which I'm not allowed to link to that Guillaume Ibos (1860-1952) used a similar technique:

_The "Pourquoi me réveiller" of Guillaume Ibos, the original French Werther, is far more Romantic in its treatment of tempo than anyone's since-De Lucia's included. Notice the lengthened dissonances. Ibos's version is a key to unlocking further expressive potential in the role. *He also was an early exponent of the lowered-larynx technique.*_

^^The poster who wrote that is a respected authority on tenor singing, but has strange ideas about French singers, in whom he is generally uninterested. Ibos' 'Pourquoi me Reveiller' doesn't sound that great to me, though we must make allowances for the speed fluctuations which make his intonation sound worse than it probably was. We can however compare him with Kaufmann, the famous Werther _de nos jours_. Here's Ibos anyway- the record starts at 1.10:






And of course we can hear the most famous early Werther, indeed the first, Ernest van Dijck (1861-1923), Jean de Reszke's baritenor rival, whose voice is said to have been prematurely ruined by Wagnerian roles. His records (all made post- vocal collapse) are notoriously poor, but his 'Pourquoi me Reveiller' shows a dramatic sense that survived the ruination of his voice:






The tenor of the acoustic period who Kaufmann most reminds me of is Albert Alvarez (1860-1933), not because of any alleged similarity in technique, but because he was also a very handsome baritenor whose looks we may surmise contributed more to his success than his singing, which by the high standards of those times sounds rather unfinished. Here's the best record of Alvarez I have heard- like Ibos' and van Dijck's, his recordings are generally rather disappointing for a singer of the front rank.






Back to Werther- if we want 'the key to unlocking further expressive potential' in Werther's arias, I would look again to Emile Scaramberg (1863-1938), whose gorgeously expressive records from that opera are on CD but not on YouTube in anything like decent sound. Surely no sane person in possession of their hearing would prefer Kaufmann to Scaramberg, if both were simultaneously able and willing to sing the role.  Of those I can link to here, there is a good if not that vocally charismatic 'Pourquoi me Reveiller' by Edmond Clement (1867-1928) and a later and even better version by Tito Schipa (1888-1965). Both Clement and Schipa were unashamed of having relatively small, light voices, which were nevertheless said to have carried well in the theatre- no 'larynx in the boots' artificial darkening of the voice for them!

Clement:






Schipa:






So, Herr Kaufmann, if you're lurking on these boards, we would like to hear you in an acoustically recorded 'opera war' with tenors roughly a hundred years your senior. Albertfallickwang and I both think you would represent the modern era better than Villazon.


----------



## composira (Sep 17, 2014)

I don't really have an _aversion_ to opera. But since I usually don't have enough time to only listen to music, I never really consider opera (I multitask while listening to music). I want to both listen to and see opera, and I would feel strange just doing half of it, so I just _don't_ and save it for when I do have time.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

I am just so glad that Morton Feldman composed for both voices and non-vocal instruments. Such versatility.


----------



## Skilmarilion (Apr 6, 2013)

Sorry for the substantially delayed response, lol.



Figleaf said:


> It's pretty germane to the subject of this thread. The uniquely communicative power of the voice is what exclusive listeners to vocal music love. Did I misunderstand your point?


You mentioned that "the voice is the greatest instrument for conveying meaning and emotion". My point was that, particularly with regard to "meaning", the voice is the *only* instrument that can convey that through language. So there can be no notion of "greatest".

With regard to "emotion", I simply disagree -- my emotional response to instrumental / orchestral music is far, far greater than towards vocal music. But that's a subjective thing anyway.



Figleaf said:


> Well of course words are limited by their definitions- otherwise they wouldn't mean anything at all. All meaning is limited: any 'meaning' includes certain characteristics or ideas and thus necessarily excludes others which are contradictory or irrelevant. If something goes 'beyond the limitations of so-called meaning' then surely it would not be unfair to regard it as meaning_less_?


I don't quite follow this. You agreed that language, i.e. meaning is limited. My point was that because of this, naturally music without voice (and language) should in theory be able to *'express more'*, since it is not bound to the limitations of language.

Bruno Walter said of the (instrumental) finale of Mahler's 3rd:

*"In the last movement, words are stilled-for what language can utter heavenly love more powerfully and forcefully than music itself".
*



Figleaf said:


> In the sense that both non-vocal music and mathematics are purely abstract and intellectual, and as such tend to baffle and alienate most ordinary people.


The above may or may not be true. I just don't view the two as suitable for comparison. How do "meaning and emotion" apply, given the wildly contrasting intended purposes of mathematics and (non-vocal) music?



Figleaf said:


> As one of the more eccentric posters here, I would probably not go around calling _other_ people crazy.  Words set to music, not necessarily in a theatrical context, a kind of augmented speech which is more expressive together than either words or music separately- might that not work for you, as it does for me? Since you like Rachmaninov's 'Vocalise' and are intrigued by the possibilities of love songs addressed to trees, I have found you another such song by that very composer. It's one of a series of duets between the violinist Fritz Kreisler and the tenor John McCormack, and it raises an interesting question which is relevant to the discussion of the affective possibilities of the voice versus that of the man-made musical instrument. Is it a violin-like voice, or a voice-like violin? Would it work without words, or without music? Personally I think the poem without the music would seem rather absurd (admittedly it may lose something in translation from the Russian) whereas the music without the words (or at any rate without John McCormack's beautifully plangent voice) would be merely superficially pretty, like one of Mantovani's violin records. Here it is, then, Rachmaninov's 'Before My Window'...


Thanks for this.

Just to point out, while I very much enjoy Vocalise, I am not at all "intrigued by love songs for trees".  Not sure if you were being serious there or not!

Given my preference for the 'non-vocal stuff', I have to add that in most circumstances, I will listen to a piece of vocal music by treating it as merely music, without paying much (or any) attention to what the lyrics / languagae / meaning is or is supposed to be.:tiphat:


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Opera addicts are 100% addicted to opera. Classical music addicts, 100% addicted to their music.

They are like oil and water. A law of nature; they simply don't mix.


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

It could be fair to say that if I comment about the conducting during an opera interval, the response is drowned out by the sound of crickets. They love to discuss the colour and timbre of the sopranos voice but are often oblivious to what is developing in the pit.


----------



## papsrus (Oct 7, 2014)

Couac Addict said:


> It could be fair to say that if I comment about the conducting during an opera interval, the response is drowned out by the sound of crickets. They love to discuss the colour and timbre of the sopranos voice but are often oblivious to what is developing in the pit.


I make an effort to give at least equal attention to the orchestra -- how well they support the singing; the overall balance with, and sensitivity to, the singing. In fact, I may pay _more_ attention to the orchestra at times than the voices.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

papsrus said:


> I make an effort to give at least equal attention to the orchestra -- how well they support the singing; the overall balance with, and sensitivity to, the singing. In fact, I may pay _more_ attention to the orchestra at times than the voices.


Indeed, the orchestration is key especially to Wagner and Verdi.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Skilmarilion said:


> Just to point out, while I very much enjoy Vocalise, I am not at all "intrigued by love songs for trees".  Not sure if you were being serious there or not!


No, that was a (feeble) joke, plus an opportunity to plug a favourite record. 

I've been pondering a properly considered response to the rest of your post for a while now, and I've come to the conclusion that there probably isn't one that I'm capable of making. It's not for me to tell you what to listen to, or how to listen to it. I can only wish you happy listening to whatever you may listen to, however you may listen to it. This inability of two people of radically different musical preferences to find common ground perhaps illustrates the validity of the OP: however we try to grope our way towards an understanding of the other person's perspective, and however much goodwill we apply in that endeavour, the exclusive lover of vocal music and the near-exclusive lover of non-vocal music (or vocal quasi-instrumental music like 'Vocalises') will forever be talking at cross purposes. Still, 'it would be a boring world if we were all the same'- and don't get this Tring gal started on things which are _boring_. :lol: :tiphat:


----------



## Guest (Mar 17, 2015)

I'd be more interested in "Why do many 'opera lovers' act like the genre died after Puccini, Strauss, or Berg?"


----------

