# Angela Meade: Finally Someone Besides Dame Joan to Sing Esclarmonde's Aria



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

. She did this at the Tucker Gala in 2014. Eaglen could sing Norma, but she couldn't have pulled this off with this much aplomb. Her D's were much smaller. Finally, with Radvanovsky, we have two dramatic coloraturas with big solid high D's!!!! Hurray!!! Meade has such a big rich voice, and unlike Dame Joan, had the strong lower register to sing Verdi as well.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Seattleoperafan said:


> . She did this at the Tucker Gala in 2014. Eaglen could sing Norma, but she couldn't have pulled this off with this much aplomb. Her D's were much smaller. Finally, with Radvanovsky, we have two dramatic coloraturas with big solid high D's!!!! Hurray!!! Meade has such a big rich voice, and unlike Dame Joan, had the strong lower register to sing Verdi as well.


Radvanovsky is not a a coloratura in any sense of the word. a world class spinto voice, but she should really be staying away from the bel canto coloratura repertory.

the rendition you linked was surprisingly good though


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

You are probably right. I've only heard Radvanovsky on Norma broadcasts and she sounded good in the bits I heard, her D in alt was great, but I haven't heard a whole opera with her.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I wish I could share your enthusiasm. Angela Meade has power and range but she also has a vibrato that would register on a seismograph and rattle the books off your shelves. None of the great sopranos back in the day (choose your own day) had this annoying and actually unmusical trait. Not Caballe, Scotto, Moffo, Freni, Price, De los Angeles, Callas, Tebaldi, Cerquetti, Olivero - none of them. Why do we hear it constantly from young singers nowadays? This should disqualify Meade for bel canto - for anything but late Verdi and verismo, really, where you can (but shouldn't) get away with this sort of unrefined sound. Yet she stepped right out of music school onto the stage of the Met and into _Ernani_ and _Norma!_ Radvanovsky, as I recall, has a cleaner sound, and I'd much rather hear her in that repertoire, though she is hardly the equal of the ladies listed above, in addition to being lacking in coloratura skills. And of course there's Netrebko, still one of our best voices, whatever her deficiencies.

These are hard times for classic Italian opera, which has bel canto singing at its heart.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Would someone please tell me what the difference is between a vibrato and a wobble, and, more importantly, where you set the dividing line between them?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Becca said:


> Would someone please tell me what the difference is between a vibrato and a wobble, and, more importantly, where you set the dividing line between them?


I'll have a go at that.

*Vibrato* is a natural oscillation, different from the vibration of the vocal chords which actually produces the sung note, which occurs in all trained voices. It is not learned, but occurs spontaneously when the voice is working efficiently, which is why I call it natural. (Pop and jazz singers often affect an artificial, controlled vibrato, which may partake of the mechanism of a natural vibrato but is easily distinguishable if you know what a natural vibrato sounds like). Vibratos vary among singers in the speed of oscillation and in the pitch interval they encompass: we speak of vibratos being quicker and slower, and narrower and wider.

A *wobble* is a slow, wide (in pitch) oscillation in the tone caused by a technical deficiency - generally fatigued, worn, or wrongly employed muscles in the vocal mechanism. It may be the result of forcing the voice, poor breath support, overuse, or other interference in the tone and coordination of the vocal muscles. A slowing of the natural vibrato is natural as singers age, and may develop into a real wobble as the voice shows the effects of long use. In younger singers, it's likely to be the result of improperly developed muscular coordination (poor technique) or habitual forcing of the voice.

I hear in too many current singers what I suspect to be this latter condition. I suspect the cause is improper training, in which the singer is not taught how to sing comfortably within the voice's capacity but habitually oversings in pursuit of a "big" sound. This precludes the development of the subtler refinements of singing and has resulted in a lot of shouting and a lot of big vibratos dangerously close to being wobbles. Angela Meade strikes me as fitting this description.

Though singers' vibratos differ in prominence, and are to some degree a matter of taste and fashion (different eras seem to have had different preferences in vibrato types), there is no doubt that a quicker, narrower vibrato and the resulting "purity" of tone and clarity of pitch enable a singer to render a musical line with greater precision and flexibility. This is more critical in certain types of music, and is certainly essential to the bel canto ideal, for both technical and aesthetic reasons.

Here are some singers illustrating different vibratos:

Mattia Battistini (baritone) 



Enrico Caruso (tenor) and Ernestine Schumann-Heink (contralto) 




Those singers were trained in the 19th century. Their quick, narrow vibratos exemplify the bel canto ideal of a clear, compact tone.

That kind of tonal clarity can also be heard in the voice of Kirsten Flagstad, in a much different repertoire: 




Contrast this with some more recent singers in the same music: 




In this "Hojotoho contest" lol, start at 4:39 for Martha Modl. Notice how the greater muscular effort in her singing slows her vibrato down and makes it irregular. Modl developed a bad wobble, which Flagstad never did even in her 60s because her technique was better and she sang within her resources instead of forcing. At 7:00 we have Astrid Varnay, who in this clip is already developing a wobble.

Now hear Deborah Voigt, with Bryn Terfel as Wotan at the Met: 




Both singers are forcing their voices here, with Terfel starting to wobble on high notes and Voigt, post-weight-loss, well past her free vibrato days and mired deep in the Swamps of Wobbledom. It makes one want to run back to the glorious Flagstad, a precious reminder that even warrior maidens can sing beautifully!


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

So essentially a vibrato is a relatively fast variation over a narrow range whereas a wobble is a slower variation over a wider range and the two form a continuum, the big difference being that a vibrato is (mostly) considered a good/natural thing whereas a wobble is neither. It would also appear that one person's tolerable vibrato is another's intolerable wobble


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Becca said:


> So essentially a vibrato is a relatively fast variation over a narrow range whereas a wobble is a slower variation over a wider range and the two form a continuum, the big difference being that a vibrato is (mostly) considered a good/natural thing whereas a wobble is neither. It would also appear that one person's tolerable vibrato is another's intolerable wobble


That is what one hears in terms of speed and pitch. But one can also hear the signs, often but not always subtle, of muscular effort in a wobble. A true vibrato never sounds effortful; it registers as a "liveliness" or a "scintillation" which seems an inner quality of the tone, not an imposition on it. This distinction in quality may take some practice to recognize as one listens for the signs of freedom or effort, but sometimes it is even visually apparent, as the improper muscular effort spreads to the muscles of the neck and jaw and causes them to tense and tremble. Having studied singing helps to make these things clear.

Many people do accept appalling wobbles as perfectly normal and inoffensive because they haven't learned to hear the difference. They think that's what an opera singer is supposed to sound like. Other people who think the same thing decide that they hate opera because they can't tell what note the singer is supposed to be singing (and often they are right!). Some of these opera haters will hear a singer with a clean, tight vibrato such as Pavarotti and say "I can't stand opera singers but I like Pavarotti." If only they knew that what they're hearing in Pavarotti is a well-focused voice - and if only there were more of those around!


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

I hear differently. I like the rich lush sound of Meade's voice and don't hear a wobble. Perhaps I am defective. To me it is not unlike the type of vibrato Jessye Norman had. It is a complex, opulent sound to my ear.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Seattleoperafan said:


> I hear differently. I like the rich lush sound of Meade's voice and don't hear a wobble. Perhaps I am defective. To me it is not unlike the type of vibrato Jessye Norman had. It is a complex, opulent sound to my ear.


Meade has good material and I don't think her vibrato is a wobble - yet. But she'd better be on guard and keep it under control. Based on what I hear, she has troubles in her future. Maybe she's been told it's perfectly fine to come straight from the conservatory to the huge stage of the Met and start out on difficult Verdi roles and Norma, but young singers like her routinely get eaten alive before they've mastered the technique they need to get them through life. She is simply not a bel canto singer; she has neither the vocal purity nor the transcendent technique, and she's singing that stuff because we desperately need someone who can. (Wouldn't hurt her to lose 30 pounds either - carefully, of course.)

Norman's vibrato was never that wide, by the way. I think she knew better how to "sing on her interest, not on her capital." I'll be very surprised if Meade has such a long, consistent vocal career.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> That is what one hears in terms of speed and pitch. But one can also hear the signs, often but not always subtle, of muscular effort in a wobble. A true vibrato never sounds effortful; it registers as a "liveliness" or a "scintillation" which seems an inner quality of the tone, not an imposition on it. This distinction in quality may take some practice to recognize as one listen for the signs of freedom or effort, but sometimes it is even visually apparent, as the improper muscular effort spreads to the muscles of the neck and jaw and causes them to tense and tremble. Having studied singing helps to make these things clear.
> 
> Many people do accept appalling wobbles as perfectly normal and inoffensive because they haven't learned to hear the difference. They think that's what an opera singer is supposed to sound like. Other people who think the same thing decide that they hate opera because they can't tell what note the singer is supposed to be singing (and often they are right!). Some of these opera haters will hear a singer with a clean, tight vibrato such as Pavarotti and say "I can't stand opera singers but I like Pavarotti." If only they knew that what they're hearing in Pavarotti is a well-focused voice - and if only there were more of those around!


Very clear posts from Woodduck on the subject of wobble and vibrato. I would just add that Schwarzkopf, in her masterclasses and in interview, would talk of the need to "vibrate" the voice in more densely orchestrated passages. She would be the first to point out that hers was essentially a small voice, but she never forced and always sang within her means, whether it be Bach or Verdi. She used vibrato as a means of projecting the voice.

One might also note that when Callas's voice was in prime health, she would generally use more vibrato in Verdi than she would in the music of Gluck or Cherubini, where her use of portamento was also more chastely applied. I don't really hear many singers today adapting their method to the needs of different periods of music.

When it comes to _bel canto_, we seem to have returned to the bad old days, between Ponselle and Callas, when Norma was given to large voiced dramatic sopranos who couldn't cope with its coloratura demands and Amina to light, small-voiced sopranos, though both roles were written for the same singer. I hear Netrebko is about to sing Norma. If a performance of her singing _Casta diva_ I heard on youtube is anything to go by, she simply doesn't have the technique; the gruppetti are at best approximated, she has no discernible trill and her downward chromatic scales are simply slithers. Still, she doesn't wobble, so I presume we should all be thankful for that.

Edited to add that I just listened to Meade in Anna Bolena's Mad Scene, and it is to note that, even in 1958, when she recorded her Mad Scenes disc, Callas's tone is far more cleanly focused, and her vibrato relatively slight.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

I didn't realize Meade was so young. She is so heavy she looks middle aged.She was so extremely corseted that from the front she looked like she had a waistline but you saw where all that fat went when she turned around and she looked like she was about to pop. Going straight from conservatory to heavy roles at the met is not a good idea. I love, love, love this repertoire and after Sutherland and Caballe there have been few bright spots of singers up the the challenge. I bow to the better expertise I read in this thread.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Angela Meade was a winner in the 2007 Met Auditions which was made into a documentary film. There were a number of other noteworthy winners from that year including Michael Fabbiano, Jamie Barton and Alek Shrader.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Becca said:


> Angela Meade was a winner in the 2007 Met Auditions which was made into a documentary film. There were a number of other noteworthy winners from that year including Michael Fabbiano, Jamie Barton and Alek Shrader.


The Met's young singers programs, competitions, and recruiting efforts are probably needed and serve a purpose in the modern world, but I suspect they may have the down side of rushing young talent into "major" careers before they're vocally and psychologically ready.

A century ago singers' (and for that matter conductors' and other musicians') early careers were spent in provincial houses, often near where they lived, where they could experiment with repertoire, test their voices in smaller spaces, and not be pressured immediately to be "stars" and subject their bodies and psyches to the whims of impresarios and stage directors and the rigors of travel. A singer who became an international star "overnight" would normally have been testing her abilities in smaller, local venues for many years.

When Kirsten Flagstad, born in 1895, took the Met by storm in 1935 she was 40 years old and had been on stage in Norway since 1913, performing a wide repertoire from operetta to Aida, and letting her voice grow gradually into the powerful and technically rock-solid instrument that enabled her to specialize in the heaviest roles of Wagner well into her fifties without ever encountering vocal problems.

Such a patient approach to building a career in opera, free of the pressure to overextend oneself and the temptations of money and glamor, has to be good for a singer's well-being and voice, both in terms of overall health and because it allows her to develop her vocal technique thoroughly and at the pace it naturally requires.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

We had a marvelous Young Artist Program with many talented singers including Lawrence Brownlee who came out of the program at Seattle Opera, but funds caused it to be discontinued this year. So sad.


----------

