# Questions from a new member



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

I figured the best place to bring these questions would be here. There must have been discussions between people who love opera and others who have a hard time getting into it. I've been trying to search through old threads without much success, so I was wondering if anyone could direct me to past threads that addressed these issues:

1. Different types of sopranos with outstanding examples of each type from the past fifty years. (Might include opinions and preferences on the various types)

2. Discussions on vibrato or any other factor that differentiates a clear, bell-like tone from a deeper, richer one.

3. Opinions on recitative and melisima - do they add to or detract froim the opera experience?

I feel sure these topics must have been brought up in the past, and I don't want to make the newbie mistake of bringing up old issues as if they were new.

I tried search past titles by some of these keywords, but I can't find anything that way.
Please let me know if there are such old topics because I'd like to read what people have said about them.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Vesteralen said:


> 3. Opinions on recitative and melisima - do they add to or detract froim the opera experience


I'm not sure which threads may already have touched on these issues.

As for your question #3, the quick, cursory, perhaps superficial answer that comes to mind is that it depends on the period and style of opera you're talking about. "Recitative" can mean different things in the hands of different composers, from the harpsichord noodlings of "secco" recitative, to the dramatic intensity of accompanied recitative, to the dynamic thrust of Wagnerian and many later operas which either have no recitative or are nothing but recitative, depending on how you look at it. Same thing with melismas: entirely fitting in the florid coloratura of bel canto, but less useful in many later, more declamatory works.

As I said, that's a quick reaction. But your questions indicate that you have some knowledge of opera already, so maybe I'm not really addressing the point you had in mind.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

amfortas said:


> I'm not sure which threads may already have touched on these issues.
> 
> As for your question #3, the quick, cursory, perhaps superficial answer that comes to mind is that it depends on the period and style of opera you're talking about. "Recitative" can mean different things in the hands of different composers, from the harpsichord noodlings of "secco" recitative, to the dramatic intensity of accompanied recitative, to the dynamic thrust of Wagnerian and many later operas which have either no recitative or are nothing but recitative, depending on how you look at it. Same thing with melismas: entirely fitting in the florid coloratura of bel canto, but less useful in many later, more declamatory works.
> 
> As I said, that's a quick reaction. But your questions indicate that you have some knowledge of opera already, so maybe I'm not really addressing the point you had in mind.


Thank you for responding.

Of course, the broad topics I mentioned undoubtedly tend to over-generalize the issues. But, let me assure you I have no hidden agenda. I really do want to read what may have already been written on these subjects.

Whatever familiarity I have with opera comes from liking the *idea* of opera enough to listen to it now and then. I even list Monteverdi's "L'Orfeo" among my favorite musical works of all time. Unfortunately, my knowledge doesn't reach the point of being to talk insightfully about it. So, because I still have a few things that pose a barrier between a real love of opera and myself, I'm just interested in looking over some discussions that might have taken place in the past to see if I can learn anything.


----------



## rgz (Mar 6, 2010)

Welcome to the forum Vesteralen. While those topics have been discussed, I don't know if there are threads in which they were the specific topic of conversation. But that's not necessarily a bad thing, I'm sure other members would be happy to talk about these topics here, though #1 in particular will lead to a huge thread  There may be some crossover with the Youtube Thread, but generally the specific type of singer is not mentioned when linking a video unless the singer is more obscure. For example, no one would bother linking a Natalie Dessay vid with the explanation that she is a lyric coloratura as that tends to be common knowledge.

In any event, I'll try to address your first question as best I can given my status as a relative newcomer myself (just started getting into opera 2 years ago).

Going by the German Fach system, there are 7 classifications for sopranos: Lyric Coloratura, Dramatic Coloratura, Soubrette, Lyric, Light Dramatic, Full Dramatic, Wagnerian. Speaking perhaps just for myself, but that's not how I classify them in my own mind, which would be, within the category of Soprano, having the sub-categories of Coloratura, Lyric, Dramatic, and each of those having 2-3 subdivisions. These classifications roughly go from lightest to heaviest, and the subcategories tend to differentiate by the voice's color.

Coloraturas have the most agile of voices and perhaps the least "opera" sounding of voices (i.e., friends who I've tried to get into opera have sometimes said that they don't like the artificial sound of operatic voices. The heavier the voice, generally speaking, the more "artificial" (or weighty) it sounds). Coloraturas have the highest range; while basically all sopranos are expected to have a C6 (C two octaves above middle C on the piano, I believe), coloratura roles often go up to an Eb6 (3 semitones higher) or even higher -- the Queen of the Night's famous revenge aria from Mozart's The Magic Flute goes up to an F6 (5 semitones above C6).

Generally speaking, coloratura roles tend to be (in the opera) young women, often something of a "flirt". Of course exceptions abound, but just speaking generally here.

Coloraturas can be split into two subcategories: lyric coloraturas, who have a very sweet, pure, light tone. Natalie Dessay and Beverly Sills are examples of lyric coloraturas.




Note the incredible agility and range and lightness of tone
Dramatic coloraturas have a weightier, more aggressive tone. Examples are Joan Sutherland and Diana Damrau




(aria starts at 2:13)
Note the bolder sound while still possessing incredible agility.

Lyric sopranos can generally be classed into two or three types, depending what one considers "soubrette". Generally speaking though, a lyric soprano is the "prototype" soprano voice. It must be above all else beautiful and rich as this is probably the most common fach for sopranos, so possessing a purely gorgeous tone is essential. They will generally not have the agility or upper range of a coloratura but will have a tone that sounds fuller with more "varnish", for lack of a better word.
Light lyrics have a sweetness to their tone. Alison Hagley is a good example:




(she is the younger woman in this duet). Clear, bell like ringing tone that can only be described as beautiful.

Full lyrics have a weightier tone that is often described as velvety. Probably the most popular soprano in the world currently, Anna Netrebko is a perfect example of a Full Lyric voice





The lyric soprano voice is called "the girlfriend of the world" and that's often the role they play. Mimi in La Boheme is a perfect example of a lyric soprano role.

Dramatic sopranos have the weightiest of all soprano voices, and generally speaking must be incredibly big, full, and able to penetrate large orchestras. I have a tough time calling dramatic soprano voices beautiful, particularly those capable of singing Wagner. Instead, they are awe-inspiring. They sound like an avalanche rolling down hill with tremendous power.
The great Birgit Nilsson is an example of a dramatic soprano





And then of course you have Maria Callas, who defies classification. She could sing everything from Brunnhilde (as heavy a role as there is) to Elvira in I Puritani (a lyric coloratura role that requires basically the exact opposite vocal type) -- and did so in a single season once, and received rave reviews for both. This is a feat similar to someone performing as the lead dancer at the Bolshoi and then winning a heavyweight boxing match a week later.

Also, I should mention that roles are not set in stone; Lucia di Lammermoor, for example, is in theory a dramatic coloratura role but the Met has had lyric coloraturas such as Natalie Dessay and full lyrics such as Anna Netrebko sing the role. But there are limits to the amount of crossover -- Callas aside, one would never find a dramatic soprano like Deborah Voight singing a coloratura role like Amina from La Sonnambula.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Whoa! This looks really good. Thanks.

I'm disappointed I don't have time to read and look at this in detail right now, since I have to get traveling home from work. I will definitely take a good look at this later tonight. 

Thanks again!


----------



## rgz (Mar 6, 2010)

Hm, just realized I left out a category entirely, the spinto soprano. This doesn't appear in the German fach system -- looks like they consider it "light dramatic", which is fair enough I suppose.
Spinto sopranos are a "pushed" voice, has a 'forward' sound, and somewhere between dramatic and lyric voices in my opinion. Renata Tebaldi and Sondra Radvanovsky are two examples


----------



## Aksel (Dec 3, 2010)

rgz said:


> Dramatic sopranos have the weightiest of all soprano voices, and generally speaking must be incredibly big, full, and able to penetrate large orchestras. *I have a tough time calling dramatic soprano voices beautiful, particularly those capable of singing Wagner. * Instead, they are awe-inspiring. They sound like an avalanche rolling down hill with tremendous power.
> The great Birgit Nilsson is an example of a dramatic soprano


Oh really, now?






Just to add to Ian's already excellent survey, it is worth noting that dramatic sopranos and especially Wagnerian sopranos (or Hochdramatischer Sopran (literally, high dramatic soprano)) (this goes for tenors and the likes as well) are the most rare of voices. They pop up a few times per generation, and a truly great one, like Kirsten Flagstad (whom many, including me, regard as the greatest Wagnerian soprano of just about all time) or Birgit Nilsson come once in a lifetime (and yet, somehow, in the years before and after WWII, you could almost find them on every corner). These voices are truly spectacular; Flagstad's voice was time and time again compared to an organ - it was almost like she just flipped a little switch, and suddenly she could outsing a 100 piece orchestra, brass and all. 
The sheer amount of volume required to sing through the orchestra, which already is playing tutti fortissimo, is only part of what makes the Wagnerian and dramatic sopranos exceedingly rare

Also, I just found this video of Flagstad talking about singing Wagner.






Here is a list of all fachs in all voice types, singers of the different fachs and the different roles they sing.


----------



## rgz (Mar 6, 2010)

Aksel said:


> Oh really, now?


I stand by what I said  I am in awe of great Wagnerian sopranos, I love listening to them, but it's not a sound that in my mind I consider beautiful. It's like, for example, much of Rodin's sculptures; visiting the Rodin museum in France was an incredible experience and I absolutely love his work, but the majority of it is not what I'd call beautiful. I don't know that anyone could call the Burghers of Calais or The Gates of Hell pretty. That's not a derogatory remark to Rodin or to Ms. Flagstad. Of course, chacun ses gouts


----------



## Aksel (Dec 3, 2010)

rgz said:


> I stand by what I said  I am in awe of great Wagnerian sopranos, I love listening to them, but it's not a sound that in my mind I consider beautiful. It's like, for example, much of Rodin's sculptures; visiting the Rodin museum in France was an incredible experience and I absolutely love his work, but the majority of it is not what I'd call beautiful. I don't know that anyone could call the Burghers of Calais or The Gates of Hell pretty. That's not a derogatory remark to Rodin or to Ms. Flagstad. Of course, chacun ses gouts


Oh well. I see your point, although I do think Flagstad's voice was one of the most beautiful of the last century.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Vesteralen said:


> I figured the best place to bring these questions would be here. There must have been discussions between people who love opera and others who have a hard time getting into it. I've been trying to search through old threads without much success, so I was wondering if anyone could direct me to past threads that addressed these issues:
> 
> 1. Different types of sopranos with outstanding examples of each type from the past fifty years. (Might include opinions and preferences on the various types)
> 
> ...


Welcome to the forum, and you don't need to worry about whether it is proper or not to post your questions here even though some other threads have addressed these issues in the past. First of all, because we are friendly and tolerant, and not control freaks. The 'sin' of posting something that has been addressed before is not frowned upon here as much as it is in some other venues. Second, because there is nothing wrong with listing your questions in one neat package, and even though some of the above has been discussed before, it would be hard to find the old threads, and they wouldn't contain the answer to all your doubts in any organized way.

For instance, there was once a thread on "favorite opera singers in each fach" and of course people have listed their preferred lyric coloratura sopranos, dramatic sopranos, etc, etc, so that people's picks would function as the examples you are looking for. By the way, the thread contained similar "favorites" for all voice types, including mezzos, contraltos, and the male voices as well. Some posters didn't make a difference between subtypes, but others did. Here is a link to that thread:

http://www.talkclassical.com/3657-favorite-opera-singers-each.html

We currently have threads for "greatest female singers of the past" and another one for the current singers. People don't necessarily quote what voice subtype these singers had or have, but a simple Wikipedia search would give you the answer. I doubt, however, that you'll get as good an explanation as rgz just gave you, which again proves the point of your thread.

I should add that there's nothing better than a new member that comes in and already asks interesting and pertinent questions that spike a good debate. Well done!

Some examples of different sopranos from my old post #32 in that thread linked above:

Lyric coloratura: Natalie Dessay, Kathleen Battle (I have just added the latter)

Dramatic coloratura: Diana Damrau, Edita Gruberová

Spinto: Sondra Radvanovsky

Light Lyric: Dorothea Röschmann

Full Lyric: Renée Fleming, Kiri Te Kanawa, Angela Gheorghiu, Anna Netrebko

Dramatic: Nina Stemme, Karita Mattila, Debora Voigt

In terms of preferences for each kind, I don't think we can say so. It's a question of role. You need to have the right fit for the role. You can't cast a lyric coloratura soprano to sing a dramatic soprano role. When they are the right fit for the role, they are all good, no need to have a preference. Of course, one may have a preference for the era/subgenre of the work, such as those who like belcanto more than they like Wagner. But you'll need different sopranos to sing these different styles. I'm a mongrel. I like everything.

About your question on recitatives, I second what amfortas said, and would like to add that it's all a question of quality and balance. He did tell you about different eras, when we went from "numbers" operas with clear divisions between recitatives and arias/duos/ensembles, to "scenes" operas when we started to see clusters of 4 arias without recitative, but with recitative separating that cluster or scene from the next one (mid-Verdi is an example), to written through operas that didn't even have the division any longer. This, not to forget other forms such as Singspiel, operetta, opéra comique, zarzuelas, all of which with spoken dialogue and without recitative. Amfortas has mentioned the difference between recitativo secco and accompagnato, and you have to also consider arioso, which is a step ahead, in between a recitativo accompagnato and an aria.

But let's forget all these differences for a moment, and consider your question in the context of a period/style in which you have "numbers" operas with an aria, recitativo, aria, recitativo alternation. So, is the recitative something that adds to the experience, or detracts from it? That's when I'd say that it depends on the quality and the balance.

Recitatives have a function: that of pushing the plot forward, since the arias are sort of a "thinking" moment. Time freezes when an aria is sung, while the recitatives make the story advance. They also add context and information on the various events that are being deployed. So if you like your opera to be just like a recital or concert (case for instance of Rossini's Il Viaggio a Reims) then you may find that the recitatives are a boring waste of time until the next blockbuster aria. But if you like your opera to be a complete theatrical experience that makes some sense (some allowance being made to the necessary suspension of disbelief given the frequent far fetched nature of opera plots) then you need the recitatives.

Case in point, the M22 boxset of the complete operatic works of Mozart. For some of his early operas, the stage directors chose to substitute a narration in German for Mozart's recitatives, presumably to make the story advance faster and be more accessible to the public. In my opinion, it was a disaster. The absence of the recitatives removed the glue that keeps everything together. The actors/singers couldn't interact with each other any longer so there was not enough "getting into the character." The result was very unpleasant.

So, recitatives are needed and important for those "numbers" operas. But they can be detrimental, when the quality is low, starting with the libretto. When you have a fabulous libretto like the ones authored by Da Ponte for Mozart, and you add to this a composer who was able to make of the simplest recitativo something musically appealing, then you get a winner. And when both the librettist and the composer have a sense of balance and pace (recitatives that are not overlong, and that don't keep the public too hungry for the arias, that move the story along nicely but don't seem to predominate) they are pleasant and interesting. A bad librettist writing artificial-sounding, stiff, poetically weak overlong lines, set to music by a mediocre composer, will bring about boredom with their recitatives.

Melismas are defined as the use of several different notes in succession for the same syllable of a word. You see them used in Gregorian chant, in Baroque operas (think Handel) and in belcanto-style coloraturas (think the melismas for the first "o" in the word "Lindoro" in an aria like _Una Voce Poco Fa_. They're not only used in classical music - think about the melismas in Flamenco, for example. Do they add to the experience or detract from it? I'd say it's a matter of taste. They add to the experience for me. I love them. Some people are turned off by the endless melismas in some _da capo_ arias in baroque operas. I'm not. I love belcanto which uses melismas and other kinds of ornamentation to add color to the musical phrase. For me, they add even more to the experience, when done by the proper singer with an agile voice. Some people can't stand them - they may be a matter of acquired taste.

I'm not sure if I follow you on your vibrato question. I don't think that the vibrato is what differentiates a bell-like tone from a deeper, richer tone. Fach and timbre would bring about this differentiation, but a vibrato can be (and is) used by singers of different fachs; actually all fachs. A vibrato is just a vocal technique that employs rapid contractions of the larynx muscles to produce a regular pulsating pitch change. One can imprint to the vibrato different characteristics (regarding the extent and the speed), and yes, the narrower and faster, the clearer the sound is, while a slower and wider vibrato can add warmth to the note. But I don't see the vibrato as the principal characteristic that would make a voice be characterized as bell-like versus deeper and richer. But maybe I'm wrong and someone who is more savvy in the realm of vocal technique can better answer this question for you.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

rgz said:


> .
> 
> Coloraturas have the most agile of voices and perhaps the least "opera" sounding of voices (i.e., friends who I've tried to get into opera have sometimes said that they don't like the artificial sound of operatic voices. The heavier the voice, generally speaking, the more "artificial" (or weighty) it sounds).


First of all, again accept my thanks for your detailed answer to at least one of my questions. It's more than I had hoped for. And, I'm sorry I couldn't respond right away - it ended up being a very busy evening for me and I had to wait till I got back to work to have the time to read it carefully (ironic, isn't it?).

I suppose I fall into the same category as your friends you mentioned above. Although, as a later poster suggested, some roles in opera do seem to clearly call for the weightier voice, and I don't mind them nearly as much when they *obviously* fit the role.

Thinking it over some more, I would have to say that I have more of a problem when it comes to "young" roles in opera sung by very mature voices, and especially in Lieder (which I know is out of the bounds of this forum). What I'm trying to say is, that since I have a hard time seeing the beauty in what you referred to as the artifical-seeming vocal technique, I don't want to hear it more than I have absolutely have to. The odd thing is that a lot of mezzos seem to like to sing Lieder, and I'd much rather hear it sung by someone like Anniliese Rothenberger (to pick a voice from the past I'm a little familiar with).

I read on another thread here that Natalie Dessay may have damaged her voice by trying to sing roles outside her natural, or at least her customary Fach category. I hope this isn't too ignorant a question, but have you ever known of a singer who has been allowed to *adapt* a role that wasn't exactly written for their Fach category into her own, rather than being asked to stretch her voice too far?


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Almaviva said:


> In terms of preferences for each kind, I don't think we can say so. It's a question of role. You need to have the right fit for the role. You can't cast a lyric coloratura soprano to sing a dramatic soprano role. When they are the right fit for the role, they are all good, no need to have a preference. Of course, one may have a preference for the era/subgenre of the work, such as those who like belcanto more than they like Wagner. But you'll need different sopranos to sing these different styles. I'm a mongrel. I like everything.


Wow. There was so much good material in this entire post, I'm going to have to respond bit by bit by quoting paragraphs one at a time.

I suppose this paragraph is at least a partial answer to the question I just raised to rgz above.

To a large extent, it's probably very similar to the problem people who have never been exposed to classical music before have when they first encounter something like the Brahms Symphonies (as I did back around 1970 when I was in my late teens). There is something archaic-sounding about this music until you allow it to penetrate your consciousness. Then, when you finally get the idiom, you get the music (or maybe vice versa).

I guess the immature part of me fights it. I keep thinking that certain operas would be so much better if somehow the lead roles could be sung in a less weighty manner. (As if the composers were originally writing for a specific singer, not for the ideal voice for the role itself.) On the other hand, there are probably a sufficient number of operas written for lyric sopranos that I could content myself with them (at least until I get more comfortable with the idiom?).


----------



## rgz (Mar 6, 2010)

Vesteralen said:


> First of all, again accept my thanks for your detailed answer to at least one of my questions. It's more than I had hoped for. And, I'm sorry I couldn't respond right away - it ended up being a very busy evening for me and I had to wait till I got back to work to have the time to read it carefully (ironic, isn't it?).
> 
> I suppose I fall into the same category as your friends you mentioned above. Although, as a later poster suggested, some roles in opera do seem to clearly call for the weightier voice, and I don't mind them nearly as much when they *obviously* fit the role.
> 
> ...


If it's any consolation, I was exactly the same way; it was the lighter weight of the coloratura voice that got me intetested in opera initially (specifically, Diana Damrau at first and then, more extensively with Natalie Dessay) and coloratura sopranos remain my favorite fach.

No roles spring to mind as being rewritten for another fach with the possible exception of Rosina in The Barber of Seville, a coloratura mezzo role that, due to its rather high tessitura, is also able to be sung by coloratura sopranos when the showpiece aria Una Voce Poco Fa is performed in a higher key. But as far as rerigging, say, Ariadne (in Ariadne auf Naxos) to be sung by a lightweight voice like that of Kathleen Battle (for example) -- I can't think of any such instance.


----------



## rgz (Mar 6, 2010)

And don't worry about not liking weightier voices at the moment, just listen to what strikes you as enjoyable right now. My entry into opera was due to finding a particular singer I really enjoyed and eventually branching out from there. Took me months before I found a voice like Sondra Radvanovsky's (linked above) truly beautiful.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

rgz said:


> And don't worry about not liking weightier voices at the moment, just listen to what strikes you as enjoyable right now. My entry into opera was due to finding a particular singer I really enjoyed and eventually branching out from there. Took me months before I found a voice like Sondra Radvanovsky's (linked above) truly beautiful.


Noted. I'll be patient.

(Though, when it comes to Lieder, I think it will take me a long time not to feel that anything more than a lyric soprano singing it is like the old simile - 'trying to kill a fly with a bazooka'....)


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

rgz said:


> If it's any consolation, I was exactly the same way; it was the lighter weight of the coloratura voice that got me intetested in opera initially (specifically, Diana Damrau at first and then, more extensively with Natalie Dessay) and coloratura sopranos remain my favorite fach.
> 
> No roles spring to mind as being rewritten for another fach with the possible exception of Rosina in The Barber of Seville, a coloratura mezzo role that, due to its rather high tessitura, is also able to be sung by coloratura sopranos when the showpiece aria Una Voce Poco Fa is performed in a higher key. But as far as rerigging, say, Ariadne (in Ariadne auf Naxos) to be sung by a lightweight voice like that of Kathleen Battle (for example) -- I can't think of any such instance.


I don't think I agree with this. There has been a fair number of performances in which certain roles have been transposed (usually, lower) to avoid strain to the voice of whoever they were able to cast. I don't think the results are usually good, but it has happened. I don't have an example out of the tip of my tongue, but I'm certain that it has happened, since I clearly remember critics commenting upon it. We should just let our new member know that it's not something that the singer can do on his/her own, it takes the conductor/musical director to take care of the transposition so that the orchestra will match the singer's voice.

And yes, certain roles have been written for specific singers that had been hired for the premiere. There are numerous instances of this in the history of opera. But once it's done, it's done, and if someone wants to sing it in a different register, then a full transposition will need to happen.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Almaviva said:


> About your question on recitatives, I second what amfortas said, and would like to add that it's all a question of quality and balance. He did tell you about different eras, when we went from "numbers" operas with clear divisions between recitatives and arias/duos/ensembles, to "scenes" operas when we started to see clusters of 4 arias without recitative, but with recitative separating that cluster or scene from the next one (mid-Verdi is an example), to written through operas that didn't even have the division any longer. This, not to forget other forms such as Singspiel, operetta, opéra comique, zarzuelas, all of which with spoken dialogue and without recitative. Amfortas has mentioned the difference between recitativo secco and accompagnato, and you have to also consider arioso, which is a step ahead, in between a recitativo accompagnato and an aria.


I have no problem at all with Mozart's 'Magic Flute', probably because it is a Singspiel, and because there are no heavy voices in it except the bass. Because it is Singspiel, it fits more into my comfort zone - something I'm inured to (more like a musical than an opera).



> But let's forget all these differences for a moment, and consider your question in the context of a period/style in which you have "numbers" operas with an aria, recitativo, aria, recitativo alternation. So, is the recitative something that adds to the experience, or detracts from it? That's when I'd say that it depends on the quality and the balance.
> 
> Recitatives have a function: that of pushing the plot forward, since the arias are sort of a "thinking" moment. Time freezes when an aria is sung, while the recitatives make the story advance. They also add context and information on the various events that are being deployed. So if you like your opera to be just like a recital or concert (case for instance of Rossini's Il Viaggio a Reims) then you may find that the recitatives are a boring waste of time until the next blockbuster aria. But if you like your opera to be a complete theatrical experience that makes some sense (some allowance being made to the necessary suspension of disbelief given the frequent far fetched nature of opera plots) then you need the recitatives.
> 
> Case in point, the M22 boxset of the complete operatic works of Mozart. For some of his early operas, the stage directors chose to substitute a narration in German for Mozart's recitatives, presumably to make the story advance faster and be more accessible to the public. In my opinion, it was a disaster. The absence of the recitatives removed the glue that keeps everything together. The actors/singers couldn't interact with each other any longer so there was not enough "getting into the character." The result was very unpleasant.


I can easily see your point that recitatives are better than *nothing*. If I had a choice, though, I still think I'd prefer the spoken word. I mean, after all, is there a recitative in the literature that's so good that people encore it. (Don't tell me - there probably is one.  )

The comparison that keeps coming to my mind is, what if the second movement of Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony was interrupted two or three times by the orchestra just repeating the same note over and over? I think I'd rather have a narrator come on and explain to us - "now you're going to hear the babbling brook"... It wouldn't be good, but it would be better than the first scenario.

(I'm sorry. I was being facetious, but I just couldn't resist it. Not a decent way to reward your very sincere response.)



> So, recitatives are needed and important for those "numbers" operas. But they can be detrimental, when the quality is low, starting with the libretto. When you have a fabulous libretto like the ones authored by Da Ponte for Mozart, and you add to this a composer who was able to make of the simplest recitativo something musically appealing, then you get a winner. And when both the librettist and the composer have a sense of balance and pace (recitatives that are not overlong, and that don't keep the public too hungry for the arias, that move the story along nicely but don't seem to predominate) they are pleasant and interesting. A bad librettist writing artificial-sounding, stiff, poetically week overlong lines, set to music by a mediocre composer, will bring about boredom with their recitatives.


Believe it or not, I do get what you're saying here. Very good point.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Almaviva said:


> Melismas are defined as the use of several different notes in succession for the same syllable of a word. You see them used in Gregorian chant, in Baroque operas (think Handel) and in belcanto-style coloraturas (think the melismas for the first "o" in the word "Lindoro" in an aria like Una Voce Poco Fa. They're not only used in classical music - think about the melismas in Flamenco, for example. Do they add to the experience or detract from it? I'd say it's a matter of taste. They add to the experience for me. I love them. Some people are turned off by the endless melismas in some da Capo arias in baroque operas. I'm not. I love belcanto which uses melismas and other kinds of ornamentation to add color to the musical phrase. For me, they add even more to the experience, when done by the proper singer with an agile voice. Some people can't stand them - they may be a matter of acquired taste.


As in most things musical, I try not to be completely dismissive. I think there probably are times that I (at least) haven't *minded* melisima, though I'm really hard put right now to think of a time when I really *liked* it or thought that it added to my enjoyment of something. But, I'm keeping an open mind. Someday I may look back and wonder why I was so dense...



> I'm not sure if I follow you on your vibrato question. I don't think that the vibrato is what differentiates a bell-like tone from a deeper, richer tone. Fach and timbre would bring about this differentiation, but a vibrato can be and is used by singers of different fachs; actually all fachs. A vibrato is just a vocal technique that employs rapid contractions of the larynx muscles to produce a regular pulsating pitch change. One can imprint to the vibrato different characteristics (regarding the extent and the speed), and yes, the narrower and faster, the clearer the sound is, while a slower and wider vibrato can add warmth to the note. But I don't see the vibrato as the principal characteristic that would make a voice be characterized as bell-like versus deeper and richer. But maybe I'm wrong and someone who is more savvy in the realm of vocal technique can better answer this question for you.


Yes, I was searching for an objective term and failed. I think the earlier discussion of types of sopranos was probably more pertinent to the issue I was raising.

It's kind of odd in a way - I would normally say I prefer clear, bell-like tones to weightier, complex ones. However, I have never preferred a countertenor to a soprano voice, even in Renaissance music. It has nothing to do with who is singing, male or female. It's just something about the super-clarity ("astringent" may be the word I'm looking for) of the countertenor that doesn't please me like a slightly richer, but more pleasant soprano voice.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Almaviva said:


> I don't think I agree with this. There has been a fair number of performances in which certain roles have been transposed (usually, lower) to avoid strain to the voice of whoever they were able to cast. I don't think the results are usually good, but it has happened. I don't have an example out of the tip of my tongue, but I'm certain that it has happened, since I clearly remember critics commenting upon it. We should just let our new member know that it's not something that the singer can do on his/her own, it takes the conductor/musical director to take care of the transposition so that the orchestra will match the singer's voice.
> 
> And yes, certain roles have been written for specific singers that had been hired for the premiere. There are numerous instances of this in the history of opera. But once it's done, it's done, and if someone wants to sing it in a different register, then a full transposition will need to happen.


Well, I agree transposition is just a part of the history of opera.

Perhaps one of the most famous transpositions of all times is the one for the _cantabile_ Casta Diva, originally in G major, but sung by Giuditta Pasta already in F major, as well as being in F major in the first piano reduction, published by Ricordi at the end of 1831, but in G major in the autographed score by Bellini.

This was normal practice in Italy, in the first decades of the 19th century. The composers transposed the music to adapt if for the singers who were going to sing in a particular performance (or the maestro of the opera house, if the composer was not available, or the singer himself if he knew how to do it... or even just go and replace the whole piece, remember the 'aria di baule' )

In Casta Diva, this transposition means simply to go from G major:

G major: G - A - B - C - D - E - F sharp - G

to F major:

F major: F - G - A - B flat - C - D - E - F

so the singer can, for instance, avoid a feared C5 for a more amiable Bflat4.

Of course, transposition can be extended downward to E major (let listen to Marion Anderson singing Casta Diva):






or upward to A flat major (well, in this case it will be madness )

My own taste in the case of Casta Diva is that the setting between the _cavatina_ in F major and the _tempo di mezzo_ in E flat major is a little bit stressed, and the original version in G major gives us a more satisfactory progression. But try to convince some divas to sing Casta Diva in G major...


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Almaviva said:


> I don't think I agree with this. There has been a fair number of performances in which certain roles have been transposed (usually, lower) to avoid strain to the voice of whoever they were able to cast. I don't think the results are usually good, but it has happened. I don't have an example out of the tip of my tongue, but I'm certain that it has happened, since I clearly remember critics commenting upon it. We should just let our new member know that it's not something that the singer can do on his/her own, it takes the conductor/musical director to take care of the transposition so that the orchestra will match the singer's voice.
> 
> And yes, certain roles have been written for specific singers that had been hired for the premiere. There are numerous instances of this in the history of opera. But once it's done, it's done, and if someone wants to sing it in a different register, then a full transposition will need to happen.


There was the somewhat infamous case of Domingo singing Énée in the 1983 Met _Les Troyens_. He had so much trouble with the music, he had some of it transposed down for him--and was so stung by the criticism he received for doing so, he never performed the role again.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

schigolch said:


> Of course, transposition can be extended downward to E major (let listen to Marion Anderson singing Casta Diva):
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks, that's exactly what I was saying when I mentioned that transpositions are not necessarily successful. In my opinion, this transposition makes of an AWE INSPIRING , STUNNING aria, just a regular aria. It's murder.


----------

