# Why We Listen: Beauty or Drama?



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

What is the primary reason we listen to opera, for the beauty of the music or for the moments of moving human drama that can happen?

Is the emphasis on one of these elements over the other an entirely personal preference, indicating a subjective interest in the listener? Or do Verdi, Mozart, Puccini and Wagner et. al. have a preference of their own for which element we will respond to in an individual piece of music?"

Nina listed these two groups of singers in Woodduck's "Vocal Individuality" Thread:

*Carreras/Tebaldi/Sutherland/Freni/Merrill/di Stefano/Bjorling/Fleming/Price*

*Olivero/Pertile/Callas/Ponselle/Muzio/Rachvelishvili/Vickers/Gobbi/Stratas/Zajick/ Furlanetto/ Kaufman/Schicoff*

Does one group evoke thoughts of beautiful sound and the other thoughts of moving renditions?

Do we esteem one of these groups higher than the other?

Finally.....the dessert island question!.....you only get to bring one.....which element is it?


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

I like drama but beauty trumps with me, but not entirely. I like dramatic singing but as I don't know the language I miss the nuances that some of you pick up on that sway you away from my first choices. I don't know the librettos of the arias I listen to. I also almost never listen to whole operas where character plays more of a part. My ideal would be Ponselle who had both in her best work. I also see Tebaldi in the first column, but I found her to be quite an emotional singer at times. Callas fans would say she is unfeeling I guess. If I could bring just one I'd go with beauty. I love Callas but some Callas fans worship her even after the mid 50's when the top started spiraling out of control because her interpretations could be so incredible with maturity . I loved her when she could both sing and emote beautifully. A few late Callas arias work for me but most don't at all . I actually have one late Callas aria in my contests, but it is amazingly beautiful still. We bring our personality to our hearing.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Hi Scott:
The way you listed my preferences don't have anything to do with the music. They only have to do with the voices that make music. (BTW: I should have added Kaufmann and Shicoff to my second group).
To answer your question: For me the beauty of the music always comes first. Even when there is no singing involved. (Ex.): The Poker Scene from _La Fanciulla del West_ has no singing at all at one point but the music is a phenomenal wonder to me sans voices. Another is the Vorspiel from _Parsifal_. (no singing -- just beautiful music).
My 2 lists above were only indicating a preference of a beautiful voice singing music over a more dramatic and moving voice singing music. 
My preference is the second group, including flaws. They touch my heart a bit deeper.
I hope this explains a bit clearer where I am coming from.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

I would be picking some from the first group and some from the second, but the desert island choice would be Callas; I’d pick her over any other singer. Anything she sings is miles ahead of other singers singing the same repertoire.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

MAS said:


> I would be picking some from the first group and some from the second, but the desert island choice would be Callas; I'd pick her over any other singer. Anything she sings is miles ahead of other singers singing the same repertoire.


You surprise me LOL


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Seattleoperafan said:


> I like drama but beauty trumps with me, but not entirely. I like dramatic singing but as I don't know the language I miss the nuances that some of you pick up on that sway you away from my first choices. I don't know the librettos of the arias I listen to. I also almost never listen to whole operas where character plays more of a part. My ideal would be Ponselle who had both in her best work. I also see Tebaldi in the first column, but I found her to be quite an emotional singer at times. Callas fans would say she is unfeeling I guess. If I could bring just one I'd go with beauty. I love Callas but some Callas fans worship her even after the mid 50's when the top started spiraling out of control because her interpretations could be so incredible with maturity . I loved her when she could both sing and emote beautifully. A few late Callas arias work for me but most don't at all. I actually have one in my contests. We bring our personality to our hearing.


One of the reasons the question means something to me is that, not unlike Nina and you, I know I came into the world of opera because I fell in love with the sound and part of me thinks that is always the "bed of embers" keeping the fire going. But if forced to choose as I headed for that dessert island, I may have to leave the whole bloody collection behind because I'm pretty much convinced that if our composers had not needed the drama to move their pens, they may very well have composed other types of music.....i.e. it sometimes looks like the drama is the reason this particular art form exists!


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

nina foresti said:


> (BTW: I should have added Kaufmann and Shicoff to my second group).


.........They're in!!!


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

nina foresti said:


> Hi Scott:
> The way you listed my preferences don't have anything to do with the music. They only have to do with the voices that make music. .


I know and that was a reason I wanted them in. I can sometimes do well with an abstract idea and sometimes not so much. Often, the inclusion of some slightly more concrete element helps me form my opinions. Their voices may not create a direct parallel but close enough.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

ScottK said:


> .........There in!!!


Mille grazie.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

MAS said:


> I would be picking some from the first group and some from the second, but the desert island choice would be Callas; I'd pick her over any other singer. Anything she sings is miles ahead of other singers singing the same repertoire.


You probably won't have to work hard to convince anyone you're telling the truth !!!

BUTTTTT.....Callas singing, for all of it's uncommon dramatic force and vulnerability also makes another point that brings us back to the puzzle. She, as much as any singer I've been listening to since joining this forum, has shown me that the beauty in the music is given to us.....(going out on a limb here).....possibly more from the musicality of the singing than it is from the timbre of the voice. If not more, I probably cannot go any less than to say "equally" . This thought is not brand new to me at all but listening here has sort of iced it! The Babbino Caro....subjective here, ME.....I would never say her timbre was the equal of Zeani's in terms of beauty.... her rendition was!


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

nina foresti said:


> Hi Scott:
> The way you listed my preferences don't have anything to do with the music. They only have to do with the voices that make music. (BTW: I should have added Kaufmann and Shicoff to my second group).
> To answer your question:* For me the beauty of the music always comes first*. Even when there is no singing involved. (Ex.): The Poker Scene from _La Fanciulla del West_ has no singing at all at one point but the music is a phenomenal wonder to me sans voices. Another is the Vorspiel from _Parsifal_. (no singing -- just beautiful music).
> My 2 lists above were only indicating a preference of a beautiful voice singing music over a more dramatic and moving voice singing music.
> ...


Pretty sure you picked both answers Nina!! 

It may be you're saying beautiful to the music and dramatic to the singers?


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

I am into popular music more than most of you and like all types, but my favorites would be early Streisand and later Garland who are both a total balance in my opinion between beauty and drama. At it's best, in any musical form, it is a weaving of both that creates real art. I love Wagner but oft times the orchestra creates the drama and the singer is just praying they can be heard. In the great Immolation Scene most of the vocal acting comes in the softer passages in the middle. I am willing to be corrected in this take on Wagner. Perhaps since I don't know the words I miss things.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Nay not so sir!
*The beauty of the music always comes first*.
But without the beautiful music that group of singers would be nothing.
So the bottom line for me is that the music always comes first and then the singers who interpret the music. At that point I prefer the dramatic singer to the more perfect execution of an aria.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Seattleoperafan said:


> I am into popular music more than most of you and like all types, but my favorites would be early Streisand and later Garland who are *both a total balance* in my opinion between beauty and drama. At it's best, in any musical form, it is a weaving of both that creates real art. I love Wagner but oft times the orchestra creates the drama and the singer is just praying they can be heard. In the great Immolation Scene most of the vocal acting comes in the softer passages in the middle. I am willing to be corrected in this take on Wagner. Perhaps since I don't know the words I miss things.


The "B" word! The one thing which can, when it's really there, make this whole discussion absolutely pointless! When someone has all of the important elements going on....opera nirvana!


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

nina foresti said:


> Nay not so sir!
> *The beauty of the music always comes first*.
> But without the beautiful music that group of singers would be nothing.
> So the bottom line for me is that the music always comes first and then the singers who interpret the music. At that point I prefer the dramatic singer to the more perfect execution of an aria.


"So take THAT ScottK!!" I love it! Of course you're wrong...HaHaHa...joke, joke...:lol:....just a joke! You could not be clearer.

But I'll go a little devil's advocate here. You introduced me to that poker scene from Fanciulla. For the purposes of this conversation, I would have guessed that, if forced to decide, that scene would have been placed in the dramatic column!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

If I knew what "beauty" was I might be able to address this question. Is it simply the impact of the sound of a voice? If so, I'd say that a voice with a pleasing sound is more or less necessary but almost never sufficient.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> If I knew what "beauty" was I might be able to address this question. Is it simply the impact of the sound of a voice? If so, I'd say that a voice with a pleasing sound is more or less necessary but almost never sufficient.


Woody: You said what I wanted to say so well in just a few words. Bravo.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

nina foresti said:


> Woody: You said what I wanted to say so well in just a few words. Bravo.


I'm operating on the theory that the fewer words I use, the less trouble I'm likely to get into.


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

I would say it's both. I generally prefer those operas which so masterfully combine beauty with drama, Norma, Tosca, Salome, etc. However if having to choose whether to see an opera that was mainly occupied with beauty, for example La Sonnambula, or an opera residing more in the realm of pure drama such as Elektra I would probably choose the latter. As for voices, I'm not so concerned by 'beauty' per se, but I want developed, well-trained voice. For 'big' roles I want 'big' voices, and smaller voices must still have enough squillo to feel 'present' in the theatre. Once the basis of the voice is there I am more interested in a thoughtful, dramatic interpretation (although then again there are some roles which really do require a beautiful voice). Basically, I would prefer a Callas to a Tebaldi (although really Tebaldi was often a wonderful interpreter in the roles which suited her temperament), but would prefer a Tebaldi to a Netrebko (or whatever other singer is praised for their artistry but sings without a properly trained or developed voice.)

Also, I feel like di Stefano belongs more to the second group of singers.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Op.123 said:


> I would say it's both. I generally prefer those operas which so masterfully combine beauty with drama, Norma, Tosca, Salome, etc. However if having to choose whether to see an opera that was mainly occupied with beauty, for example La Sonnambula, or an opera residing more in the realm of pure drama such as Elektra I would probably choose the latter. As for voices, I'm not so concerned by 'beauty' per se, but I want developed, well-trained voice. For 'big' roles I want 'big' voices, and smaller voices must still have enough squillo to feel 'present' in the theatre. Once the basis of the voice is there I am more interested in a thoughtful, dramatic interpretation (although then again there are some roles which really do require a beautiful voice). Basically, I would prefer a Callas to a Tebaldi (although really Tebaldi was often a wonderful interpreter in the roles which suited her temperament), but would prefer a Tebaldi to a Netrebko (or whatever other singer is praised for their artistry but sings without a properly trained or developed voice.)
> 
> Also, I feel like di Stefano belongs more to the second group of singers.


You are absolutely right. I was shocked myself to see that I placed Pippo in the wrong group.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Woodduck said:


> If I knew what "beauty" was I might be able to address this question. Is it simply the impact of the sound of a voice? If so, I'd say that a voice with a pleasing sound is more or less necessary but almost never sufficient.


(attempt number three from my phone, and just watch, they'll all come up!). I think attempting to define beauty in a conversation like this would lead the conversation potentially down unintended by ways. I have no problem with a thread going where it will as a result of earnest conversation and I'd be very happy if someone else wants to attempt to define beauty and I'd read it eagerly. But as the original poster I will let the question stand as it is and if it talks to you great and if it doesn't talk to you great.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

"I would say that in an opera the poetry must be altogether the obedient daughter of the music. Why are Italian comic operas popular everywhere - in spite of the miserable libretti? … Because the music reigns supreme, and when one listens to it all else is forgotten. An opera is sure of success when the plot is well worked out, the words written solely for the music and not shoved in here and there to suit some miserable rhyme." -Mozart, 13 October 1781





(Missa in C-major, K. Anh 235e "Così fan tutte")


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

hammeredklavier said:


> "I would say that in an opera the poetry must be altogether the obedient daughter of the music. Why are Italian comic operas popular everywhere - in spite of the miserable libretti? … Because the music reigns supreme, and when one listens to it all else is forgotten. An opera is sure of success when the plot is well worked out, the words written solely for the music and not shoved in here and there to suit some miserable rhyme." -Mozart, 13 October 1781
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A quote worth quoting, and one with which I think every composer would agree, except possibly Wagner working out his theories of music and drama, before he got back to composing and the flood of music that came out of him convinced him that he agreed after all. He went on to call his music dramas "deeds of music made visible," and when he sat with a friend at a rehearsal of _Tristan_ he said, "You must close your eyes and listen to the orchestra." We can assume, though, that he didn't mean that as a general recommendation for apprehending an opera.

My difficulty with the topic lies in the fact that it's the life which drama infuses into music that allows its beauty to be realized. Without drama, an opera quickly becomes uninteresting and its surface beauties boring. But if those surface beauties are absent, the drama can't be realized, since operatic drama is essentially musical. In opera, as in any musical form, beauty resides both in the sounds we hear and in the meaning they convey. I can't think of preferring one sort of beauty to the other. Unless both are present, working together to make a unity, I don't care to listen.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Op.123 said:


> I would say it's both. I generally prefer those operas which so masterfully combine beauty with drama, Norma, Tosca, Salome, etc. However if having to choose whether to see an opera that was mainly occupied with beauty, for example La Sonnambula, or an opera residing more in the realm of pure drama such as Elektra I would probably choose the latter. As for voices, I'm not so concerned by 'beauty' per se, but I want developed, well-trained voice. For 'big' roles I want 'big' voices, and smaller voices must still have enough squillo to feel 'present' in the theatre. Once the basis of the voice is there I am more interested in a thoughtful, dramatic interpretation (although then again there are some roles which really do require a beautiful voice). Basically, I would prefer a Callas to a Tebaldi (although really Tebaldi was often a wonderful interpreter in the roles which suited her temperament), but would prefer a Tebaldi to a Netrebko (or whatever other singer is praised for their artistry but sings without a properly trained or developed voice.)
> 
> Also, I feel like di Stefano belongs more to the second group of singers.


Have to say I loved reading your answer! You know what you like!!

Now fill me in on DiStefano.I'm familiar with his Duke and Nemorino and like both very much. A late record of songs, not so good. La reve gorgeous and a few more arias all good. I would never have thought he belonged in the second group. So much so that your answer sounded provocative! Tell me what to listen to.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

[*B]My difficulty with the topic lies in the fact that it's the life which drama infuses into music that allows its beauty to be realized.*

Doesn't sound like a difficulty...sounds like an insight!

* In opera, as in any musical form, beauty resides both in the sounds we hear and in the meaning they convey*.

Not so sure on this one. Despite our urge to place spiritual weight on a Bruckner Symphony and human angst on Mahler's sixth, the drama is entirely musical. The listener may add meaning but does the creation contain meaning?


----------



## khalid (11 mo ago)

For me it's always the beauty of the music. I think the story is just a vehicle for the music, most operas have similar plots, love triangle, jealousy, and death. However the relation also has to be symbiotic or it won't be good. In many times, having a beautiful voice isn't enough as Callas said, you have to sing beautifully also to convey the music. For the desert island, without doubt I'd go with Callas. Above all her superhuman capabilities, I actually find her voice until 1958 beautiful.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

ScottK said:


> [*B]My difficulty with the topic lies in the fact that it's the life which drama infuses into music that allows its beauty to be realized.*
> 
> Doesn't sound like a difficulty...sounds like an insight!
> 
> ...


If you, perchance, prefer to believe that music is inherently meaningless noises - implying that the music through which an opera seeks to express its drama is just some arbitrary, fundamentally irrelevant crust on the bread of a stage play - I'm not going to argue with you. Not here, not now. I've been through that one enough times in the past to persuade me that people are not very persuadable, whereas I am definitely exhaustible. But note: I didn't say "the meaning inherent in the sounds." I said "the meaning they convey." For the purposes of your query, it makes no difference what aesthetic theories we subscribe to.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Woodduck said:


> If you, perchance, prefer to believe that music is inherently meaningless noises - implying that the music through which an opera seeks to express its drama is just some arbitrary, fundamentally irrelevant crust on the bread of a stage play - I'm not going to argue with you. Not here, not now. I've been through that one enough times in the past to persuade me that people are not very persuadable, whereas I am definitely exhaustible. But note: I didn't say "the meaning inherent in the sounds." I said "the meaning they convey." For the purposes of your query, it makes no difference what aesthetic theories we subscribe to.


I did note your "meaning they convey".


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

ScottK said:


> Have to say I loved reading your answer! You know what you like!!
> 
> Now fill me in on DiStefano.I'm familiar with his Duke and Nemorino and like both very much. A late record of songs, not so good. La reve gorgeous and a few more arias all good. I would never have thought he belonged in the second group. So much so that your answer sounded provocative! Tell me what to listen to.


Do not delay. Listen to his Edgardo from Lucia. No one does the last act aria more beautifully than he does. That''ll tell you all you need to know about drama usurping beauty in a voice.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

ScottK said:


> What is the primary reason we listen to opera, for the beauty of the music or for the moments of moving human drama that can happen?
> 
> Is the emphasis on one of these elements over the other an entirely personal preference, indicating a subjective interest in the listener? Or do Verdi, Mozart, Puccini and Wagner et. al. have a preference of their own for which element we will respond to in an individual piece of music?"
> 
> ...


You know, I think that sometimes it's both, and sometimes it's for the beauty, and at other times it's for the drama.


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

This is one passage that immediately springs to mind

(Was meant to be a quote reply to ScottK)


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Totally Spectacular. Thanks for posting it Op123.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Coming from a theatre background, I’ve always been especially drawn to the limited number of operas where I get caught up in the story, the drama (whether tragic or comedic). That said, those works come alive for me largely because of the beautiful (or at any rate, compelling) music through which that drama is realized.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

amfortas said:


> Coming from a theatre background, I've always been especially drawn to the limited number of operas where I get caught up in the story, the drama (whether tragic or comedic). That said, those works come alive for me largely because of the beautiful (or at any rate, compelling) music through which that drama is realized.


As I was also active in the theater background you have expressed exactly my point.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Op.123 said:


> This is one passage that immediately springs to mind
> 
> (Was meant to be a quote reply to ScottK)


Very glad for the post. And I do find it powerful. But I hear him doing the things that led to his demise. I think there's a reason the greatest artists don't go for that raw sound and then, within that sound, go for an all out attack. One time??... maybe he gets away with it. Repeatedly, and we get the short lived career (at a great voice level) of Giuseppe DiStefano.

In this moment, I think he over-valued drama. Greedy thing that I am, do you have an aria that shows him demonstrating the penetrating side of him you like?


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

amfortas said:


> Coming from a theatre background, I've always been especially drawn to the limited number of operas where I get caught up in the story, the drama (whether tragic or comedic). That said, those works come alive for me largely because of the beautiful (or at any rate, compelling) music through which that drama is realized.


The answers, again and again, seem to be pointing to the balance of the two elements first mentioned in here by SeattleOperaFan. Probably no surprise, but enlightening to read the takes.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

ScottK said:


> The answers, again and again, seem to be pointing to the balance of the two elements first mentioned in here by SeattleOperaFan. Probably no surprise, but enlightening to read the takes.


Certainly the two elements work together, can never be entirely separated. Nevertheless, the emphasis can vary from one person to another. I sometimes think of it as a distinction between those who see opera as a form of musical theatre, and those who see it as a form of theatrical music.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

pianozach said:


> You know, I think that sometimes it's both, and sometimes it's for the beauty, and at other times it's for the drama.


I like the way you think!!!


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

nina foresti said:


> Do not delay. Listen to his Edgardo from Lucia. No one does the last act aria more beautifully than he does. That''ll tell you all you need to know about drama usurping beauty in a voice.


Great voice! GREAT voice!! At least so far, thats where we agree Nina! With one exception, I'm not going to say contrary specifics about a singer you love because I think our tastes in tenors prioritizes different things. But the one thing...the man needed to learn to cover.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

ScottK said:


> ...the man needed to learn to cover.


The source of all his troubles.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

A point that should be mentioned (if it hasn't already) is that one's take on this may be very different depending on whether we're only listening or watching as well. If the former, the music has to bear the entire burden of bringing the drama to life, and we're also likely to be very demanding of the quality of the voices. A compelling theatrical production can make all of that less critical, especially in comic operas where the antics onstage carry us along. At the extremes, an amateur production of _The Barber of Seville_ or _The Magic Flute_ can be very entertaining, but an amateur _Otello_ or _Tristan_ really won't even be the opera itself.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Woodduck said:


> A point that should be mentioned (if it hasn't already) is that one's take on this may be very different depending on whether we're only listening or watching as well. If the former, the music has to bear the entire burden of bringing the drama to life, and we're also likely to be very demanding of the quality of the voices. A compelling theatrical production can make all of that less critical, especially in comic operas where the antics onstage carry us along. At the extremes, an amateur production of _The Barber of Seville_ or _The Magic Flute_ can be very entertaining, but an amateur _Otello_ or _Tristan_ really won't even be the opera itself.


Fascinating that a Callas, Christoff or Gobbi, who for so many bring the drama alive when just listening, also would be among those mentioned for bringing it most alive when watching and listening.

I actually got somewhere near this thought when reading one of your earlier posts but realized that defining the drama (purely musical drama - just listening - as opposed to Theatre music drama - listening and watching) would require the kind of definition I declined to make about beauty.

*At the extremes, an amateur production of The Barber of Seville or The Magic Flute can be very entertaining, but an amateur Otello or Tristan really won't even be the opera itself.*

Does this point to a greater emphasis on the purely musical (letting the word beauty go for now) aspect as the vocal demands increase?


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

What an interesting thread!

For me, drama most definitely trumps beauty, but I also enjoy singers that are more about aesthetically ravishing sounds than they are on bringing out the dramatic nuances of opera (e.g. I am a bigger Freni and Price fan than most here). I found it no surprise that I prefer the singers in the second group over those in the first, although I find some of those in the second had truly beautiful voices (Ponselle would be the prime example).

Whilst some have pointed out that their favourite singers are those that combine both beauty and drama in equal measure, I would say that I like most singers other than those who are almost exclusively about beautiful singing (Fleming would come in that category IMO).

Nobody has mentioned Corelli (one of my favourite tenors), which group would you put him in?

N.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

The Conte said:


> What an interesting thread!
> 
> For me, drama most definitely trumps beauty, but I also enjoy singers that are more about aesthetically ravishing sounds than they are on bringing out the dramatic nuances of opera (e.g. I am a bigger Freni and Price fan than most here). I found it no surprise that I prefer the singers in the second group over those in the first, although I find some of those in the second had truly beautiful voices (Ponselle would be the prime example).
> 
> ...


No Fleming for me. Corelli, in my opinion, would be in the second group.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

The Conte said:


> Nobody has mentioned Corelli (one of my favourite tenors), which group would you put him in?
> 
> N.


When you look at the kind of singer that is in the second group I cannot put Franco in that group. That commanding voice lines up with the heroic and Byronic characters he portrays and when he commits with restraint - the online Forza - the effect can be dead on. But those second group singers invest in their characters in specific detailed ways that I do not associate with him at all.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

The Conte said:


> Whilst some have pointed out that their favourite singers are those that combine both beauty and drama in equal measure, I would say that I like most singers other than those who are almost exclusively about beautiful singing (Fleming would come in that category IMO).
> N.


Fleming made me think of Mozart, who you love and who does not get alot of ink around here, and the question of the combination of beauty and drama takes a different significance in his operas. The balance of the two must surely be an even greater priority there. The aesthetic is different. He said "Music must never offend the ear" but drama was certainly of great importance to him. Now in Verdi, twice at the Met McCracken was my Radames! Not much balance there. Imagine a tenor without an attractive timbre or appreciable legato as Don Ottavio! The balance of the two probably leans more toward beauty in Mozart than Verdi and Wagner, primarily because the increased need for power changed the aesthetic.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

The Conte said:


> I find some of those in the second had truly beautiful voices (Ponselle would be the prime example).


Ponselle went through my mind right off....we wont tell Nina!


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

The Conte said:


> What an interesting thread!
> 
> For me, drama most definitely trumps beauty, but I also enjoy singers that are more about aesthetically ravishing sounds than they are on bringing out the dramatic nuances of opera (e.g. I am a bigger Freni and Price fan than most here). I found it no surprise that I prefer the singers in the second group over those in the first, although I find some of those in the second had truly beautiful voices (Ponselle would be the prime example).
> 
> ...


Corelli? For sure he has not what you would call a beautiful voice, his is powerful and exciting, so by default he must belong to the second group. I think some of his drama is fake but he pulls it off.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

ScottK said:


> Ponselle went through my mind right off....we wont tell Nina!


Just because a singer has a beautiful sound doesn't mean that they don't belong in the second group. Many in the second group have a beautiful sound but they go beyond that to a more dramatic and depthful approach. Shicoff is one who stands out IMO. Not only does he have a great tenor sound but his drama is evocative.
Stratas, Muzio and Callas are others.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

nina foresti said:


> Just because a singer has a beautiful sound doesn't mean that they don't belong in the second group. Many in the second group have a beautiful sound but they go beyond that to a more dramatic and depthful approach. Shicoff is one who stands out IMO. Not only does he have a great tenor sound but his drama is evocative.
> Stratas, Muzio and Callas are others.


It's an excellent point. I did think of Ponselle in terms of groups right off but I'm sure it was because the voice is so extraordinary. But your point is correct...that does not take her out of the group that you love because of how they use the voice.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

ScottK said:


> Fleming made me think of Mozart, who you love and who does not get alot of ink around here, and the question of the combination of beauty and drama takes a different significance in his operas. The balance of the two must surely be an even greater priority there. The aesthetic is different. He said "Music must never offend the ear" but drama was certainly of great importance to him. Now in Verdi, twice at the Met McCracken was my Radames! Not much balance there. Imagine a tenor without an attractive timbre or appreciable legato as Don Ottavio! _*The balance of the two probably leans more toward beauty in Mozart than Verdi and Wagner, primarily because the increased need for power changed the aesthetic.*_


There's certainly a different aesthetic balance in Mozart, but it isn't the case that the aesthetic change resulted primarily from an increased need for power. The truth, I would say, is more the contrary. Aesthetic developments entailing changes such as we observe from Mozart to Verdi or Wagner are motivated by deep cultural currents and the need to express new things, and the more physically powerful musical forces involved are merely an aspect - an important and impactful aspect, certainly - of the phenomenon.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Woodduck said:


> There's certainly a different aesthetic balance in Mozart, but it isn't the case that the aesthetic change resulted primarily from an increased need for power. The truth, I would say, is more the contrary. Aesthetic developments entailing changes such as we observe from Mozart to Verdi or Wagner are motivated by deep cultural currents and the need to express new things, and the more physically powerful musical forces involved are merely an aspect - an important and impactful aspect, certainly - of the phenomenon.


Ill bet this point could, and does, fill many sessions of a music history seminar! And of course you are correct. In this case the power I was *thinking of* is the increased vocal power needed (exemplified by McCracken) to sing with the increasingly powerful orchestra generated by the aesthetic change fomented by the "deep cultural currents" active in the world at that time. (Go ahead...3 times fast!) But ....and here I'm paying the price for including both the written music and the groups of singers in the discussion.... when I re-read, McCracken or no, I'm clearly referring to the music.

So.....the aesthetic changed because of the changing world, of which the artform was a part....a reflection! It sounds like the interest has swung more to the drama than the beauty as forces take it from Mozart to Wagner. But that would inevitably point to the questions of beauty you first brought up (see?...I told you so!)....what is beauty?.... has the definition of beauty changed? As a teenager I had the Mozart quote I referred to on the wall of my room "Music must never offend the ear.......must never cease to be music!" But I already had a sense of Ives at his most ear-offending -by Mozartian standards! ........................and here I sit, still believeing the thread does better without a failed definition of beauty!


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

The Conte said:


> Nobody has mentioned Corelli (one of my favourite tenors), which group would you put him in
> N.


Franco brings up another point which centers around the use of the word "beautiful". One of the primary ways I would define the difference in the two groups is the first is identified *most notably* by their voice.....the second is identified *most notably* by the way they sing the music. Since I've included them as a major part of this thread about beauty and drama, it could sound like I'm saying the first group all have beautiful voices. But the placement of Corelli would, for me, require an expansion of that.

I would certainly place him in the first group because, by far, I think of voice first when I think of him. But I...Me... would never describe his voice as beautiful. Charismatic, exciting, ringing, sexy, melancholy, huge, powerful....Franco will get a long list of positives from me but beautiful, I can't give. But I don't put him in that second group by default! So that important word "beautiful" comes under fire again!


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Well Scott me friend, it seems to me that you are referring to two different things that, through necessity, come together; beauty as to a singer's voice and not necessarily to the music itself but rather what comes out of a throat to _*express*_ the music.
One is made beautiful by a voice and the other is made beautiful by the notes as arranged by the composer and played by instruments with no voice needed. 
However, when it comes to singers and a beautiful voice, I simply believe that "beauty is in the _ear_ of the beholder." (Ex: Many might believe that Jonas Kaufmann belongs on the first list because their ear hears a beautiful voice first, just like your ear seems to think Corelli's voice belongs on the first list as a beautiful voice more than a dramatic one -- which is not usually expressed when referring to his voice).
Now there! I've really gone and muddled up the works!


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

nina foresti said:


> Well Scott me friend, it seems to me that you are referring to two different things that, through necessity, come together; beauty as to a singer's voice and not necessarily to the music itself but rather what comes out of a throat to _*express*_ the music.
> 
> I agree!
> 
> ...


You certainly have:tiphat:!


----------



## Shaafee Shameem (Aug 4, 2021)

Seattleoperafan said:


> I am into popular music more than most of you and like all types, but my favorites would be early Streisand and later Garland who are both a total balance in my opinion between beauty and drama. At it's best, in any musical form, it is a weaving of both that creates real art. I love Wagner but oft times the orchestra creates the drama and the singer is just praying they can be heard. In the great Immolation Scene most of the vocal acting comes in the softer passages in the middle. I am willing to be corrected in this take on Wagner. Perhaps since I don't know the words I miss things.


What about Judy Garland after the voice declined? Surely, she, at least in her late years, like Billie Holiday is an example of musicality and drama over voice. When she was young though, she had a great, great voice. Callas herself complimented her, saying she had the most superb instrument she had ever heard.


----------



## Shaafee Shameem (Aug 4, 2021)

Seattleoperafan said:


> I like drama but beauty trumps with me, but not entirely. I like dramatic singing but as I don't know the language I miss the nuances that some of you pick up on that sway you away from my first choices. I don't know the librettos of the arias I listen to. I also almost never listen to whole operas where character plays more of a part. My ideal would be Ponselle who had both in her best work. I also see Tebaldi in the first column, but I found her to be quite an emotional singer at times. Callas fans would say she is unfeeling I guess. If I could bring just one I'd go with beauty. I love Callas but some Callas fans worship her even after the mid 50's when the top started spiraling out of control because her interpretations could be so incredible with maturity . I loved her when she could both sing and emote beautifully. A few late Callas arias work for me but most don't at all . I actually have one late Callas aria in my contests, but it is amazingly beautiful still. We bring our personality to our hearing.


I too think Tebaldi was expressive, though limited in her means of expression. She was great in portraying warmth, charm, dignity, tenderness, nobility, tragic grandeur etc but fragility and more darker, intense emotions were not her forte. Musically, not the most accurate rhythmically, but she caressed the words she sang in the Italian way, full of spontaneity and warmth. I feel that sometimes Italians suffice in artistry by simply being Italians. They have a natural warmth and 'morbidezza' that is so spontaneous and affecting. Of course, not all Italians have it. Pavarotti is the most non-Italinate Italian I can think of.


----------



## Shaafee Shameem (Aug 4, 2021)

Op.123 said:


> I would say it's both. I generally prefer those operas which so masterfully combine beauty with drama, Norma, Tosca, Salome, etc. However if having to choose whether to see an opera that was mainly occupied with beauty, for example La Sonnambula, or an opera residing more in the realm of pure drama such as Elektra I would probably choose the latter. As for voices, I'm not so concerned by 'beauty' per se, but I want developed, well-trained voice. For 'big' roles I want 'big' voices, and smaller voices must still have enough squillo to feel 'present' in the theatre. Once the basis of the voice is there I am more interested in a thoughtful, dramatic interpretation (although then again there are some roles which really do require a beautiful voice). Basically, I would prefer a Callas to a Tebaldi (although really Tebaldi was often a wonderful interpreter in the roles which suited her temperament), but would prefer a Tebaldi to a Netrebko (or whatever other singer is praised for their artistry but sings without a properly trained or developed voice.)
> 
> Also, I feel like di Stefano belongs more to the second group of singers.


Yes, to Di Stefano. He was a wonderful interpreter, and cared more for the words than any other tenor of his generation. Same for Tebaldi, she too cared for the words a lot, and was a sensitive interpreter in roles that suited her. 
I must disagree on Somnambula though. It was written for Patsa, like Norma, so one can't really say it was occupied with beauty. In fact, it is a perfect example for simplistic pastoral drama. If only one listens to 'Ah non credea', especially as sung by Callas or Patti, is there a more melancholic aria?


----------



## marlow (11 mo ago)

I think it depends whether it is an audio or a visual experience. If I’m actually watching an opera I want to try to be as realistic as possible. That means with singers who can actually convey the part. If I’m just, listening I prefer beauty. For example, I find it very difficult to take Pavarotti seriously as the starving poet in La Boheme visually, yet aurally there is no-one to beat him.


----------



## Shaafee Shameem (Aug 4, 2021)

I don’t think the two have to be mutually exclusive. In fact I think both are the same, at least, in great operas, in which the dramatic situation is conveyed through the music. As I love Italian bel canto, by which I refer to not only the Bellini, Donizetti, Rossini triumvirate but also Monteverdi, Verdi, Spontini, Gluck, Cherubini, Cimarosa among others, the beauty in these operas comes not from the beauty of the voice, but rather from the expressive use of legato, dynamics, portamento, rubato, accents etc. The drama too comes from these very aspects. I find that in the greatest artists of the bel canto tradition such as Battistini, Callas, Volpi, Jadlowker, Patti, Leider, Raisa among many others, mostly from the 19th or early 20th century, except Callas, beauty and drama reach their ideal equilibrium as they should.
That doesn’t mean I do not appreciate the beautiful voices of Tebaldi, Ponselle etc who were sensitive interpreters, musically and dramatically, in their best roles. But even when it comes to beauty, I find that the exquisite rubato, portamento and tonal shading that Callas can muster is more beautiful than the sheer sound of a Tebaldi or Ponselle. As for Callas’ post-prime performances, I don’t think anybody finds beauty or drama in wobbling or thin sounds. A great high note is intrinsically more dramatic than a wobble, but is it more dramatic or beautiful than a perfectly sung phrase? It is rather the phrasing, the shading, which remained beautiful and dramatic, that compensated for the lack of beauty in the high notes. So it’s beauty over lack of beauty and drama over lack of drama, not one over the other.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Shaafee Shameem said:


> Yes, to Di Stefano. He was a wonderful interpreter, and c*ared more for the words* than any other tenor of his generation.


This could turn into a good old fashioned Mantle vs Mays (baseball !) but MORE than Bergonzi?? I don't need to assert my favorite at the top of his strengths alone, but I do need to speak up for his due....MORE???


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

marlow said:


> I think it depends whether it is an audio or a visual experience. If I'm actually watching an opera I want to try to be as realistic as possible. That means with singers who can actually convey the part. If I'm just, listening I prefer beauty. For example, I find it very difficult to take Pavarotti seriously as the starving poet in La Boheme visually, yet aurally there is no-one to beat him.


Your view is shared elsewhere on this thread. I get a kick out of seeing trends appear!


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

ScottK said:


> You certainly have:tiphat:!


Wow Scott! For a second you had me going when you called me Neen because I started wondering if you knew me personally, as my grandchildren call me Neen, but then I realized you were using a nickname for Nina.:lol:


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

I'm firmly on the "beauty" side 99% of the time. If you somehow manage to do both, that is amazing, but generally, if I want compelling drama, it has to be something with a more developed plot. Simply watching someone emote, however effectively, does little to me without the requisite context, and even then, I'm just not a very emotional person about most things.


----------



## marlow (11 mo ago)

ScottK said:


> Your view is shared elsewhere on this thread. I get a kick out of seeing trends appear!


Of course there's also has been said it doesn't have to be exclusive one or the other. There are some great singers who can act and look the part as well. Sadly there are some parts which appear to be beyond singers who are not into middle age


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

ScottK said:


> what is beauty?.... *has the definition of beauty changed?* As a teenager I had *the Mozart quote I referred to on the wall of my room "Music must never offend the ear.......must never cease to be music!"* But I already had a sense of Ives at his most ear-offending -by Mozartian standards! ........................and here I sit, still believeing the thread does better without a failed definition of beauty!


Ideas about what is beautiful and doesn't "offend the ear" have certainly changed. It's one reason why your statement - *"Imagine a tenor without an attractive timbre or appreciable legato as Don Ottavio! The balance of the two probably leans more toward beauty in Mozart than Verdi and Wagner, primarily because the increased need for power changed the aesthetic"* - is questionable. Some things change, some things don't. I don't see why we should apply a lower standard of vocal excellence to a singer of Otello or Boris Godunov than we do to a singer of Idomeneo or Sarastro. It's true that in 19th century opera the orchestra plays a larger part in the musical fabric, sometimes larger than that of the singer, but when the singer opens his mouth I still want to hear good vocal production and musicianship. I can no more tolerate a wobble in Isolde or Turandot than in the Queen of the Night. Is it just me? Am I merely picky?


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Ideas about what is beautiful and doesn't "offend the ear" have certainly changed. It's one reason why your statement - *"Imagine a tenor without an attractive timbre or appreciable legato as Don Ottavio! The balance of the two probably leans more toward beauty in Mozart than Verdi and Wagner, primarily because the increased need for power changed the aesthetic"* - is questionable. Some things change, some things don't. I don't see why we should apply a lower standard of vocal excellence to a singer of Otello or Boris Godunov than we do to a singer of Idomeneo or Sarastro. It's true that in 19th century opera the orchestra plays a larger part in the musical fabric, sometimes larger than that of the singer, but when the singer opens his mouth I still want to hear good vocal production and musicianship. I can no more tolerate a wobble in Isolde or Turandot than in the Queen of the Night. Is it just me? Am I merely picky?


This is why Golden Age Wagner singers are usually the only ones I listen to. They sound natural and relaxed (Flagstad's speaking voice was almost the same as her singing voice for example).


----------



## marlow (11 mo ago)

Woodduck said:


> Ideas about what is beautiful and doesn't "offend the ear" have certainly changed. It's one reason why your statement - *"Imagine a tenor without an attractive timbre or appreciable legato as Don Ottavio! The balance of the two probably leans more toward beauty in Mozart than Verdi and Wagner, primarily because the increased need for power changed the aesthetic"* - is questionable. Some things change, some things don't. I don't see why we should apply a lower standard of vocal excellence to a singer of Otello or Boris Godunov than we do to a singer of Idomeneo or Sarastro. It's true that in 19th century opera the orchestra plays a larger part in the musical fabric, sometimes larger than that of the singer, but when the singer opens his mouth I still want to hear good vocal production and musicianship. I can no more tolerate a wobble in Isolde or Turandot than in the Queen of the Night. Is it just me? Am I merely picky?


While taking your point I remember a leading singer (I can't remember who it was) saying in an interview that she always returned to Mozart to keep her voice in order and to keep her technique secure. The reason she said was that with Mozart there is nowhere to hide for the singer. Everywhere is exposed for the voice.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

*


marlow said:



While taking your point I remember a leading singer (I can't remember who it was) saying in an interview that she always returned to Mozart to keep her voice in order and to keep her technique secure. The reason she said was that with Mozart there is nowhere to hide for the singer. Everywhere is exposed for the voice.[/QUOTE ]

Click to expand...

*


marlow said:


> This is true, and I fear that it's often used as an excuse for bad singing. Wagner and Verdi, both of whom admired the music of Bellini and the singing of Mattia Battistini, would have had no tolerance for that.


----------



## ALT (Mar 1, 2021)

Beauty and drama for me; ideally, both intertwined. This with the caveat that beauty is in the ear of the beholder. But beauty for its own supreme sake can often backfire, producing something I won't care to hear again. Another thing aside from beauty and drama: I like to hear voices with a distinct and unmistakable signature and musicality to them, be it sound, nuance, phrasing and such. That in itself is no guarantee that I will like what the performer does but it may give them a leg up in my estimation of their work.

The ultimate test: goosebumps or no goosebumps.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

*Woodduck: It's true that in 19th century opera the orchestra plays a larger part in the musical fabric, sometimes larger than that of the singer, but when the singer opens his mouth I still want to hear good vocal production and musicianship. I can no more tolerate a wobble in Isolde or Turandot than in the Queen of the Night. Is it just me? Am I merely picky? *

No...far from MERELY anything! You ARE picky!!! But in this world we discuss, to me that means you think deeply and take the questions seriously.

I probably made too much out of the McCracken reference. I didn't consider him the standard, just a quite present reality. Vickers,Corelli and Bergonzi were there then too. McCracken was acceptable in Verdi because he had the necessary strength and all the notes. His negative qualities would not be acceptable in Mozart because without the need for greater power, singers could be found who did not have the negatives. And I'd wager, to a degree, this was true even back in the period of singers you revere. We don't know what the singers who didn't record sounded like.

The standard should not be lower but it has to be different, and Wagner and late Verdi must certainly cause more wobble than Mozart. It must take alot of nerve to believe that your unforced instrument is sailing out over a Wagnerian orchestra going full tilt. There has to be some adjustment of expectations by the listeners and that goes along with our adjusting view of what is beautiful.


----------



## marlow (11 mo ago)

ScottK said:


> No...far from MERELY anything! You ARE picky!!! But in this world we discuss, to me that means you think deeply and take the questions seriously.
> 
> I probably made too much out of the McCracken reference. I didn't consider him the standard, just a quite present reality. Vickers,Corelli and Bergonzi were there then too. The standard should not be lower but it has to be different, and Wagner and late Verdi must certainly cause more wobble than Mozart. There has to be adjustment of expectations and that goes along with our adjusting view of what is beautiful.


I think if you listen to the recordings made by Karajan and Solti of Falstaff you will not find any trace of a wobble from anyone!


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

ALT said:


> Beauty and drama for me; ideally, both intertwined. This with the caveat that beauty is in the ear of the beholder. *But beauty for its own supreme sake can often backfire, producing something I won't care to hear again.*
> 
> I'm curious! Can you remember an example?
> 
> ...




...........Agree!


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> I'm firmly on the "beauty" side 99% of the time. If you somehow manage to do both, that is amazing, but generally, if I want compelling drama, it has to be something with a more developed plot. Simply watching someone emote, however effectively, does little to me without the requisite context, and even then, I'm just not a very emotional person about most things.


You're down right passionate about good singing!!!


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

ScottK said:


> As a teenager I had the Mozart quote I referred to on the wall of my room "Music must never offend the ear.......must never cease to be music!"


A misattributed quote, sadly. https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart#Misattributed
The concept of "music that offends the ear" vs. "music that doesn't" didn't exist in the minds of 18th century composers. The concept of "music meant to troll" (ie. Mozart K.522) vs. "music that adheres to the rules of good taste" probably did exist, but they didn't think that "music that doesn't offend the ear" = "music that adheres to the rules of good taste". Their mentality simply didn't work that way.
And it wasn't like they had a choice to deviate from the "norm" in their profession. It's anachronistic to apply Romantic/modernist philosophies to their way of musical thinking.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> A misattributed quote, sadly. https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart#Misattributed
> The concept of "music that offends the ear" vs. "music that doesn't" didn't exist in the minds of 18th century composers. The concept of "music meant to troll" (ie. Mozart K.522) vs. "music that adheres to good taste" probably did exist, but they didn't think that "music that doesn't offend the ear" = "music that adheres to good taste". *Their mentality simply didn't work that way*.
> And it wasn't like they had a choice to deviate from the "norm" in their profession. It's anachronistic to apply Romantic/modern philosophies to their way of musical thinking.


I hear you on the misattributed quote.

Aren't some of your conclusions a little too universally applied? How would you know that "They" did this and didn't do that?


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

ScottK said:


> Your view is shared elsewhere on this thread. I get a kick out of seeing trends appear!


Yes, yes. Pavarotti for sure belongs in the first list.


----------



## Shaafee Shameem (Aug 4, 2021)

ScottK said:


> This could turn into a good old fashioned Mantle vs Mays (baseball !) but MORE than Bergonzi?? I don't need to assert my favorite at the top of his strengths alone, but I do need to speak up for his due....MORE???


Indeed, Bergonzi too cared a lot for the words, but his way was different from Di Stefano's. Less spontaneous, more prosaic compared to the poetic Di Stefano.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Shaafee Shameem said:


> Indeed, Bergonzi too cared a lot for the words, but his way was different from Di Stefano's. Less spontaneous, more prosaic compared to the poetic Di Stefano.


I'm glad you like Carlo too! I agree that at his best DiStefano can be more spontaneous but I don't generally find poetry a spontaneous art. DiStefano lacks the reserve and, in my aquaintance, is comparatively monochromatic.


----------



## Shaafee Shameem (Aug 4, 2021)

ScottK said:


> I'm glad you like Carlo too! I agree that at his best DiStefano can be more spontaneous but I don't generally find poetry a spontaneous art. DiStefano lacks the reserve and, in my aquaintance, is comparatively monochromatic.


If you mean by him lacking reserve, that he sang too red-hotly, then I agree, but of course that's where the excitement comes from. I don't think he is monochromatic though, vocally he was capable of a wide array of sounds across all dynamics, and his phrasing too was varied according to the situation. He is also one of the very few I know who could sing both lyrically and dramatically really well. Bergonzi is wonderful when he sings lyrically, but I haven't heard him sing dramatically like Di Stefano does in the Lucia scene someone posted here, or the Violetta act 2 finale, or the Cavelleria duet etc.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Shaafee Shameem said:


> If you mean by him lacking reserve, that he sang too red-hotly, then I agree, but of course that's where the excitement comes from. I don't think he is monochromatic though, vocally he was capable of a wide array of sounds across all dynamics, and his phrasing too was varied according to the situation. He is also one of the very few I know who could sing both lyrically and dramatically really well. Bergonzi is wonderful when he sings lyrically, but I haven't heard him sing dramatically like Di Stefano does in the Lucia scene someone posted here, or the Violetta act 2 finale, or the Cavelleria duet etc.


I think the lack of color variation came primarily from DiStefano not learning, or wanting, to cover his voice as it ascended. I've always thought of his tone as white in the heavier material that most thought he should not sing...Alvaro, Manrico. I've got Bergonzi's Manrico here at Verona. Outdoors the sound is less than perfect but if you go to 10:00 then 14:00 you'll here him sing a good enough High C to drive them pretty wild and later, after they demand the encore, he nails the second one and the place goes nuts. Manrico is not what he did best. But he knew how to sing it...sang it all career long and the voice retained its beauty so that he could sing lyric parts and recitals for years to come. His farewell recital in Carnegie hall was a thing of beauty!




The approach to Lucia is what destroyed the beautiful color in DiStefano's voice, besides which i find it gets my attention but is bordering on hammy. He was almost Gigli like in the lyric material but he simply didn't have the discipline to grow in his art. Aside from one performance in '65, Distefano ended his Met career about 30 years before Bergonzi and he was only 3 years older. Think of that. He's Giuseppe DiStefano, as long as he kept the goods he could have sung anywhere.


----------



## marlow (11 mo ago)

Shaafee Shameem said:


> Indeed, Bergonzi too cared a lot for the words, but his way was different from Di Stefano's. Less spontaneous, more prosaic compared to the poetic Di Stefano.


Bergonzi apparently was completely wooden on stage according to reports. Likened to a pear. Great singer though!


----------



## Shaafee Shameem (Aug 4, 2021)

ScottK said:


> I think the lack of color variation came primarily from DiStefano not learning, or wanting, to cover his voice as it ascended. I've always thought of his tone as white in the heavier material that most thought he should not sing...Alvaro, Manrico. I've got Bergonzi's Manrico here at Verona. Outdoors the sound is less than perfect but if you go to 10:00 then 14:00 you'll here him sing a good enough High C to drive them pretty wild and later, after they demand the encore, he nails the second one and the place goes nuts. Manrico is not what he did best. But he knew how to sing it...sang it all career long and the voice retained its beauty so that he could sing lyric parts and recitals for years to come. His farewell recital in Carnegie hall was a thing of beauty!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh yes, Di Stefano was never perfect in the upper register. He was never a very technical singer, and sang mostly on instinct, though his soft singing is a great technical accomplishment. I never found his high notes white, but they could be shouty sometimes in heavy roles. I don't think sporadic dramatic moments like the one in Lucia destroyed his voice, it had to be the combination of too open singing in the upper register along with taking on too many heavy roles. I don't find it hammy either. Anyways, Di Stefano was also capable of refinement and elegance when he wanted to, particularly in Neapolitan songs.


----------



## marlow (11 mo ago)

Shaafee Shameem said:


> Oh yes, Di Stefano was never perfect in the upper register. He was never a very technical singer, and sang mostly on instinct, though his soft singing is a great technical accomplishment. I never found his high notes white, but they could be shouty sometimes in heavy roles. I don't think sporadic dramatic moments like the one in Lucia destroyed his voice, it had to be the combination of too open singing in the upper register along with taking on too many heavy roles. I don't find it hammy either. Anyways, Di Stefano was also capable of refinement and elegance when he wanted to, particularly in Neapolitan songs.


Just listen to his Duke in the Callas Rigoletto. Unbeatable!


----------



## Shaafee Shameem (Aug 4, 2021)

marlow said:


> Just listen to his Duke in the Callas Rigoletto. Unbeatable!


He is my favourite Duke. The role suited him perfectly.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

marlow said:


> Just listen to his Duke in the Callas Rigoletto. Unbeatable!


My favorite Duke too!


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

marlow said:


> Bergonzi apparently was completely wooden on stage according to reports. Likened to a pear. Great singer though!


Couldn't act!!!

But he was a first rate recitalist! Charming, alive, fully into each song, body and all!


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Shaafee Shameem said:


> Indeed, Bergonzi too cared a lot for the words, but his way was different from Di Stefano's. Less spontaneous, more prosaic compared to the poetic Di Stefano.


I believe Bergonzi is a perfect example of group #1. Such a beautful voice but little in the drama category.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

ScottK said:


> You certainly have:tiphat:!


"Some have gorgeous voices -- Ponselle -- others not so much like .... nah .... not going there!"

It's perfectly ok Scotty. You can go there. Olivero herself would tell you hers was not a beautiful voice. Certainly she got turned away fairly consistently in her youth by those who told her to try something else instead. 
(Man, am I ever glad she stuck to her guns with her less-than-beautiful sound). 
I only wish some with a beautiful sound could produce the excitement and commitment to the roles that she obviously was able to.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

You know -- it kind of surprises me that in a forum that has more than its share of Callas lovers there has not been one person (unless I missed it) who mentioned that Callas herself thought her voice was not beautiful and has been quoted more than once that she wished she had a voice more like Tebaldi's.
Yet, on the other hand, she too was the one who is mega-quoted by the line: "It's not enough to have a beautiful voice".


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

nina foresti said:


> You know -- it kind of surprises me that in a forum that has more than its share of Callas lovers there has not been one person (unless I missed it) who mentioned that Callas herself thought her voice was not beautiful and has been quoted more than once that she wished she had a voice more like Tebaldi's.
> Yet, on the other hand, she too was the one who is mega-quoted by the line: "Singing is more than just a beautiful voice".


When she first heard her voice on a recording of Stradella's *San Giovanni Battista*, she cried and wanted to quit. Later, she made comments like the one you quoted. I think she would've been just as great even if she had had a beautiful voice, like Tebaldi's. Champagne and Cognac.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

MAS said:


> When she first heard her voice on a recording of Stradella's *San Giovanni Battista*, she cried and wanted to quit. Later, she made comments like the one you quoted. I think she would've been just as great even if she had had a beautiful voice, like Tebaldi's. Champagne and Cognac.


The irony of it is that although her voice is not considered by most to have been one of those pure, stunning sounds, what she does with her voice is actually, in a dfferent way, more beautiful because it is different, unique and more exciting to listen to. The same could be said of Corelli's voice. When those two go at it,* we listen!*!


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

nina foresti said:


> I believe Bergonzi is a perfect example of group #1. Such a beautful voice but little in the drama category.


Nina, Nina, Nina....the most ardent and poetic Rodolfo, the practically spiritual in his devotion Edgardo, and you show me the tenor that could bumble so endearingly as Nemorino AND give the Di Quella Pira you hear above. And not just once, for a recording, but both of them in live performance over the course of decades .....ie...he had to have the technique to sustain it and not burn out in a little over a decade. No my dear, you and I don't hear tenors exactly the same. And there's the delight!!!


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

ScottK said:


> Nina, Nina, Nina....the most ardent and poetic Rodolfo, the practically spiritual in his devotion Edgardo, and you show me the tenor that could bumble so endearingly as Nemorino AND give the Di Quella Pira you hear above. And not just once, for a recording, but both of them in live performance over the course of decades .....ie...he had to have the technique to sustain it and not burn out in a little over a decade. No my dear, you and I don't hear tenors exactly the same. And there's the delight!!!


Oh dear!! I have gained your wrath! I hope our differences in tenors won't change our abiding respect for each other because I am a tenor person first!


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

nina foresti said:


> Oh dear!! I have gained your wrath! I hope our differences in tenors won't change our abiding respect for each other because I am a tenor person first!


Never Happen....!!!


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

This thread has become quite long and I can only admit to skinning through it so far, but I'm sure it's a discussion we have had before. In that context I remember quoting Keats,



> Beauty is truth, truth beauty,-that is all
> Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know


So if you ask me whether I place more importance on beauty or drama, I guess I'd have to say neither. Truth should come first.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Tsaraslondon said:


> This thread has become quite long and I can only admit to skinning through it so far, but I'm sure it's a discussion we have had before. In that context I remember quoting Keats,
> 
> So if you ask me whether I place more importance on beauty or drama, I guess I'd have to say neither. Truth should come first.


We did have that discussion. In listening to observations there are leanings in every direction as well as combinations.And even if Truth in the arts can be hard to define (for me anyway) the absence of it is often clear. If one version of beiing true is fulfilling your commitment to the art, with your gifts, I'll go with "start with truth."


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Tsaraslondon said:


> So if you ask me whether I place more importance on beauty or drama, I guess I'd have to say neither. Truth should come first.


That's a lie!!!!


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

amfortas said:


> That's a lie!!!!


(spraying coffee all over my keyboard):lol:


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

amfortas said:


> That's a lie!!!!


Am I missing something? Or are you actually calling me a liar?


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Tsaraslondon said:


> Am I missing something? Or are you actually calling me a liar?


I think (hope!) that was meant to be funny. That's why my response.:tiphat:


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

amfortas said:


> That's a lie!!!!


...........:lol::lol::lol:.........


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Tsaraslondon said:


> Am I missing something? Or are you actually calling me a liar?


Ended up, you handed out a set-up for a line that was not refused!!!


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Tsaraslondon said:


> Am I missing something? Or are you actually calling me a liar?


Sorry. I was just trying to make at least one person spray coffee all over their keyboard.

Mission accomplished.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

amfortas said:


> Sorry. I was just trying to make at least one person spray coffee all over their keyboard.
> 
> Mission accomplished.


Got it! A bit slow on the uptake, I'm afraid. Maybe it was those two large glasses of wine I had at lunchtime! :lol: :tiphat:


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

nina foresti said:


> "Some have gorgeous voices -- Ponselle -- others not so much like .... nah .... not going there!"
> 
> It's perfectly ok Scotty. You can go there. Olivero herself would tell you hers was not a beautiful voice. Certainly she got turned away fairly consistently in her youth by those who told her to try something else instead.
> (Man, am I ever glad she stuck to her guns with her less-than-beautiful sound).
> I only wish some with a beautiful sound could produce the excitement and commitment to the roles that she obviously was able to.


You might have to go back to some of those Normas by Ponselle when she had gained some maturity.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

I’ll tell you what guys Signore Ascolta and Laltra Notte Are my two Oliveiro listens and it never occurred to me that her voice would be considered unattractive!


----------

