# Ingegjerd Bagøien Moe — A Decent Modern Turandot?



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

I'm not going to get too hopeful over this, but could this be real? A modern Turandot that is actually listenable?


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Wow! That's very good considering recent attempts at the role. It's somewhat flat as far as interpretation is concerned, but it's a great start.

N.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

A loud, expressionless, anonymous voice with the now-standard slow vibrato. Quick! Sign her up!


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

So, if you're Scandinavian you must sing *Turandot?* :lol:


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> A loud, expressionless, anonymous voice with the now-standard slow vibrato. Quick! Sign her up!


I don't mean she's the quality of Nilsson, but my oh my I'll take this new singer over Stemme, Goercke, and Netrebko in this role.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

adriesba said:


> I don't mean she's the quality of Nilsson, but my oh my I'll take this new singer over Stemme, Goercke, and Netrebko in this role.


Exactly my thoughts!

N.


----------



## Azol (Jan 25, 2015)

Good instrument, but needs more schooling, the tone and emission are very (and I mean verrry) unstable, in lighter passages (when not forcing it) she sounds more soubrette-ish to these ears. Uncomfortably-sounding top, she can easily destroy what she has if she persists with singing such heavy roles without gaining experience, stability, heft to her vocal apparatus.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

I think I voiced an opinion in a separate thread; what's with the proliferation of unsteady voices these days? I think it points out the dearth of good voice teachers these days. In the Master Classes I watched, the teacher is often correcting the pupil's basic vocal production.


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

MAS said:


> So, if you're Scandinavian you must sing *Turandot?* :lol:


I reckon the memory of Birgit Nilsson lives on and everyone wants to recreate the one-in-a-billion singer she was. But Nilsson's brilliance was probably too unique to use her approach as a default way to sing the role. There are other ways of singing Turandot:


----------



## PAJonsson (Jan 30, 2021)

I have read the comments regarding Ingegjerd Bagøien Moe based on her Turandot interpretation.
Some things come to my mind when it comes to judging voices:
-	The quality of the recording
-	The fact based knowledge about voices and singing
-	The individual tastes

Let me comment these three aspects when it come to this voice as we hear it in these recordings.

*Recording quality*
These recordings are made with amateur equipment, in one case even with a cell phone I think. During such circumstances even the greatest of voices is "capped" and will not be given full justice. 
In these days we are spoiled with studio recording that are made under ideal circumstances, or live recordings with state of the art equipment. So judging a voice based on a recording made with amateur equipment under far from ideal circumstances is not fair - and it's even showing a lack of knowledge from the "judging bench".
May I remind you that even a voice like Birgit Nilsson's could sound shrill and unbalanced in certain recording situations? We have all heard that she had to take a big jump back from the microphone during the legendary Solti recording of the Ring so that her voice should sound nice.

*Knowledge about voices and singing*
As I said initially - it's ok to have different tastes. But to say things about a voice that is incorrect is something else. 
This is NOT a "soubrette-ish" voice - not even close. A soubrette has a different way of setting the tones and also a totally different timbre. (Think about voices like for example the marvellous Barbara Bonney.) 
If that refers to the projection of the voice in the top register then you should listen from singers as Nilsson, Flagstad, Caballé (and many more) that were doing just that. To sing with full voice without narrowing the projection is what can kill a voice.
This is NOT a voice that has problems with the higher notes. Listen again how she is building and maintaining a strong foundation in the higher register.
This is NOT an unsteady voice. It is fully integrated through all the registers, and it is supported by a controlled breathing based on a solid technique. 
I have heard her singing Elisabetta in Don Carlos (Verdi) live. Her voice filled the big hall to the last seat, even in her piano singing. Her voice was full of passion, sorrow, pity and determination. Her singing and acting would have made Verdi renaming the opera "Elisabetta".

I have also seen her whole Turandot performance, although only on screen. And her vocal control is present to the very last note - and beyond. And there is drama - in her voice as well as in her acting!

*The individual tastes*
This is where we can share different thoughts - and where we can enjoy the fact that we are different and that there are different ways to sing Turandot. Just think about so different voices as Nilsson, Marton, Borkh, Caballé, Sutherland, Ricciarelli…. And all of them were good - in their own way.Some of them more dramatic - some more lyric. Even if I love the Nilsson way, I can fully enjoy the more lyric qualities that Caballé is bringing to the part. Because Turandot is not only "power singing", it's also a young women that is finally meeting love. And in my personal taste the part requires a lyric-dramatic soprano. Lyric AND dramatic.

Finally - I recommend everyone that have the opportunity to listen to this true lyric-dramatic soprano live - do it!!!!!


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

What the heck is a "lyric-dramatic" voice?

(Makes me want to run a hot-cold bath, you know, one that is toastily warm and comforting as much as it is icey cold.)

N.


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

PAJonsson said:


> This is NOT a voice that has problems with the higher notes. Listen again how she is building and maintaining a strong foundation in the higher register.
> This is NOT an unsteady voice. It is fully integrated through all the registers, and it is supported by a controlled breathing based on a solid technique.


I agree with you that she is definitely not a soubrette. I don't agree that there are no problems on the higher notes. Her vibrato audibly slows and widens in the higher passages, which is probably what gave a few other members the impression of an "unsteady" voice. A slow vibrato in the upper range does make a voice sound a bit unsteady. In the Roselle example you can hear that she does not lose any speed on her vibrato in the upper register. If anything, the vibrato quickens slightly. That is more in line with the singers you mentioned earlier, such as Flagstad.



PAJonsson said:


> This is where we can share different thoughts - and where we can enjoy the fact that we are different and that there are different ways to sing Turandot. Just think about so different voices as Nilsson, Marton, Borkh, Caballé, Sutherland, Ricciarelli…. And all of them were good - in their own way.


Even Ricciarelli? I'm not such a big fan of Nilsson, Caballe, or Marton, as Turandot, though I like Borkh fine, but Ricciarelli was not a good Turandot. There's a big difference between her and a dramatic soprano with that laser beam like tonal production, like Roselle.

As for the original singer, she's better than a lot of other recent Turandots whose attempts I've suffered through. At least on records, she doesn't compare to sopranos like Turner, Roselle, Nemeth, Cigna, and Grob-Prandl.


----------



## PAJonsson (Jan 30, 2021)

The Conte said:


> What the heck is a "lyric-dramatic" voice?
> 
> (Makes me want to run a hot-cold bath, you know, one that is toastily warm and comforting as much as it is icey cold.)
> 
> N.


A lyric-dramatic soprano is a well know "Fach".
In Germany it's called Jugendlich-dramatischer Sopran.
In Italy it's referred to as lirico-spinto soprano.

We are talking about the voice for roles as Agathe, Aida, Desdemona, Elisabetta (Don Carlo), Fedora, Tosca and several more - most of them in the operas by Verdi, Puccini and other late 19th century composers.

Lyric-dramatic sopranos are often capable of singing roles that are more towards the dramatic soprano repertoire, such as Amelia (Un Ballo), Brünnhilde, Elisabeth (Tannhäuser), Isolde, Leonore/Fidelio, Minnie, Salome, Santuzza, Sieglinde. (As you can see, here we are getting more Wagner.)

Some lyric-dramatic sopranos prefer to also sing the lyric soprano parts, such as Micaëla, Mimi, Pamina, Tatyana etc.

We can find many examples through history where singers moved freely between these constructed boxes. It's often a question of how you approach the role. And interestingly enough - Richard Strauss wanted a lyric soprano in Salome - but nowadays it's almost always a dramatic soprano we hear.

Many of the "legends" were lyric-dramatic sopranos. Let me just mention Leontyne Price, Renata Tebaldi, Maria Callas....


----------



## PAJonsson (Jan 30, 2021)

vivalagentenuova said:


> I agree with you that she is definitely not a soubrette. I don't agree that there are no problems on the higher notes. Her vibrato audibly slows and widens in the higher passages, which is probably what gave a few other members the impression of an "unsteady" voice. A slow vibrato in the upper range does make a voice sound a bit unsteady. In the Roselle example you can hear that she does not lose any speed on her vibrato in the upper register. If anything, the vibrato quickens slightly. That is more in line with the singers you mentioned earlier, such as Flagstad.


The question about vibrato is really interesting!
The vibrato is not just an involuntary result of something else. A vibrato is one of the ways a singer can colour and give character to the voice. A vibrato should be used as a way of expression.

I do agree that when a vibrato gets really slow it's getting close to where I have to take pills against seasickness. 
But I'm equally disturbed be some fast (almost nervous) vibratos.



vivalagentenuova said:


> Even Ricciarelli? I'm not such a big fan of Nilsson, Caballe, or Marton, as Turandot, though I like Borkh fine, but Ricciarelli was not a good Turandot. There's a big difference between her and a dramatic soprano with that laser beam like tonal production, like Roselle.
> 
> As for the original singer, she's better than a lot of other recent Turandots whose attempts I've suffered through. At least on records, she doesn't compare to sopranos like Turner, Roselle, Nemeth, Cigna, and Grob-Prandl.


It's fully allowed not to like first class Turandots like Nilsson. It's a matter of taste. 
I see that you are a fan of some of the older legends. 
Especially interesting that you mention the great Maria Nemeth - she could sing *everything*! (In those days the Fach system wasn't that rigid.....

And Ricciarelli.... She is not a Turandot that I would choose. But she adds some intersting qualities to the Principessa di gelo.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

PAJonsson said:


> A lyric-dramatic soprano is a well know "Fach".
> In Germany it's called Jugendlich-dramatischer Sopran.
> In Italy it's referred to as lirico-spinto soprano.
> 
> ...


Ok. So you mean a medium weight soprano. I agree with you about their being more lyrical parts to the role of Turandot that need to be sung more softly. Just because someone is a dramatic soprano doesn't mean they have an excuse not to be able to sing softly. All singers should be able to sing dramatically and lyrically irrespective of the natural weight of their voice. Where I don't agree is that Turandot requires a medium weight voice. It needs a soprano with enough weight to do the role justice.

N.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

The Conte said:


> Ok. So you mean a medium weight soprano. I agree with you about their being more lyrical parts to the role of Turandot that need to be sung more softly. Just because someone is a dramatic soprano doesn't mean they have an excuse not to be able to sing softly. All singers should be able to sing dramatically and lyrically irrespective of the natural weight of their voice. Where I don't agree is that Turandot requires a medium weight voice. It needs a soprano with enough weight to do the role justice.
> 
> N.


That's a very good point. Both Sutherland and Ricciarelli recorded the role but didn't sing it on stage. However, whereas I doubt Ricciarelli could ever have sustained the role on stage, you feel Sutherland would have managed it quite easily.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Tsaraslondon said:


> That's a very good point. Both Sutherland and Ricciarelli recorded the role but didn't sing it on stage. However, whereas I feel Ricciarelli could never have sustained the role on stage, you feel Sutherland would have managed it quite easily.


Absolutely! Ricciarelli was a lyric soprano and not suited to some of the roles she sang (Turandot and Aida being the prime examples), she didn't really have the ideal voice for Amelia in Ballo either, but she made that role work. Sutherland's voice had more weight to it and so probably would have made a good Turandot in the theatre. On the other hand it's not a role to be taken on lightly and I think she was wise to leave it as a studio only performance.

N.


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

> The vibrato is not just an involuntary result of something else. A vibrato is one of the ways a singer can colour and give character to the voice. A vibrato should be used as a way of expression.


The vibrato can be used expressively, yes, but it doesn't sound to me like that's what she's doing here. The wobble occurs every time she sustains a note in the upper register, and it widens to the point that it distorts the true pitch. I don't think she's doing that on purpose, at least I hope not.



> I do agree that when a vibrato gets really slow it's getting close to where I have to take pills against seasickness.
> But I'm equally disturbed be some fast (almost nervous) vibratos.


This is also a fault, agreed. You should check out our recent thread on vibrato where we discussed these issues in a lot more depth.



> Especially interesting that you mention the great Maria Nemeth - she could sing everything! (In those days the Fach system wasn't that rigid.....


Indeed, she was an excellent artist who did everything from the Queen of the Night to Turandot! I think the fach system was less rigid because there were more voices that were trained so well that they could cross its boundaries, as well as more dramatic voices with flexibility and a strong top that were useful in all sorts of roles.



> And Ricciarelli.... She is not a Turandot that I would choose. But she adds some intersting qualities to the Principessa di gelo.


I find I can't get past what feels to me like an uncontrolled sound to hear whatever she is trying to express. In my view only control (or the freedom and qualities that are developed on the path to vocal control -- one need not consciously intend every expressive quality of one's singing) can lead to true vocal expression. That's why I like the greats of the past so much. Nobody it seems, has been able to build a voice like that for a very long time.


----------



## PAJonsson (Jan 30, 2021)

The Conte said:


> Ok. So you mean a medium weight soprano. I agree with you about their being more lyrical parts to the role of Turandot that need to be sung more softly. Just because someone is a dramatic soprano doesn't mean they have an excuse not to be able to sing softly. All singers should be able to sing dramatically and lyrically irrespective of the natural weight of their voice. Where I don't agree is that Turandot requires a medium weight voice. It needs a soprano with enough weight to do the role justice.
> 
> N.


No, I don't mean a "medium weight" soprano. I mean a lyric-dramatic soprano. 
(This is a well known term among people that have some basic knowledge about opera singing and voices.)

A voice or a part is not defined by "weight", even if we sometimes use that term.
I suggest that you spend some time reading about what a lyric-dramatic voice is.


----------



## PAJonsson (Jan 30, 2021)

vivalagentenuova said:


> The vibrato can be used expressively, yes, but it doesn't sound to me like that's what she's doing here. The wobble occurs every time she sustains a note in the upper register, and it widens to the point that it distorts the true pitch. I don't think she's doing that on purpose, at least I hope not.


Interesting, I don't hear the same as you. 

But this is the fascinating thing with voices - we can have different perceptions.



vivalagentenuova said:


> Indeed, she was an excellent artist who did everything from the Queen of the Night to Turandot! I think the fach system was less rigid because there were more voices that were trained so well that they could cross its boundaries, as well as more dramatic voices with flexibility and a strong top that were useful in all sorts of roles.


The voice training was of course different. That's the *first aspect*.
The *second aspect* is that the approach to different parts was very different from today. When listening to old recordings you can hear great singers that were singing parts in a way that is so totally different from today. For example Wagner was often sung by voices that we today would never accept.
A *third aspect* in this is the orchestra playing. The massive and almost dense sound of most orchestras today is a late "invention". Both the sound and the actual playing was much more transparent in "the old days" - partly because of the instruments and partly because of the style. So a singer didn't have to press that hard to get through. That was opening up for singers being able to do many more different things.


----------



## damianjb1 (Jan 1, 2016)

adriesba said:


> I don't mean she's the quality of Nilsson, but my oh my I'll take this new singer over Stemme, Goercke, and Netrebko in this role.


Netrebko would be my first choice for this role.


----------



## damianjb1 (Jan 1, 2016)

A *third aspect* in this is the orchestra playing. The massive and almost dense sound of most orchestras today is a late "invention". Both the sound and the actual playing was much more transparent in "the old days" - partly because of the instruments and partly because of the style. So a singer didn't have to press that hard to get through. That was opening up for singers being able to do many more different things.[/QUOTE]

Great point. Also, most conductors of that era did their training and apprenticeship in an Opera House. So they were much more familiar with singers than conductors are today (with a few notable exceptions).


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

PAJonsson said:


> The voice training was of course different. That's the *first aspect*.


It was evidently better.



> The *second aspect* is that the approach to different parts was very different from today. When listening to old recordings you can hear great singers that were singing parts in a way that is so totally different from today. For example Wagner was often sung by voices that we today would never accept.


Who is "we"? Wagner today is often sung by voices that no one who understands singing should accept, but they seem to be the best we can get. I expect to die before hearing another Lehmann (Lili or Lotte), Leider, Flagstad, Lubin, Traubel, Nilsson, Urlus, Melchior, Lorenz, Svanholm or Vickers.



> A *third aspect* in this is the orchestra playing. The massive and almost dense sound of most orchestras today is a late "invention". Both the sound and the actual playing was much more transparent in "the old days" - partly because of the instruments and partly because of the style. So a singer didn't have to press that hard to get through. That was opening up for singers being able to do many more different things.


Orchestras today are not different from those of a century ago, as early radio transmissions make clear. Instruments have hardly changed since that time. Listen to one of the 1930s Met Tristans. It doesn't sound any more "transparent" than it would now. And by God, if those singers were around today "we" would more than "accept" them!


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> Who is "we"? Wagner today is often sung by voices that no one who understands singing should accept, but they seem to be the best we can get. I expect to die before hearing another Lehmann (Lili or Lotte), Leider, Flagstad, Lubin, Traubel, Nilsson, Urlus, Melchior, Lorenz, Svanholm or Vickers.
> 
> Orchestras today are not different from those of a century ago, as early radio transmissions make clear. Instruments have hardly changed since that time. Listen to one of the 1930s Met Tristans. It doesn't sound any more "transparent" than it would now. And by God, if those singers were around today "we" would more than "accept" them!


But Woodduck, orchestras playing Wagner *can* be heard more clearly and transparent than ever! It's due to an exciting new technique singers of our generation employ called notsingingwithanyvolume* (the word derives from Italian). Let us take a look at this groundbreaking new technique in action in the following clip.






Listen to how clearly you can hear the orchestra! Every non-sung detail is revealed! No more do we have to deal with the heroic sound of Melchoir's squillo soaring over the orchestra and thereby obstructing the real reason everyone goes to Wagner opera's - the orchestral sound. With Vogt's employment of notsingingwithanyvolume we can now be assured that the orchestra is always far louder than him, and we can therefore hear every detail our heart desperately desires!

You see, now *is* the golden age.

* - notsingingwithanyvolume, its inventors, and its practitioners will not be held liable for the impressive feat of making Wagner unemotional and boring. Conditions may apply (not that you'll be able to hear them). Batteries not included. In fact, no power source whatsoever is included.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BachIsBest said:


> But Woodduck, orchestras playing Wagner *can* be heard more clearly and transparent than ever! It's due to an exciting new technique singers of our generation employ called notsingingwithanyvolume* (the word derives from Italian). Let us take a look at this groundbreaking new technique in action in the following clip.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Right you are! Amazing what you can hear! It sounds like a different work, doesn't it? _H. M. S. Percival,_ perhaps?


----------



## Aerobat (Dec 31, 2018)

Come on folks, you can't judge the entire world of modern singers by the sole example of the Wimpentenor Fach. As has been said before (by me), whoever told him he could sing Wagner was clearly the world's only deaf singing teacher.

I'm going to counter the arguments against modern singers with this. She's recently retired and is definitely of the modern generation, but my god can she sing Wagner:






There is no doubt that modern recording techniques are very different from those of 50 plus years ago, leading to an orchestra that sounds bigger. In some cases, the orchestra is mic'd _very_ closely due to recording venue acoustics. This leads to the singer requiring the mic to be closer than in the 'old' days, thus revealing every detail of their voice. Don't forget, *every* element between the original source (the singer's voice) and your ears will colour the sound in some way. That includes the all elements of the recording equipment and your listening equipment.

Recording technology has changed massively - microphones use lighter, faster, components to be more responsive, mastering equipment has evolved to be more transparent, etc. Some early recordings that are raved about in these forums are actually so bad that even the woodwind has vibrato (ok, wobble). Now, when I hear a recording where instruments that *can't* produce vibrato are wobbling then I know that the recording cannot be a particularly faithful reproduction of the original performance.

If you want an *extreme* example of close mic'ing of everyone, listen to the Bartoli recording of Norma. This was recorded in a location with truly terrible acoustics (I have no idea why), requiring much closer microphone positioning than would be normal, and indeed more microphones for the orchestra than would be normal. The end result of course is an incredibly detailed reproduction of every element of the performance that would have been inconceivable even as recently as Callas and Zeani.

The fact that I have to agree with the majority here about is that there's a lack of great singers for Verdi & Wagner right now. We've got some excellent singers in the lighter fachs, but we lack greats in Wagner and Verdi (with the exception of the example above). So we have to ask, why is this? I suspect it's down to audience demand. Put on Cosi or Boheme, you'll fill the house night after night. Put on Parsifal and some houses don't even fill up for one night (been there, single night performance of Parsifal conducted by Andris Nelsons, and the house was at most 75% full).

It may be different in other parts of the world but here in the UK lighter Opera fills houses and sells recordings. Wagner, who requires the investment of a lot more time and effort to understand and enjoy, does not. Ultimately singers need to be paid, as does the orchestra and everyone else involved in production. Unsurprisingly, they focus their efforts on whatever sells best.

As an aside, this week the Met Opera on Demand is streaming 'audience choices'. Yesterday was a recent Netrebko performance of Les Contes D'Hoffmann (why audiences like Nebs I don't know). Today is La Fanciulla Del West with Westbroek in the title role. I think we can see where the demand is from modern audiences.

I'm an amateur musician, and my day job is in business consulting. Opera houses are ultimately a business, and if they don't give the customers what they want then the customers go elsewhere (Customer interactions 101). It's pretty clear from the audience choices for Met streaming where the demand is. The modern producers and performers are simply meeting that demand.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Aerobat said:


> Come on folks, you can't judge the entire world of modern singers by the sole example of the Wimpentenor Fach.


Is anyone doing that? If you want to debate a point, don't misrepresent the argument you're contesting.



> I'm going to counter the arguments against modern singers with this. She's recently retired and is definitely of the modern generation, but my god can she sing Wagner:


How does the example of one singer counter any argument about modern singers? Isn't that exactly the thing you just incorrectly accused others of doing?



> There is no doubt that modern recording techniques are very different from those of 50 plus years ago, leading to an orchestra that sounds bigger. In some cases, the orchestra is mic'd _very_ closely due to recording venue acoustics. This leads to the singer requiring the mic to be closer than in the 'old' days, thus revealing every detail of their voice. Don't forget, *every* element between the original source (the singer's voice) and your ears will colour the sound in some way. That includes the all elements of the recording equipment and your listening equipment.


Do you have any proof that singers stand closer to the microphone than they once did? It's my listening experience that recordings of operas before the stereo era tended to favor the singer over the orchestra, and that many recordings since have gone too far in the other direction. It's also an audible fact that in the 78rpm era singers were very close to the recording medium (horn or mic), and that their voices were mercilessly exposed with little softening acoustic around them to conceal any flaws of technique or execution. Modern recordings are in most ways LESS revealing, and more forgiving, than recordings of Caruso's day, in exactly the same ways that singers heard in the house can get away with faults that are more exposed on recordings. There was no flattering acoustic or wash of orchestral sound between Galli-Curci or Schipa and the record listener. If anything was wrong with their singing, you heard it loud and clear.



> The fact that I have to agree with the majority here about is that there's a lack of great singers for Verdi & Wagner right now. We've got some excellent singers in the lighter fachs, but we lack greats in Wagner and Verdi (with the exception of the example above). So we have to ask, why is this? I suspect it's down to audience demand. Put on Cosi or Boheme, you'll fill the house night after night. Put on Parsifal and some houses don't even fill up for one night (been there, single night performance of Parsifal conducted by Andris Nelsons, and the house was at most 75% full). It may be different in other parts of the world but here in the UK lighter Opera fills houses and sells recordings. Wagner, who requires the investment of a lot more time and effort to understand and enjoy, does not. Ultimately singers need to be paid, as does the orchestra and everyone else involved in production. Unsurprisingly, they focus their efforts on whatever sells best. It's pretty clear from the audience choices for Met streaming where the demand is. The modern producers and performers are simply meeting that demand.


Of course Wagner is not light, easy entertainment and so will be less popular. But here's something worth noting: when Flagstad and Melchior sang at the Met, their performances were the house's biggest box office draw. Perhaps the quality of singing is as determinative of audience appeal as the assumed appeal of certain repertoire is of the quality of singing. Don't be too sure of which is the chicken and which the egg.


----------

