# Criticisms of legendary singers



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

title is fairly self-explanatory. they can be criticisms either of technique or personal tastes. I'll start with a few
*Marilyn Horne:* her timbre always sounded weird to me. somewhat muddy, not a great deal of resonance in the upper register and possessing of a strange coloratura technique that was half way Deutekom-esque
*Pavarotti:* lovely voice....but frankly....kind of boring lol
*Joan Sutherland:* I really don't care much about her lack of diction, but the critics are right about her lower register. it simply doesn't work when you have a bright, feminine, heroic upper register but suddenly sound like a sickly old woman when you start to approach middle C.
*Maria Callas:* Maria Callas never truly sounded lyrical to me. her dramatic interpretations are splendid, as were the heroic, fiery coloratura displays she could put out during her prime, but her voice has always had a roughness. sometimes, when I listen to music, I want to hear something sound easy, effortless and florid, whereas, with Callas, everything was blood, guts and pain, even in the few comedic roles she sang. the dramatic power and intensity are lovely, but after 5 minutes or so, I feel the need to de-compress and watch something lighthearted like an episode of Family Guy XD
*Monteserrat Caballe:* not enough agility. her legato is _to die for_, but she should have stuck to what she was good at. she was the bel canto coloratura she tried hard to be at some points, but a formidable, full-bodied _spinto_ soprano, and that is where her voices shines. 
*Astrid Varnay:* she was a bloody *mezzo*, and this becomes obvious after listening anything she sang after the age of 30. the shrieking high notes, just....no. they make me squirm.
*Enrico Caruso:* too metallic. I've always found his vocal timbre unpleasant despite the wonderful perpetuate voice lesson which was his technique.
*Birgit Nilsson:* colder voices can be well-suited to certain rep (Turandot, Lady Macbeth, some German rep), but what bothers me about Nilsson sometimes is that there was zero femininity to the voice. that works if you're singing Arsace or Calbo. it doesn't work if you are a soprano, dramatic or otherwise. _however_, to be fair, there are a few exceptions to this lack of femininity which are absolutely stunning. the pianismo high Db in Lady Macbeth and her rendition of Inflammatus (from Rossini's Stabat Mater) come to mind immediately


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

You do like to concentrate on the negatives, don't you?


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

My memories of a discourse from Frasier.

Niles: Shame, it was no nearly perfect.

Frasier: Yes, if only...

Martin: (Interrupting) Oh please, it sounds like it couldn't have been any more perfect for you two. All highbrow with just enough wrong that you can get your claws into and go on and on about... Why can't you just enjoy it for what it is?


(at least that's how I recall it)


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

Niles: That was back in the days when we thought the 1812 Overture was good music.
Frasier: Were we ever so young?

... and back on topic

I'm not generally critical of great singers, but
Pavarotti often sounded like a bleating sheep.
Sutherland, as ever... the diction

I'm unlikely to buy or now listen to a recording with both of these on it.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Whoever built a monument to a critic? 

:tiphat:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Don Fatale said:


> Pavarotti often sounded like a bleating sheep.
> .


You must have some highly musical sheep round your way! Or perhaps you should visit the audiologist?


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

DavidA said:


> Whoever built a monument to a critic?
> 
> :tiphat:


Gosh, never heard that one before.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Don Fatale said:


> Gosh, never heard that one before.


Some sayings deserves to be said often.


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

DavidA said:


> You must have some highly musical sheep round your way! Or perhaps you should visit the audiologist?


Their recent performance of The Baa Baa of Seville was excellent.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> You do like to concentrate on the negatives, don't you?


I did say nice things about most of them too. I do like to criticize, but it's always fair


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

Balalakaiboy, you should really read or skim John Steane's classic book THE GRAND TRADITION. Steane (an English commentator on opera and the singing voice) had a great gift for balanced evaluations of singers. Reading his writings made it clear to me that each singer has good points as well as flaws -- or qualities that could be considered flaws. (I'm not saying your critiques aren't balanced; I suggest Steane only because you seem so interested in singers and describing them was his specialty.)

The thing to keep in mind, though, is that so much of this is subjective. You hear Pavarotti's singing as "kind of boring"; having just listened to his classic recording of L'ELISIR D'AMORE with Joan Sutherland, I can't agree with that. In that period (1970), his singing was rather characterful (as well as tonally beautiful). I _do_ think he was relatively limited as an artist; he never went much into French or German opera as did Domingo -- whether because he couldn't read music, he was lazy, or he simply wasn't interested in that repertoire it's hard to tell. He apparently wasn't much of an actor, either, particularly as he aged and gained weight. Yet for me, on recordings at least, he simply "is" certain roles: Nemorino and the Duke of Mantua are two of them. There are tenors I like a bit better, but there's no doubt in my mind that Pavarotti was a great _and_ often thrilling singer. So if by boring you mean "limited repertoire and acting," then I'd agree -- but not otherwise.

I'll just take one more of the singers on your list: Joan Sutherland. First, it always puzzles me when people (not just you) refer to her "lack of diction." Shouldn't they refer instead to her lack of _clear_ diction? At any rate, I sense that in Sutherland's case there were a number of factors interfering with the clarity of her words: the size of her voice, her desire for a pure musical line, her sinus troubles, and possibly even her prominent jaw (I'm not positive, but I feel this might have obscured her words somewhat). I hear what you're saying about the low part of her voice, but personally I've always appreciated the fact that there's so much body in her _middle_ register when so many coloraturas lack this.

My overall point is that while you, I, or anyone else can certainly pick out the shortcomings of famous singers, much of this just a matter of perception. We'll never get a consensus; the discussion could go on forever. Moreover, having just seen my first-ever performance at the Met Opera House, it's pretty clear to me that, when it comes to singers of a certain professional stature, whatever "faults" there may be are really rather minuscule when compared to the great qualities.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

DavidA said:


> You must have some highly musical sheep round your way! Or perhaps you should visit the audiologist?


Amen to this.:tiphat:


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Bellinilover said:


> Balalakaiboy, you should really read or skim John Steane's classic book THE GRAND TRADITION. Steane (an English commentator on opera and the singing voice) had a great gift for balanced evaluations of singers. Reading his writings made it clear to me that each singer has good points as well as flaws -- or qualities that could be considered flaws. (I'm not saying your critiques aren't balanced; I suggest Steane only because you seem so interested in singers and describing them was his specialty.)
> 
> The thing to keep in mind, though, is that so much of this is subjective. You hear Pavarotti's singing as "kind of boring"; having just listened to his classic recording of L'ELISIR D'AMORE with Joan Sutherland, I can't agree with that; in that period (1970), it was rather characterful (as well as tonally beautiful). I _do_ think he was relatively limited as an artist; he never went much into French or German opera as did Domingo -- whether because he couldn't read music, he was lazy, or he simply wasn't interested in that repertoire it's hard to tell. He apparently wasn't much of an actor, either, particularly as he aged and gained weight. Yet for me, on recordings at least, he simply "is" certain roles: Nemorino and the Duke of Mantua are two of them. There are tenors I like a bit better, but there's no doubt in my mind that Pavarotti was a great _and_ often thrilling singer. So if by boring you mean "limited repertoire and acting," then I'd agree -- but not otherwise.
> 
> ...


People are just like sheep, if one has criticism or scream louder then another, the rest will follow.
But then again, nothing to be found what they actually achieve themself .


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> *Enrico Caruso:* too metallic. I've always found his vocal timbre unpleasant despite the wonderful perpetuate voice lesson which was his technique.


Perhaps you can explain to me how it is possible to make this type of judgment given that the only knowledge we have is from acoustic recordings where the effects of the crude technology are just as likely to be the cause of what we hear.


----------



## JoeSaunders (Jan 29, 2015)

I feel Jon Vickers sounded too evil for many of the roles he performed.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

JoeSaunders said:


> I feel Jon Vickers sounded too evil for many of the roles he performed.


That's an opinion I've honestly never heard before. Do you feel his Florestan in FIDELIO sounded evil?


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Sutherland's diction is only funny to me when she sings English, as I don't know French and Italian enough to know the difference She is a goddess to me. I love her "flaws", too. I like the sound of her lower voice. It is just not that powerful. 
I don't understand the "Nilsson doesn't sound feminine" bit. Why can't you have a huge, heroic sound and have it be feminine????? She doesn't sound like a counter tenor and she sure as hell is a soprano!!! 
Lastly, I must be deficient in taste as I LOVE the rich sound of Varnay's voice and her high notes are next to Nilsson's to me . I love the thrilling effect she gets when unleashing those high notes in Wagner. I am speaking of her in her 30s, in particualar the Bayreuth Ring. Her high notes were never wobbly, full of heft and magnificently steely... perfect for Wagner. Just listen to the last of the Duet with Siegfriend from Act 1 of Gotterdammerung starting about 27 min in for a minute or so:



. It find Varnay spine tingling in excitement here, with her rich mezzo middle register that transitions smoothly to a gleaming top!!!! As to her sounding like a mezzo: many dramatic sopranos have that quality.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Seattleoperafan said:


> I don't understand the "Nilsson doesn't sound feminine" bit. Why can't you have a huge, heroic sound and have it be feminine????? She doesn't sound like a counter tenor and she sure as hell is a soprano!!!


I'm with you here. I wouldn't call Nilsson's timbre "warm," but I certainly hear nothing unfeminine about it. In fact I think she conveys "softer" feelings quite well, if that's part of being "feminine." But I suppose we all have different ideas of what femininity means, vocally and otherwise.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Seattleoperafan said:


> Sutherland's diction is only funny to me when she sings English, as I don't know French and Italian enough to know the difference She is a goddess to me. I love her "flaws", too. I like the sound of her lower voice. It is just not that powerful.
> I don't understand the "Nilsson doesn't sound feminine" bit. Why can't you have a huge, heroic sound and have it be feminine????? She doesn't sound like a counter tenor and she sure as hell is a soprano!!!
> Lastly, I must be deficient in taste as I LOVE the rich sound of Varnay's voice and her high notes are next to Nilsson's to me . I love the thrilling effect she gets when unleashing those high notes in Wagner. I am speaking of her in her 30s, in particualar the Bayreuth Ring. Her high notes were never wobbly, full of heft and magnificently steely... perfect for Wagner. Just listen to the last of the Duet with Siegfriend from Act 1 of Gotterdammerung starting about 27 min in for a minute or so:
> 
> ...


From the highest order :tiphat:


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Seattleoperafan said:


> Sutherland's diction is only funny to me when she sings English, as I don't know French and Italian enough to know the difference She is a goddess to me. I love her "flaws", too. I like the sound of her lower voice. It is just not that powerful.


I don't really care much about her diction either lol (she is a goddess to me as well)



> I don't understand the "Nilsson doesn't sound feminine" bit. *Why can't you have a huge, heroic sound and have it be feminine?????* She doesn't sound like a counter tenor and she sure as hell is a soprano!!!


never said you couldn't (if that were the case, I wouldn't have used it as a criticism(that would make about as much sense as criticizing a spinto tenor for not having rattly low notes lol)
nay, there are plenty of sopranos with large, heroic voices whom could be considered very feminine.

- Christine Goerke
- Martina Arroyo
- Frida Lieder
- Regine Crespin

and of course....
- Joan Sutherland



> Lastly, I must be deficient in taste as I LOVE the rich sound of Varnay's voice and her high notes are next to Nilsson's to me . I love the thrilling effect she gets when unleashing those high notes in Wagner. I am speaking of her in her 30s, in particualar the Bayreuth Ring. Her high notes were never wobbly, full of heft and magnificently steely... perfect for Wagner. Just listen to the last of the Duet with Siegfriend from Act 1 of Gotterdammerung starting about 27 min in for a minute or so:
> 
> 
> 
> . It find Varnay spine tingling in excitement here, with her rich mezzo middle register that transitions smoothly to a gleaming top!!!! As to her sounding like a mezzo: many dramatic sopranos have that quality.


I like Varnay best as a mezzo


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

Ruth Ann Swenson, a soprano I've always liked, does have at least one habit that irritates me: whenever she has an "o" sound in Italian she tends to pronounce it like "ooh." I've always thought that odd.

As much as I love Alessandro Corbelli, at times I feel his sound is too consistently heavy and dark. For that matter, I could say the same thing about Placido Domingo.

Very quiet singing seems never to have been Juan Diego Florez's strong point (or Pavarotti's, for that matter).


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

I adore all of these below but..

*Price, Virginia Zeani :* over-voluptuous (I'm not sure that makes sense) and way too much Maschera! The voice sounds almost forced sometimes. 
*Leyla Gencer:* Her voice always sounded kind of nasal to me. Weird lower register.
*young Corelli, Radvanovsky :* the caprino. But they get away with it and use it to their advantage. 
*Sutherland:* Not enough heft in the lower register. And she mushes the vowels to get that round sound, hence the"reluctant old-lady" effect and hit-or-miss diction. 
*Tebaldi:* very limited top for a Soprano. 
*Olivero and Kabaivanska:* the vibrato is kind of too shrill and even ugly especially in the former's case.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Actually, Pavarotti was a much better actor than he was given credit for being, that is, until his later years when health problems and excessive weight limited him . 
You need to watch him on DVD in live performances , where he really could act and portray characters vividly ,both in vocal nuance and physically . 
For example, as Nemorino , he played the goofy, naive and lovestruck country bumpkin perfectly and with comic timing which would be the envy of any comic actor on screen .
As Idomeneo in the Met's production of the opera , he is truly noble and dignified . Pavarotti had a very expressive face which shows he was really responding to the other characters in operas . But of course, you couldn't see this if you were sitting in one of the far away seats of the Met away from the stage .
I love the Met auditorium and going to performances there is a great experience, but it is an awfully big place .


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

A statement of preference is not a criticism. We all have personal preferences for certain vocal timbres. It would rarely occur to me to criticize a singer for qualities they are born with, except in extreme cases of a sound inappropriate for the music they're singing (I wouldn't care to hear Jon Vickers as Don Ottavio, or Eileen Farrell as Gilda). Some love the voice of Callas, others hate it, but calling her timbre ugly is not a criticism but an expression of taste. On the other hand, pointing out that her high notes became strident and wobbly is a criticism, and part of learning to appreciate singing is learning to tell the difference between the basic sound of a voice, the technical skill with which it's used, and its aptness for the music in which it's employed.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

superhorn said:


> Actually, Pavarotti was a much better actor than he was given credit for being, that is, until his later years when health problems and excessive weight limited him .
> You need to watch him on DVD in live performances , where he really could act and portray characters vividly ,both in vocal nuance and physically .
> For example, as Nemorino , he played the goofy, naive and lovestruck country bumpkin perfectly and with comic timing which would be the envy of any comic actor on screen .
> As Idomeneo in the Met's production of the opera , he is truly noble and dignified . Pavarotti had a very expressive face which shows he was really responding to the other characters in operas . But of course, you couldn't see this if you were sitting in one of the far away seats of the Met away from the stage .
> I love the Met auditorium and going to performances there is a great experience, but it is an awfully big place .


So is his Ernani with Leona Mitchell.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

You really want a list?
Corelli's lisp
Olivero's gulping glottal attacks
Bergonzi's "shush" sound
Sutherland's mushy middle
Bjorling's gasping intake of breath
Hvorostovsky's huge intake of breath
Tebaldi's "almost" highs
del Monaco's "almost" highs
Pertile's nasality
Callas' wobbles
Pavarotti's "nyahh" sound
and on and on...
Yet all are the top of the top!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

nina foresti said:


> You really want a list?
> Corelli's lisp
> Olivero's gulping glottal attacks
> Bergonzi's "shush" sound
> ...


Just as well. If perfection were attainable we'd all be sitting on clouds playing harps, and bored as hell.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Just as well. If perfection were attainable we'd all be sitting on clouds playing harps, and bored as hell.


Amen brother!!


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> A statement of preference is not a criticism. We all have personal preferences for certain vocal timbres. It would rarely occur to me to criticize a singer for qualities they are born with, except in extreme cases of a sound inappropriate for the music they're singing (I wouldn't care to hear Jon Vickers as Don Ottavio, or Eileen Farrell as Gilda). Some love the voice of Callas, others hate it, but calling her timbre ugly is not a criticism but an expression of taste. On the other hand, pointing out that her high notes became strident and wobbly is a criticism, and part of learning to appreciate singing is learning to tell the difference between the basic sound of a voice, the technical skill with which it's used, and its aptness for the music in which it's employed.


fair distinction.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> fair distinction.


Fair comment also .


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

nina foresti said:


> You really want a list?
> Corelli's lisp
> Olivero's gulping glottal attacks
> Bergonzi's "shush" sound
> ...


Hvorostovsky just like Netrebko sounds to me like he has a muffin in his mouth (even looks like it.)
Neither is a legendary singer though.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Tuoksu said:


> Hvorostovsky just like Netrebko sounds to me like he has a muffin in his mouth (even looks like it.)
> Neither is a legendary singer though.


Ouch...... the "young" Hvorostovsky on his Philips CD is quit good.
(In my ever humble opinion)


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

Pugg said:


> Ouch...... the "young" Hvorostovsky on his Philips CD is quit good.
> (In my ever humble opinion)


quite good =/= legendary


----------



## alanneilh (Aug 7, 2016)

Your criticism of Callas is spot-on. I frankly never liked her. There were so many technical flaws to her voice, especially her coloratura, singing sharp, then flat and sometime wobbling and I found her acting for which she was so praised consisted of over-the-top diva histrionics. Her voice I found to be too dark for Lucia and too lacking in lightness for Rosina, although her recordings are widely praised. Still, her fans can hear no flaws and over the years, I'm endured the worst criticism for voicing my opinion in public.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

alanneilh said:


> Your criticism of Callas is spot-on. I frankly never liked her. There were so many technical flaws to her voice, especially her coloratura, singing sharp, then flat and sometime wobbling and I found her acting for which she was so praised consisted of over-the-top diva histrionics. Her voice I found to be too dark for Lucia and too lacking in lightness for Rosina, although her recordings are widely praised. Still, her fans can hear no flaws and over the years, I'm endured the worst criticism for voicing my opinion in public.


I think you'll find that most admirer's of Callas here are aware that she was not perfect. Still, I wonder about these "many technical flaws" you speak of. Can you name a soprano with a voice of comparable size and dramatic capability whose coloratura was superior to hers? Among singers active since the mid-20th century, Sutherland is the only candidate I can think of in terms of size of voice, but you no doubt realize that both the strength and color of her lower range and her dramatic powers were not at all comparable to those of Callas. That is generally acknowledged even by admirers of Sutherland.

I'm curious to know where you find poor coloratura, sharping, flatting, and wobbling in these selections, recorded during the years prior to her well-known vocal decline:











To my very experienced ear, those are examples of singing superb in every way; I would even call them the finest performances I know of the works in question. Later in her career the high notes became problematic, but even in this recording made near the end of her career we do not hear "many technical flaws" beyond the effortful high notes. What we do hear is great musical precision and expressive intelligence, which no musician disputes.






I also wonder on what basis you judge her acting, since the only truly substantial record we have of it is her famous Act 2 of _Tosca_ with Tito Gobbi at Covent Garden, which most people who have seen it (including great theater actors such as Dame Judy Dench) find to be a supremely powerful assumption. Are you old enough to have seen her in other roles in the opera house? Where can the rest of us see these "over-the-top diva histrionics" you refer to?

Beyond questions of personal taste - why, for example, should Lucia not have a dark timbre, melancholy and tragic girl that she is? - is it presumptuous to ask you to support, with concrete evidence, so many blanket assertions offered in the guise of criticism?


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

Here we go again...


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Bellinilover said:


> Here we go again...


+1 
it's getting tiring and very boring


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

double post, sorry


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Pugg said:


> +1
> it's getting tiring and very boring


So sorry you are bored. People who make uninformed assertions about singers will naturally be challenged to support them by people who are well-informed. That is as it should be. Accuracy will be welcomed by those who are interested. Those who are not interested do not have to participate.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> So sorry you are bored. People who make uninformed assertions about singers will naturally be challenged to support them by people who are well-informed. That is as it should be. Accuracy will be welcomed by those who are interested. Those who are not interested do not have to participate.


You are more then right, but seeing the same name dominating yet another topic that's what getting boring.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Pugg said:


> You are more then right, but seeing the same name dominating yet another topic that's what getting boring.


I agree, it's a pity Callas is such a lightning rod. We know it's inevitable that if people are asked to criticize legendary singers, her name will figure prominently. I myself feel, not bored, but weary of trying to establish some objectivity about her, both in her faults and her virtues. A statement to the effect that one of the greatest operatic artists of all time sings out of tune, has faulty coloratura, and is a lousy actress, simply can't go unanswered, and for better or for worse I seem to be as well qualified as anyone presently on the forum to answer it. I promise to try to be as un-boring as possible!


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

alanneilh said:


> Your criticism of Callas is spot-on. I frankly never liked her. There were so many technical flaws to her voice, especially her coloratura, singing sharp, then flat and sometime wobbling and I found her acting for which she was so praised consisted of over-the-top diva histrionics. Her voice I found to be too dark for Lucia and too lacking in lightness for Rosina, although her recordings are widely praised. Still, her fans can hear no flaws and over the years, I'm endured the worst criticism for voicing my opinion in public.


Callas' technique was supremely flawless, at least up until 1958. The flaws were in the instrument and not the singer. Dramatic weight loss, her mysterious disease and psychological problems all contributed to her early decline and that's where we started to hear the increasingly wobbly top and the strain in the voice towards the very end of her career.

Still, you hear some of her latest recordings and discover all the mastery and style and finesse of the unmatched diva. 
Below you can check out a reverse comparison of how the voice went from colossal, opulent and of an incredible range and agility (for that size) to thin and wiry yet still highly stylistic and more dramatic than anyone else I've ever hear. The voice was physically deteriorating but the singer was always almost flawless.






As for coloratura, I recommend you check out her early recordings. Her pre-1953 Puritani, Normas and Lucias are exemplary bel-canto masterpieces and she always sang come-scritto. The voice was supple and light enough for that repertoire.

Yet go back again to that era and check out her Nabucco, Vespri Siciliani, Lady Macbeth (THE Lady Macbeth, admittedly), Armida (THE Armida, recording below) and you hear *the very definition of a dramatic coloratura*. 
Heroic huge voice that just "poured out of her the way Flagstad's did" (Richard Bonynge) with supreme agility that soars up to impeccable high Es (and her E flat in Aida's gloria all'egitto is said to be best ever recorded. ) Never flat, never wobbly at that time. 
In the excerpt of Armida below you can hear the perfect scales, sharp and clean, never mushed, not a note out of place. And very expressive. And that's where the actress comes in. We did not see Callas on stage but we hear a difference between her gloomy melancholic deranged Lucia, her sickly yet feminine Violetta, and her ruthless Medeas/Lady Macbeth. She was a voice-actress. She firmly believed you must find EVERYTHING you need in the score in order to express the character's feelings. And she never resorted to the stupid "sobs and whines" that most singers now do. 




It's true that the voice lacked the smoothness of a lyric voice and the voluptuous beauty of her rival spinto of the time, namely Tebaldi, but that was not what she was about. She still sang unforgettable pianissimi, and at some points her lyricism was melting.

Callas was a genius. She tamed an ugly mammoth and used it to serve music like no one did before or after her. From Bel Canto and Verdi to Verismo and even Mozart and Baroque. 
It's not fair to dismiss her talent, technical prowess that is still unmatched until today, just because the voice wasn't "conventionally beautiful" even though it doesn't bother most of her fans, including me.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

sorry, "the very definition of dramatic coloratura" is Sutherland


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> I think you'll find that most admirer's of Callas here are aware that she was not perfect. Can you name a soprano with a voice of comparable size and dramatic capability whose coloratura was superior to hers?


I don't even need coloratura; Callas can move me to tears just singing just one note.


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> sorry, "the very definition of dramatic coloratura" is Sutherland


I would say Sutherland is more of a "heroic" Coloratura. Big-sized voice, loud volume, powerful high notes but the real weight of the bottom/middle voice isn't there. The voice has the weight of a lirico-spinto at its heaviest, and she would never be fit for roles like Abigaille, Lady M, Armida etc..
Dame Joan is definitely more dramatic than a lyric coloratura, but a bit too light to be properly dramatic, even for a coloratura. But I still put her in that fach for lack of a more suitable one. Spinto Coloratura maybe?


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> I agree, it's a pity Callas is such a lightning rod. We know it's inevitable that if people are asked to criticize legendary singers, her name will figure prominently. I myself feel, not bored, but weary of trying to establish some objectivity about her, both in her faults and her virtues. A statement to the effect that one of the greatest operatic artists of all time sings out of tune, has faulty coloratura, and is a lousy actress, simply can't go unanswered, and for better or for worse I seem to be as well qualified as anyone presently on the forum to answer it. I promise to try to be as un-boring as possible!


Pugg expresses my feelings exactly. It's not that any one poster is boring, and the basic issues involved regarding Callas' art don't bore me at all. No, for me it's more weariness and annoyance at _continually_ seeing threads go in the _same_ direction, over Callas. My reaction when I see this is not so much "it's boring" as "it's a shame" -- and it was partly to prevent it that I explicitly left Callas out of the film thread I recently began. I just think it's _too bad_ that pretty much any thread involving sopranos or singers' "flaws" or even the art/state of bel canto singing is destined to end in a heated and unpleasant argument about Callas; the thread doesn't even have to be explicitly a Callas thread for it to be, more or less, dominated by "the Callas issues" by its end. I totally understand why it's important to defend Callas from unfair criticism...yet increasingly I find myself wishing that we could all just agree to disagree regarding her.


----------



## znapschatz (Feb 28, 2016)

I am Shocked! Shocked! that there hasn't been the merest mention of Bryn Terfel, the finest bass baritone of our time, and one of the standouts of any era. He performed the definitive *Don Giovanni*, both vocally and in his characterization of the don as a serial rapist (his dislike of the character was such that he declined to perform in the role ever again. Too bad!) Also, his Wotan was terrific, a help in trying to overlook the wretched Met production with the hazardous and visual distracting movable stage. I heard him in concert in Columbus some years ago, one of the best, ever, with a broad range of vocal music. He made chestnuts, like *It Might As Well Be Spring*, fresh and delightful, and also introduced the audience to Welsh songs, also a revelation. Terfel has had back problems limiting his concert and operatic work for the last few years, but I'm hoping for a full recovery. Some pipes on the guy. Sorry, I don't really have any criticisms of his work.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

znapschatz said:


> I am Shocked! Shocked! that there hasn't been the merest mention of Bryn Terfel, the finest bass baritone of our time, and one of the standouts of any era. He performed the definitive *Don Giovanni*, both vocally and in his characterization of the don as a serial rapist (his dislike of the character was such that he declined to perform in the role ever again. Too bad!) Also, his Wotan was terrific, a help in trying to overlook the wretched Met production with the hazardous and visual distracting movable stage. I heard him in concert in Columbus some years ago, one of the best, ever, with a broad range of vocal music. He made chestnuts, like *It Might As Well Be Spring*, fresh and delightful, and also introduced the audience to Welsh songs, also a revelation. Terfel has had back problems limiting his concert and operatic work for the last few years, but I'm hoping for a full recovery. Some pipes on the guy.


What do you feel are his flaws, though?

I basically "grew up" as an opera lover with Terfel and like him very much. As for flaws...I think he tends to be a bit too "impulsive" and lack a certain refinement. I think I said once in another thread that Terfel always seemed at his very best in music for which he's vocally a little over-endowed; Don Giovanni and the musical-theatre songs are good examples.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Kirsten Flagstad: Too perfect. I enjoy reading Youtubers trash legendary singers in the comments section. This almost never happens, quite uniquely, for Flagstad. She must be the most universally admired singer. For that, she ought to be damned as boring.


----------



## znapschatz (Feb 28, 2016)

Bellinilover said:


> What do you feel are his flaws, though?
> 
> I basically "grew up" as an opera lover with Terfel and like him very much. As for flaws...I think he tends to be a bit too "impulsive" and lack a certain refinement. I think I said once in another thread that Terfel always seemed at his very best in music for which he's vocally a little over-endowed; Don Giovanni and the musical-theatre songs are good examples.


Not sure I understand your comments, "impulsive" or "lacking a certain refinement." Nor do I know what you mean by "over endowed" for DG or "musical-theatre" ("theater" in my world  .) Do either of these musical forms require less effort from an artist?


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Bryan Terfel used to have a really beautiful tone, (ideal Verdi voice imho) which he ruined by singing Wagner. In the Lepage Ring he barks his way through most of it. Can't take to him in these roles at all as I feel there is a coarseness that just grates. Others will, and should, disagree.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Couchie said:


> Kirsten Flagstad: Too perfect. I enjoy reading Youtubers trash legendary singers in the comments section. This almost never happens, quite uniquely, for Flagstad. She must be the most universally admired singer. For that, she ought to be damned as boring.


In hopes of relieving the boredom, I'll point out (regretfully, of course), that she sometimes attacked notes slightly under pitch - of course she isn't unique in that - and that her rather placid temperament was not always aroused to the desired degree of excitement. Many of her contemporary listeners felt that Frida Leider was a more passionate Isolde and Brunnhilde, both visually and vocally.

That said, Flagstad's voice in its prime was almost miraculous in its clarity, richness, power, and ease - many people said it was the most beautiful voice they'd ever heard - and this is so rare in Wagnerian singers that her shortcomings were, and are, easily forgiven. Sometimes the liquid gold that pours from her throat is so beautiful, I just go weak in the knees. Listen to her sing the simple phrase "Mir erkoren, mir verloren" from Act 1 of _Tristan._ No one else can make a sound like that.

Uh oh. Are we getting bored again?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Barbebleu said:


> Bryan Terfel used to have a really beautiful tone, (ideal Verdi voice imho) which he ruined by singing Wagner. In the Lepage Ring he barks his way through most of it. Can't take to him in these roles at all as I feel there is a coarseness that just grates. Others will, and should, disagree.


He was no heldenbariton. His voice was of medium weight, and quite beautiful. He should have left Wotan alone. Actually most people should leave Wotan alone.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

znapschatz said:


> Not sure I understand your comments, "impulsive" or "lacking a certain refinement." Nor do I know what you mean by "over endowed" for DG or "musical-theatre" ("theater" in my world  .) Do either of these musical forms require less effort from an artist?


Part of what I mean by "impulsive" is that Terfel is a very _physical_ singer; his big presence (he's 6'4" or 6'5", I believe) always comes across, even in an audio recording. I sense also that he's the type of artist who tends to do things "on impulse"; I don't think he's a cerebral or an intellectual or an "arty"-type singer, in other words. This doesn't mean, however, that his interpretations are not intelligent or artistic; it's just that his singing is so _visceral_, if you know what I mean.

As for "lacks a certain refinement"...his soft singing has always been a sign of refinement, yet at the same time I've always heard a certain rough quality in his voice (and not only recently). I don't think his voice is harsh or ugly; I think what I'm actually hearing is a gushing vibrato combined with that big physical presence. Honestly, the mental image that comes to my mind when I hear Terfel is that of a windstorm or a thunderstorm! Not a bad thing, necessarily, but rather different from the image that comes to mind when you hear someone like Dietrich Fischer Dieskau or Thomas Hampson.

As for the repertoire, I think it's sort of the same story as with Joan Sutherland, whose voice was of Wagnerian proportions but who became a bel canto legend. Surely part of the thrill of hearing Sutherland sing Lucia di Lammermoor (for example) comes from the fact that here is an enormous voice singing a role that used to be sung mainly by light-voiced sopranos like Roberta Peters. Likewise, for me part of the thrill of hearing Terfel sing comes from the fact that his voice -- being bigger than that of the average Mozart or Handel or Broadway singer -- can provide more nuances than are often heard in that repertoire while making a really impressive effect volume-wise.

This has all been hard to put into words, but I've tried my best. Again, nothing I've written is meant to make Terfel look bad. It's just that this is a thread about "flaws," so I thought I'd mention a few things about Terfel that could be perceived as flaws or limitations.


----------



## znapschatz (Feb 28, 2016)

Bellinilover said:


> Part of what I mean by "impulsive" is that Terfel is a very _physical_ singer; his big presence (he's 6'4" or 6'5", I believe) always comes across, even in an audio recording. I sense also that he's the type of artist who tends to do things "on impulse"; I don't think he's a cerebral or an intellectual or an "arty"-type singer, in other words. This doesn't mean, however, that his interpretations are not intelligent or artistic; it's just that his singing is so _visceral_, if you know what I mean.
> 
> As for "lacks a certain refinement"...his soft singing has always been a sign of refinement, yet at the same time I've always heard a certain rough quality in his voice (and not only recently). I don't think his voice is harsh or ugly; I think what I'm actually hearing is a gushing vibrato combined with that big physical presence. Honestly, the mental image that comes to my mind when I hear Terfel is that of a windstorm or a thunderstorm! Not a bad thing, necessarily, but rather different from the image that comes to mind when you hear someone like Dietrich Fischer Dieskau or Thomas Hampson.
> 
> ...


Thanks for laying it out. This sort of discussion is what drew me to TC in the first place.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> In hopes of relieving the boredom, I'll point out (regretfully, of course), that she sometimes attacked notes slightly under pitch - of course she isn't unique in that - and that her rather placid temperament was not always aroused to the desired degree of excitement. Many of her contemporary listeners felt that Frida Leider was a more passionate Isolde and Brunnhilde, both visually and vocally.
> 
> That said, Flagstad's voice in its prime was almost miraculous in its clarity, richness, power, and ease - many people said it was the most beautiful voice they'd ever heard - and this is so rare in Wagnerian singers that her shortcomings were, and are, easily forgiven. Sometimes the liquid gold that pours from her throat is so beautiful, I just go weak in the knees. Listen to her sing the simple phrase "Mir erkoren, mir verloren" from Act 1 of _Tristan._ No one else can make a sound like that.
> 
> Uh oh. Are we getting bored again?


Excitement is so often built by the singers straining their voices to their absolute limits (cough Callas). The fact that Flagstad belts out Isolde or Brunnhilde seemingly with plenty of effort in reserve with such a magnitude of power inbetween imbibing brandy at intermissions is I think even more to her credit.


----------



## interestedin (Jan 10, 2016)

Couchie said:


> Kirsten Flagstad: Too perfect. I enjoy reading Youtubers trash legendary singers in the comments section. This almost never happens, quite uniquely, for Flagstad. She must be the most universally admired singer. For that, she ought to be damned as boring.


I know what you mean. It's good we have such a great variety of singers on record. When Flagstad becomes boring, enjoy a disc of Mödl or Varnay screeching their hearts out with an emotional involvement that boring Norwegian statue will not give us. When you have had enough of that, go back to Flagstad for the pure gold sound.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

Couchie said:


> Excitement is so often built by the singers straining their voices to their absolute limits (cough Callas). The fact that Flagstad belts out Isolde or Brunnhilde seemingly with plenty of effort in reserve with such a magnitude of power inbetween imbibing brandy at intermissions is I think even more to her credit.


The one thing I might (ever-so-slightly) quibble about with Flagstad is her somewhat "clucky" tone; Callas too, for that matter. Not that this bothers me unduly - on the contrary, it just adds to their distinctiveness. Both women are unquestionably among my favourite singers of all time.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

interestedin said:


> I know what you mean. It's good we have such a great variety of singers on record. When Flagstad becomes boring, enjoy a disc of Mödl or Varnay screeching their hearts out with an emotional involvement that boring Norwegian statue will not give us. When you have had enough of that, go back to Flagstad for the pure gold sound.


Alas, I am too sensitive to vocal defects to tolerate Modl or Varnay for long. I think I need to have seen them in the theater, where I might have been able to overlook their effortful, gusty (Modl), harsh (Varnay), and eventually wobbly (both) - vocal production. It'll have to be boring Norwegian statues for me - or Frida Leider, for the best blend of voice and drama (God, I wish we had that 1933 Met Isolde entire, and not just the "Liebestod," which for me is the most rapturous ever recorded).

Assuming that you are exaggerating with the statue business, I must nonetheless add that Flagstad at her best was not at all boring. A friend of mine had always found her too placid until he heard her live Met 1937 Isolde. A splendid portrayal, yet with no compromise of the pure gold sound. Unbelievable, really - and amazing that after a career of this she never developed the dreaded wobble.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> The one thing I might (ever-so-slightly) quibble about with Flagstad is her somewhat "clucky" tone; Callas too, for that matter. Not that this bothers me unduly - on the contrary, it just adds to their distinctiveness. Both women are unquestionably among my favourite singers of all time.


Is "clucky"a musical or an ornithological term?


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> Is "clucky"a musical or an ornithological term?


I daresay both, but only if we're talking about Messiaen


----------



## znapschatz (Feb 28, 2016)

Bellinilover said:


> What do you feel are his flaws, though?
> 
> I basically "grew up" as an opera lover with Terfel and like him very much. As for flaws...I think he tends to be a bit too "impulsive" and lack a certain refinement. I think I said once in another thread that Terfel always seemed at his very best in music for which he's vocally a little over-endowed; Don Giovanni and the musical-theatre songs are good examples.





Barbebleu said:


> Bryan Terfel used to have a really beautiful tone, (ideal Verdi voice imho) which he ruined by singing Wagner. In the Lepage Ring he barks his way through most of it. Can't take to him in these roles at all as I feel there is a coarseness that just grates. Others will, and should, disagree.





Woodduck said:


> He was no heldenbariton. His voice was of medium weight, and quite beautiful. He should have left Wotan alone. Actually most people should leave Wotan alone.





Bellinilover said:


> Part of what I mean by "impulsive" is that Terfel is a very _physical_ singer; his big presence (he's 6'4" or 6'5", I believe) always comes across, even in an audio recording. I sense also that he's the type of artist who tends to do things "on impulse"; I don't think he's a cerebral or an intellectual or an "arty"-type singer, in other words. This doesn't mean, however, that his interpretations are not intelligent or artistic; it's just that his singing is so _visceral_, if you know what I mean.
> 
> As for "lacks a certain refinement"...his soft singing has always been a sign of refinement, yet at the same time I've always heard a certain rough quality in his voice (and not only recently). I don't think his voice is harsh or ugly; I think what I'm actually hearing is a gushing vibrato combined with that big physical presence. Honestly, the mental image that comes to my mind when I hear Terfel is that of a windstorm or a thunderstorm! Not a bad thing, necessarily, but rather different from the image that comes to mind when you hear someone like Dietrich Fischer Dieskau or Thomas Hampson.
> 
> ...


Well, I ran all this by my wife, the professional in our family, who grew up in a household where her father, a voice teacher, conducted his lessons. Besides the exposure, she was well trained in her turn, and does singing programs, mostly children's and folk music. She knows more about vocal production than anyone I know (actually, the only one I know :kiss: ) and usually gives me her post concert/recital/opera/hootenanny critiques after we've been to one. She doesn't agree with some of the posted commentary, but I am not qualified to convey her opinions accurately (big dummy here.) However, she does emphatically agree with Woodduck's comment: "Actually most people should leave Wotan alone."


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

znapschatz said:


> Well, I ran all this by my wife, the professional in our family, who grew up in a household where her father, a voice teacher, conducted his lessons. Besides the exposure, she was well trained in her turn, and does singing programs, mostly children's and folk music. She knows more about vocal production than anyone I know (actually, the only one I know :kiss: ) and usually gives me her post concert/recital/opera/hootenanny critiques after we've been to one. She doesn't agree with some of the posted commentary, but I am not qualified to convey her opinions accurately (big dummy here.) However, she does enthusiastically agree with Woodduck's comment: "Actually most people should leave Wotan alone."


Which comments does your wife agree with and would she elaborate on the ones she doesn't agree with? And I'm thinking that her agreement with the last comment may not be entirely complimentary, but that might just be me.


----------



## znapschatz (Feb 28, 2016)

Barbebleu said:


> Which comments does your wife agree with and would she elaborate on the ones she doesn't agree with? And I'm thinking that her agreement with the last comment may not be entirely complimentary, but that might just be me.


Frankly, except for her seconding Woodduck, which is quite genuine (she believes that Wagner is a voice killer,) I don't remember her specific reasons for agreeing or not with what was posted. Maybe I can induce her to respond directly. That will require some delicacy, as she thinks I spend too much time on the computer as it is. She is right, of course.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

znapschatz said:


> Frankly, except for her seconding Woodduck, which is quite genuine (she believes that Wagner is a voice killer,) I don't remember her specific reasons for agreeing or not with what was posted. Maybe I can induce her to respond directly. That will require some delicacy, as she thinks I spend too much time on the computer as it is. She is right, of course.


Somebody's got to sing Wotan otherwise the Ring will consist of Gotterdammerung on its lonesome and that would be entirely weird.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

Barbebleu said:


> Somebody's got to sing Wotan otherwise the Ring will consist of Gotterdammerung on its lonesome and that would be entirely weird.


I'm not so sure. The Norns basically tell us every detail of what went before, and what they omit is covered by Brünnhilde and Siegfried in the scene that immediately follows. We probably wouldn't miss much


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> I'm not so sure. The Norns basically tell us every detail of what went before, and what they omit is covered by Brünnhilde and Siegfried in the scene that immediately follows. We probably wouldn't miss much


I suppose Gotterdammerung could stand alone. Yes, I can buy into that. It's my favourite part of the Ring anyway.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Tuoksu said:


> Hvorostovsky just like Netrebko sounds to me like he has a muffin in his mouth (even looks like it.)
> Neither is a legendary singer though.


Ah well, some people just seem to have taste in their toenails. More's the pity.


----------

