# Common opinions about opera you disagree with



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

A few of mine:

1) "Acting and story are just as important as singing". 
No they aren't. I'm not saying they aren't important, but the story serves the music, the acting serves the music, not the other way around. 

2) "Vocal color has nothing to do with fach"
.....what? You're telling me you'd call a smoky, contralto-hued voice a soubrette or a bright, thin voice a dramatic baritone? Timbre is only one of many factors to consider when determining one's fach, but it's an important one. For instance, imo, to be a soprano, there has to be at least SOME brightness there, even for dramatic voices. This is why I have difficulty referring to some singers like Jessye Norman, Astrid Varnay and late-career Callas as "soprano".

3) "You can dance and move around and sound just as good singing"
A few can, most can't. This is one of the reasons I'm less of a critic of modern singers than I otherwise might be (among other things. I also know the difference between bad singing vs simple differences in tastes, and I don't like to criticize unfairly for the latter). Singing requires so many body parts to move in unnatural ways. Trying to keep your support in the right position while moving around like a dancer is just....no. It's hard enough doing ONE of those things, let alone both at once.

4) "Opera is fossilizing"
Honestly, I love that I can be a bit of a snob with opera. Some art forms are too complex for uneducated people with no tastes, and it's better that way.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

"I never going to the oprea again" because singer [insert name] is either dead or retired. 
Pass me a bucket please.............


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith (Mar 25, 2016)

Opera is about singers.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Here's one that's bound to be unpopular: Wagner's rule of 1 note per syllable is utterly BORING at times. Really? You refuse to have ANY vocal runs under any circumstances? It's no wonder Wagnerian singers tend to wear out after 7-10 years. How are you supposed to maintain vocal health in the midst of 4 hour+ productions which are both incredibly heavy and have zero flexibility to relieve tension? Seriously though, I'd have an easier time believing the characters if everything written for them didn't sound like bulldozer. Not exactly the first thing I think of when I think of an amorously impassioned youth, a virginal maiden or a beautiful valkyrie. Like, I have no inherent issue with fat singers, so long as the voice is beautiful, but when I close my eyes and imagine a fat person while someone is singing, something is seriously wrong. Other composers capture this better. Verdi's protagonists always have at least a few vocal runs and some lyrical sweetness to make them believably youthful.

Don't get me wrong, Wagner can be tremendously beautiful at times, but I have difficulty listening to it for long hours, and everything needs to be just right for it to work. It's so difficult to find singers who can produce a _relaxed_ sound when singing his rep, and with no room for vocal flexibility, this is hardly surprising. There is a reason why true Wagnerian singers are such a rarity.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Opera is more than just about beautiful singing so I disagree with those who think it is.
If that were so we'd all just either sit home and listen on radio or play our cds.
Opera is a theatrical medium in which a tragedy/comedy is played out before our eyes. It includes visual as well as audio.
It brings the beautiful music and singing together into a cohesive whole.
It completes the package.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

nina foresti said:


> Opera is more than just about beautiful singing so I disagree with those who think it is.
> *If that were so we'd all just either sit home and listen on radio or play our cds.*
> Opera is a theatrical medium in which a tragedy/comedy is played out before our eyes. It includes visual as well as audio.
> It brings the beautiful music and singing together into a cohesive whole.
> It completes the package.


that's pretty much what I do. needless to say I disagree with your opinion, but that's fine


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

I like to see the costumes, the set, the orchestra, the acting out of the comedy or drama, to watch an attractive Carmen light a cigarette or visually tempt men, and have the singing even be better than that. I want to see everything working together in the collective group energy of the live performers and the audience, rather than only hear the music as if that one thing is what opera was exclusively about. If I can’t attend in person, I’d rather watch it on a DVD than hear it only on a CD. I want to experience it all and be immersed in both the visuals and the sound. I don’t expect perfection, but I want to see something alive, human and engaging. I want to see everyone having a good time and enjoying themselves as a respite from the tedious demands of everyday life. I want to hear opera performed by those who take roles within their vocal range and sing without exaggerated and wobbling vibratos. I do not believe the occasion is all about the singing, at least in a live performance, but that does not justify bad singing in an art that’s supposed to be about the best in live singing.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> Here's one that's bound to be unpopular: Wagner's rule of 1 note per syllable is utterly BORING at times. Really? You refuse to have ANY vocal runs under any circumstances? It's no wonder Wagnerian singers tend to wear out after 7-10 years. How are you supposed to maintain vocal health in the midst of 4 hour+ productions which are both incredibly heavy and have zero flexibility to relieve tension? Seriously though, I'd have an easier time believing the characters if everything written for them didn't sound like bulldozer. Not exactly the first thing I think of when I think of an amorously impassioned youth, a virginal maiden or a beautiful valkyrie. Like, I have no inherent issue with fat singers, so long as the voice is beautiful, but when I close my eyes and imagine a fat person while someone is singing, something is seriously wrong. Other composers capture this better. Verdi's protagonists always have at least a few vocal runs and some lyrical sweetness to make them believably youthful.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, Wagner can be tremendously beautiful at times, but I have difficulty listening to it for long hours, and everything needs to be just right for it to work. It's so difficult to find singers who can produce a _relaxed_ sound when singing his rep, and with no room for vocal flexibility, this is hardly surprising. There is a reason why true Wagnerian singers are such a rarity.


What common opinion are you disagreeing with?


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

nina foresti said:


> Opera is more than just about beautiful singing so I disagree with those who think it is.
> If that were so we'd all just either sit home and listen on radio or play our cds.
> Opera is a theatrical medium in which a tragedy/comedy is played out before our eyes. It includes visual as well as audio.
> It brings the beautiful music and singing together into a cohesive whole.
> It completes the package.


This is fact, not opinion. How can anyone disagree with this?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Pugg said:


> "I never going to the oprea again" because singer [insert name] is either dead or retired.
> Pass me a bucket please.............


How about "I'm never going to the opera again because I'm retired and damn near dead"?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> Here's one that's bound to be unpopular: Wagner's rule of 1 note per syllable is utterly BORING at times. Really? You refuse to have ANY vocal runs under any circumstances? It's no wonder Wagnerian singers tend to wear out after 7-10 years. How are you supposed to maintain vocal health in the midst of 4 hour+ productions which are both incredibly heavy and have zero flexibility to relieve tension? Seriously though, I'd have an easier time believing the characters if everything written for them didn't sound like bulldozer. Not exactly the first thing I think of when I think of an amorously impassioned youth, a virginal maiden or a beautiful valkyrie. Like, I have no inherent issue with fat singers, so long as the voice is beautiful, but when I close my eyes and imagine a fat person while someone is singing, something is seriously wrong. Other composers capture this better. Verdi's protagonists always have at least a few vocal runs and some lyrical sweetness to make them believably youthful.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, Wagner can be tremendously beautiful at times, but I have difficulty listening to it for long hours, and everything needs to be just right for it to work. It's so difficult to find singers who can produce a _relaxed_ sound when singing his rep, and with no room for vocal flexibility, this is hardly surprising. There is a reason why true Wagnerian singers are such a rarity.


The common opinion is that Wagner is strenuous and that great Wagner singers are rare. Maybe you should have titled the thread "common opinions you agree with."

The fact is, though, it's only a handful of Wagner's roles that require anything more, vocally, than ample volume and a sound technique. There may be only a handful of great Tristans and Isoldes, but there are dozens of good Kurwenals and Brangaenes. I'm unaware of any of them complaining about an absence of melismas, but if you have any examples...


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> that's pretty much what I do. needless to say I disagree with your opinion, but that's fine


All due respect to you, I believe you are listening to and enjoying "opera music" sung by opera singers rather than seeing an actual drama per musica called "an opera" -- a full staged showing in most cases -- where scenery is on a stage, a cast of characters show facial emotions and use body language, singers wear costumes, and a curtain falls at the end of what is called a performance.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Bonetan said:


> What common opinion are you disagreeing with?


basically that Wagner was equal or superior to the great bel canto composers, when I think they were lightyears ahead of him musically (even if his stories tended to be more compelling. my modus operandi with Italian opera is usually "don't let a bad story get in the way of good singing")

notwithstanding a few exceptions. for example, Otello has a tremendously moving plot.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> the great bel canto composers...were lightyears ahead of [Wagner] musically


Speaking as a musician - or as anything else - I find this statement completely incomprehensible.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> Speaking as a musician - or as anything else - I find this statement completely incomprehensible.


Totally unfathomable. I was so dumbfounded that I couldn't even respond lol


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Speaking as a musician - or as anything else - I find this statement completely incomprehensible.


so much for
"Maybe you should have titled the thread "common opinions you agree with.""


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> so much for
> "Maybe you should have titled the thread "common opinions you agree with.""


My dear fellow, this startling revelation has left the terrestrial realm of opinion far behind. You have boldly gone where only people we dare not speak of have gone before. You have gone through the wormhole. _< Cue space music, Jon Serrie is really good. Light years beyond Donizetti. >_


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> My dear fellow, this startling revelation has left the terrestrial realm of opinion far behind. You have boldly gone where only people we dare not speak of have gone before. You have gone through the wormhole. _<* Cue space music*, Jon Serrie is really good. Light years beyond Donizetti. >_


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


>


Well, that's not the wormhole I was thinking of. But then Donizetti-lovers must breathe a different atmosphere than Wagner-lovers. The voyage of the starship _Parsifal_ takes me here:


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Well, that's not the wormhole I was thinking of. But then Donizetti-lovers must breathe a different atmosphere than Wagner-lovers.


What about those who are Donizetti-lovers AND Wagner-lovers? <Sob!>

Since we have moved into the realm of sci-fi, maybe we should get into our time machines and go back to _that_ performance of Norma in Riga, so we can get a bel canto and Wagner fix at the same time.

N.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

"Opera singing in in decline ". Nobody today is the equal of the legendary opera stars of the past ".
This is the oldest cliche in the book . The art of singing has supposedly been declining for centuries . Even Rossini declared this in his later years after he had been retired from writing operas (but not music) for so long . 
I was an opera lover before many people on this website were born , and I remember back in my callow youth in the 1970s and had become a rabid opera fan hearing the way so many music critics , legendary singers who were retired at the time and other experts singing the same old tune about the "decline" of opera singing . This was they heyday of Sutherland, Pavarotti,Horne, Milnes, Berganza, 
Corelli . Bergonzi, Cossotto , Ghiaurov, Gedda, Prey, Crespin, Nilsson, Vickers, Vishnevskaya, 
Bumbry, Verrett, Sills, and so many other titans of opera . 
And when Callas, Tebaldi, and other legendary names were retired but still very much alive or recently deceased . 
And I guarantee you , forty or fifty years from now, assuming the world still exists and opera is still performed , people will be longing for the "golden age " of Netrebko, Fleming, Bartoli, Voigt, Heppner, Kaufmann, Alagna, Gheorghiu, Hvorostovsky, Hampson , Pape and the top opera stars of today . 
Some things never change .


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Absolutely.bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

superhorn said:


> "Opera singing in in decline ". Nobody today is the equal of the legendary opera stars of the past ".
> This is the oldest cliche in the book . The art of singing has supposedly been declining for centuries . Even Rossini declared this in his later years after he had been retired from writing operas (but not music) for so long .
> I was an opera lover before many people on this website were born , and I remember back in my callow youth in the 1970s and had become a rabid opera fan hearing the way so many music critics , legendary singers who were retired at the time and other experts singing the same old tune about the "decline" of opera singing . This was they heyday of Sutherland, Pavarotti,Horne, Milnes, Berganza,
> Corelli . Bergonzi, Cossotto , Ghiaurov, Gedda, Prey, Crespin, Nilsson, Vickers, Vishnevskaya,
> ...


I'm an old timer too - I got into opera in the 1960s - and already in my teens I was coming to a conclusion the opposite of yours.

I wasn't convinced that Warren, Gobbi, Merrill, Bastianini and MacNeil - great singers all - were the vocal equals of Battistini, Amato, Ruffo, Tibbett, and Stracciari, and listening to their recordings now I'm still convinced that they weren't.

There are always plenty of good voices around, but, in the traditional "standard" operatic repertoire at least, singers of marked individuality of timbre and personality who simply astonish us with their vocal prowess, artistry, or both, now seem as scarce as hen's teeth. Part of the reason may be changes in the "standard" repertoire: for example we now have an abundance of light, agile voices accomplished in Rossini, Mozart and Baroque music but of limited use in Verdi, Wagner, and Puccini, whose operas have seemingly become difficult to cast. I find it hard to enjoy broadcasts of these works from the Met stage nowadays.

The current state of singing is a complex subject that calls for its own discussion. I can only say that I hear today few singers possessing the vocal and/or artistic distinction of _sui generis_ legends such as Battistini, Tamagno, Schumann-Heink, Caruso, Chaliapin, Ponselle, Kipnis, Schipa, Pinza, Schorr, Leider, Flagstad, Melchior, Lehmann, Schumann, Thill, Muzio, Bjorling, Grummer, Schwarzkopf, Klose, Hotter, Frick, Valletti, Olivero, Callas, Tebaldi, De los Angeles, Baker, Verrett, Vishnevskaya, Vickers, Ludwig, et al.

When, at age 17, I wanted to be astonished and unspeakably moved by the power of the human voice at its peak of technical development and expressiveness, it was mainly to singers of the past to whom I turned. Fifty years later, this is still the case.


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

superhorn said:


> "Opera singing in in decline ". Nobody today is the equal of the legendary opera stars of the past ".
> This is the oldest cliche in the book . The art of singing has supposedly been declining for centuries . Even Rossini declared this in his later years after he had been retired from writing operas (but not music) for so long .
> I was an opera lover before many people on this website were born , and I remember back in my callow youth in the 1970s and had become a rabid opera fan hearing the way so many music critics , legendary singers who were retired at the time and other experts singing the same old tune about the "decline" of opera singing . This was they heyday of Sutherland, Pavarotti,Horne, Milnes, Berganza,
> Corelli . Bergonzi, Cossotto , Ghiaurov, Gedda, Prey, Crespin, Nilsson, Vickers, Vishnevskaya,
> ...


I was born after all my favorite singers were long dead yet "Netrebko & Co are as good singers as Ponselle and her league" is the most ludicrous statement to me.Singing DID tangibly decline, but I'm not sure about Opera as a whole.
A little demonstration:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Wow! Who was Antonio Salvarezza?

But why Fillipeschi? Second-rate in any era.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

> I was born after all my favorite singers were long dead yet "Netrebko & Co are as good singers as Ponselle and her league" is the most ludicrous statement to me.


Bravo, finally someone dare to speak.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

The following singers are _not_ dramatic coloratura sopranos:
1) Diana Damrau (to her credit, by her own admission)
2) June Anderson
3) Edita Gruberova

None of them have any dramatic weight to them. A lyric voice that can sing with some degree of power and confidence doesn't suddenly become dramatic. I don't necessarily mean this pejoratively, in fact, I'm a huge fan of June Anderson, but peeps need to stop calling all the canary voices who chirp out Queen of the Night "dramatic coloratura".


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> The following singers are _not_ dramatic coloratura sopranos:
> 1) Diana Damrau (to her credit, by her own admission)
> 2) June Anderson
> 3) Edita Gruberova
> ...


Most opera fans and singers I know don't call singers 'dramatic coloratura', I have heard people call all those three and others like them 'coloratura sopranos'. What they really mean is light sopranos with flexible voices. Anyone can gain a voice that is flexible to some degree. Give your crico-thyroids a daily work out and flexible passages will become easier.

N.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

I didn't say every singer of the present day is the equal of the most famous of the past .  What I mean is that today's greatest singers are great in their own way and it's unfair to compare them to legendary names of the past we'r not old enough to have heard live . 
It's so easy to idealize the past of opera . There were plenty of performances in the 18th,19th and early 20 century which ranged from mediocre to dismal . Hearing legendary recordings from the past can make you assume that everything was so much better in the past. It wasn't . 
I think all of today's top opera singers have distinctive sounds of their own. I couldn't mistake Netrebko for Gheorghiu, or Alagna for Kaufmann , or Hovorostovsky for Hampson . 
No matter how lackluster any performance of this or that opera you might attend today might be , I guarantee you, there were plenty in the distant past which were no better or even worse !


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> I wasn't convinced that Warren, Gobbi, Merrill, Bastianini and MacNeil - great singers all - were the vocal equals of Battistini, Amato, Ruffo, Tibbett, and Stracciari, and listening to their recordings now I'm still convinced that they weren't.
> 
> There are always plenty of good voices around, but, in the traditional "standard" operatic repertoire at least, singers of marked individuality of timbre and personality who simply astonish us with their vocal prowess, artistry, or both, now seem as scarce as hen's teeth. Part of the reason may be changes in the "standard" repertoire: for example we now have an abundance of light, agile voices accomplished in Rossini, Mozart and Baroque music but of limited use in Verdi, Wagner, and Puccini, whose operas have seemingly become difficult to cast. I find it hard to enjoy broadcasts of these works from the Met stage nowadays.
> 
> The current state of singing is a complex subject that calls for its own discussion. I can only say that I hear today few singers possessing the vocal and/or artistic distinction of _sui generis_ legends such as Battistini, Tamagno, Schumann-Heink, Caruso, Chaliapin, Ponselle, Kipnis, Schipa, Pinza, Schorr, Leider, Flagstad, Melchior, Lehmann, Schumann, Thill, Muzio, Bjorling, Grummer, Schwarzkopf, Klose, Hotter, Frick, Valletti, Olivero, Callas, Tebaldi, De los Angeles, Baker, Verrett, Vishnevskaya, Vickers, Ludwig, et al


In regards to Verdi, Wagner, Puccini, do you give any credence to the reasoning that says louder orchestras & huge houses are somewhat to blame? It's generally accepted that the orchestras are louder & the houses much bigger than the ones from the time of Caruso & co. right? Could those singers from the "Golden Era" sing with the same methods of vocal production in their repertoire today? I don't have the answers to this, I just wonder sometimes...


----------



## interestedin (Jan 10, 2016)

Tuoksu said:


> A little demonstration:


This video has been posted before and some of the comparisons in the video are...rather odd.

Comparing Guleghina to Nilsson is comparing one out of many fine Turandots to what might have been the biggest voice ever, a phenomenon, unique at the time she sang.

Hunter Morris vs Svanholm?? The latter was one of the top 4 or 5 Siegfrieds of all time, surpassed perhaps only by Melchior and Urlus. Hunter Morris wasn't even the best Siegfried in 2012.

I'm not saying that the greater and the greatest singers aren't dead or that singing wasn't better 50 or 100 years ago, but if you compare legends who were unique even at their time with fine singers of today you will hardly learn anything about the general standard of singing.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

{insert composers name} is without a doubt the greatest composer of them all. 
( Please pass me a bucket)


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith (Mar 25, 2016)

Pugg said:


> {insert composers name} is without a doubt the greatest composer of them all.
> ( Please pass me a bucket)


And how! Give me an Olympian pantheon rather than a monotheistic cult any day. "Thou shalt have no other composers before me, but X." "There is no composer but X, and I am his prophet."


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

Pugg said:


> {insert composers name} is without a doubt the greatest composer of them all.
> ( Please pass me a bucket)


Where's the fun if we can't debate who's the best?? I love debating who's the best basketball player, actor, model, composer, you name it! As long as people can debate in a civil manner, I think it's great


----------



## Star (May 27, 2017)

superhorn said:


> I didn't say every singer of the present day is the equal of the most famous of the past . What I mean is that today's greatest singers are great in their own way and it's unfair to compare them to legendary names of the past we'r not old enough to have heard live .
> It's so easy to idealize the past of opera . There were plenty of performances in the 18th,19th and early 20 century which ranged from mediocre to dismal . Hearing legendary recordings from the past can make you assume that everything was so much better in the past. It wasn't .
> I think all of today's top opera singers have distinctive sounds of their own. I couldn't mistake Netrebko for Gheorghiu, or Alagna for Kaufmann , or Hovorostovsky for Hampson .
> No matter how lackluster any performance of this or that opera you might attend today might be , I guarantee you, there were plenty in the distant past which were no better or even worse !


 It seems to be a theme which people take as a mark of sophistication prefer the old to the modern. There are people who will play you a recording made on a 78 of some singer warbling and tell you that's wonderful. Frankly I don't believe it because it doesn't sound very good and I don't know with the limited recording techniques how you can possibly tell. Certainly we have a much better idea of what people sounded like With the advent of electrical recording. I think we can say there were some great singers in the past but there are some pretty good singers today. In fact I would certainly say we do Mozart and earlier music a lot better than I did in the past.


----------



## Star (May 27, 2017)

Bonetan said:


> Where's the fun if we can't debate who's the best?? I love debating who's the best basketball player, actor, model, composer, you name it! As long as people can debate in a civil manner, I think it's great


Agreed. As long as we don't take it too seriously.


----------



## Star (May 27, 2017)

NickFuller said:


> And how! Give me an Olympian pantheon rather than a monotheistic cult any day. "Thou shalt have no other composers before me, but X." "There is no composer but X, and I am his prophet."


Then the tirades that follow if you happen to disagree with that statement. I've even had agressive personal messages!


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Bonetan said:


> Where's the fun if we can't debate who's the best?? I love debating who's the best basketball player, actor, model, composer, you name it! As long as people can debate in a civil manner, I think it's great


In addition, having a best doesn't mean that you don't value any other.

N.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Star said:


> It seems to be a theme which people take as a mark of sophistication prefer the old to the modern. There are people who will play you a recording made on a 78 of some singer warbling and tell you that's wonderful. Frankly I don't believe it because it doesn't sound very good and I don't know with the limited recording techniques how you can possibly tell. Certainly we have a much better idea of what people sounded like With the advent of electrical recording. I think we can say there were some great singers in the past but there are some pretty good singers today. In fact I would certainly say we do Mozart and earlier music a lot better than I did in the past.


Im not sure how well singers of the past are represented on pre tape recordings - 78s of Tetrazzini for example - who seemed to perform vocal miracles - yet Im not sure I would want to hear her in my favourite verdi operas.
But I must add that for me the golden period of singing was the 50s/60s. I dont think the best today are as good but I am sure many will disagree.


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Wow! Who was Antonio Salvarezza?
> 
> But why Fillipeschi? Second-rate in any era.


Filippeschi has amazing squillo and I think he'd be thrilling to hear live. Salvarezza was probably the most handsome tenor. He was in the trovatore 1949 film


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

superhorn said:


> I didn't say every singer of the present day is the equal of the most famous of the past . What I mean is that today's greatest singers are great in their own way and it's unfair to compare them to legendary names of the past we'r not old enough to have heard live .
> It's so easy to idealize the past of opera . There were plenty of performances in the 18th,19th and early 20 century which ranged from mediocre to dismal . Hearing legendary recordings from the past can make you assume that everything was so much better in the past. It wasn't .
> I think all of today's top opera singers have distinctive sounds of their own. I couldn't mistake Netrebko for Gheorghiu, or Alagna for Kaufmann , or Hovorostovsky for Hampson .
> No matter how lackluster any performance of this or that opera you might attend today might be , I guarantee you, there were plenty in the distant past which were no better or even worse !


 It isn't in any way unfair to compare the (over)glorified aforementioned Superstars to the stars of the past. These singers today achieved more fame than many lesser-unknown singers from the past who were far superior. I could think of so many relative nobodies that far outshine these singers (I'd take Carla Gavazzi and Antonietta Stella over Netrebko and Gheroghiu any day). Yes, there are mediocre performances in every era, but when mediocre performance becomes the standard, there is a problem.

It's not a matter of glorifying the past. These are supposed to be the greatest singers in the world today, yet hardly anyone can spin a perfect trill, float a gorgeous pianissimo, swell a stunning messa di voce, dazzle in bel canto fioriture or sing dramatic music without sounding strained at best and ridiculously bark-y and wobbly at worst. The average opera star in the past was able to greatly impress in at least one of these feats. The greatest assets of the singers you mentioned (give or take Aida Garifullina) are their charming looks and pretty little lyric voices and in the (somewhat better) league of actual "dramatic" singers (Goerke, Barton, Meade...) it's barely the sheer size of the voice (and body). 
The audience's standards have become too low. Having a distinctive timbre of your own isn't enough. I couldn't mistake Beyoncé for Rihanna, Lady Gaga for Céline Dion, Shakira for Lana Del Rey...



interestedin said:


> This video has been posted before and some of the comparisons in the video are...rather odd.
> 
> Comparing Guleghina to Nilsson is comparing one out of many fine Turandots to what might have been the biggest voice ever, a phenomenon, unique at the time she sang.
> 
> ...


But that's exactly the point. "fine singers of today" vs legends of the past. It's supposed to be legends of today vs legends of the past, but alas, the present is devoid of any legend and we only have fine (sometimes not so fine) singers.



Star said:


> It seems to be a theme which people take as a mark of sophistication prefer the old to the modern. There are people who will play you a recording made on a 78 of some singer warbling and tell you that's wonderful. Frankly I don't believe it because it doesn't sound very good and I don't know with the limited recording techniques how you can possibly tell. Certainly we have a much better idea of what people sounded like With the advent of electrical recording. I think we can say there were some great singers in the past but there are some pretty good singers today. In fact I would certainly say we do Mozart and earlier music a lot better than I did in the past.


Whatever advancement technology has brought to recording techniques, it's only in the favor of today's singers making their recordings far more pleasing to the ear to those who only seek recording purity and aren't as concerned with technica vocale. Yes, you can't tell much in the old day recordings, but it can only be detrimental to the quality of these voices, stripping them from their overtones and flattening them beyond recognition. But the fact that their outstanding singing triumphs over that and still impresses is only a testament to how great they were. The ease of emission, the even tone, the unmatched dynamics control, coloratura prowess and dramatic instincts in these voices are unmistakable in any recording.


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

I stole this from another thread.



The Conte said:


> I voted Wagner, but I would have voted differently had it been _favourite_ composer. I wonder if the results would be different if that were the poll. I also think I would take out Weber and Prokofiev and replace with Gluck and Donizetti. Whilst I prefer Bellini, I would say that Donizetti was the greater composer of the two as he moved the artform ahead more.
> 
> N.


Well said Sir. I believe the common Opera 'fan' will try to me make feel a simpleton for praising the 'journeyman' Donizetti before mentioning Bellini. They will have stopped listening when I express admiration for both, but too late for it seems to many, you can't mention one without belittling the other. They make a fascinating contrast.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Tuoksu said:


> It isn't in any way unfair to compare the (over)glorified aforementioned Superstars to the stars of the past. These singers today achieved more fame than many lesser-unknown singers from the past who were far superior. I could think of so many relative nobodies that far outshine these singers (I'd take Carla Gavazzi and Antonietta Stella over Netrebko and Gheroghiu any day). Yes, there are mediocre performances in every era, but when mediocre performance becomes the standard, there is a problem.
> 
> It's not a matter of glorifying the past. These are supposed to be the greatest singers in the world today, yet hardly anyone can spin a perfect trill, float a gorgeous pianissimo, swell a stunning messa di voce, dazzle in bel canto fioriture or sing dramatic music without sounding strained at best and ridiculously bark-y and wobbly at worst. The average opera star in the past was able to greatly impress in at least one of these feats. The greatest assets of the singers you mentioned (give or take Aida Garifullina) are their charming looks and pretty little lyric voices and in the (somewhat better) league of actual "dramatic" singers (Goerke, Barton, Meade...) it's barely the sheer size of the voice (and body).
> The audience's standards have become too low. Having a distinctive timbre of your own isn't enough. I couldn't mistake Beyoncé for Rihanna, Lady Gaga for Céline Dion, Shakira for Lana Del Rey...
> ...


exactly. The only current singers I can think of who really screams "legendary!" to me are Samuel Ramey and Ewa Podles, and both are on the way out. Other than that, Bartoli is the closest I can think of, not so much because she's the best, but because she's a freak who is easily recognizable for her 
- unique brand of utterly bizarre coloratura 
- effusive charisma 
- strange combination of a light coloratura mezzo vocal weight with the timbre of a deep, chocolaty contralto (indeed, my favorite recording of her is in the contralto register)


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> exactly. The only current singers I can think of who really screams "legendary!" to me are Samuel Ramey and Ewa Podles, and both are on the way out. Other than that, Bartoli is the closest I can think of, not so much because she's the best, but because she's a freak who is easily recognizable for her
> - unique brand of utterly bizarre coloratura
> - effusive charisma
> - strange combination of a light coloratura mezzo vocal weight with the timbre of a deep, chocolaty contralto (indeed, my favorite recording of her is in the contralto register)


I would add Dolora Zajick and Aprile Millo and Placido Domingo but then these aren't really singers of today. They just happen to be still alive and active.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

Ramey is beyond out. In recent years his wobble was unbearable...this "legendary" idea is an interesting topic. How do we define it? I'm sure of Domingo, but besides him...


----------



## davidglasgow (Aug 19, 2017)

Star said:


> It seems to be a theme which people take as a mark of sophistication prefer the old to the modern. There are people who will play you a recording made on a 78 of some singer warbling and tell you that's wonderful. Frankly I don't believe it because it doesn't sound very good and I don't know with the limited recording techniques how you can possibly tell. Certainly we have a much better idea of what people sounded like With the advent of electrical recording. I think we can say there were some great singers in the past but there are some pretty good singers today. In fact I would certainly say we do Mozart and earlier music a lot better than I did in the past.


I'm not sure I agree here - the electric recordings after c.1927 are clearer sounding but are there cases where this is revelatory? I can't think of a singer whose voice was flattered by the acoustic horn then sounded worse on electric recordings except for when this coincided with vocal crisis e.g. Ruffo and Galli-Curci.

On the other hand Lauri-Volpi, Gigli, Flagstad and Melchior spanned acoustic-to-electric-to-early-stereo and remained recognisably themselves albeit much older.

It may be that some old singers are overrated but there are these counter examples where greatness is evident on rough and tumble 78s which is only confirmed by subsequent technological developments.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Tuoksu said:


> I would add Dolora Zajick and Aprile Millo and Placido Domingo but then these aren't really singers of today. They just happen to be still alive and active.


didn't know Aprille Millo was still singing. she deserves to be on that list even if she has less notoriety than the others.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> didn't know Aprille Millo was still singing. she deserves to be on that list even if she has less notoriety than the others.


Indeed, like to know what she's doing though, can't find anything.


----------



## AeolianStrains (Apr 4, 2018)

nina foresti said:


> Opera is more than just about beautiful singing so I disagree with those who think it is.
> If that were so we'd all just either sit home and listen on radio or play our cds.
> Opera is a theatrical medium in which a tragedy/comedy is played out before our eyes. It includes visual as well as audio.
> It brings the beautiful music and singing together into a cohesive whole.
> It completes the package.


Agreed on these points, but there's one other aspect of a live performance: What about a noisy audience? I think I'm growing more annoyed the older I get. I know it used to be worse, but I find the disrespect (or lack of serious engagement) with a performance to be too distracting. I love my opera DVDs for that reason. Of course I'll still go see it (probably seeing a ballet this weekend if the wife's plans permit it), and I'm very thankful I still _can_ see it. Some people, though. I saw Itzhak Perlman conduct a couple years back, and this guy in a windbreaker next to me...it was almost too much. And then he started tapping his foot! Luckily he left before the encores.


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> didn't know Aprille Millo was still singing. she deserves to be on that list even if she has less notoriety than the others.





Pugg said:


> Indeed, like to know what she's doing though, can't find anything.


Yes, I'm sorry I don't think she' still active but I think she still does recitals and such things and has her own singing academy from what I gather from her facebook.


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

Bonetan said:


> Ramey is beyond out. In recent years his wobble was unbearable...*this "legendary" idea is an interesting topic. How do we define it?* I'm sure of Domingo, but besides him...


I think there are two types of legendary:
Actual Legends: Singers who were more than just singers. They were of extraordinary capabilities and without rival. Those who actually changed the game and/or did unprecedented things. But it all extends to more than their singing career. Example: Callas
Singers we call legends because of their glorious careers, their unique styles, great singing/voices etc: Sutherland, Tebaldi, Ponselle...


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Tuoksu said:


> Yes, I'm sorry I don't think she' still active but I think she still does recitals and such things and has her own singing academy from what I gather from her facebook.


Thanks for clearing this up, that's a far as I came also, so no worries.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

The idea that Franco Corelli was terrible in French opera. I heard him in the Richard Bonynge recording of Gounod's FAUST and thought he was quite good. Maybe his pronunciation wasn't the most idiomatic, but his "awfulness" in French opera has been greatly exaggerated, imo.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

superhorn said:


> "Opera singing in in decline ". Nobody today is the equal of the legendary opera stars of the past ".
> This is the oldest cliche in the book . The art of singing has supposedly been declining for centuries . Even Rossini declared this in his later years after he had been retired from writing operas (but not music) for so long .
> I was an opera lover before many people on this website were born , and I remember back in my callow youth in the 1970s and had become a rabid opera fan hearing the way so many music critics , legendary singers who were retired at the time and other experts singing the same old tune about the "decline" of opera singing . This was they heyday of Sutherland, Pavarotti,Horne, Milnes, Berganza,
> Corelli . Bergonzi, Cossotto , Ghiaurov, Gedda, Prey, Crespin, Nilsson, Vickers, Vishnevskaya,
> ...


Because things seen in retrospect are much "easier" to admire than are things that are still ongoing works-in-progress. Also, I find that many if not most people are terminally unable to appreciate what they have when they actually have it. It's so much easier to admire, and even to idealize, the past than to recognize what's really good about the present. Bottom line: distance gives things a certain romantic appeal.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Bellinilover said:


> The idea that Franco Corelli was terrible in French opera. I heard him in the Richard Bonynge recording of Gounod's FAUST and thought he was quite good. Maybe his pronunciation wasn't the most idiomatic, but his "awfulness" in French opera has been greatly exaggerated, imo.


French are snobs about everything. you meet their standards exactly or they sneer at you lol


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> French are snobs about everything. you meet their standards exactly or they sneer at you lol


This and they almost refuse to speak anything else them French ( all to fast)


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I'm not French, but when I heard Corelli singing French opera on Met broadcasts back in the late '60s or early '70s I thought he sounded like a big antlered animal in rut. His claque responded in kind, with some clown making sure he was heard yelling "Bravo Franco!" after the others had quieted down.

I didn't know anything about French style back then, but I had studied French and had the best accent in my class, so Corelli's bellowing, sobbing and gargling were clearly not on the mark. Even without having heard anyone else sing _Werther,_ I felt sure it wasn't supposed to sound like _Cavalleria Rusticana._

_Mais chacun a son gout._


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith (Mar 25, 2016)

Pugg said:


> Originally Posted by BalalaikaBoy
> French are snobs about everything. you meet their standards exactly or they sneer at you lol
> This and they almost refuse to speak anything else them French ( all to fast)


If these are commonly held views about opera, I certainly disagree with 'em!


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith (Mar 25, 2016)

The French have just cause for having high standards! French is one of the most beautiful, clearest, and expressive languages - but it can sound ghastly if mispronounced.

Italian and German are usually easier for non-native speakers to pronounce (NOT learn); they're pronounced as spelt, the vowels are easy, and really the only tricky thing, at least in Italian, is placing the emphasis on the right syllable. 

French is, apparently, harder, because of the vowels, and because most consonants aren't pronounced at the end of a word, unless they're before a vowel.

French audiences also want to HEAR the text. Italian opera (and this is a broad generalization) is a vehicle for the singer and the song; the French wanted opera to work as theatre.

So hearing, say, Domingo mangle the language, or a Slovak choir at Martina Franca guess wildly what French sounds like, and fail dismally, is as much fun for a Francophone as having red hot needles poked through your ear, while someone lovingly strangles a cat in the background.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

NickFuller said:


> So hearing, say, Domingo mangle the language, or a Slovak choir at Martina Franca guess wildly what French sounds like, and fail dismally, is as much fun for a Francophone as having red hot needles poked through your ear, while someone lovingly strangles a cat in the background.


I agree with most of this except for the fact that there are far worse culprits than Domingo when it comes to mangled French. Sutherland, Corelli, Christoff and Pavarotti immediately spring to mind.


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith (Mar 25, 2016)

GregMitchell said:


> I agree with most of this except for the fact that there are far worse culprits than Domingo when it comes to mangled French. Sutherland, Corelli, Christoff and Pavarotti immediately spring to mind.


I've got a blind spot when it comes to Christoff! The Cluytens Faust was the first opera CD I (and not my family) owned, so I grew up with his Mephisto. He has a Bulgarian accent, but what a voice! And what charisma!


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

NickFuller said:


> I've got a blind spot when it comes to Christoff! The Cluytens Faust was the first opera CD I (and not my family) owned, so I grew up with his Mephisto. He has a Bulgarian accent, but what a voice! And what charisma!


I agree with you, and the Cluytens is still my favourite *Faust*. Christoff's French is pretty awful though.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> I agree with you, and the Cluytens is still my favourite *Faust*. Christoff's French is pretty awful though.


If only they could have resuscitated Pol Plancon to sing opposite de los Angeles and Gedda, it would have been virtually a definitive performance. Was the French _basse chantante_ an extinct breed by the 1960s?


----------



## davidglasgow (Aug 19, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> If only they could have resuscitated Pol Plancon to sing opposite de los Angeles and Gedda, it would have been virtually a definitive performance. Was the French _basse chantante_ virtually an extinct breed by the 1960s?


I think there was a definite shortage of Francophone basses - without necessarily aspiring to the level of Plancon, there had been André Pernet recording on 78s but whose career ended prematurely, Adrien Legros made some fine records in the fifties and then a bit of gap as far as I can tell since José van Dam's artistic maturity was some years in the future. Pinza was gone by then, Siepi and later Ghiaurov often signed up by Decca during that period: Christoff's casting begins to seem inevitable despite his idiosyncrasies being well known from the monophonic version


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

GregMitchell said:


> I agree with you, and the Cluytens is still my favourite *Faust*. Christoff's French is pretty awful though.


I don't have the book anymore, but I remember clearly there being a hilariously terrible review of Christoff's Mephistopheles in _The Metropolitan Opera Guide to Recorded Opera_. Maybe you remember it? The reviewer (Kenneth Furie?) wrote something about Christoff having a "stomping, bully-boy approach to the music" and "awful French."


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Bellinilover said:


> I don't have the book anymore, but I remember clearly there being a hilariously terrible review of Christoff's Mephistopheles in _The Metropolitan Opera Guide to Recorded Opera_. Maybe you remember it? The reviewer (Kenneth Furie?) wrote something about Christoff having a "stomping, bully-boy approach to the music" and "awful French."


I have that book, and I came to recognise the reviewers I agreed with, and those who I thought talked a load of rubbish! The reviewer is Conrad L Osborne, whom I often agreed with. However he could be quite partisan in his reviews of singers he liked, and those he didn't. Though he condemns Christoff's awful French and stylistic inappropriateness, he is quite prepared to overlook Sutherland's and Corelli's.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

GregMitchell said:


> I have that book, and I came to recognise the reviewers I agreed with, and those who I thought talked a load of rubbish! The reviewer is Conrad L Osborne, whom I often agreed with. However he could be quite partisan in his reviews of singers he liked, and those he didn't. Though he condemns Christoff's awful French and stylistic inappropriateness, he is quite prepared to overlook Sutherland's and Corelli's.


Yeah, Osborne could be really opinionated, as could Kenneth Furie. I tended to prefer the more straightforward, "pragmatic" reviewers (e.g., Roland Graeme). I must admit that, even with singers I like a lot, certain more negative descriptions of them were funny to read. For example, I remember how, in the chapter on _Pagliacci_, Graeme characterized Placido Domingo as "loudly boo-hooing his way through the postlude" of "Vesti la giubba.":lol:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> I have that book, and I came to recognise the reviewers I agreed with, and those who I thought talked a load of rubbish! The reviewer is Conrad L Osborne, whom I often agreed with. However he could be quite partisan in his reviews of singers he liked, and those he didn't. Though he condemns Christoff's awful French and stylistic inappropriateness, he is quite prepared to overlook Sutherland's and Corelli's.


I owe Osborne much gratitude for his reviews in High Fidelity Magazine back in the '60s when I was discovering opera and singing. He not only understood what a properly functioning voice sounded like, but found words to pass along that understanding to me. That's a rare talent among critics. I do remember him liking Corelli more than I did, and don't remember what he thought of Sutherland, but he did a complete discography of the Wagner operas (remember the days when a composer discography was feasible as a magazine feature?), and I found most of his thoughts spot on. To this day I find myself paraphrasing him whenever I discuss singers and singing, and I can't listen to Battistini's _Ernani_ excerpts or Amato's "Eri tu," which he held up as summits of the baritone's art, without thinking of him.


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith (Mar 25, 2016)

Enough of the Wagner vs not-Wagner debate! Let's have a more interesting one: Who's your favourite musical Osborne - Charles, Richard, Conrad, or Ozzie?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bellinilover said:


> I don't have the book anymore, but I remember clearly there being a hilariously terrible review of Christoff's Mephistopheles in _The Metropolitan Opera Guide to Recorded Opera_. Maybe you remember it? The reviewer (Kenneth Furie?) wrote something about Christoff having a "stomping, bully-boy approach to the music" and "awful French."


I have this book. There are some pretty awful reviews in it.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

NickFuller said:


> Enough of the Wagner vs not-Wagner debate! Let's have a more interesting one: Who's your favourite musical Osborne - Charles, Richard, Conrad, or Ozzie?


Richard for me.


----------



## les24preludes (May 1, 2018)

The most misguided recommendations I csn think of, which are widely expressed by British critics, are those for Mackerras in the Janacek operas. With no exceptions that come to mind, the Supraphon recordings with idiomatic Czech casts, orchestras and conductors are far better. These operas are in their very bones. You want to go to Vienna for a Czech opera, with an Australian conductor and a Swedish soprano? You might as well go to Peru.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

les24preludes said:


> The most misguided recommendations I csn think of, which are widely expressed by British critics, are those for Mackerras in the Janacek operas. With no exceptions that come to mind, the Supraphon recordings with idiomatic Czech casts, orchestras and conductors are far better. These operas are in their very bones. You want to go to Vienna for a Czech opera, with an Australian conductor and a Swedish soprano? You might as well go to Peru.


Wasn't the Mackerras _From the House of the Dead_ the first to use Janacek's actual music rather than the sanitised arrangement that appeared after his death? Aren't the Supraphon recordings of that opera (I think there is more than one) therefore not even completely Janacek no matter how used the performers are to playing or singing the music?

N.


----------



## Sieglinde (Oct 25, 2009)

When people go "lol nobody understands Il Trovatore's plot". Just read the libretto once, or watch it with subtitles and pay attention instead of taking a nap during Ferrando's backstory infodump. You can even calculate the characters' ages (they are all younger than you think*), it fits into a historical background, and there are a LOT of operas with far more silly plotlines.


*No, really. Manrico is a goddamn teenager! The whole baby-switcheroo mess happened 15 years ago, he was a toddler, so he's 17-18, at most. Which really explains why he's so reckless and why his approach to any problem is to Leeroy Jenkins it without any planning while screaming high notes. Leonora is probably the same age. The Count is early 20s. Azucena can't be more than mid-late 30s, far from the usual old hag you see.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Sieglinde said:


> When people go "lol nobody understands Il Trovatore's plot". Just read the libretto once, or watch it with subtitles and pay attention instead of taking a nap during Ferrando's backstory infodump. You can even calculate the characters' ages (they are all younger than you think*), it fits into a historical background, and *there are a LOT of operas with far more silly plotlines.*


You're probably right. Take _Ernani,_ for instance, in which the opera ends with the hero committing suicide right in front of his newlywed Elvira to honor a debt to Silva, his rival for her hand. We don't know what happens after the curtain falls, but it's easy to imagine Elvira leaving the country, changing her name to Leonora, and wandering into the next Verdi opera with a gloomy plot. _Il Trovatore,_ for instance...


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

And of course a lot of opera plots require a massive suspension of disbelief.

Take *Rigoletto*. We are asked to believe that a half dead Gilda, who is stuffed into a sack and hauled out of the inn first by Sparafucile and then Rigoletto, recovers enough to sing a dying farewell. It's even harder if the soprano playing her is on the large side.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Let's face it, the vast majority of opera plots take a massive suspension of disbelief. For one thing, people are singing rather than speaking. But that is all part of the fun.


----------



## les24preludes (May 1, 2018)

The Conte said:


> Wasn't the Mackerras _From the House of the Dead_ the first to use Janacek's actual music rather than the sanitised arrangement that appeared after his death? Aren't the Supraphon recordings of that opera (I think there is more than one) therefore not even completely Janacek no matter how used the performers are to playing or singing the music?
> 
> N.


That's an interesting point. I don't know if 'sanitised' is the right term. i prefer the changes to the score in Jenufa, for instance.


----------



## les24preludes (May 1, 2018)

DavidA said:


> Let's face it, the vast majority of opera plots take a massive suspension of disbelief. For one thing, people are singing rather than speaking. But that is all part of the fun.


The Meistersinger is another case in point. Why would a rich gold merchant want to marry his daughter off to a singer songwriter when there are perfectly good bankers and lawyers about?


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

les24preludes said:


> The Meistersinger is another case in point. Why would a rich gold merchant want to marry his daughter off to a singer songwriter when there are perfectly good bankers and lawyers about?


:lol:

...............


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith (Mar 25, 2016)

Well, Shakespeare and Euripides can be improbable, too. But who (other than Raymond Chandler) holds up realism as the goal of fiction?


----------



## aussiebushman (Apr 21, 2018)

Back to the subject of pronunciation, If you want to learn Italian, listen to Tito Schipa! German, try Franz Volker. Czech, Lucia Popp. English, Emma Kirkby.

To sing in French, just put a peg onto your nose ( I can hardly wait for Woodduck's response to that remark)

Here is Volker:


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith (Mar 25, 2016)

What’s with all the French bashing around these parts?


----------



## les24preludes (May 1, 2018)

aussiebushman said:


> To sing in French, just put a peg onto your nose


Unless you want to sing with a Marseillais accent, in which case take lessons from a concierge.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

aussiebushman said:


> Back to the subject of pronunciation, If you want to learn Italian, listen to Tito Schipa! German, try Franz Volker. Czech, Lucia Popp. English, Emma Kirkby.
> 
> To sing in French, just put a peg onto your nose ( I can hardly wait for Woodduck's response to that remark)
> 
> Here is Volker:


The pronunciation of French is nothing compared to that of English. Yes French pronunciation rules are very different than that of most languages but it is at least consistent unlike English.


----------

