# State of modern operatic singing



## Parsifal98

I have created this thread in order to have a proper discussion concerning one of the most important aspect of opera, which is singing. While some criticize, like me, the current state of operatic singing, others appreciate what they hear and are great admirers of the current stars of the operatic world. This thread is therefore a place to exchange on this subject freely and without constraint. Feel free to voice your opinion or defend your position. We are looking for an healthy exchange where arguments are thoroughly expressed and supported, when necessary, by videos or other medias. The objective is not to create animosity between forumers. So let's all be civilized and let the discussion begin!


----------



## Bonetan

Are you sure you want more of this?? :lol:

It's a frustrating debate if people aren't willing to do the necessary listening with a critical ear...it would be easy for us to compare videos here. Amato is not the greatest baritone of his generation, but I'd like to hear a better version from the last 50 years, let alone modern day.






The vocal freedom, dynamics, consistent vibrato and resonance, clean and consistent vowels, beautiful legato, perfectly blended registers. It's all there.

If someone prefers to listen to more modern recordings with better sound, I understand 100%. But to argue that those modern versions are better sung is going to be very difficult. I welcome the attempt.


----------



## Parsifal98

Bonetan said:


> Are you sure you want more of this?? :lol:
> 
> It's a frustrating debate if people aren't willing to do the necessary listening with a critical ear...it would be easy for us to compare videos here. Amato is not the greatest baritone of his generation, but I'd like to hear a better version from the last 50 years, let alone modern day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The vocal freedom, dynamics, consistent vibrato and resonance, clean and consistent vowels, beautiful legato, perfectly blended registers. It's all there.
> 
> If someone prefers to listen to more modern recordings with better sound, I understand 100%. But to argue that those modern versions are better sung is going to be very difficult. I welcome the attempt.


I do want more of this :lol: I think it is important to talk about the quality of singing. I mean, apart from music, what is more important in opera than singing? Not much. And I do believe that we can have a great conversation on this matter and you started it quite beautifully with your post. I shall share some of my ideas in this thread as well but I also want people from the other side of the aisle to tell us what they think. I strongly believe that a discussion is needed on this subject.


----------



## adriesba

I agree that opera singing is not what it used to be. Especially when it comes to Wagner. 

Just today I was listening to some contraltos of old and was so amazed at the clarity and strength of their voices. I particularly gained appreciation of Clara Butt, Kerstin Thorborg, and Eula Beal.

I've been wanting to ask for some others' opinions on two singers that are more recent that don't seem bad to me — René Pape and Ewa Podleś.


----------



## Revitalized Classics

Bonetan said:


> Are you sure you want more of this?? :lol:
> 
> It's a frustrating debate if people aren't willing to do the necessary listening with a critical ear...it would be easy for us to compare videos here. Amato is not the greatest baritone of his generation, but I'd like to hear a better version from the last 50 years, let alone modern day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The vocal freedom, dynamics, consistent vibrato and resonance, clean and consistent vowels, beautiful legato, perfectly blended registers. It's all there.
> 
> If someone prefers to listen to more modern recordings with better sound, I understand 100%. But to argue that those modern versions are better sung is going to be very difficult. I welcome the attempt.


Thanks for sharing, Bonetan.

There is a characteristic of Amato's singing which I am curious about: the lack of obvious exertion.

It is striking to me how little huffing and puffing this efficient singing entails. Brilliant!

The best almost-counts-as-modern-for-the-sake-of-conversation-version I found was Zancanaro tucked away on a live recording from Paris 37 years ago in 1983. It doesn't match Amato but it is better than any I have heard since, I think.




I wondered what you think of that performance? Any ideas what technically is going on to account for the differences with Amato?

A couple of observations:
1) I think it is typical that record companies did not grasp what they had in Zancanaro and tape this role commercially: he only made 8 studio sets including a remake of Trovatore in his entire career.

2) It is conspicuous how the audience erupt like that: even a taste of the old qualities you mentioned has the audience out of their seats

Thanks


----------



## Revitalized Classics

adriesba said:


> I agree that opera singing is not what it used to be. *Especially when it comes to Wagner. *
> 
> *Just today I was listening to some contraltos of old and was so amazed at the clarity and strength of their voices.* I particularly gained appreciation of Clara Butt, Kerstin Thorborg, and Eula Beal.
> 
> I've been wanting to ask for some others' opinions on two singers that are more recent that don't seem bad to me - René Pape and Ewa Podleś.


You've maybe heard this electric record by Ernestine Schumann-Heink? I'm addicted!


----------



## adriesba

Revitalized Classics said:


> You've maybe heard this electric record by Ernestine Schumann-Heink? I'm addicted!


Yes, I have heard that! She is really good!


----------



## Bonetan

Revitalized Classics said:


> Thanks for sharing, Bonetan.
> 
> There is a characteristic of Amato's singing which I am curious about: the lack of obvious exertion.
> 
> It is striking to me how little huffing and puffing this efficient singing entails. Brilliant!
> 
> The best almost-counts-as-modern-for-the-sake-of-conversation-version I found was Zancanaro tucked away on a live recording from Paris 37 years ago in 1983. It doesn't match Amato but it is better than any I have heard since, I think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wondered what you think of that performance? Any ideas what technically is going on to account for the differences with Amato?
> 
> A couple of observations:
> 1) I think it is typical that record companies did not grasp what they had in Zancanaro and tape this role commercially: he only made 8 studio sets including a remake of Trovatore in his entire career.
> 
> 2) It is conspicuous how the audience erupt like that: even a taste of the old qualities you mentioned has the audience out of their seats
> 
> Thanks


Bravo Zancanaro.

Great observation re exertion. You can tell that Zancanaro is singing with more effort here, yes?

Listen to Amato's long lines. One consistent, uninterrupted flow. How smoothly he goes from vowel to vowel, and the consistency of the vowels. Do that and you'll notice how often Zancanaro interrupts his line with breaths that Amato doesn't take. Another thing with Z is he'll slide into some high notes. Listen for it in the section from 1:45-3:15 for A and 3:15-4:35 for Z. This is where A really separates himself imo. Check out how elegantly Amato sings this. And the high G at the end. Some great stuff there.


----------



## Revitalized Classics

Bonetan said:


> Bravo Zancanaro.
> 
> Great observation re exertion. You can tell that Zancanaro is singing with more effort here, yes?
> 
> Listen to Amato's long lines. One consistent, uninterrupted flow. How smoothly he goes from vowel to vowel, and the consistency of the vowels. Do that and you'll notice how often Zancanaro interrupts his line with breaths that Amato doesn't take. Another thing with Z is he'll slide into some high notes. Listen for it in the section from 1:45-3:15 for A and 3:15-4:35 for Z. This is where A really separates himself imo. Check out how elegantly Amato sings this. And the high G at the end. Some great stuff there.


That's super: thanks for the insights!


----------



## MAS

Deleted post. Deleted post.


----------



## Ulfilas

Interestingly though, Wagner singers have emerged more recently, eg. James Morris, Rene Pape, Ben Heppner, Peter Schreier, Wolfgang Koch...

But can you say the same for Verdi?


----------



## Tsaraslondon

I've listened to two recordings of French music recently, Rousset's performance of the original *Faust* and Nelson's *Les Troyens* which would suggest that French opera is doing quite well at the moment. The two lead tenors in both operas, Michael Spyres in *Les Troyens* and Benjamin Bernheim in *Faust* could both stand comparison with some of the great lyric tenors of the past and both operas are very well cast from top to bottom, the Méphitophélès of Andrew Foster-Williams being a comparative weakness, though the role is more of a character part anyway in this version.

*Les Troyens* also has one of today's greatest singers as Didon. Joyce DiDonato has proven herself to be a great exponent of Handel, Mozart, _bel canto_ and the lyric French opera tradition. Furthermore she is a superb stage animal and actress. I personally find the voice a little lacking in individuality and colour, but there is no denying her technical accomplishment, and florid music holds no terror for her. Here at least, as John Steane might say, the Grand Tradition is being upheld.

But what of Wagner and Verdi?

One of the most recent Verdi recordings I have bought was Pappano's *Aida*, which impressed me most for Pappano's conducting and Kauffmann's Radames. I did enjoy it when I first heard it but it hasn't really stood the test of time. I still think Kauffmann is the best of the singers on the set and though we might quibble about the relative merits of others such as Caruso, Gigli, Bjørling, Corelli, Del Monaco or Domingo, he does at least belong in their company; but I'm not sure if any of the other singers on this set do bear comparison with the past. Compared to some other great Aidas from the past, such as Ponselle, Tebaldi, Callas, Leontyne Price or Caballé, Harteros is appealing but vocally pallid. She is closest, I suppose, to Freni who might also be considered to have a voice a notch too light for the role, but she doesn't have anything like Freni's vocal security.

If I want to listen to *Aida*, I find I tend to reach for one of my other sets, all recorded between 1950 and 1979 for a far more rewarding listening experience.

Just as a comparison, try this performance of _O patria mia_ sung by Angela Meade then compare it to Rosa Ponselle in the same music.











Do I really have to point out Meade's deficiencies? The voice is artifically darkened and the excessive vibrato is actually painful to listen to. Quite aside from the greater beauty of Ponselle's voice, there is the firmness, the clarity, the musicality. OK, so Ponselle was the best of the best in her time, but let's look at the period after the war. We had Callas and Tebaldi to be followed by Leontyne Price, Martina Arroyo and Caballé. Any of what you mght call second string Aidas, like Maria Chiara, Felicia Weathers, Aprile Millo, Anita Cerquetti are a good deal preferable to Meade and yet Meade is considered one of today's best lyric-dramatic sopranos. I don't get it.


----------



## The Conte

I would say that there has most definitely been a slow decline _overall_ in singing in the last one hundred or so years (perhaps longer, but we don't have recordings to know that and the star singers of the early 20th Century couldn't be much bettered).

There are two myths that have been brought up regarding this topic before:
If by 'today' we mean the 21st century, then we can go back thirty, forty or fifty years and find a better _general_ standard of singing _overall_, so we don't have to listen to recordings in old fashioned sound to test the hypothesis that people singing today aren't as good as they were in the past. You could even compare recordings from the 50s and 60s with those made in the last twenty years.

The second 'myth' is where people have compared a small number of recordings from today verses the past. I am sure we could all find recordings that illustrate whatever our opinion on this topic, but the question is whether the standard has declined _overall_.

I think if anyone wants to claim that singing hasn't declined or is better today, they should post some examples of these wonderful singers with an explanation of why their singing is to be preferred or is equal to singers from the past in the same repertoire.

It might also be worthwhile defining what we mean by 'good' singing.

N.


----------



## wkasimer

Revitalized Classics said:


> There is a characteristic of Amato's singing which I am curious about: the lack of obvious exertion.
> 
> It is striking to me how little huffing and puffing this efficient singing entails. Brilliant!


I think that you point out what is, to me, the hallmark of truly great singing - technique that makes the singing sound "easy", even though it isn't. If one listens to the great and admired singers of the acoustic era - people like Melba, Schumann-Heink, Battistini, de Luca, Jadlowker, Plancon, Paul Franz, Lev Sibiriakov, to name just a few - it's striking that their singing always sounds effortless.

Unfortunately, over the past century, audiences have grown used to singers who make a lot of noise, and sound effortful doing so. I can't remember the last time I heard a Brunnhilde who didn't sound like she was in extremis at the beginning of Act 2 of Walkure, or at the end of Siegfried, or during virtually all of Gotterdammerung. I suspect that if Frida Leider showed up in 2020, most audience members would dismiss her as "too light".


----------



## Aerobat

wkasimer said:


> I think that you point out what is, to me, the hallmark of truly great singing - technique that makes the singing sound "easy", even though it isn't. If one listens to the great and admired singers of the acoustic era - people like Melba, Schumann-Heink, Battistini, de Luca, Jadlowker, Plancon, Paul Franz, Lev Sibiriakov, to name just a few - it's striking that their singing always sounds effortless.
> 
> Unfortunately, over the past century, audiences have grown used to singers who make a lot of noise, and sound effortful doing so. I can't remember the last time I heard a Brunnhilde who didn't sound like she was in extremis at the beginning of Act 2 of Walkure, or at the end of Siegfried, or during virtually all of Gotterdammerung. I suspect that if Frida Leider showed up in 2020, most audience members would dismiss her as "too light".


The other factor to consider when we listen to recordings is the quality and detail of the recording. A modern recording captures infinitely more detail than one made even as recently as the 1970s and 80s. It's quite possible that the singers who we think are effortless and lacked 'huffing and puffing' were actually 'huffing and puffing', but the recording equipment didn't capture the detail in the same manner as modern equipment. The sound systems that we listen on also make a significant difference - modern equipment is able to reproduce sound far more accurately than the systems from a few decades ago.

I find most early recordings almost unbearable, not due to the singers, but down to the abysmal reproduction of sound that was available. I have a recording of Armida with Callas that is absolutely unbearable, even the orchestral sound is uneven and the vocals are appalling. I have yet to hear a recording from the Callas era that I can really enjoy, because the deficiencies in the reproduction detract from the singing. This causes me to wonder how many of the posters on this forum were alive when Callas was at her peak and actually experienced a live performance??

As Callas died before I started school I never heard her live and can't comment on how good (or not) she was in comparison to any of the current generation due to the vastly superior recordings that we can create today.

Live performances are in short supply right now, but I've seen productions with many of the current generation (Bartoli, Fleming, Villazon, Florez, Pettibon, and others) in various venues and have not found any of them lacking in any way. All have delivered great singing and acting performances (especially Florez).


----------



## Bonetan

Tsaraslondon said:


> One of the most recent Verdi recordings I have bought was Pappano's *Aida*, which impressed me most for Pappano's conducting and Kauffmann's Radames. *I did enjoy it when I first heard it but it hasn't really stood the test of time. I still think Kauffmann is the best of the singers on the set and though we might quibble about the relative merits of others such as Caruso, Gigli, Bjørling, Corelli, Del Monaco or Domingo, he does at least belong in their company; but I'm not sure if any of the other singers on this set do bear comparison with the past.*


Great post!

I have to agree to disagree about Kaufmann, however. I don't like his singing at all and I don't think he belongs anywhere near the singers you mentioned. His frog in the throat method of vocal production is all wrong imo. He's become unlistenable for me. Personally, I think Botha was a better singer, although he wasn't near Kaufmann as a performer.


----------



## Bonetan

Aerobat said:


> The other factor to consider when we listen to recordings is the quality and detail of the recording. A modern recording captures infinitely more detail than one made even as recently as the 1970s and 80s. *It's quite possible that the singers who we think are effortless and lacked 'huffing and puffing' were actually 'huffing and puffing', but the recording equipment didn't capture the detail in the same manner as modern equipment.* The sound systems that we listen on also make a significant difference - modern equipment is able to reproduce sound far more accurately than the systems from a few decades ago.


I don't think this is the case. It can be recognized imo, even on old recordings. Many of the effects the old school singers achieve simply aren't possible without an effortless technique. Using Battistini as an example, even if one is unable to recognize the ease with which he sings through recordings, enough has been written about his singing by critics and colleagues of the time to know that his singing was always effortless.


----------



## vivalagentenuova

Tsaraslondon said:


> Michael Spyres in Les Troyens and Benjamin Bernheim in Faust could both stand comparison with some of the great lyric tenors of the past


I can't agree here. They both have overly light voices with little depth. The sound they produce doesn't sound really offensive most of the time, it just doesn't take off to the next level like the great French tenors of past like Thill, Franz, Jobin, Ansseau and D'Arkor.

Just as an example, I haven't heard any singing from either of these gentlemen that approaches something like this. Not just the flexibility, but the absolutely firm and ringing top notes, the rich, true darkness all throughout the register. D'Arkor's voice is perfectly registrated, so that he doesn't even have to do anything really to be expressive. The sheer sound is expressive. When he does things it sounds totally natural and not affected.





Likewise I find DiDonato to be underdeveloped with a strong tendency towards nasality and caprino. Of course there were singers of the past with these problems, but I don't find her singing to be anywhere on par with the great mezzos of the past, of which there were many.

Which is how I think of it. To my mind, the most important thing is, Are there truly great singers? As I see it, there are none at all today. There are various shades of okay and more or less inoffensive singers, but there are no great singers. In the past, especially before 1960, there were tons of great singers, there being more the further back you go. I don't prove this by a few examples of direct comparison, but by having listened to hundreds of singers past and present, and listening in detail to thousands of recordings, taking notes, comparing specific passages, looking for particular sounds and faults etc.. And of course, by just generally reflecting on which recordings left me amazed or moved. They are overwhelmingly from the 1930s and earlier.

I think examples are good to illustrate specific points. For example, the Zancanaro-Amato comparison illustrates as has been noted the difference between to good singers, one of whom rises to a level of excellence because of certain features of the voice. Now, Amato had his problems. He ended up with vocal problems, probably due to registration issues that at certain points in his career brought on vibrato issues. But when he was on, he was at a level we haven't had for a long time. You can also hear how relying on darkening instead of core and coordination occasionally catches up with Zancanaro, whose voice sometimes hollows out, bringing an effortful effect and an overly apparent vibrato. Now, that's being rather nit-pickey. Zancanaro is pretty good in the greater scheme. But just as there's a big difference between a pretty good opera like _Herodiade_ and _Tristan_ or _Fanciulla_, there's a big difference between these two singers. And if the canon were nothing but _Herodiade_ and worse, would it be satisfying?



wkasimer said:


> Unfortunately, over the past century, audiences have grown used to singers who make a lot of noise, and sound effortful doing so. I can't remember the last time I heard a Brunnhilde who didn't sound like she was in extremis at the beginning of Act 2 of Walkure, or at the end of Siegfried, or during virtually all of Gotterdammerung. I suspect that if Frida Leider showed up in 2020, most audience members would dismiss her as "too light".


Indeed, and I think it's even true that people now think that a singer is _supposed_ to sound effortful when the music is difficult. I mean, you hear comments that a singer who to my mind is struggling and gasping to cope with the music, which is all I hear, is so involved in the character and drawing this deep portrait. I can only conclude that they interpret the singer's struggles as expression.

So what is great expressive singing? It is singing that is natural and free sounding; that has power and clarity (core or squillo produced by the chest voice) present throughout; that has softness and darkness present or available (coordination with the head voice or falsetto); that has a consistent and pleasing vibrato; and that uses the free and spontaneous manipulation of these qualities to convey the musical and dramatic effects created by the score and libretto. That to me is the standard of _great_ singing. That doesn't mean all singing that doesn't measure up to that is bad or worthless. Rather, all singing should measured according to that standard. To me, the singers who demonstrate the pinnacle of that standard in each voice type are, from lowest to highest: 
Bass 
Mardones and Plancon

Baritone
Battistini and Ruffo

Dramatic Tenor
Caruso, Zanelli, Jadlowker, Volker, and Melchior

Lyric Tenor
Gigli, Schipa, D'Arkor, Piccaver and Malipiero

Contralto
Kirkby-Lunn, Onegin, Matzenauer

Dramatic Soprano
Flagstad, Destinn, Traubel, Leider

Lyric Soprano
Norena, Sayao, young Tebaldi, Rethberg

Coloratura Soprano
Tetrazzini, Kurz, Melba

Obviously this isn't anywhere near comprehensive, just illustrative.


----------



## wkasimer

Bonetan said:


> I have to agree to disagree about Kaufmann, however. I don't like his singing at all and I don't think he belongs anywhere near the singers you mentioned. His frog in the throat method of vocal production is all wrong imo. He's become unlistenable for me. Personally, I think Botha was a better singer, although he wasn't near Kaufmann as a performer.


I have a somewhat higher opinion of Kaufmann, at least in the right repertoire, but I completely agree with you vis-a-vis Botha vs. Kaufmann. I heard both in Boston Symphony Hall, and the difference was pretty apparent. Botha was the real deal - he didn't look good on stage, but it was an impressive voice, with solid technique, easily audible over the orchestra. Kaufmann's voice, on the other hand, didn't carry well at all, and was often swamped by the orchestra.


----------



## mmsbls

I'm certainly not knowledgeable about opera singing, but I have a couple of comments leading to a question. I asked a professional cellist about this issue and specifically about whether instrumental performers were as good, better, or worse than earlier.

She felt that teaching techniques were much better today and the good techniques were more widely used such that modern instrumental performers were as good or better than those in the past. Mostly she felt that the _average_ quality of instrumental performers was superior to those in the past, but that the best of various eras may be fairly similar.

She knows less about opera but wondered if an increased focus on appearance could act to somewhat reduce the quality of modern operatic performers. Also, she feels that singing has changed somewhat over time such that the voices are trying to sing slightly differently (e.g. more vibrato?).

In the other thread some suggested that modern vocal teaching techniques were not as good or that, at least, modern signers were not being taught to perform at the same level. If this is true, why would this be? If instrumental performers are as good or better than earlier due to improved teaching techniques, why would operatic performers not benefit from the same improved teaching?

Again, this issue is over my head, but it seems there are a few potential changes that could influence the quality of singing - teaching techniques, emphasis on appearance, and changes in style. I'd welcome thoughts from those here.


----------



## vivalagentenuova

Bonetan said:


> I don't think this is the case. It can be recognized imo, even on old recordings. Many of the effects the old school singers achieve simply aren't possible without an effortless technique. Using Battistini as an example, even if one is unable to recognize the ease with which he sings through recordings, enough has been written about his singing by critics and colleagues of the time to know that his singing was always effortless.


Furthermore, you can hear the ease or difficulty in the singing itself. Does a high note sound natural or strained? How long are the phrases and is there legato? In great recordings there's no room for huffing and puffing because there's a pure stream of uninterrupted sound that's even and always free.




Bechi could not sing an 18-second phrase from 2:33 to 2:51 that included a diminuendo and crescendo without total efficiency and proper registration. He also continues on after that like it was nothing. Or take a much older and technically worse recording:




You can hear Bassi breathe quite clearly, but he's able to vary the phrase length with superb portamenti and rubato and the end, and you can hear the effortless transition from chest predominant to head predominant sound. That's what you'd hear in the audience. I don't know modern singers who sing like Bassi or Bechi.


----------



## vivalagentenuova

mmsbls said:


> In the other thread some suggested that modern vocal teaching techniques were not as good or that, at least, modern signers were not being taught to perform at the same level. If this is true, why would this be? If instrumental performers are as good or better than earlier due to improved teaching techniques, why would operatic performers not benefit from the same improved teaching?


I think the answer lies in the fact that teachers must not only train singers to _use_ their voice, but they have to _build_ the voice first. According to Cornelius Reid's research (Reid was a famous pedagogue who trained great singers like George Shirley), early practices focused on practical methods for building the voice: develop chest and head voice through scales, coordinate, drill florid techniques and ornaments etc.. Later, vocal teaching began to be dominated by supposedly scientific practices and subjective imagery that really didn't help because it doesn't get at the building blocks of the voice: the muscle groups in the throat. So you can tell someone all you want to put it in the mask, or give them nyah nyah nyah exercises to warm up their nasal resonators, but that doesn't do anything to _build_ the voice. Singers like Antonio Cotogni or Giuseppe Danise spent years (!) singing scales to build the voice. But you can't build the voice with any scales: you have to understand how the registers work. Chest register activates at high volume towards the bottom of the range, falsetto is accessed at E above middle C and should be trained at increasing intensity as you go up the scale when first separating the registers, etc.. The pitch and intensity patterns are important. You can't just do scales for two years any old way and end up singing like Danise. Accessing nasal resonance does _nothing_ to build the registers. At best, it covers over certain faults without introducing too much nasality (also a fault), but it totally inhibits further progress. Furthermore, many teachers now don't even try to separate the registers. They try to get an even sound from the beginning, which according to Reid leads nowhere. I'm very sympathetic to Reid's views, as they accord very strongly with what I have observed from listening.

Furthermore, unless the voice is built properly, you just can't get to the top level of playing it. You can't play a poorly built violin the way you can the best of the best. No matter the intentions of the performer, the instrument will not respond. That's what happens in modern singing.

Other suggestions have included that microphones allow for a smaller, more intimate style which then gets held up as the example for new generations; decline in the pool of great voices (though Netrbko, DiDonato, Kaufmann etc. are extremely talented by natural endowment, so I don't really buy that as anything more than a contributing factor); the chest voice being wrongly blamed for the decline of singers like Callas and Tebaldi; and many others.


----------



## schigolch

mmsbls said:


> I'm certainly not knowledgeable about opera singing, but I have a couple of comments leading to a question. I asked a professional cellist about this issue and specifically about whether instrumental performers were as good, better, or worse than earlier.
> 
> She felt that teaching techniques were much better today and the good techniques were more widely used such that modern instrumental performers were as good or better than those in the past. Mostly she felt that the _average_ quality of instrumental performers was superior to those in the past, but that the best of various eras may be fairly similar.
> 
> She knows less about opera but wondered if an increased focus on appearance could act to somewhat reduce the quality of modern operatic performers. Also, she feels that singing has changed somewhat over time such that the voices are trying to sing slightly differently (e.g. more vibrato?).
> 
> In the other thread some suggested that modern vocal teaching techniques were not as good or that, at least, modern signers were not being taught to perform at the same level. If this is true, why would this be? If instrumental performers are as good or better than earlier due to improved teaching techniques, why would operatic performers not benefit from the same improved teaching?
> 
> Again, this issue is over my head, but it seems there are a few potential changes that could influence the quality of singing - teaching techniques, emphasis on appearance, and changes in style. I'd welcome thoughts from those here.


I have been attending live opera for roughly the last 50 years (I attended my first opera in the theater with my grandmother, when I was barely 10 years old), and I can share that the decline in the quality singing is a real thing, and is happening also during my lifetime.

It's not the same decline, however, in all fachs or in all the repertoire. Baritones for Italian opera is arguably the worst case. It's also less evident in female singing, than in men singing, but is there for both.

Thankfully, there are also some good things happening in opera that somehow compensate: the aarrival of the countertenor, the rescue of Baroque operas and the performance with period instruments, new operas being written, adventurous stagings,...

Many times I have discussed the reason(s) of the vocal decline, with many people. I confess I still don't have an answer. Lots of different would be explanations, but no real evidence pointing clearly to one specific direction, in my view.


----------



## Bonetan

adriesba said:


> I've been wanting to ask for some others' opinions on two singers that are more recent that don't seem bad to me - René Pape and Ewa Podleś.


One thing I can say about Pape is the Italians do not want to hear him in Verdi lol


----------



## adriesba

wkasimer said:


> I think that you point out what is, to me, the hallmark of truly great singing - technique that makes the singing sound "easy", even though it isn't. If one listens to the great and admired singers of the acoustic era - people like Melba, Schumann-Heink, Battistini, de Luca, Jadlowker, Plancon, Paul Franz, Lev Sibiriakov, to name just a few - it's striking that their singing always sounds effortless.
> 
> Unfortunately, over the past century, audiences have grown used to singers who make a lot of noise, and sound effortful doing so. I can't remember the last time I heard a Brunnhilde who didn't sound like she was in extremis at the beginning of Act 2 of Walkure, or at the end of Siegfried, or during virtually all of Gotterdammerung. I suspect that if Frida Leider showed up in 2020, most audience members would dismiss her as "too light".


I agree! This is one of the main differences between singers now and singers of the past. Take Turandot singers as an example. In my opinion one of the last singers who could actually sing Turandot was Eva Marton. But notice she sounds strained as if she could mess up at any moment.






Contrast this with Birgit Nilsson who makes it sound so effortless that one may almost forget that Turandot is actually one of the most difficult roles in opera.






That is a big difference between an excellent singer and a mediocre or barely adequate singer. And you don't even need to be very familiar with opera to hear the difference. Unfortunately, I have looked on YouTube and cannot find any singer who I would say is merely adequate for Turandot today. They sound worse now. There are even more glaring issues such as bad pitch or very unstable vibrato. Some may say that Marton wasn't even that good, but compared to today, she was amazing.

That is why I believe opera singing is declining, at least in the heavy roles or roles requiring much power. There is lots of material for comparisons on YouTube. I have spent much time comparing the old and new singers with videos from major opera houses, and it has become apparent thus that there are simply no singers today who can do these roles justice, especially when it comes to Wagner operas. One could say we are cherry picking, but you could do these comparisons with just about any of these big roles with just about any old and new singer. The differences are clear.


----------



## adriesba

Bonetan said:


> One thing I can say about Pape is the Italians do not want to hear him in Verdi lol


I was just curious because I have some recordings with Pape, and I enjoy hearing him, even preferring him over some other basses. Podleś also seems decent to me, and she has an impressive range though her voice seems to sound somewhat unstable more recently.


----------



## wkasimer

Bonetan said:


> One thing I can say about Pape is the Italians do not want to hear him in Verdi lol


Why not? He sings well and acts well.


----------



## Parsifal98

vivalagentenuova said:


> I think the answer lies in the fact that teachers must not only train singers to _use_ their voice, but they have to _build_ the voice first. According to Cornelius Reid's research (Reid was a famous pedagogue who trained great singers like George Shirley), early practices focused on practical methods for building the voice: develop chest and head voice through scales, coordinate, drill florid techniques and ornaments etc.. Later, vocal teaching began to be dominated by supposedly scientific practices and subjective imagery that really didn't help because it doesn't get at the building blocks of the voice: the muscle groups in the throat. So you can tell someone all you want to put it in the mask, or give them nyah nyah nyah exercises to warm up their nasal resonators, but that doesn't do anything to _build_ the voice. Singers like Antonio Cotogni or Giuseppe Danise spent years (!) singing scales to build the voice. But you can't build the voice with any scales: you have to understand how the registers work. Chest register activates at high volume towards the bottom of the range, falsetto is accessed at E above middle C and should be trained at increasing intensity as you go up the scale when first separating the registers, etc.. The pitch and intensity patterns are important. You can't just do scales for two years any old way and end up singing like Danise. Accessing nasal resonance does _nothing_ to build the registers. At best, it covers over certain faults without introducing too much nasality (also a fault), but it totally inhibits further progress. Furthermore, many teachers now don't even try to separate the registers. They try to get an even sound from the beginning, which according to Reid leads nowhere. I'm very sympathetic to Reid's views, as they accord very strongly with what I have observed from listening.
> 
> Furthermore, unless the voice is built properly, you just can't get to the top level of playing it. You can't play a poorly built violin the way you can the best of the best. No matter the intentions of the performer, the instrument will not respond. That's what happens in modern singing.
> 
> Other suggestions have included that microphones allow for a smaller, more intimate style which then gets held up as the example for new generations; decline in the pool of great voices (though Netrbko, DiDonato, Kaufmann etc. are extremely talented by natural endowment, so I don't really buy that as anything more than a contributing factor); the chest voice being wrongly blamed for the decline of singers like Callas and Tebaldi; and many others.


Thank you for this very informative post! I adhere with everything that you've written and could not say it better myself. I think you are absolutely right regarding the importance of building a singer's voice. To illustrate what you have also mentioned about modern vocal teaching and their usage of pseudo-scientific practices and subjective imagery, here is a masterclass with Joyce DiDonato which took place at Carnegie Hall in 2017. Listen to what she says to the student. It is quite revealing...






I mean why put so much importance on the "nasal passage"?


----------



## Parsifal98

adriesba said:


> I agree! This is one of the main differences between singers now and singers of the past. Take Turandot singers as an example. In my opinion one of the last singers who could actually sing Turandot was Eva Marton. But notice she sounds strained as if she could mess up at any moment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contrast this with Birgit Nilsson who makes it sound so effortless that one may almost forget that Turandot is actually one of the most difficult roles in opera.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a big difference between an excellent singer and a mediocre or barely adequate singer. And you don't even need to be very familiar with opera to hear the difference. Unfortunately, I have looked on YouTube and cannot find any singer who I would say is merely adequate for Turandot today. They sound worse now. There are even more glaring issues such as bad pitch or very unstable vibrato. Some may say that Marton wasn't even that good, but compared to today, she was amazing.
> 
> That is why I believe opera singing is declining, at least in the heavy roles or roles requiring much power. There is lots of material for comparisons on YouTube. I have spent much time comparing the old and new singers with videos from major opera houses, and it has become apparent thus that there are simply no singers today who can do these roles justice, especially when it comes to Wagner operas. One could say we are cherry picking, but you could do these comparisons with just about any of these big roles with just about any old and new singer. The differences are clear.


Another great post! Here is another example to further illustrate what you've written:

Hans Reinmar in 1936 performing Wotans Abschied

Listen to this seamless vocal production and perfect legato. Producing such a glorious sound does not seem hard at all for Reinmar.





Link if it doesn't work : 




And here is Bryn Terfel performing the same "aria" at the Musée d'Orsay in 2019.






And here is Pape in Dresden in 2014:


----------



## Bonetan

wkasimer said:


> Why not? He sings well and acts well.


Apparently they don't like his way with the music or the language. He doesn't have a good feel for the style in their opinion.


----------



## vivalagentenuova

The decline is most notable among heavy voices because they sound the most absurd, and are pushed beyond their limits in a different way. But I think light voices have suffered too, as I said about Mozart singers. Baroque singing may have learned a lot about style, but the tiny mixed register voices they use have nothing to do with the tradition. You could not possibly spend years developing proper chest voice, head voice, coordinating etc. and sound like Cecilia Bartoli. You would sound like Janet Spencer.

As for the DiDonato masterclass, it's pretty painful. Her focus on the nasal resonance brings about a minor, superficial improvement; it sounds a little less ugly. But "less ugly" doesn't mean "good." And there's no way to get from from there to good by the means being used, otherwise we would have great singers! Nothing in what she says to the student affects the real problem, which is that the registration is wrong.


----------



## wkasimer

Bonetan said:


> Apparently they don't like his way with the music or the language. He doesn't have a good feel for the style in their opinion.


So who *do* they like?


----------



## Bonetan

wkasimer said:


> So who *do* they like?


For Verdi bass rep? I'll ask! Pape came up in our conversation that day and we didn't discuss anyone else.


----------



## DeGustibus

A few points/questions from a newbie to this forum, less so to opera, but still way behind most here. And picking up on a few remarks in these related threads after the last week or so;
I do wonder how much of this is fashion. And I don't mean that pejoratively. Even within opera, tastes come and go, as the long dismissal of bel canto seems to attest to. If every current voice teacher is teaching their students in the 'wrong" way, perhaps the standard has changed?
Related, it is a new era. Somewhere else in all this, "park and bark" was actually lifted up as a good thing. Today, opera is recognized as a multi-sensory event. Audiences want visual interest. If all that matters it vocal quality, go to recitals.
The point about what we can and can't hear on old recordings was well-taken, I thought.
And knowing it will throw the cat among the canaries, the recording in post #6 of Schumann-Heinke (sp?) illustrates the problem so contentiously noted in other threads: the sound is so bad, I don't know what to listen for, and even if I did, I don't have a lot of confidence in being able to compare it to modern recordings. Life is too short; as a pleasure listener, I am not going to choose to listen to that sound quality unless I am told it is once in a multi--lifetime voice. (And I have come to appreciate some of those.)
Finally, there does seem to me to be a chicken and egg phenomenon: why aren't the opera singers today popular idols like they were before? Well, opera is not the art form of "the masses" that it was before (noting that perhaps it never was in the US?) Where are all the great singers? Well, since it has become, for better or worse, a niche, and given all the other options, maybe they are going elsewhere with their gifts, which are trained and used differently (Note someone like Kelli O'Hara with a foot in both worlds. Or Kristen Chenowith, both of whom might have been trained into operatic careers in the way suggested in this thread?) It's not unlike (to me, at least, LOL) the question about why there are so many fewer great Black baseball players than there were in the past--when the NBA, NFL etc were such smaller institutions.
Anyway, just food for thought. Sorry for the formatting. I've been on message boards since the pre-WWW days and still can't always figure out each board's style.


----------



## vivalagentenuova

You make some interesting points, but I only partially agree with each of them.

I think fashion definitely has something to do with it, especially in early music repertoire where people have essentially made up a new technique and declared it historical. I said in the other thread that I think the right way to think about it is that there is a new technique and that the technique is inferior. So modern singers sing correctly according to that paradigm, but I certainly reserve the right to say that that paradigm is worse than the old one.



DeGustibus said:


> Related, it is a new era. Somewhere else in all this, "park and bark" was actually lifted up as a good thing. Today, opera is recognized as a multi-sensory event. Audiences want visual interest. If all that matters it vocal quality, go to recitals.


I don't see any reason that you can't have visual interest and good singing at the same time.



DeGustibus said:


> And knowing it will throw the cat among the canaries, the recording in post #6 of Schumann-Heinke (sp?) illustrates the problem so contentiously noted in other threads: the sound is so bad, I don't know what to listen for, and even if I did, I don't have a lot of confidence in being able to compare it to modern recordings. Life is too short; as a pleasure listener, I am not going to choose to listen to that sound quality unless I am told it is once in a multi--lifetime voice. (And I have come to appreciate some of those.)


I don't think the sound quality is _that_ bad. It's a recording I would certainly listen to for pleasure. The voice is easily audible over the pretty quiet hiss. The reverb comes from the fact that the source of that recording, Prima Voce, transferred their records by playing them in rooms to attempt to get the sound that you would have heard playing it off the machine in a spacious room. Some people like the result, and some hate it. I personally prefer Preiser's transfers, which are more purist. Would you call this unlistenable sound quality?







DeGustibus said:


> Where are all the great singers? Well, since it has become, for better or worse, a niche, and given all the other options, maybe they are going elsewhere with their gifts, which are trained and used differently (Note someone like Kelli O'Hara with a foot in both worlds. Or Kristen Chenowith, both of whom might have been trained into operatic careers in the way suggested in this thread?)


This is definitely _part_ of the problem, but it doesn't convince me as an explanation for the problem as a whole. If it were true that the change was not in technique but simply in the pool of available singers, and that the best talent were going somewhere else so that we were only getting second rate talent, today's stars would sound like yesterday's second rate talent. in other words, they would have the same technique, make the same kinds of sounds, etc.. Here's some of the old second rate singers:




















All of these singers were minor stars in their day, but who today among our global superstars can make those sounds? Shall we go to the third rate? I could give you 200 more examples of small time singers of the past who can out sing today's best. It can't just be about the field of talent shrinking, or today's stars would sound like this. If only!


----------



## silentio

In addition to the points you guys have brought up in this thread, and others, such as head voice, chest voice, register coordinates, etc., what I find generally missing in modern singing is clear enunciation.

Clear enunciation makes singing so much enjoyable, regardless of the language! I wouldn't mind Georges Thill singing Wagner in French, Lotte Lehmann singing Verdi in German, or 
Leonid Sobinov singing Massenet in Russian - I enjoy them greatly indeed. But Netrebko's constant _oww-oww-oww _ bothers me.


----------



## Tsaraslondon

Bonetan said:


> Great post!
> 
> I have to agree to disagree about Kaufmann, however. I don't like his singing at all and I don't think he belongs anywhere near the singers you mentioned. His frog in the throat method of vocal production is all wrong imo. He's become unlistenable for me. Personally, I think Botha was a better singer, although he wasn't near Kaufmann as a performer.


I hear what you hear, and the lack of _squillo_ does bother me a little, especially in the Italian repertoire. But, as you say, he is a great performer, and I find him a musical singer. His vocal production is odd. I often think he won't make the high notes, and yet there they are, and he's one of the few tenors to sing a genuine _ppp_ on the top B in _Celeste Aida_. I'd say he would have a good career whatever generation he was singing in.


----------



## Tsaraslondon

Sorry if this is something of a rambling post, but I am musing.

I think these days there is a desire for quick results. Most singers in the past studied for years before singing in public and then would start off in small houses where they could learn to project and grow. Nor were there marketing people around to push singers into the limelight before they were ready, their one concern being to find the next big star. Shortly after Alagna had had such an enormous (and warranted I might add) success as Roméo at Covent Garden, there was a programme about him on TV. It was disgusting to hear the marketing people talk about him as if he was just a commodity. I suppose for them he was.

I remember some years ago attending an event, I think it was in the crush bar at Covent Garden, at which Birgit Nilsson and Regina Resnik discussed opera singing, followed by a mini masterclass with some young singers. Nilsson and Resnik were most enlightening and entertaining throughout the talk and the class. One of the singers, a soprano, opted to sing _Suicidio!_ from *La Gioconda* and it quickly became evident that, though there was definitely a voice there, she lacked any kind of technique. After she finished there was a silence before Nilsson blurted out, "Have you had any singing lessons, my dear?". She didn't mean it unkindly at all, but was obviously just stumped for something to say. She and Resnik then both advised her to do further study and put aside such dramatic roles as Gioconda until she had a sounder technique.

I also remember going to some of Schwarzkopf's masterclasses, which were heavily criticised because she was so hard on her students, barely letting them get a few notes out before stopping them, a method that was no doubt very frustrating for them. I went with my singing teacher, who adored her. He thought that none of the students had a sufficiently solid technique to be able to follow her instructions. One should also remember that Schwarzkopf was teaching the way she herself had been taught by Maria Ivogün, who agreed to teach her on the proviso that she gave up all public performances. (Schwarzkopf was already by then appearing in small opera houses.) They then worked slowly and painstakingly on the voice, finding the exact right placement for the middle and then slowly expandinng the range outwards at both ends. It's not a method that would suit everyone, but it does show the amount of work she was prepared to do.

Callas often used to talk about the sheer hard work that went into singing. Just remember how long she studied with De Hidalgo, who said she would usually be the first student to arrive and the last to leave, listening to others to learn from their mistakes as well as their good points. It was a method she carried into her professional career, often arriving at rehearsal before anyone else even when she was not required. Margarita Wallman remembered arriving at La Scala one morning to find Callas already sitting in the stalls, "But, what are you doing here, Maria? I told you I was working with the chorus this morning and wouldn't need you till this afternoon." "I thought I would watch what you were doing so I would fit into the scene more easily when you called me in this afternoon." She was not the capricious prima donna the media made her out to be, though she undoubtedly had a temper and her outbursts were usually precipitated by what she considered unprofessional behaviour. Singing, at least until she was seduced by Onassis and his het set, was her total focus and _raison d'être_. It could be argued that when she started to relax and enjoy life, she also started to lose her voice. Until that time, music was her whole life.

Also, back in the 50s and before, singers with burgeoning careers would often travel to South America for an extended season, where they could try out new roles or perfect others. Sometimes, as can be heard from some of the broadcasts, these performances sound ill-prepared and under-rehearsed, but audiences were enthusiastic and it gave the singers room to try things out.

Nowadays a singer would be more likely to nip over to Mexico to do a couple of performances of one role before jetting back to Europe or North America to sing another a few days later. It can't do the voice much good.

Another point is that, back in those days, careers were forged in the theatre, not in the recording studio. It is well known that, even with modern recording techniques, smaller voices are easier to record than big ones. However good the recording quality of Sutherland's and Nilsson's Decca recordings, there are plenty of people who heard them in the flesh who will tell you that the recordings give you no idea of the size of their voices. Baroque opera also requires smaller forces and is therefore much cheaper to produce than the operas of Verdi, Wagner and Strauss which need not only larger voiced singers but huge orchestras.


----------



## Azol

Parsifal98 said:


> Another great post! Here is another example to further illustrate what you've written:
> 
> Hans Reinmar in 1936 performing Wotans Abschied
> 
> Listen to this seamless vocal production and perfect legato. Producing such a glorious sound does not seem hard at all for Reinmar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here is Bryn Terfel performing the same "aria" at the Musée d'Orsay in 2019.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here is Pape in Dresden in 2014:


One of the last singers able to achieve anything close to that legato is James Morris:


----------



## Azol

Tsaraslondon said:


> I think these days there is a desire for quick results.


THIS ^^^



Tsaraslondon said:


> I remember some years ago attending an event, I think it was in the crush bar at Covent Garden, at which Birgit Nilsson and Regina Resnik discussed opera singing, followed by a mini masterclass with some young singers. Nilsson and Resnik were most enlightening and entertaining throughout the talk and the class. One of the singers, a soprano, opted to sing _Suicidio!_ from *La Gioconda* and it quickly became evident that, though there was definitely a voice there, she lacked any kind of technique. After she finished there was a silence before Nilsson blurted out, "Have you had any singing lessons, my dear?". She didn't mean it unkindly at all, but was obviously just stumped for something to say.


Hilarious story. And pretty much summarizes my opinion on most "espresso stardom" modern-day singers.


----------



## Lordgeous

Long time since I could attend opera regularily but Ive been keeping my eye out for Nadine Koutcher, winner of the 2015 Cardiff Singer of the World, with no luck. Wonderful performer. Moved me to tears.... World class I would have thought. Anyone recall her?


----------



## zxxyxxz

Tsaraslondon said:


> Sorry if this is something of a rambling post, but I am musing.
> 
> I think these days there is a desire for quick results. Most singers in the past studied for years before singing in public and then would start off in small houses where they could learn to project and grow. Nor were there marketing people around to push singers into the limelight before they were ready, their one concern being to find the next big star. Shortly after Alagna had had such an enormous (and warranted I might add) success as Roméo at Covent Garden, there was a programme about him on TV. It was disgusting to hear the marketing people talk about him as if he was just a commodity. I suppose for them he was.
> 
> I remember some years ago attending an event, I think it was in the crush bar at Covent Garden, at which Birgit Nilsson and Regina Resnik discussed opera singing, followed by a mini masterclass with some young singers. Nilsson and Resnik were most enlightening and entertaining throughout the talk and the class. One of the singers, a soprano, opted to sing _Suicidio!_ from *La Gioconda* and it quickly became evident that, though there was definitely a voice there, she lacked any kind of technique. After she finished there was a silence before Nilsson blurted out, "Have you had any singing lessons, my dear?". She didn't mean it unkindly at all, but was obviously just stumped for something to say. She and Resnik then both advised her to do further study and put aside such dramatic roles as Gioconda until she had a sounder technique.
> 
> I also remember going to some of Schwarzkopf's masterclasses, which were heavily criticised because she was so hard on her students, barely letting them get a few notes out before stopping them, a method that was no doubt very frustrating for them. I went with my singing teacher, who adored her. He thought that none of the students had a sufficiently solid technique to be able to follow her instructions. One should also remember that Schwarzkopf was teaching the way she herself had been taught by Maria Ivogün, who agreed to teach her on the proviso that she gave up all public performances. (Schwarzkopf was already by then appearing in small opera houses.) They then worked slowly and painstakingly on the voice, finding the exact right placement for the middle and then slowly expandinng the range outwards at both ends. It's not a method that would suit everyone, but it does show the amount of work she was prepared to do.
> 
> Callas often used to talk about the sheer hard work that went into singing. Just remember how long she studied with De Hidalgo, who said she would usually be the first student to arrive and the last to leave, listening to others to learn from their mistakes as well as their good points. It was a method she carried into her professional career, often arriving at rehearsal before anyone else even when she was not required. Margarita Wallman remembered arriving at La Scala one morning to find Callas already sitting in the stalls, "But, what are you doing here, Maria? I told you I was working with the chorus this morning and wouldn't need you till this afternoon." "I thought I would watch what you were doing so I would fit into the scene more easily when you called me in this afternoon." She was not the capricious prima donna the media made her out to be, though she undoubtedly had a temper and her outbursts were usually precipitated by what she considered unprofessional behaviour. Singing, at least until she was seduced by Onassis and his het set, was her total focus and _raison d'être_. It could be argued that when she started to relax and enjoy life, she also started to lose her voice. Until that time, music was her whole life.
> 
> Also, back in the 50s and before, singers with burgeoning careers would often travel to South America for an extended season, where they could try out new roles or perfect others. Sometimes, as can be heard from some of the broadcasts, these performances sound ill-prepared and under-rehearsed, but audiences were enthusiastic and it gave the singers room to try things out.
> 
> Nowadays a singer would be more likely to nip over to Mexico to do a couple of performances of one role before jetting back to Europe or North America to sing another a few days later. It can't do the voice much good.
> 
> Another point is that, back in those days, careers were forged in the theatre, not in the recording studio. It is well known that, even with modern recording techniques, smaller voices are easier to record than big ones. However good the recording quality of Sutherland's and Nilsson's Decca recordings, there are plenty of people who heard them in the flesh who will tell you that the recordings give you no idea of the size of their voices. Baroque opera also requires smaller forces and is therefore much cheaper to produce than the operas of Verdi, Wagner and Strauss which need not only larger voiced singers but huge orchestras.


Fascinating food for thought.

As a non singer it all makes sense to me. You need good foundations and experience before attempting anything at a high level.

Thanks for musing


----------



## VitellioScarpia

Tsaras has a point with the too-fast-too-soon mania that destroy careers. However, it is a problem that started in the 30's and 40's (Onelia Fineschi is an example) and I believe it to be related to the onset of the microphone and electronically recorded music. The microphone dependent singing and its exposure via recordings has accustomed generations to take as good singing technique a breathy and weak voice production so much so, that they find the sound of the naturally projected voice 'artificial'. When there were no microphones, people spoke out and sang out. A breathy, whispered voice productions -- let alone the frying that people use today -- is not heard beyond a couple of meters (if that much) without electronic amplification.

Conversely, an example of someone who developed slowly instead of the too-much-too-soon-and-everything is Christine Goerke. Irrespective of one liking her or not, Ms. Goerke developed her career carefully into the dramatic soprano roles that she now tackles. She sang a remarkable Elektra with the BSO and Andris Nelsons signaling that a dramatic soprano with a torrential voice and personality had arrived in 2015 when he was 45. Interestingly, Ms. Goerke has not landed a big recording contract like some of the tiny voices -- Tebaldi called them _moscerini_ (mosquitoes) -- who are very microphonic and are bigger recording artists than the larger voiced ones still around: the Bartolis, Di Donatos, Kauffman's _vis á vis_ Goerkes, Bothas, Radvanovskys.

BTW, the focus of JDD on the nasal production is to encourage positioning the sound _dans la masque_ that gives the resonance and squillo to the voices. Ponselle's great squillo was based on a _masque_ placement. Sills told the story of walking around Villa Pace (Ponselle's house) trying desperately to get the mask resonance until she threw her vocal arms up, as it were, and decided that she had a _french voice_ (her words) instead of an _italian_ one. Horne master classes also encourages the students for a mask placement. She herself used it sometimes to the point that it made her sound hard to listen for me.


----------



## vivalagentenuova

VitellioScarpia said:


> BTW, the focus of JDD on the nasal production is to encourage positioning the sound _dans la masque_ that gives the resonance and squillo to the voices. Ponselle's great squillo was based on a _masque_ placement. Sills told the story of walking around Villa Pace (Ponselle's house) trying desperately to get the mask resonance until she threw her vocal arms up, as it were, and decided that she had a _french voice_ (her words) instead of an _italian_ one. Horne master classes also encourages the students for a mask placement. She herself used it sometimes to the point that it made her sound hard to listen for me.


The real squillo in Ponselle's voice came from the development of the chest voice. Sometimes she got too nasal and that was a fault. DiDonato is not producing squillo in that student, she is making a cosmetic alteration to the voice to cover up other faults that will inhibit further growth. If placing the sound in the mask did anything real, where is the squillo in all the mask-trained singers today? That technique is everywhere but we just have nasal voices like Florez that don't have squillo. It's one thing to be nasal if you have a huge developed voice. Many great singers such as Ponselle, Reizen, Bechi, and others were sometimes nasal. But they had developed and properly coordinated registers, which is why they were still great singers. They would have been even more extraordinary without the nasality.


----------



## Parsifal98

Tsaraslondon said:


> Callas often used to talk about the sheer hard work that went into singing. Just remember how long she studied with De Hidalgo, who said she would usually be the first student to arrive and the last to leave, listening to others to learn from their mistakes as well as their good points. It was a method she carried into her professional career, often arriving at rehearsal before anyone else even when she was not required. Margarita Wallman remembered arriving at La Scala one morning to find Callas already sitting in the stalls, "But, what are you doing here, Maria? I told you I was working with the chorus this morning and wouldn't need you till this afternoon." "I thought I would watch what you were doing so I would fit into the scene more easily when you called me in this afternoon." She was not the capricious prima donna the media made her out to be, though she undoubtedly had a temper and her outbursts were usually precipitated by what she considered unprofessional behaviour. Singing, at least until she was seduced by Onassis and his het set, was her total focus and _raison d'être_. It could be argued that when she started to relax and enjoy life, she also started to lose her voice. Until that time, music was her whole life.


Thank you for writing this. I find that a lot of people are being dismissive of the sheer amount of work that artists put/should put into their craft. We now put a lot of emphasis on the idea of inherent talent and we tend to forget, I feel, the importance of teachers and of the act of passing knowledge from one generation to the next. Callas had of course a great deal of musical instinct and confidence, but I do think that she would not have been the same phenomenon without de Hidalgo as a teacher. She was the one who helped her build her voice. Callas often talked about her teacher and she even went back to see de Hidalgo when she started to have problems with her voice. In a French interview dating back from the 60s, she gave an example of how de Hidalgo would teach her, saying that to learn the passagio, de Hidalgo would sing it first and she would then imitate her. Maria Callas's voice had nothing to do with divine intervention. It was the result of lucky genes, accute musical instincts and thousands of hours of hard work. But as others have mentioned, nowadays, everything seems to be about quick results instead of being about perpetuating the art of singing. I think this is why we are maintaining this myth of "divine talent", a myth which has a negative impact on all art mediums.


----------



## Parsifal98

vivalagentenuova said:


> The real squillo in Ponselle's voice came from the development of the chest voice. Sometimes she got too nasal and that was a fault. DiDonato is not producing squillo in that student, she is making a cosmetic alteration to the voice to cover up other faults that will inhibit further growth. If placing the sound in the mask did anything real, where is the squillo in all the mask-trained singers today? That technique is everywhere but we just have nasal voices like Florez that don't have squillo. It's one thing to be nasal if you have a huge developed voice. Many great singers such as Ponselle, Reizen, Bechi, and others were sometimes nasal. But they had developed and properly coordinated registers, which is why they were still great singers. They would have been even more extraordinary without the nasality.


Well said! And I see that Horne as been mentioned. Here she is with her voice positioned _dans le masque_ (I am a francophone so I find this expression funny  ).






I think Milanov's face at the end says it all.


----------



## Bonetan

Tsaraslondon said:


> I hear what you hear, and the lack of _squillo_ does bother me a little, especially in the Italian repertoire. But, as you say, he is a great performer, and I find him a musical singer. His vocal production is odd. I often think he won't make the high notes, and yet there they are, and he's one of the few tenors to sing a genuine _ppp_ on the top B in _Celeste Aida_. I'd say he would have a good career whatever generation he was singing in.


I do wonder how previous generations would have felt about Kaufmann's singing...

I don't know how to describe what he does when he sings piano, but it doesn't sound right to me. It's like he's stifling the sound deep in his throat or something, which is not the way to sing piano. Does that make sense? Others can def better put it to words, but the effect doesn't work for me.


----------



## wkasimer

Bonetan said:


> I do wonder how previous generations would have felt about Kaufmann's singing...


Probably the same way they felt about Vinay's singing - Kaufmann sounds a lot like him.


----------



## Bonetan

wkasimer said:


> Probably the same way they felt about Vinay's singing - Kaufmann sounds a lot like him.


Ahh ok! I'm going to listen to some Vinay this evening. Did he have the same squillo issues?


----------



## annaw

Bonetan said:


> Ahh ok! I'm going to listen to some Vinay this evening. Did he have the same squillo issues?


Their voices are fundamentally similar - baritonal and dark but I think Vinay's was just much more powerful. Arturo Toscanini said this about Vinay:

_He is a complete artist, magnificent and unsurpassed in roles which require power and violence. At present time no other artist comes near Vinay's interpretation of Otello._

His voice was so dark that during the end of his career he switched with surprising success to the baritone repertoire and sang Telramund, Iago, Falstaff, and Scarpia. I personally have enjoyed Kaufmann in many productions. I think his voice is a good fit for Lohengrin and he is a great performer and actor which can enhance my appreciation immensely. However, if you accuse Kaufmann in artificial darkening of voice, you won't encounter the same problem with Vinay. He truly was a baritenor and a natural one. A very intelligent artist as well and supposedly Mödl's favourite Tristan.

Listen to these:











Honestly, Vinay would have needed an even darker baritone than Valdengo to sing Iago because his own voice was so crazy dark. If you compare Vinay's _Dio! Mi potevi scagliar_ to Kaufmann's, you get a much more musical interpretation from Vinay with a voice much more powerful. In both cases the voice is very deep and baritonal though. So, if Kaufmann's technique was such that his voice didn't become almost inaudible during the piano passages of the aria and that his singing wouldn't sound as effortful, he probably would have the potential to make a similar Otello as the great Otello of Vinay.

And then there's always the 63 years old Martinelli singing Otello:


----------



## adriesba

^^^ Thanks for your post! I found this interesting.

Dark is right! Listen to Vinay as Scarpia! 






I'm still not crazy about that frog sound Kaufmann has or that, at least the tenor, Vinay had, but I think in Vinay it was to a more tolerable extent whereas in Kaufmann's voice it seems more pronounced to me.


----------



## Bonetan

annaw said:


> Their voices are fundamentally similar - baritonal and dark but I think Vinay's was just much more powerful. Supposedly, Arturo Toscanini said this about Vinay: _He is a complete artist, magnificent and unsurpassed in roles which require power and violence. At present time no other artist comes near Vinay's interpretation of Otello._
> 
> His voice was so dark that during the end of his career he switched with surprising success to the baritone repertoire and sang Telramund, Iago, Falstaff, and Scarpia. I personally have enjoyed Kaufmann in many productions. I think his voice is a good fit for Lohengrin and he is a great performer and actor which can enhance my appreciation immensely. However, if you accuse Kaufmann in artificial darkening of voice, you won't encounter the same problem with Vinay. He truly was a baritenor and a natural one. A very intelligent artist as well and supposedly Mödl's favourite Tristan.
> 
> Listen to these:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, Vinay would have needed an even darker baritone than Valdengo to sing Iago because his own voice was so crazy dark. If you compare Vinay's _Dio! Mi potevi scagliar_ to Kaufmann's, you get a much more musical interpretation from Vinay with a voice much more powerful. In both cases the voice is very deep and baritonal though. So, if Kaufmann's technique was such that his voice didn't become almost inaudible during the piano passages of the aria and that his singing wouldn't sound as effortful, he probably would have potential to make a similar Otello as the great Otello of Vinay.
> 
> And then there's always the 63 years old Martinelli singing Otello:


Thank you very much for this wonderful post!! I definitely hear the similarities to Kaufmann!


----------



## Revitalized Classics

Bonetan said:


> I do wonder how previous generations would have felt about Kaufmann's singing...
> 
> *I don't know how to describe what he does when he sings piano, but it doesn't sound right to me*. It's like he's stifling the sound deep in his throat or something, which is not the way to sing piano. Does that make sense? Others can def better put it to words, but the effect doesn't work for me.


There are a couple of examples in this video of Kaufmann singing piano: I don't know what the mechanism is and I guess it must by an idiosyncratic approach...




End of Celeste Aida from *4:07*
End of the Flower Song from *7:00*

I have some misgivings about both the dark sound that Kaufmann makes and his piano singing.

It is interesting to hear how Kaufmann sounded when he was starting back in 1998. No mistaking him for Vinay at that point.





By the 2015 recording the voice is very different. I find rather a lot of Kaufmann's singing strenuous?





I'm curious how that sound would project in the hall. This is a recent concert recording. When he is left to his own devices, Kaufmann wallows a bit for my taste in that gruff dark sound. For me, the overall effect is a bit lugubrious.





Rather than sounding something like Vinay, I wish Kaufmann's performances were more like, say, Helge Rosvaenge: the older tenor gives a high-energy performance, I prefer Rosvaenge's solution to the quiet ending and Kaufmann already has the high notes in place.


----------



## adriesba

Revitalized Classics said:


> It is interesting to hear how Kaufmann sounded when he was starting back in 1998. No mistaking him for Vinay at that point.


He sounds so much better there.


----------



## Bonetan

adriesba said:


> He sounds so much better there.


I wish he had kept that sound!


----------



## Bonetan

wkasimer said:


> So who *do* they like?


I've been told that Michele Pertusi and Roberto Scandiuzzi are favorites there.


----------



## wkasimer

Bonetan said:


> I've been told that Michele Pertusi and Roberto Scandiuzzi are favorites there.


Well, I'm sure that they're fine linguistically, but both are much lesser vocalists - Scandiuzzi is particularly third-rate.


----------



## Bonetan

wkasimer said:


> Well, I'm sure that they're fine linguistically, but both are much lesser vocalists - Scandiuzzi is particularly third-rate.


I'm in agreement. But they're both native Italians and Pertusi is from the area of Verdi's birth, so he even has Verdi's accent. As far as vocal endowment they are no match for Pape.


----------



## Parsifal98

Thoughts on these videos?











I am particularly impressed by Clara Petrella and love the transition between her and Callas (in the second video). De Hidalgo is also very impressive! Amazing chest voices!


----------



## nina foresti

This entire thread got me to thinking that it almost seems like human nature to prefer what you couldn't have.
For example: I yearn for the: Sutherland/Sills/Muzio/Ponselle/Callas/Tebaldi/Corelli/Tucker/Bergonzi/Steber/Bjorling/DiStefano -- you get the picture -- days, and how I wish I could have been there to see the golden era in person but of course I could only listen to those magnificent voices so dedicatedly trained and the unusual sounds so different that many were immediately recognizable, unlike the majority of voices today.
I partially blame the lack of talented teachers today (one I have heard about who, over and over, has damaged some top tenors singing today and how they are pushing their high notes and getting into trouble). I also think that many today are so anxious to get to the top quickly that they are rushing through instead of taking their time and being more patient and taking more pains to hone their craft.

Having said all this, I have this picture in my head that 20 years from now the opera aficionados of the day will be echoing my very words about "my" wonderful singers of today -- the ones who still give me great pleasure, and could vie for any position back in the '40's, '50's, '60's era -- Gheorghiu/Radvanovsky/Kaufmann/Netrebko/Fleming/Calleja -- to name just a few examples. They will rant and hurl insults about the singers of their day and how anyone who knows anything about great voices wouldn't give 2 cents to listen to their present crop of losers, in comparison with the years 1980-2020's.
However, when all is said and done, I think I have the best of all worlds because I was able to enjoy all of the singers from the "30's on and in many of them have I found gems as they imparted much beauty in my life.
For those who just cannot bear the thought of listening to 
today's singers because they don't come up to the past generation, I say, too bad for you. You're missing out on a lot.


----------



## VitellioScarpia

vivalagentenuova said:


> The real squillo in Ponselle's voice came from the development of the chest voice. Sometimes she got too nasal and that was a fault. DiDonato is not producing squillo in that student, she is making a cosmetic alteration to the voice to cover up other faults that will inhibit further growth. If placing the sound in the mask did anything real, where is the squillo in all the mask-trained singers today? That technique is everywhere but we just have nasal voices like Florez that don't have squillo. It's one thing to be nasal if you have a huge developed voice. Many great singers such as Ponselle, Reizen, Bechi, and others were sometimes nasal. But they had developed and properly coordinated registers, which is why they were still great singers. They would have been even more extraordinary without the nasality.


Yes, the _squillo_ requires the engagement of the chest resonance but people apply _la masque_ to push it forward. Today's singers are afraid or are unable to train on the use of the chest voice.


----------



## Bonetan

adriesba said:


> I agree that opera singing is not what it used to be. Especially when it comes to Wagner.


2010s Met Wotan






1930s Met Wotan






1900s Met Wotan






I think this supports your argument. Whoever taught Grimsley is definitely not from the old school lol


----------



## annaw

You can even take someone like John Tomlinson: 




He at least has a relatively good voice BUT what I think is one of the biggest changes in Wagnerian singing nowadays is the lack of proper legato. I recall once thinking that Tomlinson's singing sounds occasionally like sprechgesang...

I think James Morris's early endeavours in the German repertoire were very interesting. James Morris really wanted to be a proper Italian bass/baritone until someone suggested that he should give a try to German opera as well. He didn't want to because he didn't want to ruin his voice. He was a huge fan of legato which he thought was largely missing in Wagnerian singing. When he was finally considering taking up Wotan, he was told that he wouldn't be able to sing Italian repertoire anymore because the styles, particularly the use of legato, were so different. It was only after it turned out that Hotter, famous for his old-school legato, was going to coach him that everyone felt very okay with Morris singing Wotan. Copying Hotter's legato technique would have enabled Morris to continue also singing Verdian and _bel canto_ repertoire, which he successfully did.

It's a common misconception, which Morris admitted he himself also had, that Wagnerian singing is supposed to have less legato than Italian. Listening to the old singers, one realises that that's not the case at all.


----------



## Bonetan

Barbieri lets us know how she really feels about modern singing (1988) about eight paragraphs in :lol:

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-01-03-ca-32448-story.html


----------



## Tsaraslondon

Bonetan said:


> Barbieri lets us know how she really feels about modern singing (1988) about eight paragraphs in :lol:
> 
> https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-01-03-ca-32448-story.html


And this was in 1988!

I love the way she refuses even to acknowledge Simionato! :lol:


----------



## silentio

Bonetan said:


> Barbieri lets us know how she really feels about modern singing (1988) about eight paragraphs in :lol:
> 
> https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-01-03-ca-32448-story.html


_"Otherwise, today I don't hear much soul or heart. Toscanini used to say the words were all important, they should be like bronze. People sing all the wrong repertory. Anything I say about Pavarotti you can't print. I don't want to have to hire a lawyer. How can someone like Leo Nucci sing Di Luna? After Warren and Bastianini?_

_"The conductors are at fault too. Even Karajan recorded a 'Turandot' with Katia Ricciarelli, of all people. (Mirella) Freni singing Aida, (Renata) Scotto singing Gioconda!"_

How about the great baritone Mingo singing Simon Boccanegra and Rigoletto? Or Netrebko preparing for Nabucco?


----------



## adriesba

Fedora Barbieri said:


> But I think the main problem is there are no more teachers.


I've seen this debated a lot, but those who mention problems with teachers are in good company.

If I remember correctly, I believe Birgit Nilsson said that she had bad teachers back when she was still training her voice.


----------



## Bonetan

silentio said:


> _"Otherwise, today I don't hear much soul or heart. Toscanini used to say the words were all important, they should be like bronze. People sing all the wrong repertory. Anything I say about Pavarotti you can't print. I don't want to have to hire a lawyer. *How can someone like Leo Nucci sing Di Luna? After Warren and Bastianini?*_


Has there ever been a singer quite like Leo Nucci? Everyone thinks he's terrible. He gets crushed all over the internet. Yet he had a huge career! Anyone remember his old wiki page?? :lol:

For the record, I think he's awful too...


----------



## adriesba

Bonetan said:


> Has there ever been a singer quite like Leo Nucci? Everyone thinks he's terrible. He gets crushed all over the internet. Yet he had a huge career! Anyone remember his old wiki page?? :lol:
> 
> For the record, I think he's awful too...


What was the page like? When was it like that? You could probably look at the old versions of the page and find it.


----------



## Bonetan

adriesba said:


> What was the page like? When was it like that? You could probably look at the old versions of the page and find it.


Found it in the Verdi baritone thread courtesy of Revitalized Classics! Post from October 2019.

"Leo Nucci (born 16 April 1942) is an Italian operatic fake baritone true tenor, particularly suited to Verdi roles. He is an undeveloped tenor but trying to darken his voice like a baritone, so his low notes are very weak and his high notes are easier than the true baritones.

Nucci has enjoyed a long and successful throaty career. His repertoire encompasses the entire Italian repertory from bel canto to verismo, but his throaty voice, horrible technique and shouting abilities are displayed in Verdi - notably as Rigoletto, Macbeth, Count di Luna, Giorgio Germont, Rodrigo, Amonasro, Iago, and Falstaff. He has sung the role of Rigoletto alone more than 500 times."


----------



## adriesba

Bonetan said:


> Found it in the Verdi baritone thread courtesy of Revitalized Classics! Post from October 2019.
> 
> "Leo Nucci (born 16 April 1942) is an Italian operatic fake baritone true tenor, particularly suited to Verdi roles. He is an undeveloped tenor but trying to darken his voice like a baritone, so his low notes are very weak and his high notes are easier than the true baritones.
> 
> Nucci has enjoyed a long and successful throaty career. His repertoire encompasses the entire Italian repertory from bel canto to verismo, but his throaty voice, horrible technique and shouting abilities are displayed in Verdi - notably as Rigoletto, Macbeth, Count di Luna, Giorgio Germont, Rodrigo, Amonasro, Iago, and Falstaff. He has sung the role of Rigoletto alone more than 500 times."


This other revision from around the same time is even harsher:



Wikipedia said:


> Leo Nucci (born 16 April 1942) is an Italian operatic fake baritone true tenor, destroyed the Verdi roles. He is an undeveloped tenor but trying to darken his voice like a baritone, so his low notes are very weak and his high notes are easier than the true baritones.


DESTROYED the Verdi roles! :lol:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leo_Nucci&oldid=920775563


----------



## BachIsBest

When asked in 1995 if she would sing then assuming she was younger, Elisabeth Schwarzkopf said, "It's a kind of prostitution now. There is nobody I envy. There's a disintegration of integrity in our profession."


----------



## DavidA

BachIsBest said:


> When asked in 1995 if she would sing then assuming she was younger, Elisabeth Schwarzkopf said, "It's a kind of prostitution now. There is nobody I envy. There's a disintegration of integrity in our profession."


That was well said by a woman who prostituted her art to the Nazis during the war.

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2006/aug/24/classicalmusicandopera.secondworldwar


----------



## Revitalized Classics

BachIsBest said:


> When asked in 1995 if she would sing then assuming she was younger, Elisabeth Schwarzkopf said, "It's a kind of prostitution now. There is nobody I envy. There's a disintegration of integrity in our profession."


It's an interesting quote: thanks for sharing.

It is an extreme view, but then she did live an extreme life.

Celebrated by everyone - both good influences and the worst imaginable - very beautiful, very ambitious, a superb musical mind and a unique timbre. Explains in part why she was so irrepressibly self-assured...

Obviously this was not just a career but an obsession: the peripatetic life governed largely by practice, performing, married to Walter Legge, masterclasses into advanced old age...

The sense of an operatic career being like a vocation or obsession was particularly acute among that generation of singers. It's a sentiment echoed by a lot of singers interviewed by Lanfranco Rasponi in his book 'The Last Prima Donnas' in 1982.


----------



## Parsifal98

Talking of Elizabeth Schwarzkopf, here is part of an interview given to Gramophone in 1990. It fits well within the topic of this thread.

_ Q: It seems a lot of young singers want to get to the top of their profession fast. If they have a great success as Lucia before they are 30 that's it; that almost seems more important than building up a technique, a repertoire.

A : Yes, they always say that times have changed, that's true, but the vocal apparatus hasn't changed, over the last hundred or thousand years. Vocal technique had been developed to the very fullest some hundred years back, so this is the measure we must take. You cannot alter the vocal apparatus of the singer, you can only bring the technique to the utmost degree of perfection, in order to be able to fill the big halls of 10,000. It is a swindle if you use microphones, because you don't have to learn to sing at all for the hall. We all learned to sing to overcome the distance, to fill the big hall, get through or over an orchestra, with beauty, significance, health, and lasting through the years, not just being finished in two years. Maybe three years of singing is all they want. I can't count how many generations of singers have disappeared in my lifetime - they sing for three years and then they are never heard of again._

Here is the complete interview for those interested.

https://www.gramophone.co.uk/features/article/elisabeth-schwarzkopf-remembered

We can say a lot of things regarding Schwarzkopf, but it remains undeniable that she was extremely dedicated to her art.

And when she talks of younger singers lacking humility, I think of Netrebko and all the great dramatic roles she has undertaken...


----------



## BachIsBest

Parsifal98 said:


> And when she talks of younger singers lacking humility, I think of Netrebko and all the great dramatic roles she has undertaken...


You know its bad when Schwarzkopf says you have no humility.


----------



## Parsifal98

BachIsBest said:


> You know its bad when Schwarzkopf says you have no humility.


Well said! :lol:


----------



## Tsaraslondon

BachIsBest said:


> You know its bad when Schwarzkopf says you have no humility.


Haha. But it's a good point and people often misunderstand Schwarzkopf's approach to her work and art. They laugh about her choosing her own records on _Desert Island Discs_ and commenting how lovely her own singing on a recording of _Wiener Blut_ (actually pride at successfully emulating the style of violinist Fritz Kreisler), but what they don't know is how dedicated she was to her profession.

Many people didn't like the way she worked with students in her masterclasses, barely letting them get a note out before correcting them, but she was only working the way she had worked herself. She could spend hours and hours working on a song by Wolf that lasted barely 90 seconds.

If anyone is interested in her singing, I fully recommend this book










Schwarzkopf sat down with John Steane to listen to many of her own recordings, commenting as well on the many great conductors and instrumentalists she had worked with and also on other contemporary singers, many of whom she had high praise for. She is quite objective and often quite hard on herself, sometimes harshly criticising a recording that Steane really enjoys. She admits she should probably have retired a few years earlier than she did, but she continued because Legge wanted her to. After he died she abruptly cancelled all future engagements.

Throughout she advocates dedication to the music and to the composer. Like Callas in her masterclasses she stresses there are no quick fixes, just hard work. She also knew what she could and couldn't do. Karajan apparently wanted her to sing Leonore, but she knew it wasn't for her. Would that some of Karajan's other favourites had been so self-aware.

She also famously gave up the role of Violetta after seeing Callas in it. "What is the point of me continuing to sing a role that another contemprary soprano sings to perfection?"

She was always at the service of the music, not of her own ego. I get the feeling that with some of today's stars the reverse is true.


----------



## The Conte

Bonetan said:


> Has there ever been a singer quite like Leo Nucci? Everyone thinks he's terrible. He gets crushed all over the internet. Yet he had a huge career! Anyone remember his old wiki page?? :lol:
> 
> For the record, I think he's awful too...


He was very good early on in Donizetti comedy (his Malatesta in Don Pasquale is good), but he went on to sing Verdi and as Barbieri says...

N.


----------



## Seattleoperafan

This is a long thread and I don't remember chiming in. I think Joyce diDonato is a good place to begin. I have said this elsewhere but she has a very beautiful voice and is technically spot on BUT there is no distinctive personality to her sound. I would greatly enjoy hearing her live but would not buy a recording. This same homogenization of sound is very pervasive. Goerke, Kaufman and two counter tenors- Fagioli and Hansen- have disctinctive sounds to me but most lack it. It must have something to do with the type of voice instruction which is in vogue today. All of my favorite singers from the past had instantly recognizable voices. Eaglen and Podles and Barton were the last live singers I heard with signature sounds.


----------



## Parsifal98

Tsaraslondon said:


> Haha. But it's a good point and people often misunderstand Schwarzkopf's approach to her work and art. They laugh about her choosing her own records on _Desert Island Discs_ and commenting how lovely her own singing on a recording of _Wiener Blut_ (actually pride at successfully emulating the style of violinist Fritz Kreisler), but what they don't know is how dedicated she was to her profession.
> 
> Many people didn't like the way she worked with students in her masterclasses, barely letting them get a note out before correcting them, but she was only working the way she had worked herself. She could spend hours and hours working on a song by Wolf that lasted barely 90 seconds.
> 
> If anyone is interested in her singing, I fully recommend this book
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schwarzkopf at down with John Steane to listen to many of her own recordings, commenting as well on the many great conductors and instrumentalists she had worked with and also on other contemporary singers, many of whom she had high praise for. She is quite objective and often quite hard on herself, sometimes harshly criticising a recording that Steane really enjoys. She admits she should probably have retired a few years earlier than she did, but she continued because Legge wanted her to. After he died she abruptly cancelled all future engagements.
> 
> Throughout she advocates dedication to the music and to the composer. Like Callas in her masterclasses she stresses there are no quick fixes, just hard work. She also knew what she could and couldn't do. Karajan apparently wanted her to sing Leonore, but she knew it wasn't for her. Would that some of Karajan's other favourotes had been so self-aware.
> 
> She also famously gave up the role of Violetta after seeing Callas in it. "What is the point of me continuing to sing a role that another contemprary soprano sings to perfection?"
> 
> She was always at the service of the music, not of her own ego. I get the feeling that with some of today's stars the reverse is true.


Thank you for this great post! Always a pleasure to learn more about this great artist!


----------



## BachIsBest

Tsaraslondon said:


> Haha. But it's a good point and people often misunderstand Schwarzkopf's approach to her work and art. They laugh about her choosing her own records on _Desert Island Discs_ and commenting how lovely her own singing on a recording of _Wiener Blut_ (actually pride at successfully emulating the style of violinist Fritz Kreisler), but what they don't know is how dedicated she was to her profession.
> 
> Many people didn't like the way she worked with students in her masterclasses, barely letting them get a note out before correcting them, but she was only working the way she had worked herself. She could spend hours and hours working on a song by Wolf that lasted barely 90 seconds.
> 
> If anyone is interested in her singing, I fully recommend this book
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schwarzkopf sat down with John Steane to listen to many of her own recordings, commenting as well on the many great conductors and instrumentalists she had worked with and also on other contemporary singers, many of whom she had high praise for. She is quite objective and often quite hard on herself, sometimes harshly criticising a recording that Steane really enjoys. She admits she should probably have retired a few years earlier than she did, but she continued because Legge wanted her to. After he died she abruptly cancelled all future engagements.
> 
> Throughout she advocates dedication to the music and to the composer. Like Callas in her masterclasses she stresses there are no quick fixes, just hard work. She also knew what she could and couldn't do. Karajan apparently wanted her to sing Leonore, but she knew it wasn't for her. Would that some of Karajan's other favourites had been so self-aware.
> 
> She also famously gave up the role of Violetta after seeing Callas in it. "What is the point of me continuing to sing a role that another contemprary soprano sings to perfection?"
> 
> She was always at the service of the music, not of her own ego. I get the feeling that with some of today's stars the reverse is true.


Yes, she was rather "German arrogant" as in she was great and wasn't afraid to say so; but did so very honestly and frankly. It's very different from a sort of North American arrogance where you get some guy who was the star of his high school football team and never lived it down.

When I first started listening to classical music Schwarzkopf was one of the first singers that struck me as truly great.


----------



## Parsifal98

Here are two videos that I want to share with you! What are your thoughts?


----------



## Bonetan

Parsifal98 said:


> And here is Bryn Terfel performing the same "aria" at the Musée d'Orsay in 2019.


Terfel's voice is destroyed. Wagner claims another one.


----------



## Tsaraslondon

Seattleoperafan said:


> This is a long thread and I don't remember chiming in. I think Joyce diDonato is a good place to begin. I have said this elsewhere but she has a very beautiful voice and is technically spot on BUT there is no distinctive personality to her sound. I would greatly enjoy hearing her live but would not buy a recording. This same homogenization of sound is very pervasive. Goerke, Kaufman and two counter tenors- Fagioli and Hansen- have disctinctive sounds to me but most lack it. It must have something to do with the type of voice instruction which is in vogue today. All of my favorite singers from the past had instantly recognizable voices. Eaglen and Podles and Barton were the last live singers I heard with signature sounds.


I agree with you about DiDonato. The first time I was really aware of her was when I saw her as Dejanira in a superb Luc Bondy production of Handel's *Hercules* which the Aix-en-Provence Festival brought to London. She was absolutely riveting, both vocally and dramatically and made a huge impression on me. When her first recital came out (a recital of Handel arias titled _Furore_) I snapped it up immediately, but was rather disappointed with the result. Technically she had no problems, but the voice lacked personality and individuality. I then went to a concert at the Barbican in London, where she and the same forces on the CD performed much of the same music and she won me over once more. Yet again, live she was thrilling. There seems to be a gap between her stage and recorded performances. Or maybe, it's just that when confronted with her undeniable stage presence, one is less likely to notice that the voice itself is not a particularly distinctive one.

Something I've also noticed is that the voices from the past that I liked, and even those I didn't, had their idiosyncracies, whereas today, maybe in an attempt to sing in a perfectly homogenised way, any idiosyncracies get ironed out.


----------



## Ulfilas

Bonetan said:


> Terfel's voice is destroyed. Wagner claims another one.


*Another one who should never have sung those roles.


----------



## Bonetan

Ulfilas said:


> *Another one who should never have sung those roles.


Precisely. But he's def not the only one to have his voice taken by the God. Go to 1:06:25 to hear what's left of Tomlinson's voice. Painful to listen to 






I'd chalk it up to the state of modern operatic singing, but Schorr and Hotter had problems in this role too.


----------



## vivalagentenuova

Minimal physical acting, infinitely expressive singing. If only Live in HD was like this but with the great sound.


----------



## Ulfilas

Bonetan said:


> Precisely. But he's def not the only one to have his voice taken by the God. Go to 1:06:25 to hear what's left of Tomlinson's voice. Painful to listen to
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd chalk it up to the state of modern operatic singing, but Schorr and Hotter had problems in this role too.


Tomlinson is a bass, and he was superb in roles like Hunding and Hagen (eg on the otherwise expendable Haitink Götterdämmerung). Interestingly, James Morris was auditioned at Bayreuth to sing Wotan in 1988 (the Kupfer ring) but he couldn't do the first year due to a commitment in Santa Fe, and after that Wolfgang Wagner didn't ask him back. Hence Tomlinson sang it, and the rest is history.

James Morris sang the role of Wotan better than anyone since Schorr, in my view.


----------



## Parsifal98

vivalagentenuova said:


> Minimal physical acting, infinitely expressive singing. If only Live in HD was like this but with the great sound.


Is it lip synch or did he really looked like that when singing? The sound is so free and he looks so calm


----------



## Parsifal98




----------



## Bonetan

Ulfilas said:


> Tomlinson is a bass, and he was superb in roles like Hunding and Hagen (eg on the otherwise expendable Haitink Götterdämmerung). Interestingly, James Morris was auditioned at Bayreuth to sing Wotan in 1988 (the Kupfer ring) but he couldn't do the first year due to a commitment in Santa Fe, and after that Wolfgang Wagner didn't ask him back. Hence Tomlinson sang it, and the rest is history.
> 
> James Morris sang the role of Wotan better than anyone since Schorr, in my view.


I think Tomlinson being a bass makes him sound more Godlike than any Wotan on record, but any bass looking at this role should listen to what has become of his voice and take heed.

I agree that Morris had the best vocal approach of any modern Wotan, but he leaves me wanting more. If you said Morris sings Wotan's Farewell better than anyone since Schorr I think you could build a compelling case, and I think Morris excels in places like that where he can flex his legato. But I prefer others in the Walkure act 2 monologue, the Siegfried act 1 Wanderer/Mime scene, and the Wanderer/Erda into Wanderer/Siegfried scenes in Siegfried act 3.


----------



## Ulfilas

Bonetan said:


> I think Tomlinson being a bass makes him sound more Godlike than any Wotan on record, but any bass looking at this role should listen to what has become of his voice and take heed.
> 
> I agree that Morris had the best vocal approach of any modern Wotan, but he leaves me wanting more. If you said Morris sings Wotan's Farewell better than anyone since Schorr I think you could build a compelling case, and I think Morris excels in places like that where he can flex his legato. But I prefer others in the Walkure act 2 monologue, the Siegfried act 1 Wanderer/Mime scene, and the Wanderer/Erda into Wanderer/Siegfried scenes in Siegfried act 3.


I think the only place I might prefer another Wotan would be the Walküre Act 2 monologue (maybe Frantz with Furtwängler). I think Morris is magnificent throughout Siegfried, and especially in Act 3.

It's just not his approach, it's also the fact that he is a true Heldenbaritone, and he sings the role technically better than almost anyone.


----------



## Bonetan

Ulfilas said:


> I think the only place I might prefer another Wotan would be the Walküre Act 2 monologue (maybe Frantz with Furtwängler). I think Morris is magnificent throughout Siegfried, and especially in Act 3.
> 
> It's just not his approach, it's also the fact that he is a true Heldenbaritone, and he sings the role technically better than almost anyone.


I think Morris is lacking on the bottom for sure, so the monologue was never going to be his strong suit. Maybe I'm overly critical of Morris, but the way he sometimes slides into high notes and sings out of the side of his mouth bothers me lol. His timbre was never attractive to me either.


----------



## annaw

Bonetan said:


> I think Morris is lacking on the bottom for sure, so the monologue was never going to be his strong suit. Maybe I'm overly critical of Morris, but the way he sometimes slides into high notes and sings out of the side of his mouth bothers me lol. His timbre was never attractive to me either.


I'm quite a fan of Morris's Wotan actually but I think it was the expressivity he was lacking. Gobbi and Hotter didn't have particulatly attractive timbres either but both were brilliant vocal actors. Nevertheless, Morris's Wotan was very fine and I really liked his acting in Das Rheingold particularly. There's one absolutely brilliant article which includes an interview with Hotter where he, among other things, discusses the state of (still relatively) modern opera. I warmly recommend reading it!

_Look what has happened to the character of Wotan. Today they only bring out the weaknesses. They are afraid of pathos, generosity, nobility._

And about Morris, specifically, Hotter said:

_ James Morris worked on 'Walkuere' with me, but didn't consult me when it came to 'Siegfried.' He is very talented, and perhaps a bit arrogant. I wouldn't say he is particularly brainy_ [:lol:].

The full article: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-07-12-ca-3283-story.html


----------



## Ulfilas

Fascinating interview!

Can't expect singers to always be generous about each other!

Good point he makes about the nobility and grandeur of the character being as important as his weakness.

Morris' singing is absolutely fine in Walküre, it's just that a German singer like Hotter or Frantz can bring important insights to that crucial Act II scene.

I don't think he's lacking on the bottom, but obviously he's not going to rival a bass like Tomlinson on the low notes.


----------



## Bonetan

Ulfilas said:


> I don't think he's lacking on the bottom, but obviously he's not going to rival a bass like Tomlinson on the low notes.


Have you heard his Grand Inquisitor duet on YouTube? Morris is kinda weak below low A, which is not a glaring weakness, but Wotan is supposed to have a low F, at least audible. Hotter is much more comfortable at the bottom of the staff, which I think adds to what he can do with the text. Frantz same thing.


----------



## Ulfilas

It's perfectly audible. To me it's the fact that he's not German, and I understand German. He's still a fine artist, it's a subtle thing.

As a bass-baritone, James Morris wouldn't be my ideal for the Grand Inquisitor. I would like a real bass.


----------



## Hele

silentio said:


> _"Otherwise, today I don't hear much soul or heart. Toscanini used to say the words were all important, they should be like bronze. People sing all the wrong repertory. Anything I say about Pavarotti you can't print. I don't want to have to hire a lawyer. How can someone like Leo Nucci sing Di Luna? After Warren and Bastianini?_
> 
> _"The conductors are at fault too. Even Karajan recorded a 'Turandot' with Katia Ricciarelli, of all people. (Mirella) Freni singing Aida, (Renata) Scotto singing Gioconda!"_
> 
> How about the great baritone Mingo singing Simon Boccanegra and Rigoletto? Or Netrebko preparing for Nabucco?


I think she would say something not very nice ... Also I think we may not like certain singers or appreciate their choices and actions at all, but it doesn't mean we should call them with names like Mingo etc.


----------



## MAS

Parsifal98 said:


> Is it lip synch or did he really looked like that when singing? The sound is so free and he looks so calm


They did a lot of lip-synching in some Italian opera films in those days, and they always post-synced the dialog.

Italians seem to have that ease of emission - listen to Dean Martin, or Perry Como, Al Martino or Connie Frances, Nico Fidenco; it's almost like it takes no effort, the sound just gently pours out.

In opera, singers are singing to the furthest reaches, so it's more shall we say, robust singing than for a mic. It'd be very difficult singing a high B or C without opening your mouth!

The following clip comes from late in his career, or after retirement.


----------



## Azol

Ulfilas said:


> As a bass-baritone, James Morris wouldn't be my ideal for the Grand Inquisitor. I would like a real bass.


While basses sing Scarpia, baritones busy themselves with Grand Inquisitor.
World is such a strange place, after all.

But Morris is still one of the great singers/actors! Let's forget about Wagner for a moment, shall we?


----------



## Bonetan

Ulfilas said:


> It's perfectly audible. To me it's the fact that he's not German, and I understand German. He's still a fine artist, it's a subtle thing.
> 
> As a bass-baritone, James Morris wouldn't be my ideal for the Grand Inquisitor. I would like a real bass.


Sample the end of the duet from 9:10 on, especially the low F at 9:30. There's a series of low Gs leading to the F. He doesn't have these notes...he sings Filippo here.






If you can find his Il lacerato spirito from the Met his low F# is the same. I never thought he was right for Verdi bass roles because of this.


----------



## annaw

Azol said:


> While basses sing Scarpia, baritones busy themselves with Grand Inquisitor.
> World is such a strange place, after all.
> 
> But Morris is still one of the great singers/actors! Let's forget about Wagner for a moment, shall we?


Sorry for going off-topic but is this Colline inspired by Karl Marx :lol:? The resemblance is awkwardly real, considering that Colline is a philosopher.


----------



## Azol

annaw said:


> Sorry for going off-topic but is this Colline inspired by Karl Marx :lol:? The resemblance is awkwardly real, considering that Colline is a philosopher.


Really? Well, I don't see it but...


----------



## Parsifal98

silentio said:


> _"Otherwise, today I don't hear much soul or heart. Toscanini used to say the words were all important, they should be like bronze. People sing all the wrong repertory. Anything I say about Pavarotti you can't print. I don't want to have to hire a lawyer. How can someone like Leo Nucci sing Di Luna? After Warren and Bastianini?_
> 
> _"The conductors are at fault too. Even Karajan recorded a 'Turandot' with Katia Ricciarelli, of all people. (Mirella) Freni singing Aida, (Renata) Scotto singing Gioconda!"_
> 
> How about the great baritone Mingo singing Simon Boccanegra and Rigoletto? Or Netrebko preparing for Nabucco?


Don't know what is worst: her pyjama or her singing....


----------



## Ulfilas

Bonetan said:


> Sample the end of the duet from 9:10 on, especially the low F at 9:30. There's a series of low Gs leading to the F. He doesn't have these notes...he sings Filippo here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you can find his Il lacerato spirito from the Met his low F# is the same. I never thought he was right for Verdi bass roles because of this.


Not ideal, no. But then Bassi Profondi don't grow on trees.

I don't think his timbre is really right for that music anyway.


----------



## vivalagentenuova

*Amor ti veta through the years*

Amor ti vieta is a very revealing aria. It is short, so the tenor has to be able to make an impact quickly, or it feels like a waste of time, even more so than a much longer aria would. Sung well, it is as immediately moving as anything in opera. The melody is one long arc, which must be sustained by perfect legato, and, if the records accompanied by the composer himself are any indication, a huge dollop of portamento. This gives the effect of continuity, which is necessary in this piece. I listened to a bunch of renditions in quick succession, of which I pulled out the ones I found to be the most revealing:

Amedeo Bassi, 1904 (w/ the composer himself at the piano)




Bassi is one of my favorite singers. Occasional mistakes don't really mar his records much, and they are never less than interesting. His singing is marked by exquisite use of dynamics and portamento. This makes him a perfect singer for this aria. His phrases are long and perfectly shaped, and the way he moves from loud to soft without any apparent effort gives an ease to the singing that is truly remarkable. Caruso made a recording two years earlier, also with Giordano accompanying, and Bassi is competitive, which is about as much as any singer could want.

Alessandro Ziliani, 1935




Fast forward 31 years and recording technology has improved enormously, making this recording easy as well as rewarding listening. Ziliani's bright sound lacks no depth, and he is able to create phrases as beautiful and limpid as Bassi. Ziliani's rendition is not quite as full of dynamics as Bassi's, but listen to the softness that enters his voice on "dice" (1:59). Extraordinary. I can't imagine Giordano would have been anything but thrilled.

Giuseppe Campora, 195?




Another beautiful rendition vocally, although you can hear the style subtly changing. Compare, for example, Ziliani's "di non amar" (0:50-0:58) with Campora's (0:36-0:43). Ziliani's is much more connected, which I think is necessary. Campora certainly isn't bad, but he is either unable or unwilling to draw out the legato across an entire phrase in the same way as the earlier singers (Martinelli does this in his rendition as well, and there's a rather intense debate in the comment section of the video on YT whether Martinelli is scooping or using portamento; I think you can probably tell where I fall on that issue).

Roberto Alagna, 2003




Like Ziliani, Alagna is a lyric tenor, but unlike Ziliani he is not up to this aria. One immediately notices the thinness of the tone in comparison: it is brightness without sufficient depth. Furthermore, the style is just gone. "di non amar" (0:29-0:37) is not sung legato at all, but later on Alagna scoops up to notes at the beginnings of phrases, such as "che mi respinge" (0:45), which neither Ziliani nor Bassi do, even though they sing with far more portamento. (A good demonstration of the difference between real portamento and scooping.) He goes off pitch on "la tua pupille esprime", recovers for the high note, but the sound is still too thin to be powerful. Essentially, he makes this aria boring. It's not connected enough and the tone doesn't pop. It's poor stylistically. We are a world away from Bassi, and from what the composer apparently would have approved of (can't wait until the HIP folks hear about this -- they will of course immediately attempt to recapture Bassi's technique and style).

Vittorio Grigolo, 2011




Listen to the mess he makes of "di non amar" (0:29-0:37) (which scooping he continues throughout at the beginnings of phrases) and the climax on "t'amo" (1:13). The high note is extremely ugly, and throughout the tone is hollow and lacking any depth. In order to get any effect at all, he has to exaggerate with a kind of continues sob-sound, which is extremely off-putting and shallow, and makes the aria sound almost pretentious (which is amazing, considering how utterly straightforward it is).

There are more modern versions one could choose to examine instead, such as Kaufmann or Beczala, but I can't say they get any better. Villazon sings it better than Grigolo certainly, but still not anywhere near the earlier singers.

I have to say this little review both impressed me with what qualities specifically have been lost during the 20th century, but also with what art real verismo singing truly requires. I remember the Princeton article about vocal decline saying that the loss was much greater in Verdi, because in Puccini the doubling of the melodic line, especially in the early operas, tends to smooth over the deficiencies. Well, we have the same technique here, but I couldn't disagree more. If you actually use your ears, you can hear quite plainly whether or not the singer is sustaining a real, formed line or not, orchestra or no. In fact, the lyricism is so intense that if the singer does not sing well, the piece blows up. Unless the piece feels like one log slow build up and climax, it feels like nothing. The ability to create that feeling is not just intuition or sufficient feeling (in fact, too much, like Grigolo, also ruins the piece), but a sign of extremely refined emission and technical skill. This aria is just as boring/painful when sung badly as O tu che in seno or Celeste Aida, and just as special when sung with true vocal art.


----------



## mparta

Tried to make a similar point in discussing the new DVD of Il Barbiere from Paris. The three leads and every one of the supporting singers are spectacular, and I can't believe any era bettered them. And I'd give all of Wagner for any one of them, sorry to spice things up. I think the evolution of singing Italian opera, specifically Rossini, for the last 50 years is a continuous ascending scale.
What is acceptable Wagner singing is another issue entirely. I heard a Tannhauser in Leipzig a couple of years ago that was just donkey braying by all involved. There must be some cultural acceptance of training to be a Rossini singer rather than a Wagnerian these days, because the latter spring seems to have run dry. 
Perhaps the scale of great romantic operas doesn't work in their favor, and we'll see fewer and fewer Verdi baritones (Hvorostovsky, rest in peace) or mezzos that can peel the paint off a wall (Cossotto). Whether, no matter the literature, they'll ever be another Caballe, hmmm, seems unlikely but who would have thought she'd come along when she did?
So I think not a universal thing that singing has declined, but there's something specific to the subtypes and our cultures that encourage continuation. I doubt the wacky Bayreuth productions do much to encourage young singers or anyone else to take Wagner seriously.
By the way, not a person discouraged by historical sound except at the extremes. i can hear some great singing through a lot of flack.


----------



## mparta

But then I'm just a junior member


----------



## annaw

mparta said:


> What is acceptable Wagner singing is another issue entirely. I heard a Tannhauser in Leipzig a couple of years ago that was just donkey braying by all involved. There must be some cultural acceptance of training to be a Rossini singer rather than a Wagnerian these days, because the latter spring seems to have run dry.
> Perhaps the scale of great romantic operas doesn't work in their favor, and we'll see fewer and fewer Verdi baritones (Hvorostovsky, rest in peace) or mezzos that can peel the paint off a wall (Cossotto). Whether, no matter the literature, they'll ever be another Caballe, hmmm, seems unlikely but who would have thought she'd come along when she did?
> So I think not a universal thing that singing has declined, but there's something specific to the subtypes and our cultures that encourage continuation. I doubt the wacky Bayreuth productions do much to encourage young singers or anyone else to take Wagner seriously.
> By the way, not a person discouraged by historical sound except at the extremes. i can hear some great singing through a lot of flack.


While the Bayreuth productions specifically maybe aren't particulalry inviting, Germans in general seem to be very proud of their classical music, including opera. Learning an instrument seems to be very popular, there are many small opera houses which provide a somewhat friendlier environment to the young singers, they are quite knowledgeable of their own classical music culture etc. I doubt that German culture doesn't encourage opera singing. I think it's quite the opposite - maybe only Italians can compete with the amount of encouragement German culture provides for opera singers. That's at least the impression I've got but some native Germans or more knowledgeable people are free to correct me. It still seems to come down to the teaching in my opinion.

Btw, welcome to the forum and thanks for your interesting post !


----------



## Tsaraslondon

mparta said:


> Tried to make a similar point in discussing the new DVD of Il Barbiere from Paris. The three leads and every one of the supporting singers are spectacular, and I can't believe any era bettered them. And I'd give all of Wagner for any one of them, sorry to spice things up. I think the evolution of singing Italian opera, specifically Rossini, for the last 50 years is a continuous ascending scale.
> What is acceptable Wagner singing is another issue entirely. I heard a Tannhauser in Leipzig a couple of years ago that was just donkey braying by all involved. There must be some cultural acceptance of training to be a Rossini singer rather than a Wagnerian these days, because the latter spring seems to have run dry.
> Perhaps the scale of great romantic operas doesn't work in their favor, and we'll see fewer and fewer Verdi baritones (Hvorostovsky, rest in peace) or mezzos that can peel the paint off a wall (Cossotto). Whether, no matter the literature, they'll ever be another Caballe, hmmm, seems unlikely but who would have thought she'd come along when she did?
> So I think not a universal thing that singing has declined, but there's something specific to the subtypes and our cultures that encourage continuation. I doubt the wacky Bayreuth productions do much to encourage young singers or anyone else to take Wagner seriously.
> By the way, not a person discouraged by historical sound except at the extremes. i can hear some great singing through a lot of flack.


Handel does very well these days. Indeed hardly a month goes by without someone issuing a disc of Handel or baroque arias. Rossini in general does better too. I'm sure if, for instance, Callas were around to sing *Armida* now, she would be supported by a far better crop of tenors than she was back in 1952. On the other hand, there is nobody around now who can sing dramatic coloratura with such dazzling accuracy and ferocity, but then she was also unique in that respect back then.

I do however think we are seeing a real lack of larger voices and consequently Verdi and Wagner performances are suffering. I sometimes wonder if this has something to do with the fact that it is much easier to record small voices than large ones and, whereas at one time it was stage work that drove a career, now it tends to be recording work. It's salutory to consider that if they were around today, singers like Callas, Tebaldi and Nilsson might not have been even granted a recording contract.


----------



## Parsifal98

Tsaraslondon said:


> Handel does very well these days. Indeed hardly a month goes by without someone issuing a disc of Handel or baroque arias. Rossini in general does better too. I'm sure if, for instance, Callas were around to sing *Armida* now, she would be supported by a far better crop of tenors than she was back in 1952. On the other hand, there is nobody around now who can sing dramatic coloratura with such dazzling accuracy and ferocity, but then she was also unique in that respect back then.
> 
> I do however think we are seeing a real lack of larger voices and consequently Verdi and Wagner performances are suffering. I sometimes wonder if this has something to do with the fact that ir is much easier to record small voices than large ones and, whereas at one time it was stage work that drove a career, now it tends to be recording work. It's salutory to consider that if they were around today, singers like Callas, Tebaldi and Nilsson might not have been even granted a recording contract.


We might be doing more baroque now than before, but it does not mean that we are better at it. We might be more respectuous of the style (which is debatable), but voices are voices. Whether you sing Wagner, Verdi, Handel or Rossini, the vocal apparatus is the same and must be trained the same way. To give a famous example, Wagner loved Bellini and wanted his singers to sing his operas the same way they would sing Norma or I puritani. But we now love to separate the two, as if you needed a specific and separate technique for each composer. The dearth of well-trained voices is palpable in all of classical music. I actually believe the only reason we are doing more baroque is because singers' deficiences are not as hearable as if they were singing Wagner or Verdi. But let others who are more knowledgeable than me concercing voices prove or disprove my point.


----------



## Tsaraslondon

Parsifal98 said:


> We might be doing more baroque now than before, but it does not mean that we are better at it. We might be more respectuous of the style (which is debatable), but voices are voices. Whether you sing Wagner, Verdi, Handel or Rossini, the vocal apparatus is the same and must be trained the same way. To give a famous example, Wagner loved Bellini and wanted his singers to sing his operas the same way they would sing Norma or I puritani. But we now love to separate the two, as if you needed a specific and separate technique for each composer. The dearth of well-trained voices is palpable in all of classical music. I actually believe the only reason we are doing more baroque is because singers' deficiences are not as hearable as if they were singing Wagner or Verdi. But let others who are more knowledgeable than me concercing voices prove or disprove my point.


Basically we agree, except that I think baroque was pretty ill served before the HIP movement. I've just istened to Tebaldi singing _Da tempeste_ from *Giulio Cesare* and just about everything is wrong, the style, the cuts, the orchestra, the tempo. The voice itself is of course still a marvel, but it is really not a very good performance and I can think of quite a few more recent sopranos I'd rather hear in the music.

However if we were to compare recordings of, say, Boito's _L'altra notte_, which I did to a small extent today, the reverse would be true. I noticed that one of today's current stars has a new disc of operatic arias out and I went to Spotify to sample it, choosing the Boito aria as the starting point. Leaving interpretation aside for the moment, the first thing that struck me was Jaho's heavy vibrato, which seems to be part of the voice itself, not something added for expression. In quick succession I turned to Tebaldi, Callas, Kyra Vayne, Caballé, Muzio, De Los Angeles and, finally, Michelle Crieder, who is on the Muti recording, which was recorded in 1996. All of the singers apart from Crieder, were much cleaner with a firmer core to their voices. The only one with a vibrato approaching that of Jaho was the much more recently recorded Crieder. It's something I've noticed more and more about singers outside the baroque and Mozart repertoire.


----------



## Azol

Tsaraslondon said:


> I went to Spotify to sample it, choosing the Boito aria as the starting point. Leaving interpretation aside for the moment, the first thing that struck me was her heavy vibrato, which seems to be part of the voice itself, not something added for expression.


Her = Ermonella Jaho's?


----------



## Tsaraslondon

Azol said:


> Her = Ermonella Jaho's?


Yes. Sorry I wasn't clear.


----------



## Parsifal98

Another interesting video for those who like watching them!


----------



## Seattleoperafan

I don't know if someone else mentioned this in the thread but we have a very good selection of gifted counter tenors today and I would say that David Daniels, for all his personal faults, was one of the first to lead the revival of this formerly neglected art. I saw David Daniels before all the current scandals and it was one of the finest concerts I ever saw. I am also informed that the current roster of Mozart specialists are very good and there is a good selection.


----------



## Bonetan

Even for those of us who believe the decline is across the board, I think we're all in agreement that the biggest issue with modern operatic singing is among dramatic voices, particularly Wagner and Verdi voices. In which case I expect all of you to pony up and make a donation to Dolora Zajick's Institute for Young Dramatic Voices immediately! :lol:

She hears what we hear and is trying to fix it.


----------



## vivalagentenuova

Bonetan said:


> She hears what we hear and is trying to fix it.


Yes, but how...?


----------



## Bonetan

I guess the simplest answer is by getting her mitts on these singers and putting them in the right situations before anyone has a chance to do damage. Easier said than done...


----------



## adriesba

Oh dear... Anna Netrebko is scheduled to sing Turandot when the MET opens back up.


----------



## wkasimer

adriesba said:


> Oh dear... Anna Netrebko is scheduled to sing Turandot when the MET opens back up.


Katia Riccarelli redux - a Liu voice singing Turandot.


----------



## Revitalized Classics

adriesba said:


> Oh dear... Anna Netrebko is scheduled to sing Turandot when the MET opens back up.


There is a video clip from earlier this year 





There is a longer audio-only recording...


----------



## Parsifal98

Revitalized Classics said:


> There is a video clip from earlier this year
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a longer audio-only recording...


I may offend some people... but this is absolutely dreadful! I mean she cannot be oblivious to the fact that so many soprani sang this role before her... and did it so much better! Can't she hear herself??? I am starting to ask myself if she has any artistic integrity or if she is only doing all of this for the money.

And her husband is singing Calaf... Nepotism at its finest! Oh what a time to be an opera fan

I am gonna clear my ears with a bit of Nilsson and Corelli...


----------



## Bonetan

I thought the following review written by Bela Bartok about a Battistini concert from 1923 would be appreciated here:

In all singing, the "what" is of less importance than the "how", and that is only more than usually the case in Signor Battistini. He does habitually with his voice what the best singers are always trying to do with theirs, but only sometimes succeeding. The art of assisting Nature by removing obstacles and leaving her alone is one of the last things we learn. Anyone who has dug trenches soon learns to let the weight of the pickaxe do all the work and to interfere with it as little as may be, because it's results are tangible; unluckily for singing there is, because it is a matter of taste, no similar sanction; and so singers go on trying to improve Nature. Signor Battistini leaves his voice alone, and that simple act of self-denial wins him applause of thousands wherever he chooses. It is so simple that we could all do it and so difficult that few do. He sang "Eri tu" and "O Lisbona, alfin ti miro," and, of course, "Largo al factotum" - but the songs did not matter, it was that voice; they were no more than shapes it pleased to assume for the moment.


----------



## adriesba

A certain well-known opera YouTube channel called René Pape "the Leo Nucci of basses". I found that most curious. What does anyone think of that?


----------



## Handelian

Well thankfully the sort of opera I listen to seems to be some pretty well these days






Sandrine Piau with one from Scipione written for Cuzzoni.


----------



## Bonetan

adriesba said:


> A certain well-known opera YouTube channel called René Pape "the Leo Nucci of basses". I found that most curious. What does anyone think of that?


Damn that's harsh lol


----------



## vivalagentenuova

Handelian said:


> Well thankfully the sort of opera I listen to seems to be some pretty well these days
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sandrine Piau with one from Scipione written for Cuzzoni.


I can't agree! She sounds like a lighter version of the collapsed head voice used by most modern sopranos. The agility is of the "ha ha ha" school of aspirated coloratura. The sound has a kind of superficial prettiness, but little depth or power and is constricted, which tells quite significantly when it is put under any stress. Unfortunately, these wonderful Baroque operas were out of fashion back in the early era of recorded singing. It's great that the operas themselves are now appreciated, I just wish we had old school voices to sing them.


----------



## Handelian

vivalagentenuova said:


> I can't agree! She sounds like a lighter version of the collapsed head voice used by most modern sopranos. The agility is of the "ha ha ha" school of aspirated coloratura. The sound has a kind of superficial prettiness, but little depth or power and is constricted, which tells quite significantly when it is put under any stress. Unfortunately, these wonderful Baroque operas were out of fashion back in the early era of recorded singing. It's great that the operas themselves are now appreciated, I just wish we had old school voices to sing them.


No-one sang them then.. But we wish the old voices were back which never sang them! What logic is this? How are you do you know the old voices could sing them better if they never did?


----------



## vivalagentenuova

Handelian said:


> No-one sang them then.. But we wish the old voices were back which never sang them! What logic is this? How are you do you know the old voices could sing them better if they never did?


First off, they did occasionally sing Baroque opera. Baroque opera was rare though not extinct. But moreso, if you look at the elements required to sing Baroque vocal music they are much the same as required to sing the Bel Canto opera those old singers excelled at, only with certain features like agility and ornamentation being taken to an even greater extreme. There are no tenors today with the vocal agility of Hermann Jadlowker. He easily sang the coloratura passages of a piece like Fuor del mar, with proper legato coloratura, not the aspirated stuff that is ubiquitous today, and could sing all manner of trills and ornaments as well. He had the basic vocal production, power, long breathed lines, legato, agility, ornamental skills, and stamina to sing Baroque music, which he demonstrated in singing all manner of fiendishly complicated music that did not happen to be Baroque. I think it's actually a pretty straightforward conclusion that he would have done a better job than todays tenors, who sing with totally improper vocal production, aspirated coloratura, etc..


----------



## Handelian

vivalagentenuova said:


> First off, they did occasionally sing Baroque opera. Baroque opera was rare though not extinct. But moreso, if you look at the elements required to sing Baroque vocal music they are much the same as required to sing the Bel Canto opera those old singers excelled at, only with certain features like agility and ornamentation being taken to an even greater extreme. There are no tenors today with the vocal agility of Hermann Jadlowker. He easily sang the coloratura passages of a piece like Fuor del mar, with proper legato coloratura, not the aspirated stuff that is ubiquitous today, and could sing all manner of trills and ornaments as well. He had the basic vocal production, power, long breathed lines, legato, agility, ornamental skills, and stamina to sing Baroque music, which he demonstrated in singing all manner of fiendishly complicated music that did not happen to be Baroque. I think it's actually a pretty straightforward conclusion that he would have done a better job than todays tenors, who sing with totally improper vocal production, aspirated coloratura, etc..


He is a member of the 'Dead tenor's society' on YouTube ' I see! I'm not going to argue with you as you cannot possibly tell from his recordings. Modern tenors are recorded in hi fi so their voices are mercilessly examined. I am quite happy with those I listen to and am fully convinced that the standard of Handel singing today is better than it is ever been. The examples you give just confirm my opinion.


----------



## annaw

Handelian said:


> No-one sang them then.. But we wish the old voices were back which never sang them! What logic is this? How are you do you know the old voices could sing them better if they never did?


I guess it's the same logic which can be used to argue that Björling would probably have been a very great Lohengrin, although he only recorded _In Fernem land_ in Swedish and never got to record the full thing . It doesn't require much - you need to hear the voice and know the repertoire. But one can be very confident that the past greats were technically superior to our contemporary singers.


----------



## Handelian

annaw said:


> I guess it's the same logic which can be used to argue that Björling would probably have been a very great Lohengrin, although he only recorded _In Fernem land_ in Swedish and never got to record the full thing . It doesn't require much.


Why this constant longing for the past? I just enjoy the present. I feel sorry for people who hanker after the 'good old days' and 'what might have been' so they cannot enjoy what we have today. The problem is that Bjorling didn't sing Lohengrin so what is the point of speculating? The fact is that singers in the past didn't sing Handel operas. Why this constant speculation?


----------



## annaw

Handelian said:


> Why this constant longing for the past? I just enjoy the present. I feel sorry for people who hanker after the 'good old days' and 'what might have been' so they cannot enjoy what we have today. The problem is that Bjorling didn't sing Lohengrin so what is the point of speculating? The fact is that singers in the past didn't sing Handel operas. Why this constant speculation?


I'm a young person and the reason why I bring past singers as examples is that I would love to bring contemporary singers as examples of great singing instead. I want to keep the standards high, not just witness how the technical mastery of opera singing is gone for good. I have great respect towards contemporary opera singers but that doesn't mean that the contemporary singing technique cannot be criticised. I don't like the past recordings for the sake of the past. I'd like the contemporary ones as much, if they only had similar singing.


----------



## vivalagentenuova

It's not about longing for the past. I wish that I could hear singers like Caruso, Ponselle, Destinn, Tetrazzini, Melba, Schipa, Martinelli, Ruffo, Battistini, Plancon, Onegin, Schumann-Heink etc., or even more recent singers like Tebaldi, Bastianini, and Merrill in person today. If there were better singers now, I'd say I thought they were better. Lots of things are better now than they used to be. I have little desire to return to earlier forms of government or medicine, for example. But I pointed out lots of specific technical features of those singers of the past that were better than anyone I've heard today that you did not actually rebut (registration, trills, and agility are all clearly heard on old recordings) or provide a modern counter example to. That's not nostalgia or golden age-ism or romanticizing the past, it's an informed opinion based on evidence. If you disagree or don't want to discuss it, that's fine with me, but you can't just hand wave it away with vague dismissals.


----------



## adriesba

Bonetan said:


> Damn that's harsh lol


I know right! :lol: But it makes one wonder, is Pape really a baritone?






Or maybe a light bass or a bass-baritone? I mean, I can't find anywhere that he sang something like "O, wie will ich triumphieren".


----------



## Bonetan

adriesba said:


> I know right! :lol: But it makes one wonder, is Pape really a baritone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe a light bass or a bass-baritone? I mean, I can't find anywhere that he sang something like "O, wie will ich triumphieren".


He's definitely not an Osmin type of bass nor a baritone imo. I believe he's a basso cantante.


----------



## Bonetan

Handelian said:


> He is a member of the 'Dead tenor's society' on YouTube ' I see! I'm not going to argue with you as you cannot possibly tell from his recordings. Modern tenors are recorded in hi fi so their voices are mercilessly examined. I am quite happy with those I listen to and am fully convinced that the standard of Handel singing today is better than it is ever been. The examples you give just confirm my opinion.


Is this DavidA?


----------



## Revitalized Classics

Bonetan said:


> Is this DavidA?


I'm thinking it is a Clark Kent/ Superman deal where they are never in the same room at the same time... :lol:


----------



## Parsifal98

Bonetan said:


> Is this DavidA?


I was asking myself the same question :lol:


----------



## Revitalized Classics

vivalagentenuova said:


> I can't agree! She sounds like a lighter version of the collapsed head voice used by most modern sopranos. The agility is of the "ha ha ha" school of aspirated coloratura. The sound has a kind of superficial prettiness, but little depth or power and is constricted, which tells quite significantly when it is put under any stress. Unfortunately, these wonderful Baroque operas were out of fashion back in the early era of recorded singing. It's great that the operas themselves are now appreciated, I just wish we had old school voices to sing them.


Thought I'd share this little recital of historic recordings I particularly enjoy of Handel and his contemporaries Rameau and Scarlatti... hopefully it might encourage some discussion about what can be learned, or possibly ignored, from 100 years ago.

Alma Gluck
Rameau - Hippolyte et Aricie - "Rossignols Amoureux" - 1911





Maria Ivogun
Handel - "Il Pensieroso" - 1925





Elisabeth Rethberg
Handel - Sosarme - "Rend'il sereno al ciglio" - 1928





Hina Spani
Scarlatti - La donna ancora è fedele - "Se Florindo e Fedele" - 1929





Eide Norena
Handel - Atalanta - "Care selve" - 1937


----------



## vivalagentenuova

^^^ Great selections. Gluck's trill is incredible.

Listen to Selmar Cerini sing Ecco ridente in cielo (first or last on the list at the hyperlink) and tell me that anybody today could even come close to that. The agility and trill are as good or better than Jadlowker, which is absurd. He went on to become a famous and renowned cantor which is a whole other field of vocal music where there are legendary singers nobody today could touch:

Sirota:





Cerini:





Hershman:
(Tell me this guy couldn't handle Handela0:


----------



## Parsifal98

vivalagentenuova said:


> ^^^ Great selections. Gluck's trill is incredible.
> 
> Listen to Selmar Cerini sing Ecco ridente in cielo (first or last on the list at the hyperlink) and tell me that anybody today could even come close to that. The agility and trill are as good or better than Jadlowker, which is absurd. He went on to become a famous and renowned cantor which is a whole other field of vocal music where there are legendary singers nobody today could touch:
> 
> Sirota:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cerini:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hershman:
> (Tell me this guy couldn't handle Handela0:


Instead of this great selection of singers, this is what is being celebrated today...






Tiny undevelopped voices full of tension and with poor coloratura chopping up the legato and the musical line. I have been reading Cornelius Reid's _The Free Voice_ over the past weeks and Spyres and Brownlee's technique is the exact opposite of what the late pedagogue was arguing for.


----------



## Revitalized Classics

vivalagentenuova said:


> ^^^ Great selections. Gluck's trill is incredible.
> 
> Listen to Selmar Cerini sing Ecco ridente in cielo (first or last on the list at the hyperlink) and tell me that anybody today could even come close to that. The agility and trill are as good or better than Jadlowker, which is absurd. He went on to become a famous and renowned cantor which is a whole other field of vocal music where there are legendary singers nobody today could touch:
> 
> Sirota:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cerini:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hershman:
> (Tell me this guy couldn't handle Handela0:


Thanks for sharing!

I listened to a number of these recordings by cantors before and was very impressed, I thought that the timbre of Mordechai Hershman's voice was very attractive and the technical facility is something else.


----------



## vivalagentenuova

> Tiny undevelopped voices full of tension and with poor coloratura chopping up the legato and the musical line. I have been reading Cornelius Reid's The Free Voice over the past weeks and Spyres and Brownlee's technique is the exact opposite of what the late pedagogue was arguing for.


Agreed. The Floria Tosca video comparing Florez/Bartoli coloratura to Jadlowker/Schumann-Heink/Tetrazzini coloratura was great and revealing. My favorite part of The Free Voice is Reid's destruction of the mask idea.



> I listened to a number of these recordings by cantors before and was very impressed, I thought that the timbre of Mordechai Hershman's voice was very attractive and the technical facility is something else.


There are so, so many great cantors, but Hershman is my absolute favorite. His singing is so passionate and beautiful, and as you say, his technique is astonishing. The way he uses registers to inflect the sound with dramatic, mournful, and prayerful qualities is high art.





6:37 to the end is just... He breaks out his perfect head voice too.


----------



## Revitalized Classics

Finally remembered where I saw a few of videos which I think are interesting because they highlight how flexible baritone voices can be, not just tenor examples.

Mayer Schorr (born 1856 -Friedrich Schorr's father!) amazing flexibility





Manfred Lewandowski (who was a pupil of Yossele Rosenblatt which is rather intriguing)





From the same Youtube channel Johannes Jacobsohn - isn't that a beautiful voice?


----------



## Woodduck

Parsifal98 said:


> Instead of this great selection of singers, this is what is being celebrated today...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tiny undevelopped voices full of tension and with poor coloratura chopping up the legato and the musical line. I have been reading Cornelius Reid's _The Free Voice_ over the past weeks and Spyres and Brownlee's technique is the exact opposite of what the late pedagogue was arguing for.


I don't hear what you hear. I've listened to this without watching it, and I don't know how, given that this is a recording session, you can tell that these voices are "tiny." I sincerely doubt that they are, though obviously they are not, as most voices in this repertoire are not, big voices suitable for dramatic parts. Neither were Tito Schipa's or Fernando de Lucia's (though I intend no further comparison). I don't hear poor coloratura either. Just in the first minute or so we can hear Brownlee executing some fiendish figuration quite clearly and with gusto.


----------



## Woodduck

vivalagentenuova said:


> Listen to Selmar Cerini sing Ecco ridente in cielo (first or last on the list at the hyperlink) and tell me that anybody today could even come close to that. The agility and trill are as good or better than Jadlowker, which is absurd.


Cerini has technique to burn, but the "interpretation," if that's the right word, is ludicrous. It's a serenade, for God's sake.


----------



## Parsifal98

Woodduck said:


> I don't hear what you hear. I've listened to this without watching it, and I don't know how, given that this is a recording session, you can tell that these voices are "tiny." I sincerely doubt that they are, though obviously they are not, as most voices in this repertoire are not, big voices suitable for dramatic parts. Neither were Tito Schipa's or Fernando de Lucia's (though I intend no further comparison). I don't hear poor coloratura either. Just in the first minute or so we can hear Brownlee executing some fiendish figuration quite clearly and with gusto.


Thank you Woodduck for joining this discussion! And I say this with sincerity for I am a big fan of yours. Now concerning these two singers, what I mean by tiny is that their voices are tiny compared to what they could be if they were produced properly. I do not need to hear them in the flesh to know that. Just look at the singers when they sing. You can see the tension in their faces when they hit high notes (quite apparent with Brownlee at 1:04). Spyres even wobbles at 2:14, which is another sign of improper tension. Now if improper tension was their only problem, it could be solved rather easily (working on relaxing said improper tensions so the proper tensions, products of the vocal muscles, can do their work without disturbance). But their problem is far greater. Brownlee and Spyres's voices sit on improper foundations. What I mean by this is that they have improper registration. Both their registers have not been trained and strengthened, which is why their voices sound shallow and why their high notes sound squeezed and not properly released. Listen to Spyres at 2:25. This is quite a weak chest voice, even for such a light tenor. Their coloratura is aspirated à la Bartoli, which seems to be the norm with baroque singers ( I think Viva would be better at explaining what is wrong with it, as he has done in previous posts). Their current voices are of course improper for more dramatic parts, but could have been if they had received a better training. No one has a baroque voice or a bel canto voice. Everyone has a voice which must be trained to work according to nature so that it can then sing music according to the rules and precepts of a specific style. I hope I have explained myself clearly enough. Otherwise I know that other people will be able to phrase my ideas in a more eloquent way!


----------



## Parsifal98

Here are two videos to illustrate what I mean:


----------



## Woodduck

Parsifal98 said:


> Thank you Woodduck for gracing this thread with your presence! And I say this with sincerity for I am a big fan of yours. Now concerning these two singers, what I mean by tiny is that their voices are tiny compared to what they could be if they were produced properly. I do not need to hear them in the flesh to know that. Just look at the singers when they sing. You can see the tension in their faces when they hit high notes (quite apparent with Brownlee at 1:04). Spyres even wobbles at 2:14, which is another sign of improper tension. Now if improper tension was their only problem, it could be solved rather easily (working on relaxing said improper tensions so the proper tensions, products of the vocal muscles, can do their work without disturbance). But their problem is far greater. Brownlee and Spyres's voices sit on improper foundations. What I mean by this is that they have improper registration. Both their registers have not been trained and strengthened, which is why their voices sound shallow and why their high notes sound squeezed and not properly released. Listen to Spyres at 2:25. This is quite a weak chest voice, even for such a light tenor. Their coloratura is aspirated à la Bartoli, which seems to be the norm with baroque singers ( I think Viva would be better at explaining what is wrong with it, as he has done in previous posts). Their current voices are of course improper for more dramatic parts, but could have been if they had received a better training. No one has a baroque voice or a bel canto voice. Everyone has a voice which must be trained to work according to nature so that it can then sing music according to the rules and precepts of a specific style. I hope I have explained myself clearly enough. Otherwise I know that other people will be able to phrase my ideas in a more eloquent way!


Thanks for the detailed reply. I do agree that Brownlee's tone is shallow, like that of a number of tenors of his type (Florez comes to mind). I don't care for this sort of tone, and it may well not be the sound he could be making, though I couldn't say that with assurance. I would say that the right tone quality for a singer is the one that results when the voice is free of extraneous tensions, and that, basically, if the mechanism feels good to the singer and enables him to sing for long periods, and a long career, without straining the voice and causing distortions such as wobble, the technique is sound. Obviously there are further refinements of technique, such as great agility, which a singer may develop to varying degrees. I do hear the aspiration in Brownlee's coloratura (Spyres' is smoother), but it certainly isn't as extreme as Bartoli's, and isn't accompanied by her bizarre gyrations. It seems to me a bit presumptuous to say that Brownlee and Spyres could sing dramatic roles if they developed their voices properly.

Here is an example of Spyres' work that reveals a bit more: 



 He seems to have quite a strong lower register for a tenor, so perhaps the near-wobble you point out on his high C and D is somewhat forgivable. In this aria he goes up to high G with what sounds like a developed falsetto. i do think, hearing him in several selections, that his registers could be better integrated, and I suspect this would solve the wobble problem.

I'm certainly not going to claim that either Brownlee or Spyres is a faultless singer, and in general I think you make good points about their work in that video. But I would say, regretfully, that they're both superior to a lot of singers taking leading roles in our opera houses. Let's see how many good years they have ahead of them. Brownlee, I believe, has been around for a long time now; according to Wiki he's 48 years old. The above video looks recent, so I'd say he's done pretty well for himself thus far.


----------



## vivalagentenuova

This is why I think it's helpful to frame the current problems in opera singing in terms of different technique*s*. In the current technical paradigm, Brownlee and Spyres are very good. They do the whole mask/forward placement/head resonance thing very well. They are not old style singers doing old style technique badly. So calling them bad singers is sort of half true. They apply the technique they've learned well, but the problem is that the technique they've learned is totally inadequate and inappropriate to the music that they attempt to sing. Hence, the results are far less satisfactory than those achieved by singers like Cerini, Jadlowker, De Muro Lomanto, D'Arkor and other old school singers who did outstanding work in this repertoire.

A good example of how opera singing has developed a different technique from what it used to have is found in a series of videos by two current opera singers, a tenor and a soprano, called Living Opera. They provide tidbits on what it is like to be a professional opera singer today and sometimes do technique videos. They seem like perfectly nice people. When it comes to chiaroscuro, their definition is very much "so close and yet so far".




They know that the voice should not be overly bright or overly dark, and they know that over-darkness comes from depressing the larynx. He even emphasizes that the voice comes from the throat, seemingly contradicting the mask placement theory. But when it comes to describing the source of brightness in the voice, they in practice revert to the mask placement theory. She essentially manipulates the sound towards lightness by raising the larynx (or rather making in neutral, since in her previous demonstration she had depressed it) and putting the sound "forward". That's _not_ where brightness comes from. This is one of the dividing lines between modern technique and old school technique. In old school technique, the brightness in the voice comes from the development of the muscles that produce what we call the chest register. That is what creates real squillo. They are superficially lightening or darkening a mixed or collapsed registration, which does not constitute vocal development and can't lead to vocal freedom. You can hear the results in their singing:









Her voice is collapsed and the vowels unclear, there is no chest at the bottom so the head register just sort of sputters and dies on the low notes, and the voice has that hallmark of modern technique: "old before its time." She sounds much older than Melba at 65.

He sounds very much like Florez, Brownlee, and Spyres, though is a little less nasal than Florez (a low bar). Unlike the collapsed head voice soprano sound, this sound is less immediately strident, but ultimately bland. There is a lack of richness and power. It doesn't quite offend in the same way (although I find all these singers grating after a while, whereas I could listen to Gigli until the Second Coming of Caruso) but it certainly doesn't thrill or move. To me, a Rossini voice should do both:





De Muro Lo Manto doesn't have the quite agility of Cerini or Jadlowker, but his voice production is excellent and the coloratura is fine. Moreover, he has real _squillo._ The voice thrills and moves and the big moments are really big because there is steel. The soft moments are more tender because the softness comes from the beautifully coordinated head voice.

Simply put, old school technique used chest voice development as its foundation and modern technique does not. Certainly there was more to the old school technique than development of the chest register, but that was the sine qua non of bel canto. From Baroque treatises to Callas' Julliard masterclass everybody says you must have a strong chest register, and the evidence from every recorded great singer of the past, including the lightest coloraturas like Galli-Curci, Gluck, and Patti and leggero tenors like Schipa and Tagliavini, supports that claim.

Modern technique is incapable of doing what the old technique could, produces less beautiful results, and has few to no compensating virtues. This is why I think that it is justified to refer to it as inferior, and why I would refer to Brownlee and Spyres as negative examples of opera singing despite the fact that they are perfectly competent musicians. It's like sending somebody on stage to play with a technique they learned on a faultily constructed violin. Whatever good instincts they might bring are not going to able to compensate for the fact that the instrument simply can't do a lot of the things it's going to be asked to do because of the way it was made. I can't agree at all with the posters on the other thread who see this as a bright period for Rossini tenor singing. To me a bright period for Rossini was when one could hear singers like Selmar Cerini or Hermann Jadlowker, with rich, powerful, natural sounding voices sing the most fiendishly difficult coloratura with effortless legato. And then go to a Verdi or Wagner opera and hear the same singer as Radames or Lohengrin.


----------



## The Conte

Much I agree with there Viva!

Listening to the soprano it strikes me that she isn't singing with her real, natural voice. She is clearly putting on a voice when she sings (we can compare her talking voice with her singing one). This is something I have referred to as 'pronouncing as in your native language when singing in a foreign one, but it is perhaps better described as singing with your speaking voice. (Doing so suddenly fixes so many vocal problems. I couldn't manage more than a couple of minutes of their video, though. So many myths! Should you sing with a low larynx or in the mask? How about singing with a properly co-ordinated registration and then the 'resonances' will take care of themselves.

N.


----------



## Woodduck

^^^Parassidis presents a perfect example of the modern opera singer voice, afflicted with that heavy, slow vibrato that puts people off opera. That, plus the vague vowels, makes continued listening a chore and ought to get her a job at today's Met, where she can make my Saturday afternoons hell. Reinhardt is certainly better, with a free, quick vibrato and good diction, but his sound is monotonous and becomes dull and breathy at low volume. No need to spend much time here.

Singing aside, I can't listen to these people _talk_. _"I was like, girl..."_ Ugh. When did people start talking like this? I don't want to know what she was like.


----------



## vivalagentenuova

Woodduck said:


> Singing aside, I can't listen to these people _talk_. _"I was like, girl..."_ Ugh. When did people start talking like this? I don't want to know what she was like.


Yes they have that affected persona that tries to cover over their awkwardness in front of the camera, which is grating to listen to (much like their singing voices) and only produces more awkwardness. Still, although it's annoying I try not to hold it against them because it's so common. I see it in YouTubers and in frequently in students when they have to give presentations. It's one of the things I try to work on with them. I think it comes from wanting to inject informality into their manner and sloppiness and even carelessness into their speech so that if they get a bad response they can say to themselves or their peers, "Well, I didn't really care. That wasn't my best." That's just my theory, though. Who knows where it comes from.



Woodduck said:


> ^^^Parassidis presents a perfect example of the modern opera singer voice, afflicted with that heavy, slow vibrato that puts people off opera. That, plus the vague vowels, makes continued listening a chore and ought to get her a job at today's Met, where she can make my Saturday afternoons hell. Reinhardt is certainly better, with a free, quick vibrato and good diction, but his sound is monotonous and becomes dull and breathy at low volume. No need to spend much time here.


 Precisely why I chose them. They represent the logical conclusion of modern technique.



The Conte said:


> So many myths! Should you sing with a low larynx or in the mask? How about singing with a properly co-ordinated registration and then the 'resonances' will take care of themselves.


Yes! The larynx should be low, but there's a big difference between "the larynx should be low" and "the singer should actively be thinking about positioning their larynx while singing." If the teacher is listening and teaching ideally, the student will end up producing the right sound and having the right mechanics without obsessing about "doing" things in the throat.


----------



## Parsifal98

vivalagentenuova said:


> This is why I think it's helpful to frame the current problems in opera singing in terms of different technique*s*. In the current technical paradigm, Brownlee and Spyres are very good. They do the whole mask/forward placement/head resonance thing very well. They are not old style singers doing old style technique badly. So calling them bad singers is sort of half true. They apply the technique they've learned well, but the problem is that the technique they've learned is totally inadequate and inappropriate to the music that they attempt to sing. Hence, the results are far less satisfactory than those achieved by singers like Cerini, Jadlowker, De Muro Lomanto, D'Arkor and other old school singers who did outstanding work in this repertoire.
> 
> A good example of how opera singing has developed a different technique from what it used to have is found in a series of videos by two current opera singers, a tenor and a soprano, called Living Opera. They provide tidbits on what it is like to be a professional opera singer today and sometimes do technique videos. They seem like perfectly nice people. When it comes to chiaroscuro, their definition is very much "so close and yet so far".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They know that the voice should not be overly bright or overly dark, and they know that over-darkness comes from depressing the larynx. He even emphasizes that the voice comes from the throat, seemingly contradicting the mask placement theory. But when it comes to describing the source of brightness in the voice, they in practice revert to the mask placement theory. She essentially manipulates the sound towards lightness by raising the larynx (or rather making in neutral, since in her previous demonstration she had depressed it) and putting the sound "forward". That's _not_ where brightness comes from. This is one of the dividing lines between modern technique and old school technique. In old school technique, the brightness in the voice comes from the development of the muscles that produce what we call the chest register. That is what creates real squillo. They are superficially lightening or darkening a mixed or collapsed registration, which does not constitute vocal development and can't lead to vocal freedom. You can hear the results in their singing:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Her voice is collapsed and the vowels unclear, there is no chest at the bottom so the head register just sort of sputters and dies on the low notes, and the voice has that hallmark of modern technique: "old before its time." She sounds much older than Melba at 65.
> 
> He sounds very much like Florez, Brownlee, and Spyres, though is a little less nasal than Florez (a low bar). Unlike the collapsed head voice soprano sound, this sound is less immediately strident, but ultimately bland. There is a lack of richness and power. It doesn't quite offend in the same way (although I find all these singers grating after a while, whereas I could listen to Gigli until the Second Coming of Caruso) but it certainly doesn't thrill or move. To me, a Rossini voice should do both:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> De Muro Lo Manto doesn't have the quite agility of Cerini or Jadlowker, but his voice production is excellent and the coloratura is fine. Moreover, he has real _squillo._ The voice thrills and moves and the big moments are really big because there is steel. The soft moments are more tender because the softness comes from the beautifully coordinated head voice.
> 
> Simply put, old school technique used chest voice development as its foundation and modern technique does not. Certainly there was more to the old school technique than development of the chest register, but that was the sine qua non of bel canto. From Baroque treatises to Callas' Julliard masterclass everybody says you must have a strong chest register, and the evidence from every recorded great singer of the past, including the lightest coloraturas like Galli-Curci, Gluck, and Patti and leggero tenors like Schipa and Tagliavini, supports that claim.
> 
> Modern technique is incapable of doing what the old technique could, produces less beautiful results, and has few to no compensating virtues. This is why I think that it is justified to refer to it as inferior, and why I would refer to Brownlee and Spyres as negative examples of opera singing despite the fact that they are perfectly competent musicians. It's like sending somebody on stage to play with a technique they learned on a faultily constructed violin. Whatever good instincts they might bring are not going to able to compensate for the fact that the instrument simply can't do a lot of the things it's going to be asked to do because of the way it was made. I can't agree at all with the posters on the other thread who see this as a bright period for Rossini tenor singing. To me a bright period for Rossini was when one could hear singers like Selmar Cerini or Hermann Jadlowker, with rich, powerful, natural sounding voices sing the most fiendishly difficult coloratura with effortless legato. And then go to a Verdi or Wagner opera and hear the same singer as Radames or Lohengrin.


Thank you Viva for such a great post! Then again, some people will always find ways to disagree...


----------



## wkasimer

Woodduck said:


> Brownlee, I believe, has been around for a long time now; according to Wiki he's 48 years old.


At least a couple of decades. I saw him as Almaviva in Boston in 2002.


----------



## Plague

This video is interesting, and I find the most interesting part to be what it says about the "over-intellectualized" operatic acting (from 13:18 on):


----------



## adriesba

/\ That is a great video, one of TIO's best.


----------



## Seattleoperafan

Woodduck said:


> I don't hear what you hear. I've listened to this without watching it, and I don't know how, given that this is a recording session, you can tell that these voices are "tiny." I sincerely doubt that they are, though obviously they are not, as most voices in this repertoire are not, big voices suitable for dramatic parts. Neither were Tito Schipa's or Fernando de Lucia's (though I intend no further comparison). I don't hear poor coloratura either. Just in the first minute or so we can hear Brownlee executing some fiendish figuration quite clearly and with gusto.


I feel like I am starting 6th grade while some of you are in college when dissecting technique LOL. I've enjoyed Brownlee live several times. It is big enough for the repertoire, though not big and ringing by any means, and I found his singing very thrilling. I have not extensively studied voice so I can't dissect technique like many of you. I do have a better ear for good female singing than male singing so my statements about them carry more weight I think. I enjoy learning from you people who are competing to be valedictorians of our forum


----------



## Seattleoperafan

Parsifal98 said:


> I may offend some people... but this is absolutely dreadful! I mean she cannot be oblivious to the fact that so many soprani sang this role before her... and did it so much better! Can't she hear herself??? I am starting to ask myself if she has any artistic integrity or if she is only doing all of this for the money.
> 
> And her husband is singing Calaf... Nepotism at its finest! Oh what a time to be an opera fan
> 
> I am gonna clear my ears with a bit of Nilsson and Corelli...


Anna Netrebko's Turandot sounds big but unattractive to me. I think Lady Macbeth was a better fit instead of these long vocal lines. I really would love to hear from someone who heard her live after her voice supposedly grew in size because it is hard to hear just from a recording how a voice fills up an opera house. Sounding big in a recording is not the same thing as hearing it sitting at the back of an opera house. It would lose a bet trying to guess who the singer looked like as she is unrecognizable, which is bad because she is famous as much as from her good looks as from her singing I believe.


----------



## BachIsBest

Seattleoperafan said:


> I feel like I am starting 6th grade while some of you are in college when dissecting technique LOL. I've enjoyed Brownlee live several times. It is big enough for the repertoire, though not big and ringing by any means, and I found his singing very thrilling. I have not extensively studied voice so I can't dissect technique like many of you. I do have a better ear for good female singing than male singing so my statements about them carry more weight I think. I enjoy learning from you people who are competing to be valedictorians of our forum


I often feel the same way. All I know is this





is a lot better sung than this





and I don't think I need a degree in music theory to pick this out (in fairness to myself I think I have picked up some knowledge from some of the more knowledgeable and well-spoken members of the forum; thank you!).


----------



## Parsifal98

Plague said:


> This video is interesting, and I find the most interesting part to be what it says about the "over-intellectualized" operatic acting (from 13:18 on):


This is my favourite video by TIO! It is after watching it that I realised why I did not like the Metropolitan's performance of Aida I had seen with my grandparents some days prior... with Anna Netrebko wobbling her way through the main part. When Corelli comes in at 8:06... absolutely incredible!


----------



## Taplow

Seattleoperafan said:


> I feel like I am starting 6th grade while some of you are in college when dissecting technique LOL. I've enjoyed Brownlee live several times. It is big enough for the repertoire, though not big and ringing by any means, and I found his singing very thrilling. I have not extensively studied voice so I can't dissect technique like many of you. I do have a better ear for good female singing than male singing so my statements about them carry more weight I think. I enjoy learning from you people who are competing to be valedictorians of our forum


Completely agree. I, too, have enjoyed Brownlee live on more than one occasion. Although noticeably one of the weaker cast members in a production that headlined Joyce diDonato for example, he still held his own and had a pleasant tone that suited his role as, er, suitor Idreno to Joyce's Semiramide. Also not a vocal critic, I like what I like and he was pleasant here as in at least one other production I've had the chance to catch him.


----------



## Aerobat

Parsifal98 said:


> This is my favourite video by TIO! It is after watching it that I realised why I did not like the Metropolitan's performance of Aida I had seen with my grandparents some days prior... with Anna Netrebko wobbling her way through the main part. When Corelli comes in at 8:06... absolutely incredible!


Am I the only one who finds this particular criticism very similar to the criticisms of Callas in her time? She was frequently (and rightly) criticised for very wobbly high notes. I think it safe to say that no singers are 'perfect' (whatever that is). Each singer has their own strengths and weaknesses, and I tend to blame casting directors as much as singers on occasion when a totally inappropriate singer is cast into a role.


----------



## Handelian

Aerobat said:


> Am I the only one who finds this particular criticism very similar to the criticisms of Callas in her time? She was frequently (and rightly) criticised for very wobbly high notes. I think it safe to say that no singers are 'perfect' (whatever that is). Each singer has their own strengths and weaknesses, and I tend to blame casting directors as much as singers on occasion when a totally inappropriate singer is cast into a role.


I was only thinking the same about Callas. Many were the complaints about her voice.

https://www.theguardian.com/music/1997/may/05/maria-callas-far-from-perfect-terrence-mcnally

Never mind! Usually opera goers (or listeners) sport.


----------



## BachIsBest

Aerobat said:


> Am I the only one who finds this particular criticism very similar to the criticisms of Callas in her time? She was frequently (and rightly) criticised for very wobbly high notes. I think it safe to say that no singers are 'perfect' (whatever that is). Each singer has their own strengths and weaknesses, and I tend to blame casting directors as much as singers on occasion when a totally inappropriate singer is cast into a role.


I'm no expert but I think a lot of members here have criticised Callas for this it's just that her other qualities more than made up for this wobble. It's worth noting Callas herself devoted much time trying to fix this problem.


----------



## Tsaraslondon

Aerobat said:


> Am I the only one who finds this particular criticism very similar to the criticisms of Callas in her time? She was frequently (and rightly) criticised for very wobbly high notes. I think it safe to say that no singers are 'perfect' (whatever that is). Each singer has their own strengths and weaknesses, and I tend to blame casting directors as much as singers on occasion when a totally inappropriate singer is cast into a role.


Callas was far from a prefect vocalist, it is true. Even in her glory days when she could sustain a huge and rock solid Eb _in alt_ for several seconds, there were perceptible breaks between her registers and the voice was not of the same _metallo_, as the Italians put it. But how could it be, when it was used to such searingly expressive ends? The range of emotions she expressed, not to mention the range of different characters she convincingly portrayed was wide indeed. Why, in 1952 alone she sang such widely different roles as Lady Macbeth and Gilda, Gioconda and Lucia, Elvira in *I Puritani* and Gioconda, singing coloratura with an accuracy Netrebko can only dream about. Netrebko may well be as good as anyone else singing Lady Macbeth today, but, if you were to follow with a score, you would find she smudges much of the coloratura and hardly sings the trills at all.

Nor does she have anything like Callas's extraordinary musicality, which was the thing that made so may conductors and musicians revere her. Nothing illustrates the point better than this






compared to this






Netrebko isn't bad as, but she ain't no Callas.

Or Shirley Verrett, for that matter.


----------



## Parsifal98

Here are excerpts of both Netrebko and Callas singing Aida. The video speaks for itself. Note also the huge gap between Dominguez and Rachvelishvili. Now I've mentioned Netrebko's wobble, but actually the entire voice is wrong. Her registers are not coordinated and her chest voice is non-existent. I have nothing against her, but the fact that she is the most famous modern soprano is quite distressing....






For more info on how to build a proper operatic voice, I highly recommend Cornelius Reid's _The Free Voice_.

By the way, the main problem with Netrebko's wobble is that it is present through all of her range. Furthermore, while Callas was aware of hers and tried to solve it, Netrebko does not seem to be aware of it and she seems to have made no attempt to solve such an important problem. Maybe she thinks it sounds pleasing... I don't know. But to solve it, she would have to start her training form the beginning. And it is unfortunately too late for that.


----------



## Handelian

I found this interesting. Funnily enough, he mentions Callas as blameworthy! Well, indirectly!

https://www.nytimes.com/1986/09/21/magazine/vocal-burnout-at-the-opera.html

What point of course he does make is the shift in expectation. whereas in the past singers just stood and sang there is now the demand for the actress / actor - singer which is a rather different animal. Just have a look at eg the Glyndebourne Julius Caesar and you will see an incredibly complicated stage action which would be completely unheard-of in Handel's day. The demands of the singers today are so much greater on the stage. They actually have to act post Callas.


----------



## Handelian

Parsifal98 said:


> Here are excerpts of both Netrebko and Callas singing Aida. The video speaks for itself. Note also the huge gap between Dominguez and Rachvelishvili. Now I've mentioned Netrebko's wobble, but actually the entire voice is wrong. Her registers are not coordinated and her chest voice is non-existent. I have nothing against her, but the fact that she is the most famous modern soprano is quite distressing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For more info on how to build a proper operatic voice, I highly recommend Cornelius Reid's _The Free Voice_.
> 
> By the way, the main problem with Netrebko's wobble is that it is present through all of her range. Furthermore, while Callas was aware of hers and tried to solve it, Netrebko does not seem to be aware of it and she seems to have made no attempt to solve such an important problem. Maybe she thinks it sounds pleasing... I don't know. But to solve it, she would have to start her training form the beginning. And it is unfortunately too late for that.


Hate to mention it but she just still seem to be doing rather well!


----------



## BachIsBest

Handelian said:


> I found this interesting. Funnily enough, he mentions Callas as blameworthy! Well, indirectly!
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/1986/09/21/magazine/vocal-burnout-at-the-opera.html
> 
> What point of course he does make is the shift in expectation. whereas in the past singers just stood and sang there is now the demand for the actress / actor - singer which is a rather different animal. Just have a look at eg the Glyndebourne Julius Caesar and you will see an incredibly complicated stage action which would be completely unheard-of in Handel's day. The demands of the singers today are so much greater on the stage. They actually have to act post Callas.


Have you watched videos of opera from the 50s? Yep, no acting involved here,


----------



## Handelian

BachIsBest said:


> Have you watched videos of opera from the 50s? Callas was a great actress. Yep, no acting involved here,


If you read what I put I made that point about Callas. She was a stage animal. Her voice often caused her problems but she was electric on stage. I don't tend to watch old videos because of the dated style of acting.


----------



## BachIsBest

Handelian said:


> If you read what I put I made that point about Callas. She was a stage animal. Her voice often caused her problems but she was electric on stage. I don't tend to watch old videos because of the dated style of acting.


I agree about Callas. But you also said,



Handelian said:


> whereas in the past singers just stood and sang there is now the demand for the actress / actor - singer which is a rather different animal.


which is what I was responding to and what I don't believe to be true.


----------



## Parsifal98

Handelian said:


> Hate to mention it but she just still seem to be doing rather well!


Well she might _seem_ to be doing rather well but she isn't.


----------



## Handelian

BachIsBest said:


> I agree about Callas. But you also said,
> 
> which is what I was responding to and what I don't believe to be true.


Well we agree to differ. Modern directors require a far greater degree of acting. Of course it is a general statement.


----------



## Parsifal98

Handelian said:


> Well we agree to differ. Modern directors require a far greater degree of acting. Of course it is a general statement.


And weirdly enough our modern singers act as if their were on the set of a movie instead of acting theatrically as you can see in the video BachisBest shared. This argument of modern directors demanding a greater degree of acting cannot in anyway explain the dearth of great operatic voices. A very poor argument indeed... I mean the acting is quite limited in the video I shared above. Therefore, how can you explain such a poor vocal performance from Netrebko and Rachvelishvili?


----------



## Agamenon

adriesba said:


> I agree that opera singing is not what it used to be. Especially when it comes to Wagner.
> 
> Just today I was listening to some contraltos of old and was so amazed at the clarity and strength of their voices. I particularly gained appreciation of Clara Butt, Kerstin Thorborg, and Eula Beal.
> 
> I've been wanting to ask for some others' opinions on two singers that are more recent that don't seem bad to me - René Pape and Ewa Podleś.


Bravo. Well said!


----------



## Handelian

Parsifal98 said:


> And weirdly enough our modern singers act as if their were on the set of a movie instead of acting theatrically as you can see in the video BachisBest shared. This argument of modern directors demanding a greater degree of acting cannot in anyway explain the dearth of great operatic voices. A very poor argument indeed... I mean the acting is quite limited in the video I shared above. Therefore, how can you explain such a poor vocal performance from Netrebko and Rachvelishvili?


I can explain history repeating itself. A classic

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123612228&t=1608185381116

People panned Callas in her day. And other singers. I remember it. You are carrying on the grand tradition.

But as I go to the opera to enjoy not to pick holes I won't bother to argue with you


----------



## BachIsBest

Handelian said:


> I can explain history repeating itself. A classic
> 
> https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123612228&t=1608185381116
> 
> People panned Callas in her day. And other singers. I remember it. You are carrying on the grand tradition.
> 
> But as I go to the opera to enjoy not to pick holes I won't bother to argue with you


Instead of making general statements based on no more evidence than "I was there" perhaps you could post some clips of modern opera performances you consider better than famous recordings of yesteryear and what technical qualities in the singing you find superior?


----------



## Handelian

BachIsBest said:


> Instead of making general statements based on no more evidence than "I was there" perhaps you could post some clips of modern opera performances you consider better than famous recordings of yesteryear and what technical qualities in the singing you find superior?


As I say I just enjoy performances of opera rather than arguing pointlessly about the singers and comparing them to previous generations. This sort of thing has been going on for donkeys years ever since I started following opera. Even Handel found his audiences were taking sides with his sopranos. It's always been a sport and there's no point in joining in. You never convince the naysayers anyway. Come on, I can remember the likes of Price and Sutherland getting panned, of it being said that Tosca wasn't really Callas' role, so what hope is there?


----------



## Aerobat

I think we've 'picked on' Netrebko a fair bit in here. She shares at least one flaw with Callas, but is generally a reasonably good all-round performer, albeit one who really needs to stop sharing a stage with her husband who is frankly awful. Personally, I much prefer Gheorghiu & Fleming from the modern generation - but this is a personal preference and doesn't mean that I dislike Netrebko - she has an undeniable presence on stage that doesn't translate so well in recording or video. 

I'm also of the view that certain roles simple don't suit certain singers. Someone who makes a perfect Count Almaviva is unlikely to give a convincing performance as Don Alvaro or Siegfied, for example (and yes, there may be one or two exceptions amongst the truly great). However, I feel that a lot of singers try to push or force themselves beyond their natural abilities (or maybe they're encouraged to do so by Opera Houses?), and this is where many of the problems start. 


An area that's of more interest to me personally is to look out for the emerging younger singers with potential, and see where they go. I'm quite enjoying the development of singers like Aida Garifullina, Pretty Yende, and Julia Lezhneva at present, and I'm sure there will be others coming through. However, as has been mentioned previously, there seems to be a shortage of voices suited to Wagner, Verdi, etc at present. This is worrying, as I'm hoping to be enjoying these performances 'live' well into my old age!


----------



## Handelian

There are some who might find this interview with Marilyn Horne interesting

http://www.bruceduffie.com/horne.html

And another wrt to loss of the 'big Berthas' to HD

https://www.politico.com/states/new...ew-generation-for-a-very-different-art-001670

The thing I appreciate about what she says is that she realises that we now live in a different age and we have to adapt rather than keep asking why the clock can't be turned back.


----------



## Tsaraslondon

If we're talking about La Nebs and her great acting skills, why is it that often when I watch her on video, she ends up writhing around on the floor, whatever the role she is singing? I'm not sure why this is considered good acting. It's not even something you see that often in the straight theatre. Good operatic acting is achieved principally with the voice. This example finds Callas in evening dress, elegantly coiffed and bejewelled in a concert setting, and yet, barely moving a muscle, she just becomes the broken-hearted village girl before your eyes.






For all that this is late Callas, and she is obviously treading carefully with her voice, I find this almost unbearably moving.


----------



## Handelian

Tsaraslondon said:


> If we're talking about La Nebs and her great acting skills, why is it that often when I watch her on video, she ends up writhing around on the floor, whatever the role she is singing? I'm not sure why this is considered good acting. It's not even something you see that often in the straight theatre. Good operatic acting is achieved principally with the voice. This example finds Callas in evening dress, elegantly coiffed and bejewelled in a concert setting, and yet, barely moving a muscle, she just becomes the broken-hearted village girl before your eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For all that this is late Callas, and she is obviously treading carefully with her voice, I find this almost unbearably moving.


Funny that, in the performances I have watched of Nebs she doesn't appear to do too much writhing around on the floor! You must watch different performances to me. I'm afraid I can't watch the Callas as it is disabled but we agree that Callas was a great singing actress. It is quite hilarious how people swoon over her these days because when she was active she had just as much vitriol hurled at her as Nebs. But of course now she is an icon.
But acting changes in styles with the years. Acting which once was thought to be great now appears horribly dated. Think of certain actors the way they used to almost sing Shakespeare. That is now not fashionable. When Handel wrote his operas there was a certain style of acting that required facial movements which the singers and the audience understood. If you tried that today you would be met with disbelief. So the sad fact remains that however great we might have thought the past was - whether Cuzzoni or Callas - we are now in the present.


----------



## Tsaraslondon

Handelian said:


> Funny that, in the performances I have watched of Nebs she doesn't appear to do too much writhing around on the floor! You must watch different performances to me. I'm afraid I can't watch the Callas as it is disabled but we agree that Callas was a great singing actress. It is quite hilarious how people swoon over her these days because when she was active she had just as much vitriol hurled at her as Nebs. But of course now she is an icon.
> But acting changes in styles with the years. Acting which once was thought to be great now appears horribly dated. Think of certain actors the way they used to almost sing Shakespeare. That is now not fashionable. When Handel wrote his operas there was a certain style of acting that required facial movements which the singers and the audience understood. If you tried that today you would be met with disbelief. So the sad fact remains that however great we might have thought the past was - whether Cuzzoni or Callas - we are now in the present.


La Nebs does a fair amount of writhing around on the floor in the *Macbeth* aria we both posted. I have no idea why she does it or what it adds to our knowledge of the character. That is what good acting is about. If you can't explain why your character is doing something then you really shoudn't be doing it. That goes for straight acting too. (I am an actor by the way).

I have not been much impressed by Netrebko so far and I find her a somewhat showy, vulgar artist. That is my personal opinion and has nothing to do with the fact that she is still singing today. Vocally I don't think she can compare with some of the greats of earlier years.

A contemporary artist I do admire is Joyce DiDonato. She has a splendid technique, and, if the voice is not as individual as some I have heard, she is never less than riveting on stage. She commands attention and every time I see her, one feels that her chracterisations are thoroughly thought through and conceived. I don't get that same degree of specificity from La Nebs.


----------



## Aerobat

I linked through to the YT video of Callas. I saw / heard very expressive singing, but not much 'acting' IMHO. This is a 'Stand and Deliver' performance - very expressive, but not truly acted (hardly surprising, as it appears to be a recital performance).

Like TsarasLondon, I think DiDonato is one of the better contemporary singers. I also rate Gheorghiu very highly in terms of performance quality - she has an ability to make certain roles her own. Tosca springs to mind. Others will disagree, but *for me* Gheorghiu is the definitive Tosca.

In terms of acting, I find Natalie Dessay to be one of the most convincing. Perhaps not the greatest voice, but a very effective all round performer. The other one who I've always enjoyed seeing live is the (lesser known) Patricia Petibon. Her performance as Manon Lescaut stands out for me as one of the best combinations of acting with singing that I've seen in recent years, being both beautifully sung and delightfully expressive.


----------



## Tsaraslondon

Aerobat said:


> I linked through to the YT video of Callas. I saw / heard very expressive singing, but not much 'acting' IMHO. This is a 'Stand and Deliver' performance - very expressive, but not truly acted (hardly surprising, as it appears to be a recital performance).


But that is acting. It comes from within and it is dictated by the music. It is not applied. The best actors know this. If she were in costume in a production, I doubt she'd do any more, and in fact many who saw Callas said she was often very still on stage, but drew you in. I've played this to many actor colleagues, normally uconvinced that opera singers can truly act, and they have been amazed.

Of course there have been other great actors both before and since, but I rarely come across singers who understand and portray the inner thoughts and feelings of the character they are portraying. Before Callas, Mary Garden, Claudia Muzio and Maria Jeritza came in for a lot of praise for their acting, and post Callas there have been others, who were similarly intelligent and natural actors. It is not just a case of being able to move well. For instance, when I compare the filmed Violettas of Anna Moffo and Teresa Stratas, Moffo may sing the part more prettily and she looks lovely, but she only skims the surface of the role's deeper emotions, where Stratas tears your heart out.

As for Tosca, I like Gheorghiu but think her acting now tends towards the hammy, with two many meaningless gestures. Earlier on she was a much more convincing actress, as in her debut as Violetta, which I saw at Covent Garden. Callas, in the filmed Act II of *Tosca* from Covent Garden, is a lot more reaslistic and a lot more convincing. Note that this is a _verismo_ role which requires more realistic acting. In Romantic opera the singer can afford to be more stylised. Serafin once told Callas that if you needed to know how to act, all you had to do was listen to the music, not quite as simple a direction as you might assume.


----------



## Handelian

Tsaraslondon said:


> La Nebs does a fair amount of writhing around on the floor in the *Macbeth* aria we both posted. I have no idea why she does it or what it adds to our knowledge of the character. That is what good acting is about. If you can't explain why your character is doing something then you really shoudn't be doing it. That goes for straight acting too. (I am an actor by the way).
> 
> I have not been much impressed by Netrebko so far and I find her a somewhat showy, vulgar artist. That is my personal opinion and has nothing to do with the fact that she is still singing today. Vocally I don't think she can compare with some of the greats of earlier years.
> 
> A contemporary artist I do admire is Joyce DiDonato. She has a splendid technique, and, if the voice is not as individual as some I have heard, she is never less than riveting on stage. She commands attention and every time I see her, one feels that her chracterisations are thoroughly thought through and conceived. I don't get that same degree of specificity from La Nebs.


I think Nebs spent about 20 seconds lying on the floor out of a 10 minute scene so I think your statement is a little OTT. Let's face it Lady Macbeth is a showy, vulgar part. It is in Shakespeare too! Of course tHe singer will be taking directions off the director as well. Anyway Nebs got a huge round of applause after and as entertainment is the thing, she is on a winner.
Agree about Joyce. Great singer.


----------



## Handelian

Aerobat said:


> I linked through to the YT video of Callas. I saw / heard very expressive singing, but not much 'acting' IMHO. This is a 'Stand and Deliver' performance - very expressive, but not truly acted (hardly surprising, as it appears to be a recital performance).
> 
> Like TsarasLondon, I think DiDonato is one of the better contemporary singers. I also rate Gheorghiu very highly in terms of performance quality - she has an ability to make certain roles her own. Tosca springs to mind. Others will disagree, but *for me* Gheorghiu is the definitive Tosca.
> 
> In terms of acting, I find Natalie Dessay to be one of the most convincing. Perhaps not the greatest voice, but a very effective all round performer. The other one who I've always enjoyed seeing live is the (lesser known) Patricia Petibon. Her performance as Manon Lescaut stands out for me as one of the best combinations of acting with singing that I've seen in recent years, being both beautifully sung and delightfully expressive.


It is perhaps something people here don't realise but we are living in the age of HD and DVD more than audio. Most performances will now be filmed rather than just audio. So the opera singer now needs more than just voice. Like it or not things have changed. I was comparing two versions of 'La Fille du Regiment'. On audio Sutherland and Pavarotti win out every time for vocal splendour but on stage they were limited. Dessay and Florez steal the show here.


----------



## Tsaraslondon

Handelian said:


> I think Nebs spent about 20 seconds lying on the floor out of a 10 minute scene so I think your statement is a little OTT. Let's face it Lady Macbeth is a showy, vulgar part. It is in Shakespeare too! Of course tHe singer will be taking directions off the director as well. Anyway Nebs got a huge round of applause after and as entertainment is the thing, she is on a winner.
> Agree about Joyce. Great singer.


She also did it in the Finale of Act ! of *Anna Bolena*. I can't remember exactly when, but I remember thinking it would not be the action of a queen, particularly in public, even if she was _in extremis_. The production was in period costume too. It just didn't make sense.


----------



## Handelian

Tsaraslondon said:


> She also did it in the Finale of Act ! of *Anna Bolena*. I can't remember exactly when, but I remember thinking it would not be the action of a queen, particularly in public, even if she was _in extremis_. The production was in period costume too. It just didn't make sense.


I didn't see this one and don't know the opera so can't judge. But this is opera not real life.


----------



## Tsaraslondon

Handelian said:


> It is perhaps something people here don't realise but we are living in the age of HD and DVD more than audio. Most performances will now be filmed rather than just audio. So the opera singer now needs more than just voice. Like it or not things have changed. I was comparing two versions of 'La Fille du Regiment'. On audio Sutherland and Pavarotti win out every time for vocal splendour but on stage they were limited. Dessay and Florez steal the show here.


As it happens, I saw *La Fille du Régiment* at Covent Garden quite recently. Sabine Devielhe was absolutely superb, maybe even better than Dessay, both vocally and histrionically. I aso liked Javier Camarena. His top Cs were spot on (_Pour mon âme_ ecored) and his slightly tubby appearance and cheery smile was just right in the role. It was a wonderfully entertaining evening in the theatre.

However these are fairly small voices, perfectly apt for the roles they were singing. I am afraid I am not hearing voices capable of doing justice to some of the heavier Verdi roles or even the mid-sized ones. If someone can point me to a present day Tebaldi, Leontyne Price, Caballé or even Scotto or Freni, then please do. In my opinion, the weakest link in the most recent studio recording of *Aida* was Aida herself in the shape of Anja Harteros.


----------



## Handelian

Tsaraslondon said:


> As it happens, I saw *La Fille du Régiment* at Covent Garden quite recently. Sabine Devielhe was absolutely superb, maybe even better than Dessay, both vocally and histrionically. I aso liked Javier Camarena. His top Cs were spot on (_Pour mon âme_ ecored) and his slightly tubby appearance and cheery smile was just right in the role. It was a wonderfully entertaining evening in the theatre.
> 
> However these are fairly small voices, perfectly apt for the roles they were singing. I am afraid I am not hearing voices capable of doing justice to some of the heavier Verdi roles or even the mid-sized ones. If someone can point me to a present day Tebaldi, Leontyne Price, Caballé or even Scotto or Freni, then please do. In my opinion, the weakest link in the most recent studio recording of *Aida* was Aida herself in the shape of Anja Harteros.


Actually I quite enjoyed her Aida. She appeared far more engaged than I thought she would especially as she had never sung it on stage. It was a performance which was made by all round excellence led by Pappano. You are probably not going to get the Tebaldi or Price'sthese days as such women are not going in for opera singing. The larger ladies are not emerging on the stage. We forget Callas was quite a size in her vocal hey-day. Caballe would have a job getting employed these days.


----------



## Tsaraslondon

Handelian said:


> Actually I quite enjoyed her Aida. She appeared far more engaged than I thought she would especially as she had never sung it on stage. It was a performance which was made by all round excellence led by Pappano. You are probably not going to get the Tebaldi or Price'sthese days as such women are not going in for opera singing. The larger ladies are not emerging on the stage. We forget Callas was quite a size in her vocal hey-day. Caballe would have a job getting employed these days.


Tebaldi and Price weren't that large, certainly a lot slimmer than some of the ladies teading the boards at the Met these dasy. Angela Meade anyone?

Caballé was a large lady, it is true, but she could on occasion make you forget that, as in her superb Norma from Orange. I'd go a long way to hear anyone today sing the role half so well. And if a voice as beautiful as Caballé's, (much more beautiful than Meade's) couldn't get a job these days, then there is something definitely wrong with the opera world.

Incidentally, I quite enjoyed Pappano's *Aida* too. I just thought Harteros was the weak link. She is quite involved, I'll admit, but also quite unmemorable.


----------



## mparta

Handelian said:


> Actually I quite enjoyed her Aida. She appeared far more engaged than I thought she would especially as she had never sung it on stage. It was a performance which was made by all round excellence led by Pappano. You are probably not going to get the Tebaldi or Price'sthese days as such women are not going in for opera singing. The larger ladies are not emerging on the stage. We forget Callas was quite a size in her vocal hey-day. Caballe would have a job getting employed these days.


Well, I signed off for a few weeks, not willing to tolerate rude behavior, but that seems to have (as per the offender) disappeared for the last couple of weeks, so perhaps the relaxation of down time discussing music might still work.

I heard Harteros as Desdemona and Maddalena in Chenier. She was unimpressive in Chenier and took until the Willow song to warm up in Otello, but then was superb. I can't imagine her as an Aida, that seems sort of nuts to me. I have heard singers who might make an Aida, but for a staple of the repertoire, now that seems a bit of a stretch. 
And thank you for mentioning Devielhe, she is absolutely superb. There's a lot of personality in Dessay, though, I haven't have had an occasion to see that from Devielhe. So Tebaldi couldn't do what Devielhe does, and vice versa. Glad to have someone who can sing something, lol.
and Camarena is a very fine singer. I would travel (actually did) to hear him in the right repertoire. I think he will (when they open) do a Puritani at the Met, consider one ticket bought.

And just to see whether anyone else has seen this:





Maometto II from Pesaro, 1985. Ramey, Valentini Terrani, Merritt, Matteuzzi, Scimone. I don't know that I think this is a keeper, in that the preponderance of display versus memorable music seems skewed 
BUT...
Cecilia Gasdia, a singer I haven't seen mentioned here, is just a very interesting and very, very fine singer. The voice itself is not large but it is naturally (no artifical sweeteners) beautiful and used extraordinarily well. From somewhere near 2:32:40, her final aria is really worth a hear and free on YouTube. Wickedly virtuosic and wickedly well done. She also sings the love interest in Moise (Anaide?) from about the same time period and again is very, very fine. I hadn't appreciated her, recordings alone left the impression of some blandness and I can see that could be a misinterpretation of what she does but I'm very impressed by these Rossini performances. She recorded Ermione and maybe more in the 80s , I think.

Oh, and just a PS on the floor thing: I remember Sutherland's singing in Lucia from the Met, but I also remember her rolling around on the floor. It's a thing, and really a circus act for a woman of Sutherland's size. Netrebko does hit the floor at the end of Anna Bolena, but she's mad and whereelse would she be?


----------



## Tsaraslondon

mparta said:


> Oh, and just a PS on the floor thing: I remember Sutherland's singing in Lucia from the Met, but I also remember her rolling around on the floor. It's a thing, and really a circus act for a woman of Sutherland's size. Netrebko does hit the floor at the end of Anna Bolena, but she's mad and whereelse would she be?


Well it might be more defensible in the last act (though she is actually being taken away to be executed) but in the clip I saw, it was the end of the first act, when she very publicly has to deny Henry's accusations of infidelity. She most definitely is not mad at this point.


----------



## Handelian

Tsaraslondon said:


> Well it might be more defensible in the last act (though she is actually being taken away to be executed) but in the clip I saw, it was the end of the first act, when she very publicly has to deny Henry's accusations of infidelity. She most definitely is not mad at this point.


This my dear friend is opera. Anything goes. After all, they are singing instead of speaking, so how much more ridiculous can you get?

The Lady Macbeth of Nebs is actually a cat seeking her prey. Why the crouching and spitting.


----------



## Handelian

Tsaraslondon said:


> Tebaldi and Price weren't that large, certainly a lot slimmer than some of the ladies teading the boards at the Met these dasy. Angela Meade anyone?
> 
> Caballé was a large lady, it is true, but she could on occasion make you forget that, as in her superb Norma from Orange. I'd go a long way to hear anyone today sing the role half so well. And if a voice as beautiful as Caballé's, (much more beautiful than Meade's) couldn't get a job these days, then there is something definitely wrong with the opera world.
> 
> Incidentally, I quite enjoyed Pappano's *Aida* too. I just thought Harteros was the weak link. She is quite involved, I'll admit, but also quite unmemorable.


Yes Angela is certainly not willow like! I have her in Carson's Falstaff as Alice together with another lady built for comfort rather than speed, Stephanie Blythe. Of course as they are both playing mature women it doesn't matter and they are really superb in their acting. Just that it is a bit difficult to imagine Caballe in certain roles- the consumptive Violeta? I am reminded of the premiere of Traviata


----------



## Tsaraslondon

Handelian said:


> This my dear friend is opera. Anything goes. After all, they are singing instead of speaking, so how much more ridiculous can you get?


No, _my dear friend_, it isn't. It's just bad decision making - by either her Nebs or the director. But thank you for trying to enlighten me as to what opera is, or at least what you think it is. I've only been listening and going to opera (not to mention having appeared in one or two) for around fifty years, so I'm obviously a novice.



Handelian said:


> The Lady Macbeth of Nebs is actually a cat seeking her prey. Why the crouching and spitting.


Whatever it is, it didn't work for me.


----------



## Handelian

Tsaraslondon said:


> No, _my dear friend_, it isn't. It's just bad decision making - by either her Nebs or the director. Thank you for trying to enlighten me as to what opera is, or at least what you think it is. I've only been listening and going to opera (not to mention having appeared in one or two) for around fifty years, so I'm obviously a novice.
> 
> .
> Whatever it is, it didn't work for me.


Yes well I've been listening to opera for about the same time as you have and so I'm not really a novice either. It's obviously not bad decision-making by Nebs or the director as the audience cheered lustily at the end. That is what singers are supposed to do - to please an audience. It may not have worked for you but it did for the vast majority of those watching.

Of course opera is a ridiculous medium. Highly enjoyable though for those of us who can suspend disbelief. Lots of people can't of course


----------



## Tsaraslondon

Is it just me or has DavidA put in a clandestine appearance in this thread?


----------



## The Conte

Handelian said:


> This my dear friend is opera.


And next week, no doubt, opera will be something else entirely!

N.


----------



## Handelian

Tsaraslondon said:


> No, _my dear friend_, it isn't. It's just bad decision making - by either her Nebs or the director. Thank you for trying to enlighten me as to what opera is, or at least what you think it is. I've only been listening and going to opera (not to mention having appeared in one or two) for around fifty years, so I'm obviously a novice.
> 
> .
> Whatever it is, it didn't work for me.


Yes well I've been listening to opera for about the same time as you have and so I'm not really a novice either. It's obviously not bad decision-making by Nebs or the director as the audience cheered lustily at the end. That is what singers are supposed to do - to please an audience. It may not have worked for you but it did for the vast majority of those watching.

Of course opera is a ridiculous medium. Highly enjoyable though for those of us who can suspend disbelief. Lots of people can't of course


----------



## Handelian

The Conte said:


> And next week, no doubt, opera will be something else entirely!
> 
> N.


It will be nothing but ridiculous. Else it would not be opera. To the rational mind what can be more ridiculous than someone spending half an hour singing when they're dying of consumption!


----------



## The Conte

Handelian said:


> It will be nothing but ridiculous. Else it would not be opera. To the rational mind what can be more ridiculous than someone spending half an hour singing when they're dying of consumption!


Except when it's Mozart...

N.


----------



## Handelian

The Conte said:


> Except when it's Mozart...
> 
> N.


I don't believe anyone dies of consumption in Mozart. It wasn't seen as fashionable then!


----------



## Parsifal98

Tsaraslondon said:


> Is it just me or has DavidA put in a clandestine appearance in this thread?


I've been asking myself the same question!


----------



## Parsifal98

Here is another comparison to prove my point regarding the state of modern operatic singing.











Both performances are live. Two of the greatest soprani of their time.


----------



## mparta

I've gone back and forth on Netrebko and recently have found the beauty in some of her singing, especially the Anna Bolena. Not my idea of the role, but there is some beauty in her singing.

But if you're just point-making...ouch. That Forza cut is miserable, and then, you're really a salt-in-the-wound person, lol, to follow that with Tebaldi. Netrebko isn't worse next to Tebaldi, she's just awful and Tebaldi isn't better next to Netrebko, she's just magnificent.

Oh well, going to have trouble getting that one out of my ear. Yech.


----------



## BachIsBest

Handelian said:


> As I say I just enjoy performances of opera rather than arguing pointlessly about the singers and comparing them to previous generations. This sort of thing has been going on for donkeys years ever since I started following opera. Even Handel found his audiences were taking sides with his sopranos. It's always been a sport and there's no point in joining in. You never convince the naysayers anyway. Come on, I can remember the likes of Price and Sutherland getting panned, of it being said that Tosca wasn't really Callas' role, so what hope is there?


So you're saying there's no point providing actual evidence to support your position?

I came to opera largely by listening to orchestral music and then listening to operas composed by orchestral composers I liked. I didn't think there had been a decline in standards of orchestral playing (although there certainly have been stylistic shifts over time) and presumed it would be the same in opera. It is after listening to lots of side by side comparisons of opera singers (I generally make sure that the recent singers chosen are well-regarded and not cherry-picked bad singers) and reading the analysis of members here that I have come to the contrary conclusion. I am open to changing my opinion, but I won't unless I'm presented with modern singers who can sing at the level of Corelli, Caruso, Nilsson, etc, in other words, unless I am presented with evidence.


----------



## vivalagentenuova

Are all arts always at the same level of quality? The art of sonnet writing is just as strong and healthy as it was in the sixteenth century? Of course all arts go through fluctuations in quality. Sometimes they get better, and sometimes they get worse. It's not at all surprising that singing isn't immune. What separates nostalgia from a real argument is the presence or absence of evidence. The point of discerning the decline in the quality of singing isn't just to say what's bad and what's good. It's that such comparisons a) illuminate the art of singing, which increases enjoyment and understanding of great singing, b) make us aware of the problems of singing today and how they might be corrected, and c) connect us to the vocal tradition that survived the great composers and which they had in mind when they composed.


----------



## Handelian

BachIsBest said:


> So you're saying there's no point providing actual evidence to support your position?
> 
> I came to opera largely by listening to orchestral music and then listening to operas composed by orchestral composers I liked. I didn't think there had been a decline in standards of orchestral playing (although there certainly have been stylistic shifts over time) and presumed it would be the same in opera. It is after listening to lots of side by side comparisons of opera singers (I generally make sure that the recent singers chosen are well-regarded and not cherry-picked bad singers) and reading the analysis of members here that I have come to the contrary conclusion. I am open to changing my opinion, but I won't unless I'm presented with modern singers who can sing at the level of Corelli, Caruso, Nilsson, etc, in other words, unless I am presented with evidence.


Plenty of evidence to support my view that opera singers have always been panned by contemporary critics. Yes, Callas, Price, Sutherland, et al.. Just read the reviews. I can remember them. I have no position to support on them because they were great singers. I have them on my shelves and thoroughly enjoy them. Unless you are saying that you are in the strange position that because you enjoy all the singers of the past you cannot enjoy the present singers, which is seems to be a very strange position. Like because you enjoyed seeing Jeff Boycott bat you can't enjoy modern cricketers. We have to accept the modern opera singers with their strengths and flaws. Of course some people will always see the flaws but that was always the case. I feel sorry for such folk but never mind. They were the sort of people who found fault with Callas and Sutherland when they were alive and performing. It was the casein Handel's day so it's not going to change now!
I think if you're going to wait for singers who sing at the level of Caruso you will be in for a long wait. We have been waiting 100 years for another. And that's for another Nilsson to come along, just when will that happen? 
So why not just enjoy what's on offer? I make no apology for enjoying present opera singers. Sorry to disappoint but I do. That is my position. I was listening to Glyndebourne 's Julius Caesar last night and I thoroughly enjoyed it, both the singing and the acting. But apparently I shouldn't be enjoying it? I don't need a reason to enjoy - I just do
Anyway I'll leave it there I can enjoy singers past and the present. It is a pointless argument as we have what we have today. Times change.


----------



## Aerobat

Handelian said:


> Anyway I'll leave it there I can enjoy singers past and the present. It is a pointless argument as we have what we have today. Times change.


This is exactly my view also. I have recordings ranging from Callas / Sutherland / Horne era, through to those recorded in the last couple of years. I enjoy pretty much all of them for what they are - there are one of two 'regrets' in my CD collection, these tend to be older recordings of incredibly poor quality though, nothing to do with the quality of the performances.


----------



## Aerobat

mparta said:


> I've gone back and forth on Netrebko and recently have found the beauty in some of her singing, especially the Anna Bolena. Not my idea of the role, but there is some beauty in her singing.
> 
> But if you're just point-making...ouch. That Forza cut is miserable, and then, you're really a salt-in-the-wound person, lol, to follow that with Tebaldi. Netrebko isn't worse next to Tebaldi, she's just awful and Tebaldi isn't better next to Netrebko, she's just magnificent.
> 
> Oh well, going to have trouble getting that one out of my ear. Yech.


Indeed - Netrebko should never have agreed to sing that role, it's totally unsuitable for her. She's OK for 'light' works, but anything requiring intense performance just isn't her thing. However, I wouldn't call Netrebko the best Soprano of her age (from an earlier post), rather I'd call her the best marketed soprano of her age. There are better voices out there, but they lack the marketing machine behind them.


----------



## Andante Cantabile

Handelian said:


> Plenty of evidence to support my view that opera singers have always been panned by contemporary critics. Yes, Callas, Price, Sutherland, et al.. Just read the reviews.


Yes, indeed. One more example.....Rosa Ponselle, who has been widely upheld by many, including Callas ("Ponselle is the greatest of us all") and Pavarotti ("The Queen of Queens in all of singing"), Tullio Serafin (one of his three miracles - Caruso, Ponselle, Ruffo), Montserrat Caballe, Marilyn Horne, Elisabeth Schwarzkopf, etc., as a paragon. Yet back to the time when Ponselle made her debut at ROH Covent Garden as Norma in 1929, the eminent Victorian critic Herman Klein compared her unfavourably with Therese Tietjens (1831-1877) in his review published in the _Gramophone_ and found her wanting in expression and interpretation:



> There were moments when [her Norma] sounded not only beautiful, but particularly appropriate. Such, for instance, was the long drawn out phrasing of ...'Casta diva';no singing could possibly have been lovelier under any conditions. Hers is indeed a lovely voice, but...she presents little variety of expression, and still fewer contrasts of tone colour wherewith to enhance the effect of her unceasing restlessness of facial movement. What I heard was deliciously pure and sweet, delivered with the perfection of vocal art ...but it was not the outpouring of the soul of Norma in magniloquent and the thrilling grandeur filling every corner of the theatre as I could remember to have heard Tietjens fill it.


Twenty-three years later, when Callas made her debut at the same place as Norma in 1952, the critic Cecil Smith, in his review in OPERA, compared her unfavourably with Rosa Ponselle and Gina Cigna on certain points amid a list of her virtues that he acknowledged:



> I did not always feel that her voice completely bore out her intentions in the moments of most imperious dramatic accents, as Ponselle and Cigna did. And I sometimes felt that she saw her part as a series of differently characterised separate numbers, and did not achieve the effect of inevitability with which Cigna swept through the score as if it were the second act of Tosca. But these are my only serious qualifications about one of the finest performances to be heard in any operatic role today.


At that point in time, Callas was in her pre-diet vocal prime, with her voice at its most secure.

Coming back to the topic of this thread, the question about the state of modern operatic singing as compared to that of the past is actually more complex than we tend to think, as many factors, including changes in time, changes and shifts in social-cultural, political and economic contexts, performance practices and priorities, tastes and aesthetics, level of musical criticism and public opinion, etc. come into play and these factors often interacted with one another. Moreover, there is also the type of repertoires to consider as well.


----------



## Tsaraslondon

Augastine said:


> Yes, indeed. One more example.....Rosa Ponselle, who has been widely upheld by many, including Callas ("Ponselle is the greatest of us all") and Pavarotti ("The Queen of Queens in all of singing"), Tullio Serafin (one of his three miracles - Caruso, Ponselle, Ruffo), Montserrat Caballe, Marilyn Horne, Elisabeth Schwarzkopf, etc., as a paragon. Yet back to the time when Ponselle made her debut at ROH Covent Garden as Norma in 1929, the eminent Victorian critic Herman Klein compared her unfavourably with Therese Tietjens (1831-1877) in his review published in the _Gramophone_ and found her wanting in expression and interpretation:
> 
> Coming back to Callas...
> 
> Twenty-three years later, when Callas made her debut at the same place as Norma in 1952, the critic Cecil Smith, in his review in OPERA, compared her unfavourably with Rosa Ponselle and Gina Cigna on certain points amid a list of her virtues that he acknowledged:
> 
> At that point in time, Callas was in her pre-diet vocal prime, with her voice at its most secure.
> 
> Just my 10 cents worth contributing to this discussion.


Critics aren't always right of course. Callas in particular represented something new and some critics just couldn't get used to her way with music, or the accuracy with which she executed it. *Norma * was (wrongly) considered a classical, heroic role rather than a Romantic one. Ponselle's coloratura technique was certainly up to it, but Cigna's was not (we can hear this in her recording). She simply doesn't have the technique, much as Netrebko doesn't have the technique for all the _bel canto_ roles she once sang.

Oddly enough the now famous and revered Callas/Di Stefano/Gobbi/De Sabata *Tosca*, universally acclaimed as one of the greatest opera recordings of all time, came in for criticism in some quarters when it was first released, Alec Robertson comparing Callas's assumption of the title role unfavourably to Tebaldi's "more dramatic" performance on the Erede recording. He died in 1982. I wonder if he ever ate his words. Dyneley Hussey made the strange observation that much of Callas's singing was unrhythmical, which, given Callas's legendary musical exactitude, now seems entirely incredible. Leaving aside the singers for a moment it beats me how anyone could consider Erede's routine accompaniment superior to De Sabata's superb moulding of the score.

That said, generally the level of criticism back then was very high. Critics like Peter Heyworth could almost make you feel you were in the theatre. Take this example from his review of Callas's *La Traviata* at Covent Garden in 1958.



> But perhaps the most marvellous moment of the evening was the long sustained B flat before Violetta descends to the opening phrase of "Dite alla giovine". This is the moment of decision on which the whole opera turns. By some miracle, Callas makes that note hang unsuspended in mid air; unadorned and unsupported she fills it with all the conflicting emotions that besiege her. As she descends to the aria, which she opened with a sweet, distant mezza voce of extraordinary poignancy, the die is cast.


Nodadays most critics talk more about the production and the sets than anything else, reserving any discussion of the actual singing to just a few lines, leading me to deduce that they really known very little about it.


----------



## Andante Cantabile

.....Deleted.....


----------



## Handelian

Tsaraslondon said:


> Critics aren't always right of course..
> 
> Oddly enough the now famous and revered Callas/Di Stefano/Gobbi/De Sabata *Tosca*, universally acclaimed as one of the greatest opera recordings of all time, came in for criticism in some quarters when it was first released, Alec Robertson comparing Callas's assumption of the title role unfavourably to Tebaldi's "more dramatic" performance on the Erede recording. He died in 1982. I wonder if he ever ate his words. Dyneley Hussey made the strange observation that much of Callas's singing was unrhythmical, which, given Callas's legendary musical exactitude, now seems entirely incredible. Leaving aside the singers for a moment it beats me how anyone could consider Erede's routine accompaniment superior to De Sabata's superb moulding of the score.
> 
> That said, generally the level of criticism back then was very high. Critics like Peter Heyworth could almost make you feel you were in the theatre. Take this example from his review of Callas's *La Traviata* at Covent Garden in 1958.
> 
> Nodadays most critics talk more about the production and the sets than anything else, reserving any discussion of the actual singing to just a few lines, leading me to deduce that they really known very little about it.


Of course critics are not always right. Reading the history of criticism proves that. They are no more likely to be right today either. The standard of criticism was not higher at all. In fact you could say with the rise of the Internet and the advent of modern recordings and HD singers are more mercilessly exposed than they have ever been. That at least was the opinion of Marilyn Horn whose opinion I would respect as an old professional. The fact is now everything is taken into consideration because the opera is not just looked at from the point of you singing but from every angle.

I have books which reckon Tosca was not the right role for Callas. It was not just Robertson. It is all opinion. You are a Callas fan so it is difficult for you to see another point of view. Interesting that Karajan revered de Sabata's conducting of Tosca and actually listened to it during making his recording with Price. Now that is what I would call an affirmation! Not what sone tin earned critic says! 
What people must realise is that there is a shift from just the singing to directing. Whereas at one time the musical director reigned supreme now it is the artistic director in a lot of cases. Priorities are changing and it is no use looking back to the past.


----------



## Andante Cantabile

Tsaraslondon said:


> Critics aren't always right of course. Callas in particular represented something new and some critics just couldn't get used to her way with music, or the accuracy with which she executed it. *Norma * was (wrongly) considered a classical, heroic role rather than a Romantic one. Ponselle's coloratura technique was certainly up to it, but Cigna's was not (we can hear this in her recording). She simply doesn't have the technique, much as Netrebko doesn't have the technique for all the _bel canto_ roles she once sang.
> 
> Oddly enough the now famous and revered Callas/Di Stefano/Gobbi/De Sabata *Tosca*, universally acclaimed as one of the greatest opera recordings of all time, came in for criticism in some quarters when it was first released, Alec Robertson comparing Callas's assumption of the title role unfavourably to Tebaldi's "more dramatic" performance on the Erede recording. He died in 1982. I wonder if he ever ate his words. Dyneley Hussey made the strange observation that much of Callas's singing was unrhythmical, which, given Callas's legendary musical exactitude, now seems entirely incredible. Leaving aside the singers for a moment it beats me how anyone could consider Erede's routine accompaniment superior to De Sabata's superb moulding of the score.
> 
> That said, generally the level of criticism back then was very high. Critics like Peter Heyworth could almost make you feel you were in the theatre. Take this example from his review of Callas's *La Traviata* at Covent Garden in 1958.
> 
> Nodadays most critics talk more about the production and the sets than anything else, reserving any discussion of the actual singing to just a few lines, leading me to deduce that they really known very little about it.


Critics of course are not always right and they can be wrong. Yet what is of real concern here (at least to me) is not whether they are right or wrong about particular artists, but how and in what ways are they a reflection of their own times and the contexts within which they lived and operated, as well as shifts and changes over time in social-cultural contexts, tastes and aesthetics, performance practices and priorities, etc.

A useful reference would be John B. Steane's _Voices, Singers and Critics_.


----------



## Tsaraslondon

Handelian said:


> Of course critics are not always right. Reading the history of criticism proves that. They are no more likely to be right today either. The standard of criticism was not higher at all. In fact you could say with the rise of the Internet and the advent of modern recordings and HD singers are more mercilessly exposed than they have ever been. That at least was the opinion of Marilyn Horn whose opinion I would respect as an old professional. The fact is now everything is taken into consideration because the opera is not just looked at from the point of you singing but from every angle.
> 
> I have books which reckon Tosca was not the right role for Callas. It was not just Robertson. It is all opinion. You are a Callas fan so it is difficult for you to see another point of view. Interesting that Karajan revered de Sabata's conducting of Tosca and actually listened to it during making his recording with Price. Now that is what I would call an affirmation! Not what sone tin earned critic says!
> What people must realise is that there is a shift from just the singing to directing. Whereas at one time the musical director reigned supreme now it is the artistic director in a lot of cases. Priorities are changing and it is no use looking back to the past.


As it happens I have always avered that, though the De Sabata is still one of the greatest recordings of *Tosca* ever made (vying with Karajan's first recording), and though Callas is a superb Tosca in it, it is not one of her greatest roles. Her true greatness is revealed in the operas of the _bel canto_, in early and middle period Verdi and in classical operas like *Medea* and the Gluck operas she sang, where her rarified gifts were displayed to greater advantage. It is no secret that she didn't much like the music of Puccini anyway, nor the role of Tosca.

Things can move both ways. Sometimes we need to look to the past to put us back on the right track. I've lost track of who is in charge at ENO now, but I've stopped going because I've seen so many dud productions there in more recent years. That was not the case back in the seventies, eighties and nineties.


----------



## Handelian

Tsaraslondon said:


> As it happens I have always avered that, though the De Sabata is still one of the greatest recordings of *Tosca* ever made (vying with Karajan's first recording), and though Callas is a superb Tosca in it, it is not one of her greatest roles. Her true greatness is revealed in the operas of the _bel canto_, in early and middle period Verdi and in classical operas like *Medea* and the Gluck operas she sang, where her rarified gifts were displayed to greater advantage. It is no secret that she didn't much like the music of Puccini anyway, nor the role of Tosca.
> 
> Things can move both ways. Sometimes we need to look to the past to put us back on the right track. I've lost track of who is in charge at ENO now, but I've stopped going because I've seen so many dud productions there in more recent years. That was not the case back in the seventies, eighties and nineties.


Sadly regietheatre and dud directors got hold of the ENO. I did see a Carmen broadcast from there which was saved by a great performance of Carmen but was simply awful in every other way. There are some directors of just want to drag you through the dirt probably because their own minds are like a sewer


----------



## Tsaraslondon

Handelian said:


> Sadly regietheatre and dud directors got hold of the ENO. I did see a Carmen broadcast from there which was saved by a great performance of Carmen but was simply awful in every other way. There are some directors of just want to drag you through the dirt probably because their own minds are like a sewer


I see. So not everything in today's opera garden is as rosy as you would have us believe.


----------



## Aerobat

Tsaraslondon said:


> As it happens I have always avered that, though the De Sabata is still one of the greatest recordings of *Tosca* ever made (vying with Karajan's first recording), and though Callas is a superb Tosca in it, it is not one of her greatest roles. Her true greatness is revealed in the operas of the _bel canto_, in early and middle period Verdi and in classical operas like *Medea* and the Gluck operas she sang, where her rarified gifts were displayed to greater advantage. It is no secret that she didn't much like the music of Puccini anyway, nor the role of Tosca.
> 
> Things can move both ways. Sometimes we need to look to the past to put us back on the right track. I've lost track of who is in charge at ENO now, but I've stopped going because I've seen so many dud productions there in more recent years. That was not the case back in the seventies, eighties and nineties.


I have to confess to passionate hatred of ENO! I prefer to hear Opera in its original language, and find English translations to be somewhat grim. I've been a little out of live performances for a few years due to two very young children and the challenges of getting all-night baby sitters where we live. Pre-kids, my regular venues were Covent Garden, Vienna, and La Scala. I've not seen a huge number of performances in these that I'd have called 'Dud'. Standards vary, as they do everywhere, but have been generally very good. Highlights included Turandot @ ROH, L'Elisir D'Amore & Manon Lescaut in Vienna, non of which were 'dud' or poor performances. Patricia Petibon as Manon stands out for her performance as a 'singing actress'. She may not have the marketing department that Anna has, but her performance standard was particularly high.


----------



## Handelian

Tsaraslondon said:


> I see. So not everything in today's opera garden is as rosy as you would have us believe.


Did I say it was? I don't know why people take statements of mine and take them to the extreme. I just said I enjoy going to the opera. I enjoyed what I could of that Carmen. What's the point of paying your money if you don't enjoy anything?


----------



## Tsaraslondon

Handelian said:


> Did I say it was? I don't know why people take statements of mine and take them to the extreme. I just said I enjoy going to the opera. I enjoyed what I could of that Carmen. What's the point of paying your money if you don't enjoy anything?


Isn't that part of the problem? These days I often pay my money and find absolutely nothing to enjoy. I walked out of a recent production of *La Boheme* at the ENO as it had absolutely nothing to commend it. The singing was average, the conducting boring, the production competely ill concieved (Rodolfo and Mimi shooting up in Act I) and ugly. An opera that usually plays itself completely missed the mark. I don't have endless reserves of money. I can't afford to be spending large sums on utter rubbish.


----------



## Tsaraslondon

Aerobat said:


> I have to confess to passionate hatred of ENO! I prefer to hear Opera in its original language, and find English translations to be somewhat grim. I've been a little out of live performances for a few years due to two very young children and the challenges of getting all-night baby sitters where we live. Pre-kids, my regular venues were Covent Garden, Vienna, and La Scala. I've not seen a huge number of performances in these that I'd have called 'Dud'. Standards vary, as they do everywhere, but have been generally very good. Highlights included Turandot @ ROH, L'Elisir D'Amore & Manon Lescaut in Vienna, non of which were 'dud' or poor performances. Patricia Petibon as Manon stands out for her performance as a 'singing actress'. She may not have the marketing department that Anna has, but her performance standard was particularly high.


I prefer opera in the correct language too, and now that ENO have started using surtitles because nobody can understand or hear what the singers are singing, it seems rather perverse to continue performing in English.

That said, when ENO were at their peak, I saw some fabulous productions there. The quality of the singing was a good deal higher too, with artists of the calibre of Janet Baker, Valerie Masterson, Jospehine Barstow, Philip Langridge and others. Just look at the cast list for the Mackerras/John Copley production of Handel's *Giulio Cesare*: Janet Baker, Valerie Masterson, Sarah Walker, Della Jones, James Bowman and John Tomlinson. They certainly couldn't produce such a team these days.


----------



## Handelian

Tsaraslondon said:


> Isn't that part of the problem? These days I often pay my money and find absolutely nothing to enjoy. I walked out of a recent production of *La Boheme* at the ENO as it had absolutely nothing to commend it. The singing was average, the conducting boring, the production competely ill concieved (Rodolfo and Mimi shooting up in Act I) and ugly. An opera that usually plays itself completely missed the mark. I don't have endless reserves of money. I can't afford to be spending large sums on utter rubbish.


Why I read the reviews. I heard about that and didn't bother. I did actually see a bit of it on the television and switched it off. The problem is there are certain producers who want to choose rub our faces in it. Alright we know those sort of people will be shooting drugs these days but there is no need to ram it down our throats. But actually in the society where they lived they were freethinking but quite intellectual people. One problem is of course that there are no new operas of quality coming along so producers feel they have to make a mark by re-interpreting the masterpieces.
But then it was always this way. There were always rotten productions


----------



## mparta

Handelian said:


> Why I read the reviews. I heard about that and didn't bother. I did actually see a bit of it on the television and switched it off. The problem is there are certain producers who want to choose rub our faces in it. Alright we know those sort of people will be shooting drugs these days but there is no need to ram it down our throats. But actually in the society where they lived they were freethinking but quite intellectual people. One problem is of course that there are no new operas of quality coming along so producers feel they have to make a mark by re-interpreting the masterpieces.
> But then it was always this way. There were always rotten productions


Could this be a circle back from Rent? modern Bohemians with bad habits and dying of HIV in 1980s New York, and now referenced in its original theatrical form of La Boheme?


----------



## mparta

Aerobat said:


> I have to confess to passionate hatred of ENO! I prefer to hear Opera in its original language, and find English translations to be somewhat grim. I've been a little out of live performances for a few years due to two very young children and the challenges of getting all-night baby sitters where we live. Pre-kids, my regular venues were Covent Garden, Vienna, and La Scala. I've not seen a huge number of performances in these that I'd have called 'Dud'. Standards vary, as they do everywhere, but have been generally very good. Highlights included Turandot @ ROH, L'Elisir D'Amore & Manon Lescaut in Vienna, non of which were 'dud' or poor performances. Patricia Petibon as Manon stands out for her performance as a 'singing actress'. She may not have the marketing department that Anna has, but her performance standard was particularly high.


Trying to keep to a positive note, yes, Petitbon in Manon!! I saw that at the Opera Comique with a very good tenor whose name escapes me, although he was young and gave me the sense that he was "demonstrating" his singing, which was too much by a couple of degrees for what I regard as a delicate opera that benefits from reserve. Petitbon was wonderful, good actress, very well sung. Her Lulu's don't seem to have done any harm to her ability to back into the Belle Epoque.


----------



## Tsaraslondon

Handelian said:


> Why I read the reviews. I heard about that and didn't bother. I did actually see a bit of it on the television and switched it off. The problem is there are certain producers who want to choose rub our faces in it. Alright we know those sort of people will be shooting drugs these days but there is no need to ram it down our throats. But actually in the society where they lived they were freethinking but quite intellectual people. One problem is of course that there are no new operas of quality coming along so producers feel they have to make a mark by re-interpreting the masterpieces.
> But then it was always this way. There were always rotten productions


As reviews come out after a production has opened, reading them won't help much if a production is sold out, which often happens with more popular operas, but then I thought you didn't take much notice of critics anyway.

Another example. A friend of mine, a long time opera lover, wanted to introduce her husband to opera. She booked best seats for a production of *Madama Butterfly* (usually a guaranteed hit) at Covent Garden, the production having been much praised on its first outing. The tickets cost her around £150 each. She was profoundly disappointed. Aside from the tenor (I can't remember who it was), she said the performance was just plain dull and the opera didn't make the emotional impact it could and should. Her husband told her he enjoyed it, but she wanted him to be overwhelmed, as she had been on so many occasions in the past. She was actually quite angry. We should not accept such low standards in the UK's premiere opera venue. It's one of the reasons I tend not to take the risk anymore. I simply cannot afford to squander £200 to £300 on something that is mediocre at best.


----------



## Tsaraslondon

mparta said:


> Could this be a circle back from Rent? modern Bohemians with bad habits and dying of HIV in 1980s New York, and now referenced in its original theatrical form of La Boheme?


I wouldn't be surprised, but *Rent* was a good deal more inventive and a lot better performed than this sorry mess.


----------



## Parsifal98

Augastine said:


> Yes, indeed. One more example.....Rosa Ponselle, who has been widely upheld by many, including Callas ("Ponselle is the greatest of us all") and Pavarotti ("The Queen of Queens in all of singing"), Tullio Serafin (one of his three miracles - Caruso, Ponselle, Ruffo), Montserrat Caballe, Marilyn Horne, Elisabeth Schwarzkopf, etc., as a paragon. Yet back to the time when Ponselle made her debut at ROH Covent Garden as Norma in 1929, the eminent Victorian critic Herman Klein compared her unfavourably with Therese Tietjens (1831-1877) in his review published in the _Gramophone_ and found her wanting in expression and interpretation:
> 
> Twenty-three years later, when Callas made her debut at the same place as Norma in 1952, the critic Cecil Smith, in his review in OPERA, compared her unfavourably with Rosa Ponselle and Gina Cigna on certain points amid a list of her virtues that he acknowledged:
> 
> At that point in time, Callas was in her pre-diet vocal prime, with her voice at its most secure.
> 
> Coming back to the topic of this thread, the question about the state of modern operatic singing as compared to that of the past is actually more complex than we tend to think, as many factors, including changes in time, changes and shifts in social-cultural, political and economic contexts, performance practices and priorities, tastes and aesthetics, level of musical criticism and public opinion, etc. come into play and these factors often interacted with one another. Moreover, there is also the type of repertoires to consider as well.


You'll realize that both critics are criticising Ponselle and Callas's interpretation, not their voice. Actually, both vocal performances are praised. Ponselle is said to have delivered _with the perfection of vocal art_ while Callas's performance was considered to be _one of the finest performances to be *heard* (emphasis mine) in any operatic role today_. And this thread is mostly interested in vocal production. So the exemples you have given us do not in any way support the claim that opera singers _have always been panned by contemporary critics_ concerning their VOCAL PRODUCTION. All interpretations can be criticised because their impact on a given spectator is higly subjective. But a good vocal technique is not.

Concerning Netrebko, it is not only that the role of Leonora is unsuitable for her. All roles are unsuitable for her because her technique is inherently lacking. She may be able to produce some beautiful sounds, but her voice does not possess any operatic quality. Some say she is okay for some lighter works. Then again, no. Here is an exemple:











Both singers are young and in their prime. Netrebko's voice is thick, unclear (can't understand a word she's singing). This is caused by the fact that her registers are not coordinated and she is mainly singing in falsetto, instead of singing in a clear, powerful and released head voice like Tebaldi (head voice= falsetto + chest voice coordinated) . There is not any squillo in Netrebko's voice compared to the ear piercing sound coming out of Tebaldi's mouth. We barely hear Netrebko when she sings lower notes because she does not use her chest voice, which is ABSOLUTELY necessary for soprani. Compare them both starting at 1:23 (in both clips). The differences are clear. Netrebko even wobbles on certain notes because of the constriction in her voice.

Now I have nothing against Netrebko's interpretation, which is mostly what critics go against because they lack knowledge regarding the voice. What I am criticising is her vocal technique, which is mediocre compared to Tebaldi.


----------



## Handelian

Parsifal98 said:


> Now I have nothing against Netrebko's interpretation, which is mostly what critics go against because they lack knowledge regarding the voice. What I am criticising is her vocal technique, which is mediocre compared to Tebaldi.


You are following in a distinguished line of critics who criticised the likes of Callas et al as they compared her to Tebaldi. it was a real sport when I was young and even before I took up opera. But then what did Callas know? Or Nebs know for that matter?
"The critics who pay to get in (i.e., the audience) are the most crucial to success. " (April Millo)


----------



## Andante Cantabile

Parsifal98 said:


> You'll realize that both critics are criticising Ponselle and Callas's interpretation, not their voice. Actually, both vocal performances are praised. Ponselle is said to have delivered _with the perfection of vocal art_ while Callas's performance was considered to be _one of the finest performances to be *heard* (emphasis mine) in any operatic role today_. And this thread is mostly interested in vocal production. So the exemples you have given us does not in any way support the claim that opera singers _have always been panned by contemporary critics_ concerning their VOCAL PRODUCTION. All interpretations can be criticised because their impact on a given spectator is higly subjective. But a good vocal technique is not.


Thanks for pointing this out. Towards your point I really don't have much to say except that I should have made a clear and careful distinction between vocal production and interpretation when reading the critics' texts.


----------



## Parsifal98

Handelian said:


> You are following in a distinguished line of critics who criticised the likes of Callas et al as they compared her to Tebaldi. it was a real sport when I was young and even before I took up opera. But then what did Callas know? Or Nebs know for that matter?
> "The critics who pay to get in (i.e., the audience) are the most crucial to success. " (April Millo)


I do not understand what you mean? I have compared Tebaldi with Netrebko, not with Callas.

And we know it's you DavidA. Stop hiding behind a new pseudonym. You always say the same things and never present evidences or examples to support your bold claim that me and others members of this forum are drowning in nostalgia and cannot appreciate modern singers. I actually started my operatic journey with modern singers like Netrebko, Damrau and Florez and soon realised that they were sub-par compared to singers from past generations. I am not blinded by nostalgia. I have only listened to the evidences. You can do the same you know.


----------



## Tsaraslondon

Parsifal98 said:


> I do not understand what you mean? I have compared Tebaldi with Netrebko, not with Callas.
> 
> And we know it's you DavidA. Stop hiding behind a new pseudonym. You always say the same things and never present evidences or examples to support your bold claim that me and others members of this forum are drowning in nostalgia and cannot appreciate modern singers. I actually started my operatic journey with modern singers like Netrebko, Damrau and Florez and soon realised that they were sub-par compared to singers from past generations. I am not blinded by nostalgia. I have only listened to the evidences. You can do the same you know.


Handelian is being deliberately confusing. It was a game a certain DavidA used to play.


----------



## Bonetan

Tsaraslondon said:


> Handelian is being deliberately confusing. It was a game a certain DavidA used to play.


Same person, different day. We all need alter egos sometimes lol


----------



## Handelian

Parsifal98 said:


> I do not understand what you mean? I have compared Tebaldi with Netrebko, not with Callas.
> 
> And we know it's you DavidA. Stop hiding behind a new pseudonym. You always say the same things and never present evidences or examples to support your bold claim that me and others members of this forum are drowning in nostalgia and cannot appreciate modern singers. I actually started my operatic journey with modern singers like Netrebko, Damrau and Florez and soon realised that they were sub-par compared to singers from past generations. I am not blinded by nostalgia. I have only listened to the evidences. You can do the same you know.


OK I'll leave you to the past. I'll enjoy both the past and the present. Apologies for enjoying Netrebko, Damrau and Florez. Oh and Di Donato too.


----------



## Woodduck

Handelian said:


> This my dear friend is opera. Anything goes. After all, they are singing instead of speaking, so how much more ridiculous can you get?
> 
> The Lady Macbeth of Nebs is actually a cat seeking her prey. Why the crouching and spitting.


If you think that "anything goes" in opera it's lucky for us that you don't produce or direct it. There are already far too many people doing those things who agree with you. But then, haven't you done your share of complaining about the silliness they put on the stage?

Anna Nerebko may think Lady Macbeth is a cat. If so, that's her mistake (and does she actually spit?). But Tsaraslondon wasn't talking about Lady Macbeth.

Just when we thought that the only member who's been telling us for years that opera is ridiculous has finally been retired from the forum, his identical twin shows up in a powdered wig.


----------



## Handelian

Woodduck said:


> If you think that "anything goes" in opera it's lucky for us that you don't produce or direct it. There are already far too many people doing those things who agree with you. But then, haven't you done your share of complaining about the silliness they put on the stage?
> 
> Anna Nerebko may think Lady Macbeth is a cat. If so, that's her mistake (and does she actually spit?). But Tsaraslondon wasn't talking about Lady Macbeth.
> 
> Just when we thought that the only member who's been telling us for years that opera is ridiculous has finally been retired from the forum, his identical twin shows up in a powdered wig.


Well as I have been involved in operatic production and direction and staging. Good thing perhaps you weren't in the full houses that we had! We did manage to offend the traditionalists I admit but delighted the vast majority.


----------



## Parsifal98

Handelian said:


> OK I'll leave you to the past. I'll enjoy both the past and the present. Apologies for enjoying Netrebko, Damrau and Florez. Oh and Di Donato too.


Goodbye then! Sad that you still have not given us any examples of how modern singers compare to old school singers. It is a shame really. Come back when you are willing to discuss. You are the one who started throwing off accusations left and right. Just like DavidA used to do. Try not to get your second account banned like the first one.


----------



## Woodduck

Parsifal98 said:


> Goodbye then! Sad that you still have not given us any examples of how modern singers compare to old school singers. It is a shame really. Come back when you are willing to discuss. You are the one who started throwing off accusations left and right. Just like DavidA used to do. Try not to get your second account banned like the first one.


We must be careful how we tell open secrets.


----------



## Handelian

Parsifal98 said:


> Goodbye then! Sad that you still have not given us any examples of how modern singers compare to old school singers. It is a shame really. Come back when you are willing to discuss. You are the one who started throwing off accusations left and right. Just like DavidA used to do. Try not to get your second account banned like the first one.


I am not trying to give any examples of how modern singers compare with old school ones. I was not the one who throw accusations out. I was merely the one who said I enjoy modern operatic singers with their virtues and their faults and I also said and showed from history that criticising contemporary singers has always been done. It's always has been done the opera world. I'm just saying what is fact. I'm sorry if you take exception to it but I'll have done with this as I dislike this type of personal argument.


----------



## Woodduck

Handelian said:


> I am not trying to give any examples of how modern singers compare with old school ones. I was not the one who throw accusations out. I was merely the one who said I enjoy modern operatic singers with their virtues and their faults and *I also said and proved from history that criticising contemporary singers has always been done*. It's always has been done the opera world. *I'm just saying what is fact.*


It "is a fact" that _everything_ has been criticized by someone. Why you think this constitutes any sort of argument for anything has never been explained. I'm sure you can't explain it even now. But it might be amusing to hear you try.


----------



## Handelian

Woodduck said:


> It "is a fact" that _everything_ has been criticized by someone. Why you think this constitutes any sort of argument for anything has never been explained. I'm sure you can't explain it even now. But it might be amusing to hear you try.


I'm sorry but I'm not going to argue with you. It is quite obvious what I meant and if you can't see it then I'm sorry.


----------



## Woodduck

Handelian said:


> I'm sorry but I'm not going to argue with you. It is quite obvious what I meant and if you can't see it then I'm sorry.


Yes, it is quite obvious what you meant. What you meant is an attempt to imply that the ubiquity of criticism invalidates criticism.

It doesn't.


----------



## Parsifal98

Woodduck said:


> Just when we thought that the only member who's been telling us for years that opera is ridiculous has finally been retired from the forum, his identical twin shows up in a powdered wig.


Well that made me laugh :lol:


----------



## Andante Cantabile

Parsifal98 said:


> You'll realize that both critics are criticising Ponselle and Callas's interpretation, not their voice. Actually, both vocal performances are praised. Ponselle is said to have delivered _with the perfection of vocal art_ while Callas's performance was considered to be _one of the finest performances to be *heard* (emphasis mine) in any operatic role today_. And this thread is mostly interested in vocal production. So the exemples you have given us do not in any way support the claim that opera singers _have always been panned by contemporary critics_ concerning their VOCAL PRODUCTION. All interpretations can be criticised because their impact on a given spectator is higly subjective. But a good vocal technique is not.


By now, I managed to access the full text of Herman Klein's review of Ponselle's CG debut as Norma (_Gramophone_, July 1929) (whereas previously, I could only manage to quote the extract cited in Michael Scott's re-assessment article on Ponselle in _International Opera Collector_, Summer 1997). Where Ponselle's vocal production is concerned, Klein gave many praises (as shown in my earlier post), yet he made one complaint:



> resonance and the ring of a tragic accent in the middle of the voice were alone lacking to lend dramatic significance to her clear, incisive coloratura.


In other words, Klein did pick fault and criticise Ponselle in the department of vocal production.

About Cecil Smith's comments on Callas' vocal production in his review of her CG debut as Norma in Nov 1952 (OPERA, Jan 1953), just refer to the full text sent in PM.


----------



## Seattleoperafan

I thought I might ask a question in a recent thread that has not seen any life in a month. There seems to be a good idea of good golden age technique in many members here. Do you think there are for the most part no voice teachers around that teach that technique anymore. The recordings are available. Corelli taught himself by learning from great singers of the past on recordings.If a modern singer did sing with real Bel Canto technique, would it be recognized as such by a modern audience or would they complain that said singer did not have the accepted sound that is in vogue today.If no one responds to this I may start a new thread.


----------



## Azol

I think it's the "out of the school, into the stardom" that produces "modern" voices. The technique is there, but no time to learn it properly anymore.


----------



## Aerobat

Seattleoperafan said:


> I thought I might ask a question in a recent thread that has not seen any life in a month. There seems to be a good idea of good golden age technique in many members here. Do you think there are for the most part no voice teachers around that teach that technique anymore. The recordings are available. Corelli taught himself by learning from great singers of the past on recordings.If a modern singer did sing with real Bel Canto technique, would it be recognized as such by a modern audience or would they complain that said singer did not have the accepted sound that is in vogue today.If no one responds to this I may start a new thread.


I suspect the modern audience would initially struggle to appreciate this type of singing. I'd also expect it to be more popular initially in live performance than recordings. Over time, I suspect that appreciation would grow - but don't expect this to happen instantly / short-term.


----------



## Woodduck

Aerobat said:


> I suspect the modern audience would initially struggle to appreciate this type of singing. I'd also expect it to be more popular initially in live performance than recordings. Over time, I suspect that appreciation would grow - but don't expect this to happen instantly / short-term.


What exactly do you mean by "this type of singing," and why would present-day audiences have a problem with it? I'm inclined to think that if a baritone today could deliver Verdi the way Battistini, Amato or Stracciari could, audiences would go wild and demand encores on the spot.


----------



## Seattleoperafan

Woodduck said:


> What exactly do you mean by "this type of singing," and why would present-day audiences have a problem with it? I'm inclined to think that if a baritone today could deliver Verdi the way Battistini, Amato or Stracciari could, audiences would go wild and demand encores on the spot.


Woodduck, to my ears the types of voice that are in vogue today sound different from many singers from 70 to 100 years ago. I think Ponselle or Milanov would sound odd to many in today's audiences. I think many singers today have their natural placement replaced with a less natural placement. I say this because so many singers today sound generic and this has been discussed on this forum before so I am not alone. Didonato is an example here. I would hope they would be embraced if singing today, but i am not totally sure.
My sister, who sang opera and taught for 40 years, says one of the big problems today is too many singers are pushed too fast into roles they aren't ready for. Ponselle could sing Forza at 22, but she was a vocal freak.


----------



## Bonetan

Woodduck said:


> What exactly do you mean by "this type of singing," and why would present-day audiences have a problem with it? I'm inclined to think that if a baritone today could deliver Verdi the way Battistini, Amato or Stracciari could, audiences would go wild and demand encores on the spot.


Woodduck is right. Audiences would go wild for a singer like that and recognize that the old singing traditions are superior in the same way we do when we compare Maestri to Battistini...


----------



## Woodduck

Seattleoperafan said:


> Woodduck, to my ears the types of voice that are in vogue today sound different from many singers from 70 to 100 years ago. I think Ponselle or Milanov would sound odd to many in today's audiences. I think many singers today have their natural placement replaced with a less natural placement. I say this because so many singers today sound generic and this has been discussed on this forum before so I am not alone. Didonato is an example here. I would hope they would be embraced if singing today, but i am not totally sure.
> My sister, who sang opera and taught for 40 years, says one of the big problems today is too many singers are pushed too fast into roles they aren't ready for. Ponselle could sing Forza at 22, but she was a vocal freak.


In what ways do you think the singers of 1920 sound different from those of today? Is it a matter of the actual sound of the voice, or is it a question of style?


----------



## Seattleoperafan

Woodduck said:


> In what ways do you think the singers of 1920 sound different from those of today? Is it a matter of the actual sound of the voice, or is it a question of style?


Singers from that time tended to have very individual, easily recognizable voices. I would say they have more natural placements . I would assume this is more correct to have your own individual sound. At least all of my favorite ones from that time do. Renee Fleming and Jonas Kauffman are part of a slim minority today that don't have a homogenized sound, even if you have beefs with the way they sound. I am sure you could explain this much better than me and I am not meaning this to be argumentative. If I am wrong I am willing to learn.


----------



## Parsifal98

Seattleoperafan said:


> Singers from that time tended to have very individual, easily recognizable voices. I would say they have more natural placements . I would assume this is more correct to have your own individual sound. At least all of my favorite ones from that time do. Renee Fleming and Jonas Kauffman are part of a slim minority today that don't have a homogenized sound, even if you have beefs with the way they sound. I am sure you could explain this much better than me and I am not meaning this to be argumentative. If I am wrong I am willing to learn.


I hope Wooduck will share with us his view on this, for he is always informative and pertinent in everything that he says! Now if I might share my views on this, I think the main reason why voices from what we could call the golden and silver eras were more distinctive was because of the use of chest voice and the coordination of the registers. Everyone's falsetto sounds mostly the same, but everyone's chest voice (the speaking voice) has a very distinctive sound. When the registers are well-coordinated, the chest voice is present throughout all of the singer's range, therefore giving the voice a more personalized and natural sound!

Now Kaufmann, being a tenor, does use his chest voice a great deal (even more than many of his collegues who sing with some kind of a mixed voice), but his voice his marred by many other problems, the main one being the _voce ingolata_ (tongue blocking inside his throat). It is an unatural way of dropping the larynx, creating a great deal of undesired tension. He sounds unatural because this is not how the voice works.

So to sum up, a distinct and natural sound = following the natural workings of the voice, which is what bel canto is all about.


----------



## Plague

Seattleoperafan said:


> If a modern singer did sing with real Bel Canto technique, would it be recognized as such by a modern audience or would they complain that said singer did not have the accepted sound that is in vogue today.





Seattleoperafan said:


> Woodduck, to my ears the types of voice that are in vogue today sound different from many singers from 70 to 100 years ago. I think Ponselle or Milanov would sound odd to many in today's audiences.


I think your concern is understandable. When it comes to recordings, are we really sure today's listeners would prefer the traditional singing at 00:42-00:52 & 1:44-2:07 to the "sweet and elegant" modern singing at 00:16-0:27 & 1:13-1:34?


----------



## Handelian

Plague said:


> I think your concern is understandable. When it comes to recordings, are we really sure today's listeners would prefer the traditional singing at 00:42-00:52 & 1:44-2:07 to the "sweet and elegant" modern singing at 00:16-0:27 & 1:13-1:34?


I love to know the background of people who go to the trouble of posting things like this again and again and do a psychology test on them. Are they just a negative mindset and this is a way they outwork it? Or are they failed or frustrated artist themselves who somehow try and relieve their own failures by criticising those who have made it (as they see it) unfairly? Interesting psychological study I bet.


----------



## BachIsBest

Handelian said:


> I love to know the background of people who go to the trouble of posting things like this again and again and do a psychology test on them. Are they just a negative mindset and this is a way they outwork it? Or are they failed or frustrated artist themselves who somehow try and relieve their own failures by criticising those who have made it (as they see it) unfairly? Interesting psychological study I bet.


I know this might sound crazy, but maybe they just really like the old style of operatic singing?


----------



## Revitalized Classics

BachIsBest said:


> I know this might sound crazy, but maybe they just really like the old style of operatic singing?


This. I think it is great that whoever made the video cared enough to effectively make a 'video essay': Yes, they find _fault_ with some singing but what makes this series interesting is they immediately offer complementary examples on the _merits_ of other singing.

With that particular video, beneath the banter there is an interesting point about what works _amplified_ by the microphone in the recording studio and the technique required to fill an actual hall. It was a well chosen comparison - two coloratura sopranos singing the same rep - and it is very useful to cite a singer - Tetrazzini - who found fame before the microphone was invented. That is a fruitful place to start a discussion.

As you note, they are simply consumers saying what they want. Besides that, they can be entertaining: often I find the banter in the videos funny, hyperbolic, caustic and partisan.


----------



## The Conte

Handelian said:


> I love to know the background of people who go to the trouble of posting things like this again and again and do a psychology test on them. Are they just a negative mindset and this is a way they outwork it? Or are they failed or frustrated artist themselves who somehow try and relieve their own failures by criticising those who have made it (as they see it) unfairly? Interesting psychological study I bet.


There are all sorts of strange behaviour on the internet I wonder about. People are sometimes strange, don't you think? (Although in this case it just seems to be someone engaged in a hobby they enjoy.)

N.


----------



## Aerobat

Plague said:


> I think your concern is understandable. When it comes to recordings, are we really sure today's listeners would prefer the traditional singing at 00:42-00:52 & 1:44-2:07 to the "sweet and elegant" modern singing at 00:16-0:27 & 1:13-1:34?


Wow! Just Wow! Unfortunately for all the wrong reasons. According to this video, volume matters - a louder voice is the most important element? Really?

According to this there is no place for a refined voice. I disagree. A refined voice is generally far better than a course one in terms of enjoyment. Can you imagine an unrefined, shouty, Adina? Hardly in character.

"On the other hand, when properly developed voice, voice with core, sings some slightly flat note, or makes some minor mistake (nobody is perfect), he / she is still better than when small, weak voice sings "Perfectly".". Oh, once again, louder = better (even if louder singers it 'flat'). Errr, no. Most modern opera singers have the ability to fill a theatre and can do so without shouting.

"If we put Sumi Jo and Luisa Tettrazini together on the same stage, difference would be obvious. It would be like this:" (picture of tiny Sumi next to huge Luisa). Errr. How do you know? We only have ancient, poor, recordings of Tettrazini. They do sound shouty and crude, but I know of no-one living who heard her live. We can only guess at how good she was in a theatre.

I have watched this from start to finish - the author's definition of a 'well developed voice' to me sounds just loud and 'shouty'.

Well folks, I'm your audience (instrumentalist, not singer). Maybe my opinion doesn't matter (hey, I'm just the customer), but if I had to choose between Tettrazini & Jo, I'll go with Jo every time.


----------



## Woodduck

Plague said:


> I think your concern is understandable. When it comes to recordings, are we really sure today's listeners would prefer the traditional singing at 00:42-00:52 & 1:44-2:07 to the "sweet and elegant" modern singing at 00:16-0:27 & 1:13-1:34?


The ideas are basically sound, but the presentation undercuts the message. Playing the older singers at a higher volume than the recent ones comes across as cheating. Those of us with experienced ears can hear the differences in vocal resonance and strength without that sort of "help."


----------



## vivalagentenuova

This is why I think Tetrazzini had a bigger voice than Sumi Jo, unless there is a massive open air concert without a microphone from Sumi Jo that I'm not aware of.

As is often the case, they didn't choose a very good example to make their point. I also somewhat disagree with their aesthetic point of view. Yes, we want powerful and exciting singing, but a solid technique also allows a singer to be _more_ elegant than a singer with a poor technique. There's no reason to put power and elegance at odds.




There's no shouting here (nor was there even in the example they chose), but there is elegance in the extreme. Tetrazzini is able to dominate the quartet when she wants to, despite singing with two massive voiced gentlemen. Testimony from the time shows that this was not an artifact of the recording. (Somehow I doubt Sumi Jo could dominate Amato and Caruso.) Elegance, musicality, and powerful voices. I would take _that_ every time.


----------



## Aerobat

vivalagentenuova said:


> View attachment 149256
> 
> This is why I think Tetrazzini had a bigger voice than Sumi Jo, unless there is a massive open air concert without a microphone from Sumi Jo that I'm not aware of.
> 
> As is often the case, they didn't choose a very good example to make their point. I also somewhat disagree with their aesthetic point of view. Yes, we want powerful and exciting singing, but a solid technique also allows a singer to be _more_ elegant than a singer with a poor technique. There's no reason to put power and elegance at odds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no shouting here (nor was there even in the example they chose), but there is elegance in the extreme. Tetrazzini is able to dominate the quartet when she wants to, despite singing with two massive voiced gentlemen. Testimony from the time shows that this was not an artifact of the recording. (Somehow I doubt Sumi Jo could dominate Amato and Caruso.) Elegance, musicality, and powerful voices. I would take _that_ every time.


Your last sentence sums it up. For me, personally, I will take elegance & musicality ahead of power, but would love all three. However, the producer of that video is quite clearly pitching that power is everything, whereas I would consider that musicality must come first. Without musicality, where is expression? Power alone can never give us expression or interpretation of music!


----------



## Parsifal98

Here is a short video that I want to share with you! These are extracts of Giacomo Lauri-Volpi performing arias from _Gli Ugonotti_ live at the Verona Arena in 1933. Enjoy!


----------



## adriesba

Some people in the comments of this video are saying that certain singers are "constricted". I have no idea if they are correct, but if they are, could someone explain what that means or clarify what differences can be heard in the singers' technique?


----------



## Parsifal98

adriesba said:


> Some people in the comments of this video are saying that certain singers are "constricted". I have no idea if they are correct, but if they are, could someone explain what that means or clarify what differences can be heard in the singers' technique?


Maybe some other forumer will be better at explaining it than me but constriction refers to the presence of undesirable tension in the singer's voice. It negatively affects the vibrato (cause of wobble or caprino), the voice's resonance, the purity of the vowels, the tones and the overtones. The voice sounds squeezed and the singing seems, and is, effortful. The singer at 2:20 in the video you've shared is a great example of a constricted voice. Her jaw is vibrating, which is a sign of undesirable tension. Nilsson just after her is a great example of the opposite. Look how relaxed she looks and listen to the freeness and depth of the lowest note!


----------



## Parsifal98

The Bayreuth Festival has announced its programmation for 2021. Klaus Florian Vogt will be singing Walther in Meistersinger and Siegmund in Die Walküre. For those who may not know him, here he is singing _Winterstürme_ from the aformentioned opera:






And here he is singing Walther:






This is the level of singing at Bayreuth right now...


----------



## vivalagentenuova

Florian Vogt is just... inconceivable. (And yes, I know what that word means.)


----------



## Woodduck

Parsifal98 said:


> The Bayreuth Festival has announced its programmation for 2021. Klaus Florian Vogt will be singing Walther in Meistersinger and Siegmund in Die Walküre. For those who may not know him, here he is singing _Winterstürme_ from the aformentioned opera:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here he is singing Walther:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the level of singing at Bayreuth right now...


I'm just in from the "favorite dramatic tenors" thread, where I asked, quite sincerely, why no one can sing any more.

Acceptance of THIS as Wagner singing (or any kind of singing) is one reason why. And clearly the visual side of these productions - as expected from post-Wieland Bayreuth - is fully commensurate with their aural impact.

In times past, a voice like Vogt's would have taken the shepherd in _Tristan,_ one of the boys in _Parsifal,_ or, at the limit, David in _Meistersinger._ Now he gets the leads. I propose a new fach for him: _Wimpentenor._

There are times - many times - when I don't regret being old, given that we're living in a dying culture on a dying planet. It'll be a bloody relief to get the hell out of here.

P.S. Who are all those people in Hunding's house? Maybe the camera crew who will record Siegmund and Sieglinde in a red-hot sibling porn video?


----------



## zxxyxxz

While I would prefer a bit more world weariness and a bit more baritonal perhaps? I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised and thought he voice was rather pleasant I enjoyed his winterstürme.


----------



## Aerobat

In response to the previous post, his voice is most pleasant. Unfortunately, that's not really what this role requires. He'd be perfectly fine in lighter repertoire, but he simply doesn't have the right fach for this role. In simple terms, a reasonable voice in completely the wrong role. This is a man who should *not* be singing Wagner.


----------



## The Conte

Aerobat said:


> In response to the previous post, his voice is most pleasant. Unfortunately, that's not really what this role requires. He'd be perfectly fine in lighter repertoire, but he simply doesn't have the right fach for this role. In simple terms, a reasonable voice in completely the wrong role. This is a man who should *not* be singing Wagner.


He'd be fine as the Steersman in Dutchman or the Sailor in Tristan. But you are right, he's a Wunderlich, not a Windgassen.

N.


----------



## Barbebleu

The Conte said:


> He'd be fine as the Steersman in Dutchman or the Sailor in Tristan. But you are right, he's a Wunderlich, not a Windgassen.
> 
> N.


He's not even close to being a Wunderlich either. I love Woodduck's new fach, Wimpentenor. It suits Vogt to a "T".

I know there are those who will condemn us for being old, reactionary fuddy-duddies but you only need to listen to what is being sung by Vogt and compare the same part being sung by someone like Vickers and not start weeping in frustration.

Perhaps people with good trainable voices don't see a commercial future in opera and have gone down the popular music path. You just need to look at how opera albums don't really sell in viable quantities by the fact that it's been more than ten years since the last studio recording of any Wagner opera took place.


----------



## Tsaraslondon

Barbebleu said:


> He's not even close to being a Wunderlich either. I love Woodduck's new fach, Wimpentenor. It suits Vogt to a "T".
> 
> I know there are those who will condemn us for being old, reactionary fuddy-duddies but you only need to listen to what is being sung by Vogt and compare the same part being sung by someone like Vickers and not start weeping in frustration.


Wunderlich was only 35 when he died, but he sounds as if he could have gone on to sing Lohengrin at least, maybe even Walther. Vogt sounds as if he would be hard pressed to sing the Steersman, which Wunderlich sings gloriously on the Konwitschny recording.


----------



## Woodduck

I just couldn't resist watching this video of the unique Herr Klaus Florian Vogt, sole occupant of the _Wimpentenor_ fach, in the Met's absurd staging of Act 2 of _Parsifal:_






If that hasn't left you gaping and gasping for breath, here are Tristie and Izzy out on a date:






He sounds like her teenage son, which raises uncomfortable questions.

It occurred to me last night that Vogt would be a plausible Parsifal - the innocent fool - right up to the moment when Kundry's kiss transforms him. At that point, with the help of some clever stagecraft, Vogt would slip out and go to dinner somewhere, and Jonas Kaufmann would sneak onstage and finish the opera. Great idea, huh? Opera houses really should consult me about casting.

Vogt's Wagner repertoire could plausibly include shepherds, steersmen, apprentices and squires. He'd also be useful in the chorus (although the rowdy, mead-guzzling vassals in _Gotterdammerung _might want to punch him and pull his hair), and he'd make an outstanding Nibelung, pounding an anvil and shrieking in terror while running away from Alberich.

I can't guess what Italian, French or Russian opera he should sing, but this may give us an idea of what to expect:


----------



## vivalagentenuova

Woodduck said:


> I just couldn't resist watching this video of the unique Herr Klaus Florian Vogt, sole occupant of the _Wimpentenor_ fach, in the Met's absurd staging of Act 2 of _Parsifal:_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that hasn't left you gaping and gasping for breath, here are Tristie and Izzy out on a date:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He sounds like her teenage son, which raises uncomfortable questions.
> 
> It occurred to me last night that Vogt would be a plausible Parsifal - the innocent fool - right up to the moment when Kundry's kiss transforms him. At that point, with the help of some clever stagecraft, Vogt would slip out and go to dinner somewhere, and Jonas Kaufmann would sneak onstage and finish the opera. Great idea, huh? Opera houses really should consult me about casting.
> 
> Vogt's Wagner repertoire could plausibly include shepherds, steersmen, apprentices and squires. He'd also be useful in the chorus (although the rowdy, mead-guzzling vassals in _Gotterdammerung _might want to punch him and pull his hair), and he'd make an outstanding Nibelung, pounding an anvil and shrieking in terror while running away from Alberich.
> 
> I can't guess what Italian, French or Russian opera he should sing, but this may give us an idea of what to expect:


His vibrato is undefinable. Sometimes it's a wobble, sometimes it's straight tone and other times it's something else all together. Truly bizarre. One of the commenters said it's as if Parpignol were playing Parsifal, but I feel that's unfair to some Parpignols I've heard with lovely, rounded voices.



Aerobat said:


> In response to the previous post, his voice is most pleasant. Unfortunately, that's not really what this role requires. He'd be perfectly fine in lighter repertoire, but he simply doesn't have the right fach for this role. In simple terms, a reasonable voice in completely the wrong role. This is a man who should not be singing Wagner.


I can't agree that the problem is that he's just singing too big a role. He recorded Tamino recently:




That's just bad singing. It's not because the role is too big. He's horrible constricted. His vibrato is all over the place and not consistent, the whole thing sounds effortful, and his sound is way overly bright.

This is what a "light" lyric voice should sound like:




Rich, full tones, consistent vibrato, effortless legato, sounds spontaneous like he's just having these thoughts for the first time. Plenty of subtlety and shading, which is impossible for Vogt because he doesn't have any options other than insipid brightness.

Wunderlich was not one of the greatest in my book and I feel that he is sometimes a little overrated at the expense of better lyrics from a generation or two earlier like Patzak, Ludwig, d'Arkor, Nash, Hackett, Anders (before he attempted Wagner), and more, but he was a fine singer and I would never compare him to Vogt.


----------



## Woodduck

vivalagentenuova said:


> His vibrato is undefinable. Sometimes it's a wobble, sometimes it's straight tone and other times it's something else all together. Truly bizarre. One of the commenters said it's as if Parpignol were playing Parsifal, but I feel that's unfair to some Parpignols I've heard with lovely, rounded voices.
> 
> I can't agree that the problem is that he's just singing too big a role. He recorded Tamino recently:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's just bad singing. It's not because the role is too big. He's horrible constricted. His vibrato is all over the place and not consistent, the whole thing sounds effortful, and his sound is way overly bright.


My God, that's pathetic. I want to kill myself.


----------



## vivalagentenuova

Woodduck said:


> My God, that's pathetic. I want to kill myself.


I suggest for your own safety that you don't look any further into that recording, especially Rolando Villazon's Papageno (yes, unfortunately you read that correctly).


----------



## Woodduck

vivalagentenuova said:


> I suggest for your own safety that you don't look any further into that recording, especially Rolando Villazon's Papageno (yes, unfortunately you read that correctly).


Holy crap. ............


----------



## Barbebleu

I suggest for our physical and mental health we stop listening to Herr Vogt with immediate effect!:lol:


----------



## Parsifal98

Well to dampen spirits even more... Anna Netrebko has posted on Instagram videos of her singing Isolde. She may have done this for fun, or is learning the role. It better be the first option...


----------



## 89Koechel

Well, Ms. Netrebko has her AMBITIONS, as (I'm sure) almost any opera singer might HAVE (or had). OK, if she wants to give Isolde a shot (and I mean that figuratively ... haha), let's let her go ahead and TRY. We can be very-sure she's not a successor to Flagstad or any other of the Golden Age ladies ... but then, who IS? ... Also, am sure that no modern-day tenor would try to be a "successor" to a Bjorling or a Thill, or Lauritz Melchior. If anyone wants to pursue the premise that the singers of the Golden Age (and name your dates, for that span) were/are BETTER than the present, or the future ... I'd like to know. As for the REASONS why the older singers were so-much better, that's probably a different subject. .... OK, Ms. Netrebko, enjoy yourself, and pursue the role "for fun", as you may; good luck!


----------



## wkasimer

Barbebleu said:


> I know there are those who will condemn us for being old, reactionary fuddy-duddies but you only need to listen to what is being sung by Vogt and compare the same part being sung by someone like Vickers and not start weeping in frustration.


Why go back that far? Singers of more recent vintage like Heppner and Seiffert put Vogt to shame.


----------



## Woodduck

wkasimer said:


> Why go back that far? Singers of more recent vintage like Heppner and Seiffert put Vogt to shame.


Indeed. To mention Vogt in the same sentence as the best, even unfavorably, is to pay him an undeserved compliment.


----------



## Aerobat

vivalagentenuova said:


> His vibrato is undefinable. Sometimes it's a wobble, sometimes it's straight tone and other times it's something else all together. Truly bizarre. One of the commenters said it's as if Parpignol were playing Parsifal, but I feel that's unfair to some Parpignols I've heard with lovely, rounded voices.
> 
> I can't agree that the problem is that he's just singing too big a role. He recorded Tamino recently:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's just bad singing. It's not because the role is too big. He's horrible constricted. His vibrato is all over the place and not consistent, the whole thing sounds effortful, and his sound is way overly bright.
> 
> This is what a "light" lyric voice should sound like:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rich, full tones, consistent vibrato, effortless legato, sounds spontaneous like he's just having these thoughts for the first time. Plenty of subtlety and shading, which is impossible for Vogt because he doesn't have any options other than insipid brightness.
> 
> Wunderlich was not one of the greatest in my book and I feel that he is sometimes a little overrated at the expense of better lyrics from a generation or two earlier like Patzak, Ludwig, d'Arkor, Nash, Hackett, Anders (before he attempted Wagner), and more, but he was a fine singer and I would never compare him to Vogt.


OK, I was trying not to be *too* brutal 

When I said lighter repertoire I was thinking in my head 'Gilbert & Sullivan Operetta', but was far too polite to say this about someone who thinks he's a Wagnerian singer.


----------



## Aerobat

Parsifal98 said:


> Well to dampen spirits even more... Anna Netrebko has posted on Instagram videos of her singing Isolde. She may have done this for fun, or is learning the role. It better be the first option...


That is a scary thought. Maybe she's starting to believe her own hype? Like many others, she needs to learn to stick to what she's good at - which is no longer very much. Unlike a fine wine, Ms Netrebko has not improved with age.


----------



## Parsifal98

Here are footages of seven golden age singers. I really love to watch them for I believe they are great tools for emulation. One only has to look at their body and mouth posture to receive free schooling in the art of bel canto. Reinmar's footage impresses me the most. There he stands, in the middle of the orchestra, singing powerfully and beautifully without ever being drowned out. He looks regal, and dare I say, godlike.

Enjoy my friends!

Hans Reinmar singing Wotan's Abschied (Der Augen leuchtendes Paar):





Rosa Ponselle singing Carmen (Chanson bohème et Habanera)





Giovanni Martinelli singing Celeste Aida:





Beniamino Gigli, Marion Talley, Jeanne Gordon and Giuseppe Di Luca singing Rigoletto's quartet:





Beniamino Gigli as Turridu in Cavalleria Rusticana:


----------



## cybernaut

Woodduck said:


> Indeed. To mention Vogt in the same sentence as the best, even unfavorably, is to pay him an undeserved compliment.


I enjoy him singing here only because I own the EXACT same leather jacket!


----------



## cybernaut




----------



## Woodduck

cybernaut said:


> I enjoy him singing here only because I own the EXACT same leather jacket!


What animal gave its life to make you both happy?


----------



## Woodduck

cybernaut said:


>


If you watch Melchior's mouth closely you can see that this is dubbed - not surprising, given the antics he endures on the set. But the clip never fails to impress as well as amuse, and I'd love to see the movie from which it's taken. He probably does more singing.

Another Melchior movie clip I like is this one, where he sings "Torna a Surriento" as thrillingly as any Italian.


----------



## cybernaut

Woodduck said:


> What animal gave its life to make you both happy?


Mastodon, maybe?


----------



## Woodduck

cybernaut said:


> Mastodon, maybe?


They knew you were coming? It's said that an elephant never forgets, but apparently those guys could even predict the future.


----------



## adriesba

Could I get some opinions on this?

https://luomodelloggione.blogspot.com/2021/02/mics-and-met.html


----------



## Aerobat

adriesba said:


> Could I get some opinions on this?
> 
> https://luomodelloggione.blogspot.com/2021/02/mics-and-met.html


Hmmm. This article contains a lot of supposition and extrapolation based on what is / isn't said. It also contains a number of glaring inaccuracies. Here's one:

"2) Secondly they confirm the existence of a second type of body mic which is not used for the purpose of the radio and HD broadcasts. This is because if the body mics for the radio and HD broadcasts never carry the singer's voice into the house then a second type of body mic must be being utilised when fulfilling a composer's request for amplification."

Wrong. There would be no need for a 'second type of body mic'. If needed, one mic can easily be used for both purposes. Taking multiple feeds for different purposes is hardly rocket science.

"Also, why did the article focus exclusively on the practice of using body mics and avoided all details surrounding the existence of a sound enhancement system? Why didn't questioning extend to other types of microphones which could potentially be utilised within a system which projects voices into the house? These are pertinent questions because perhaps Gelb and his legal team conveniently consider the concepts of enhancement and amplification to be different things? "

I'd suggest that this is simply because there isn't a routine 'sound enhancement system'. Especially as we have the reference to 'other types of microphone', which discredits much of this article. I think the interpretation of this line ""Sometimes a special effect requires it" and "On occasion a composer has asked for a voice to be amplified". " used in the article is reading in a meaning that simply isn't there.

In simple terms, modern singers may not meet with everyone's approval, but they don't *need* amplification to fill a house like the Met, Covent Garden, La Scala, etc. There's no benefit to adding microphones for people who don't need it. And let's face it, anyone who knows Opera can tell the difference between a natural voice and one that's coming from a loudspeaker * in a different place to where the singer is standing. *

In all honesty, I think the author is seeing things that aren't there. If the Met needed amplification, so would every other major house, and the audiences **would** hear it.


----------



## BachIsBest

adriesba said:


> Could I get some opinions on this?
> 
> https://luomodelloggione.blogspot.com/2021/02/mics-and-met.html


I don't know what the Met does or does not do for certain, but this article reads like something from a conspiracy theorists. I would just believe the Met.


----------



## Bonetan

For what it's worth I know many Met singers past and present and I've never heard anything about amplification.


----------



## Aerobat

BachIsBest said:


> I don't know what the Met does or does not do for certain, but this article reads like something from a conspiracy theorists. I would just believe the Met.


I did think of mentioning exactly this - it's all based on supposition and inference, with many things presented as 'facts' that have no hard evidence.

I am quite sure that any number of singers would object to the use of amplification by any opera house, as it's simply not what they want when they're performing.


----------



## adriesba

Thank you all for your responses. I see your reactions are the same as mine. 

One of the videos someone posted in a thread here linked his blog in the channel about section. In that post I linked he did seem to be reading into the words quite a bit, and I was thinking that it indeed seemed like a conspiracy theory. If you look at his blog, there is a post where he says who was supposedly behind the TIO channel as well as whole bunch of other ridiculous stuff. I noticed that when questioned he gets very defensive. Others that comment on his blog seem to take everything he says at face value.

This is the sort of thing that irritates me. Instead of doing something that actually helps the current situation, he is spreading rumors. The last thing we need in today's opera world are conspiracy theories. I don't know what to say, this just makes me angry.


----------



## Parsifal98

I found on the web two very interesting interviews with Edwin McArthur and Erich Leinsdorf. Here are the links. Hope they can spark a discussion that will revive this thread!

Edwin McArthur: http://www.bruceduffie.com/mcarthur.html

Erich Leinsdorf: http://www.bruceduffie.com/leinsdorf.html (only the first interview concerns opera)


----------



## BachIsBest

Yesterday, I couldn't resist the urge when I saw this pop up in my youtube playlist:






Knowing I had tainted my ears and soul I then took in some sound-libations for my in-need-of-purification eardrums:






At least the day ended with a positive.


----------



## Barbebleu

It’s been a long time since a bit of Wagner singing made the hairs on the back of my head tingle. Lauritz did the job here. Thanks for the post BiB. What a poor example of heroic singing Vogt is. Operetta is his true metier.


----------



## Aerobat

Barbebleu said:


> It's been a long time since a bit of Wagner singing made the hairs on the back of my head tingle. Lauritz did the job here. Thanks for the post BiB. What a poor example of heroic singing Vogt is. *Operetta is his true metier.*


This point is so true. Who on earth would encourage someone with this voice to sing Wagner? Did he have the world's only deaf singing teacher?? With some considerable development he might have been able to advance to light operatic roles. But, seriously, Wagner with a voice like that? It's just wrong.

I'm off to listen to Waltraud Meier to let me ears enjoy someone who performs Wagner properly.


----------



## Barbebleu

Aerobat said:


> Did he have the world's only deaf singing teacher??


:lol::lol:xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


----------



## wkasimer

Barbebleu said:


> It's been a long time since a bit of Wagner singing made the hairs on the back of my head tingle. Lauritz did the job here. Thanks for the post BiB. What a poor example of heroic singing Vogt is. Operetta is his true metier.


I don't like Vogt's Wagner, either, but I think that he represents a reaction to some of the dreadful caterwauling that has passed for Wagnerian tenor singing over the past couple of decades. And don't discount the visual aspect - he looks the parts, even if he can't sing them.


----------



## Parsifal98

Quick question!

In your opinion, who are the singers with the best technique of the LP era (from 1948 to the mid 60s)?

And from these singers, which ones are the best artists overall?


----------



## silentio

Parsifal98 said:


> Quick question!
> 
> In your opinion, who are the singers with the best technique of the LP era (from 1948 to the mid 60s)?
> 
> And from these singers, which ones are the best artists overall?


I assumed your question ask us to prioritize technique. Just my _very biased_ opinion:

For soprano, while I am a huge fan of Callas and Tebaldi (thus I am more than willing to overlook their shortcomings), I think Virginia Zeani is the best in terms of technique. I often found her voice to be the most free and naturally produced one in the period you mentioned. Just a trivia: she had a vocal lineage that traces back to Pauline Viardot-García!
From the Wagner wing, Nilsson is certainly formidable.

For Tenor: Fritz Wunderlich
For Mezzo: Oralia Dominguez 
For Baritone: Giangiacomo Guelfi
I am not quite sure about bass and alto.

The singers I mentioned above are all good artists, especially Wunderlich and Zeani.


----------



## Bonetan

Double post.....


----------



## Bonetan

Parsifal98 said:


> Quick question!
> 
> In your opinion, who are the singers with the best technique of the LP era (from 1948 to the mid 60s)?
> 
> And from these singers, which ones are the best artists overall?


I only feel qualified to answer this in regards to baritones, so I'll nominate Robert Merrill. He does some verismo style shouting that I HATE, but I still think his is the most beautiful baritone on record, and the technique feels very natural and free to me.

They say he wasn't the best artist though. Beauty of tone was his thing.


----------



## Seattleoperafan

Tsaraslondon said:


> Handel does very well these days. Indeed hardly a month goes by without someone issuing a disc of Handel or baroque arias. Rossini in general does better too. I'm sure if, for instance, Callas were around to sing *Armida* now, she would be supported by a far better crop of tenors than she was back in 1952. On the other hand, there is nobody around now who can sing dramatic coloratura with such dazzling accuracy and ferocity, but then she was also unique in that respect back then.
> 
> I do however think we are seeing a real lack of larger voices and consequently Verdi and Wagner performances are suffering. I sometimes wonder if this has something to do with the fact that it is much easier to record small voices than large ones and, whereas at one time it was stage work that drove a career, now it tends to be recording work. It's salutory to consider that if they were around today, singers like Callas, Tebaldi and Nilsson might not have been even granted a recording contract.


All great points. Speight Jenkins when he was general director in Seattle could fill Verdi roles nicely BUT he traveled extensively scouting out new talent and fostering it. He started off Stephanie Blythe and that handsome southern Heldentenor who sings a lot now, but I can never remember his 3 names. Some never took off at the Met, but we loved them here. Handle and Rossini are in a golden age now with many very talented singers ( though few with what I would call distinctive voices). Wagner we have Goerke and who else in the big Wagnerian and Strauss soprano roles? Voigt was fabulous before the weight loss then we had a beautiful woman with a deficient voice. Grier Grimsley has been strong in Wagner but his voice is not what it once was.


----------



## MAS

Jay Hunter Morris?


----------



## Seattleoperafan

MAS said:


> Jay Hunter Morris?





Seattleoperafan said:


> YES! I can never remember his name. He is okay as a heldentenor and when he is fixed up for the stage he is truly dreamy! Maybe the handsomest male opera singer since Corelli on the stage. Not so fabulous out of the wigs etc but still ok.He physically played Siegfried while an injured singer sang from the side then the next night did the full role in Seattle to great acclaim. It was his first Siegfried and he has gone on to do it all over. This was 17 years ago or so. Eaglen was his Brunhilde and she did NOT need amplification. God, he looked like a Hollywood hero on stage!


----------



## Seattleoperafan

Mistake. So sorry I did something incorrectly here.


----------



## Revitalized Classics

Parsifal98 said:


> Quick question!
> 
> In your opinion, who are the singers with the best technique of the LP era (from 1948 to the mid 60s)?
> 
> And from these singers, which ones are the best artists overall?


Soprano - Maria Callas
e.g. in _Il Turco in Italia_





Mezzo - Zara Dolukhanova
e.g. in _Les Huguenots_





Tenor - Ivan Kozlovsky
e.g. in _Il Barbiere di Siviglia_





Baritone - Renato Capecchi
e.g. in _I Puritani_





Bass - Giulio Neri
e.g. in _Barbiere in Siviglia_





Some suggestions, all great artists and, perhaps predictably I would have to single out Callas' skill both technically and in terms of characterisation.


----------



## Seattleoperafan

Bonetan said:


> For what it's worth I know many Met singers past and present and I've never heard anything about amplification.


I think you would only have amplification at something like The Three Tenors. Sills sang Traviata excerpts at the coliseum in Jackson, MS when I was a budding teen opera queen. She was of course amplified there. I saw her backstage and she was stunning in person up close. I thought in her prime she was a fabulous singer but she was even better as a personality. She had that IT quality in spades.


----------



## Woodduck

Seattleoperafan said:


> I think you would only have amplification at something like The Three Tenors. Sills sang Traviata excerpts at the coliseum in Jackson, MS when I was a budding teen opera queen. She was of course amplified there. I saw her backstage and she was stunning in person up close. I thought in her prime she was a fabulous singer but she was even better as a personality. She had that IT quality in spades.


Sills was indeed a personality, and it - in addition to her singing - made her a sort of culture hero and got her many appearances on TV. Has there been another opera singer since then who pops up on morning shows, late night shows, variety shows and children's shows? Such appearances were once more common; I remember seeing Robert Merrill, Jan Pierce and Roberta Peters on TV on many occasions.


----------



## MAS

Woodduck said:


> Sills was indeed a personality, and it - in addition to her singing - made her a sort of culture hero and got her many appearances on TV. Has there been another opera singer since then who pops up on morning shows, late night shows, variety shows and children's shows? Such appearances were once more common; I remember seeing Robert Merrill, Jan Pierce and Roberta Peters on TV on many occasions.


The age of corporations supporting the Arts just for the prestige is gone - there is no profit attached to it and that's the bottom line (pun intended). Little by little concern for profits eroded all of the support that corporations provided for opera, ballet, and the like. A major part of these Arts organizations's activities in the last few decades is "development," i.e. fundraising. A lot if the major private donors are dying out (like the lady who supported all of Zeffirelli's productions at the MET in the 1980s and 1990s and her contemporaries) and the younger generations are not accustomed to giving the same way.

Remember the Firestone TV broadcasts where most of the Metropolitan Opera stars appeared, or The Ed Sullivan Show in which a lot of opera singers were presented? Or the weekly Metropolitan Opera Texaco broadcasts? They stopped when the prestige was just not enough of an inducement for the new management.


----------



## Barbebleu

MAS said:


> The age of corporations supporting the Arts just for the prestige is gone - there is no profit attached to it and that's the bottom line (pun intended). Little by little concern for profits eroded all of the support that corporations provided for opera, ballet, and the like. A major part of these Arts organizations's activities in the last few decades is "development," i.e. fundraising. A lot if the major private donors are dying out (like the lady who supported all of Zeffirelli's productions at the MET in the 1980s and 1990s and her contemporaries) and the younger generations are not accustomed to giving the same way.
> 
> Remember the Firestone TV broadcasts where most of the Metropolitan Opera stars appeared, or The Ed Sullivan Show in which a lot of opera singers were presented? Or the weekly Metropolitan Opera Texaco broadcasts? They stopped when the prestige was just not enough of an inducement for the new management.


And how sad is that. I remember when BBC used to have all sorts of programmes on TV that catered for the classical fan. Stuff like Face the Music with Joseph Cooper. It didn't pander to the lcd, but rather it aimed at the knowledgeable classical fan. You'll wait long and weary for something like it now.


----------



## Tsaraslondon

Barbebleu said:


> And how sad is that. I remember when BBC used to have all sorts of programmes on TV that catered for the classical fan. Stuff like Face the Music with Joseph Cooper. It didn't pander to the lcd, but rather it aimed at the knowledgeable classical fan. You'll wait long and weary for something like it now.


Oh gosh. I loved that programme. I'd forgotten all about it until you mentioned it, and then a host of memories came flooding back. Joyce Grenfell, Robin Ray and Richard Baker were regular panelists. I couldn't find any of those episodes on youtube but I did find this.


----------



## Woodduck

Tsaraslondon said:


> Oh gosh. I loved that programme. I'd forgotten all about it until you mentioned it, and then a host of memories came flooding back. Joyce Grenfell, Robin Ray and Richard Baker were regular panelists. I couldn't find any of those episodes on youtube but I did find this.


Oh, my freaking God! To think that this sort of thing was ever part of "popular" entertainment!

I'm going to be depressed for the rest of the day. No, the week. No, the rest of my life. Which I intend to end after lunch.


----------



## MAS

Woodduck said:


> Oh, my freaking God! To think that this sort of thing was ever part of "popular" entertainment!
> 
> I'm going to be depressed for the rest of the day. No, the week. No, the rest of my life. Which I intend to end after lunch.


Don't do it _after_ lunch, you might hurl! :lol:


----------



## Woodduck

MAS said:


> Don't do it _after_ lunch, you might hurl! :lol:


A man is entitled to his last meal. I think I'll have chicken Tetrazzini followed by peach Melba.


----------



## PaulFranz

vivalagentenuova said:


> His vibrato is undefinable. Sometimes it's a wobble, sometimes it's straight tone and other times it's something else all together. Truly bizarre. One of the commenters said it's as if Parpignol were playing Parsifal, but I feel that's unfair to some Parpignols I've heard with lovely, rounded voices.
> 
> I can't agree that the problem is that he's just singing too big a role. He recorded Tamino recently:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's just bad singing. It's not because the role is too big. He's horrible constricted. His vibrato is all over the place and not consistent, the whole thing sounds effortful, and his sound is way overly bright.
> 
> This is what a "light" lyric voice should sound like:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rich, full tones, consistent vibrato, effortless legato, sounds spontaneous like he's just having these thoughts for the first time. Plenty of subtlety and shading, which is impossible for Vogt because he doesn't have any options other than insipid brightness.
> 
> Wunderlich was not one of the greatest in my book and I feel that he is sometimes a little overrated at the expense of better lyrics from a generation or two earlier like Patzak, Ludwig, d'Arkor, Nash, Hackett, Anders (before he attempted Wagner), and more, but he was a fine singer and I would never compare him to Vogt.


Picking any of them over Wunderlich is a very, very hard sell, and as you alluded to, the overwhelming majority of critics from then until now would not agree with your assessment. D'Arkor is the only one I can see as having a tone nearly as beautiful, but his top lost a lot of the character of his middle, which was a sad trend among French-speaking tenors of the time (Villabella avoided that problem). Otherwise I could at least see him as being in Wunderlich's class. The lighter tenors in your list did not have Wunderlich's unique depth and color, and the heavier ones did not have his unusual beauty in phrasing or his excellent legato.

He of course had his flaws--the creeping modernism that made him think it was okay to use breathiness and the occasional brief straight tone in Lieder, and an inconsistent top--but I (and I'm not alone here) think he was something truly special, given how well he tackled an impressive variety of music. He sounds perfectly credible in Das Lied von der Erde, while also turning out some of the best singing I've ever heard in Bach's Christmas Oratorio and delivering the two best performances of Tamino and Belmonte on record. At Wunderlich's death, nobody outside England was saying Nash was better. Nobody in the German-speaking world was saying Patzak was better. Anyone who prefers Anders just doesn't really like lyric tenors. Anders was bigger, but that is all he has to recommend him. That voice is about a tenth as beautiful and smooth as Fritz's. But hey, liking bigger singing isn't a crime. Yet. Wunderlich had an amazingly even vibrato, an outrageously dark color for such a light voice, and really unusual agility for his time, as in the Baumeister aria. For me, his death marks the chronological end point of world-class singing on this planet.


----------



## Tsaraslondon

PaulFranz said:


> Picking any of them over Wunderlich is a very, very hard sell, and as you alluded to, the overwhelming majority of critics from then until now would not agree with your assessment. D'Arkor is the only one I can see as having a tone nearly as beautiful, but his top lost a lot of the character of his middle, which was a sad trend among French-speaking tenors of the time (Villabella avoided that problem). Otherwise I could at least see him as being in Wunderlich's class. The lighter tenors in your list did not have Wunderlich's unique depth and color, and the heavier ones did not have his unusual beauty in phrasing or his excellent legato.
> 
> He of course had his flaws--the creeping modernism that made him think it was okay to use breathiness and the occasional brief straight tone in Lieder, and an inconsistent top--but I (and I'm not alone here) think he was something truly special, given how well he tackled an impressive variety of music. He sounds perfectly credible in Das Lied von der Erde, while also turning out some of the best singing I've ever heard in Bach's Christmas Oratorio and delivering the two best performances of Tamino and Belmonte on record. At Wunderlich's death, nobody outside England was saying Nash was better. Nobody in the German-speaking world was saying Patzak was better. Anyone who prefers Anders just doesn't really like lyric tenors. Anders was bigger, but that is all he has to recommend him. That voice is about a tenth as beautiful and smooth as Fritz's. But hey, liking bigger singing isn't a crime. Yet. Wunderlich had an amazingly even vibrato, an outrageously dark color for such a light voice, and really unusual agility for his time, as in the Baumeister aria. For me, his death marks the chronological end point of world-class singing on this planet.


Personally I think Wunderlich had the most headily beautiful tenor voice I've ever heard. He also exudes such joy in the act of singing itself that I find him competely irresistible. We should not forget he died when he was still developing as a musician. His final performances of _Dichterliebe_, for instance, are more deeply felt than the commercial recording he made for DG. Who knows what else he'd have gone on to achieve? If I could go back in time, I'd go to that hunting lodge and somehow stop him falling down those stairs.


----------



## MAS

Tsaraslondon said:


> Personally I think Wunderlich had the most headily beautiful tenor voice I've ever heard. He also exudes such joy in the act of singing itself that I find him competely irresistible. We should not forget he died when he was still developing as a musician. His final performances of _Dichterliebe_, for instance, are more deeply felt than the commercial recording he made for DG. Who knows what else he'd have gone on to achieve? If I could go back in time, I'd go to that hunting lodge and somehow stop him falling down those stairs.


Agreed on the voice and the joy of singing - his *Granada* is absolutely thrilling. Also, he's the only tenor whose singing of Italian arias in German I don't mind. Or the Lensky aria without the Russian.


----------



## Barbebleu

Woodduck said:


> A man is entitled to his last meal. I think I'll have chicken Tetrazzini followed by peach Melba.


Or even Tournedos Rossini followed by Poires Mary Garden!


----------



## Tsaraslondon

MAS said:


> Agreed on the voice and the joy of singing - his *Granada* is absolutely thrilling. Also, he's the only tenor whose singing of Italian arias in German I don't mind. Or the Lensky aria without the Russian.


Ditto! That _Granada_ is the most exuberant, and, well, sexy version I've ever heard. You feel he was just in his best voice and enjoying every moment. Who cares about the splashy orchestration and the fact that it's in German?


----------



## Parsifal98

Some people may consider this post redundant - we all know Wagner's operas are not well-served by modern singers - but here is a new video that has just been posted on Youtube by the Metropolitan Opera. Four Wagnerian singers in concert: Soprani Christine Goerke and Elza van den Heever, tenor Andreas Schager and baritone Michael Volle.






The singing is dreadful (and the tenor is not even singing the proper vowel on the _Wälse_, but compared to the sound coming out of his throat, this is a minor problem), but one may find joy in the comments, where a great deal of audience members are expressing clearly that they have had enough. Will it change the situation? I do not believe we should be too optimistic...


----------



## Bonetan

Parsifal98 said:


> Some people may consider this post redundant - we all know Wagner's operas are not well-served by modern singers - but here is a new video that has just been posted on Youtube by the Metropolitan Opera. Four Wagnerian singers in concert: Soprani Christine Goerke and Elza van den Heever, tenor Andreas Schager and baritone Michael Volle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The singing is dreadful (and the tenor is not even singing the proper vowel on the _Wälse_, but compared to the sound coming out of his throat, this is a minor problem), but one may find joy in the comments, where a great deal of audience members are expressing clearly that they have had enough. Will it change the situation? I do not believe we should be too optimistic...


I'm now embarrassed to say I once enjoyed Schager in the house :lol:


----------



## Woodduck

Parsifal98 said:


> Some people may consider this post redundant - we all know Wagner's operas are not well-served by modern singers - but here is a new video that has just been posted on Youtube by the Metropolitan Opera. Four Wagnerian singers in concert: Soprani Christine Goerke and Elza van den Heever, tenor Andreas Schager and baritone Michael Volle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The singing is dreadful (and the tenor is not even singing the proper vowel on the _Wälse_, but compared to the sound coming out of his throat, this is a minor problem), but one may find joy in the comments, where a great deal of audience members are expressing clearly that they have had enough. Will it change the situation? I do not believe we should be too optimistic...


What does the Met intend to achieve by producing this? Is it supposed to win fans for opera? These singers make exactly the kinds of noises that drive people away from the art form, and perhaps classical music in general.

Andreas Schager is now the shouting wobbler that my first hearing of him told me he would become. Goerke is what she's been since she decided she was Brunnhilde and Elektra; I can't quite describe what that is (maybe a mezzo with something weird on top?). I hate to say it, but it might be best to put Wagner's operas - at least _Tristan_ and the _Ring_ - on the shelf until we once again have singers capable of singing them. Conrad Osborne suggested this regarding _Tristan_ on the release of the 1966 Bayreuth recording; he acknowledged Wolfgang Windgassen's artistry while pointing out his less-than-helden vocalism, but compared to someone like Schager Windgassen was a treasure.

To quote the Rhinemaidens upon the theft of the gold: _"Hülfe! Hülfe! Weh'! Weh'!"_


----------



## BachIsBest

Parsifal98 said:


> Some people may consider this post redundant - we all know Wagner's operas are not well-served by modern singers - but here is a new video that has just been posted on Youtube by the Metropolitan Opera. Four Wagnerian singers in concert: Soprani Christine Goerke and Elza van den Heever, tenor Andreas Schager and baritone Michael Volle.


If these are the highlights, I'd hate to see the outtakes. I actually giggled when they all sang together at the end - it was a sort of four times the pain situation; It's as if one wasn't bad enough already.

I think the greatest shame is if this makes people avoid Wagner, Opera, or classical music in general though. To be frank, if this was my introduction, then I wouldn't stay to find out more. In general, bad operatic (or quasi-operatic) singing has become, I think, a real problem for the image and popularity of opera. The endless stream of poor singers belting out national anthems at sporting events is probably a real detriment to the art. I once watched such a singer on TV and the started laughing; the person next to me look puzzled (they knew I liked opera) and asked me something along the lines of "I thought you liked this singing" (singing probably not describing what the guy was doing to the national anthem) and when I made a comment to the effect that he was effectively yodeling the person more or less responded that all opera singers do that. Oy vey.


----------



## Barbebleu

Dup post. Sorry. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


----------



## Barbebleu

That was without a doubt one of the most horrific things I have ever had the misfortune to hear. Is there not an umlaut above the a in Wälse? He completely ignored it. My poor ears have been assaulted beyond belief. 

Yesterday I spent a wonderful ninety or so minutes listening to various Wagner singers on a set called Wagner on Record. Even the most unknown of the singers in this box was light years more enjoyable to listen to than this pack of growlers, shriekers and yodellers. I need the solace of something from the thirties, forties or fifties now to rinse my brain of that caterwauling.


----------



## Tsaraslondon

This set, which I reviewed on my blog a couple of years ago is wonderful. Aside from Birgit Nilsson and Hans Hotter in _Wie aus der Ferne_ from *Der fliegende Holländer* recorded in 1957 and Lotte Lehmann singing _Euch Lüften_ from *Lohengrin* in 1948. all the excerpts are taken from a relatively short time span (1927 -1942) but the singing is absolutely wonderful and not all the singers are what you would call household names. If we were to think of a similar time span, say 2006 to today, what names could we come up with that even begin to approach any of those on this set? It really is a sorry state of affairs.


----------



## Barbebleu

Actually what is more distressing is the fact that somewhere a group of people, surely no one person would be responsible, decided that this was worthy of release. No one said this is horrible, we can’t put this out there. And whose idea was it to record it on the stairs? Deplorable acoustics and a piano that sounded like it belonged in a Wild West saloon. The whole concept was appalling. In fact it was beyond appalling, in fact so far beyond, appalling was a dot in the distance. Do the A&R people at the Met actually think that these singers are truly worthy of the Met. 

There are a few reasonable singers out there, Kaufmann, Zeppenfeld, e.g. but not enough to go round the great opera houses of the world. No more Wagner until the level of Wagner singing improves and I fear we may have a long wait.


----------



## Barbebleu

Tsaraslondon said:


> This set, which I reviewed on my blog a couple of years ago is wonderful. Aside from Birgit Nilsson and Hans Hotter in _Wie aus der Ferne_ from *Der fliegende Holländer* recorded in 1957 and Lotte Lehmann singing _Euch Lüften_ from *Lohengrin* in 1948. all the excerpts are taken from a relatively short time span (1927 -1942) but the singing is absolutely wonderful and not all the singers are what you would call household names. If we were to think of a similar time span, say 2006 to today, what names could we come up with that even begin to approach any of those on this set? It really is a sorry state of affairs.


Totally agree. This set is a constant joy.


----------



## damianjb1

adriesba said:


> I agree that opera singing is not what it used to be. Especially when it comes to Wagner.
> 
> Just today I was listening to some contraltos of old and was so amazed at the clarity and strength of their voices. I particularly gained appreciation of Clara Butt, Kerstin Thorborg, and Eula Beal.
> 
> I've been wanting to ask for some others' opinions on two singers that are more recent that don't seem bad to me - René Pape and Ewa Podleś.


I'm not going to name names but I'm often surprised by how often unsteady singing is accepted as fine singing. I've not heard many famous Wagner singers but the few I have heard were steady as a rock. Stemme, Skelton, Botha, Michelle de Young, Amber Wagner (biggest voice I've ever heard by miles - and pure and steady). So maybe these types of voice aren't captured well by phones and then posted to YouTube. So many clips I listen to and I just hear wobble.


----------



## wkasimer

damianjb1 said:


> I'm not going to name names but I'm often surprised by how often unsteady singing is accepted as fine singing. I've not heard many famous Wagner singers but the few I have heard were steady as a rock. Stemme, Skelton, Botha, Michelle de Young, Amber Wagner (biggest voice I've ever heard by miles - and pure and steady). So maybe these types of voice aren't captured well by phones and then posted to YouTube. So many clips I listen to and I just hear wobble.


This is an important point. I'm not excusing bad singing, but close-miked, poorly reproduced recordings tend to exaggerate the worst aspects of a singer's voice, and this is particularly true of larger voices. I haven't watched the Met thing - I try to avoid such things for exactly this reason - but I've heard Goerke, Schager, and Volle in the house. None of them are perfect singers, and their flaws are evident even when heard in the flesh, but not nearly as evident and intrusive as they are when reproduced for audio or video recordings.

Does anyone else remember this excellent set?:


----------



## Dimace

Parsifal98 said:


> Some people may consider this post redundant - we all know Wagner's operas are not well-served by modern singers - but here is a new video that has just been posted on Youtube by the Metropolitan Opera. Four Wagnerian singers in concert: Soprani Christine Goerke and Elza van den Heever, tenor Andreas Schager and baritone Michael Volle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The singing is dreadful (and the tenor is not even singing the proper vowel on the _Wälse_, but compared to the sound coming out of his throat, this is a minor problem), but one may find joy in the comments, where a great deal of audience members are expressing clearly that they have had enough. Will it change the situation? I do not believe we should be too optimistic...


This is tragically hilarious. In the beginning I believed that is was one of the many satirical broadcasts of our TV... (and the pianist isn't very ok. Hammers das Flügel mercilessly, ignoring the echo effect of the environment, excels some time the singers etc.) Shame for Deutschland this thing.


----------



## wkasimer

Dimace said:


> This is tragically hilarious. In the beginning I believed that is was one of the many satirical broadcasts of our TV... (and the pianist isn't very ok. Hammers das Flügel mercilessly, ignoring the echo effect of the environment, excels some time the singers etc.) Shame for Deutschland this thing.


I watched some of this. Except for van den Heever, they're all oversinging, and it's pretty obvious why that's the case. They're singing in a very dead, carpeted space, with heavy draperies all around them.

They may not be great singers, but it's a mistake to judge them by this clip.


----------



## Barbebleu

wkasimer said:


> Does anyone else remember this excellent set?:
> 
> View attachment 155056


I do remember this set. I imagine it's long oop. I must see if I can track one down somewhere. Thanks for the reminder.


----------



## Barbebleu

wkasimer said:


> Does anyone else remember this excellent set?:
> 
> View attachment 155056


Another dup post. I must be losing what's left of my mind!:lol:


----------



## Barbebleu

wkasimer said:


> I watched some of this. Except for van den Heever, they're all oversinging, and it's pretty obvious why that's the case. They're singing in a very dead, carpeted space, with heavy draperies all around them.
> 
> They may not be great singers, but it's a mistake to judge them by this clip.


I think you are being terribly charitable. Schager is simply dreadful, over singing or not. And the other three are at best adequate.


----------



## wkasimer

Barbebleu said:


> I do remember this set. I imagine it's long oop. I must see if I can track one down somewhere. Thanks for the reminder.


Looks like there are some reasonably priced copies on Discogs. I bought it when it first came out - a pretty serious expense for a college freshman. I culled it when I graduated in the interests of space, but managed to reacquire a copy a few years ago.


----------



## wkasimer

Barbebleu said:


> I think you are being terribly charitable. Schager is simply dreadful, over singing or not. And the other three are at best adequate.


Yeah, I tend to be charitable about singers unless they're phoning it in - singing is hard work. And in this case, I recall the tale of Kirsten Flagstad - when the Met auditioned her in Norway, they weren't terribly impressed, because she was singing in a dead room like the one those four are singing in.

As for Schager, I wouldn't choose to listen to him on a recording, but when I heard him a couple of years ago as Siegfried, he was a significant improvement over people who've been cast in his repertoire for the past couple of decades.


----------



## Barbebleu

I heard Schager subbing for the execrable Lance Ryan in Act 1 of Siegfried in Berlin in 2013. He wasn’t too bad but he was only standing in the wings singing while somebody mimed the part on stage. Infinitely preferable to Ryan though. Unfortunately he seems to have embraced the Ryan yodel. Yeugh!


----------



## fluteman

Parsifal98 said:


> Some people may consider this post redundant - we all know Wagner's operas are not well-served by modern singers - but here is a new video that has just been posted on Youtube by the Metropolitan Opera. Four Wagnerian singers in concert: Soprani Christine Goerke and Elza van den Heever, tenor Andreas Schager and baritone Michael Volle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The singing is dreadful (and the tenor is not even singing the proper vowel on the _Wälse_, but compared to the sound coming out of his throat, this is a minor problem), but one may find joy in the comments, where a great deal of audience members are expressing clearly that they have had enough. Will it change the situation? I do not believe we should be too optimistic...


To me, this video is an example of how Wagner's original concept does not translate well in the 21st century. Staging his operas in their original form is not economically feasible in most contexts, but this is not a satisfactory substitute. Many of the overtures and preludes work well on their own as concert pieces.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> To me, this video is an example of how Wagner's original concept does not translate well in the 21st century. Staging his operas in their original form is not economically feasible in most contexts, but this is not a satisfactory substitute. Many of the overtures and preludes work well on their own as concert pieces.


Wagner's operas are staged all over the world, and even with the mediocre singing we usually get they are always major season events and are well-attended. What do you mean by "original concept," what sort of "substitute" would you want, and are you suggesting that we should be content with overtures and preludes?


----------



## Woodduck

wkasimer said:


> This is an important point. I'm not excusing bad singing, but close-miked, poorly reproduced recordings tend to exaggerate the worst aspects of a singer's voice, and this is particularly true of larger voices. I haven't watched the Met thing - I try to avoid such things for exactly this reason - but I've heard Goerke, Schager, and Volle in the house. None of them are perfect singers, and their flaws are evident even when heard in the flesh, but not nearly as evident and intrusive as they are when reproduced for audio or video recordings.


You have a point. I've always found the close-miked Met broadcasts merciless to singers, and I try to remember that fact while squinting and grinding my teeth. But of course close miking (I can't bring myself to spell it micing, for anyone who does that) is the only way we get to hear the great Wagner singers of the past (at least before the stereo era; even mono LP's of the '50s tended to be balanced toward the singers).

I do suspect these singers have detriorated since you last heard them live. It seems to be a fairly rapid process with modern singers.


----------



## Parsifal98

Woodduck said:


> I do suspect these singers have detriorated since you last heard them live. It seems to be a fairly rapid process with modern singers.


It is not surprising that their voices deteriorate so rapidly. It is hard to imagine the amount of damage so much tension can have on two small vocal folds! I remember reading in _The Free Voice_ by Cornelius Reid (my memory may fail me) that the unwanted muscular tension brought about by improper technique strenghtens through time. Singing becomes evermore effortful for these singers, as they have to _push_ against their throat wanting to close (and we know pushing the voice is a bad idea). Add to this the effects of wrong intonation and faulty coordination of the registers and you get voices that are shot at an early age. It is saddening to see musicians destroying their instruments like this, whilst believing they are actually doing the right things....


----------



## Bonetan

Parsifal98 said:


> It is not surprising that their voices deteriorate so rapidly. It is hard to imagine the amount of damage so much tension can have on two small vocal folds! I remember reading in _The Free Voice_ by Cornelius Reid (my memory may fail me) that the unwanted muscular tension brought about by improper technique strenghtens through time. Singing becomes evermore effortful for these singers, as they have to _push_ against their throat wanting to close (and we know pushing the voice is a bad idea). Add to this the effects of wrong intonation and faulty coordination of the registers and you get voices that are shot at an early age. It is saddening to see musicians destroying their instruments like this, whilst believing they are actually doing the right things....


Amen. And by the time modern teachers and impresarios think a singer is ready to tackle heavy Wagnerian roles (40+) the deterioration is already well underway...


----------



## annaw

Parsifal98 said:


> The singing is dreadful (and the tenor is not even singing the proper vowel on the _Wälse_, but compared to the sound coming out of his throat, this is a minor problem), but one may find joy in the comments, *where a great deal of audience members are expressing clearly that they have had enough. Will it change the situation? I do not believe we should be too optimistic...*


However, maybe the situation is not that hopeless after all. Every more-or-less important art form tends to be self-sustaining. Demand and supply are to some extent correlated even in art, because even the greatest avant-gardist needs to eat and buy clothes. Of course development in any art is driven by artists, but to a great extent by the audience as well. There are a few subtle examples of such developments in opera - for example, during the last century when the audiences seemed to start yearning for more dramatic tenors, the lighter tenors were pretty rapidly replaced with full-blown dramatic tenors (if I recall correctly, Gigli's lack of heroism was one of the driving forces of Del Monaco's eventual rise to fame).

As long as modern opera singing has enough demand (which it so far has had), opera probably won't be going anywhere but there's also no pressure to change it - why change it, if it's working so "well"? When at one point people cannot stand modern singing anymore, then either the modern singing technique will be revised and developed, or opera will lose its importance. However, I cannot think of any major art form that has literally died out because someone was too lazy to do anything about its deterioration. I see no reason why opera should be the first one. There are many people whose careers depend on opera. It was a catastrophe when the pandemic closed all opera houses - I doubt those same people would agree to just voluntarily let the opera houses close for good if that could be avoided.

Maybe I'm being naive, but if I was a voice teacher and I had to choose between revising my understanding of singing technique and abandoning my whole career, I would definitely pick the former option. The problem is that, so far, this is still a mere speculation because there doesn't seem to be enough pressure to do anything about modern singing technique.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> Wagner's operas are staged all over the world, and even with the mediocre singing we usually get they are always major season events and are well-attended. What do you mean by "original concept," what sort of "substitute" would you want, and are you suggesting that we should be content with overtures and preludes?


The most often performed Wagner opera in recent years, The Flying Dutchman, is only around 25th overall in frequency of performances, whereas based on number of in print commercial recordings of composers known primarily for their operas, Wagner is second only to Verdi. Wagner's continued success with commercial recordings (and concert performances) largely is due to the continued popularity of his overtures and preludes. All of that is just hard numbers.

I think this is due to the high production costs and the 4+ hour length of many of Wagner's operas. In recent years the Met has been aggressively marketing video performances, including Wagner, and including (before the pandemic, anyway) in movie theaters. But as the above video illustrates, the results have been variable.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> The most often performed Wagner opera in recent years, The Flying Dutchman, is only around 25th overall in frequency of performances, whereas based on number of in print commercial recordings of composers known primarily for their operas, Wagner is second only to Verdi. Wagner's continued success with commercial recordings (and concert performances) largely is due to the continued popularity of his overtures and preludes. All of that is just hard numbers.
> 
> I think this is due to the high production costs and the 4+ hour length of many of Wagner's operas. In recent years the Met has been aggressively marketing video performances, including Wagner, and including (before the pandemic, anyway) in movie theaters. But as the above video illustrates, the results have been variable.


The fact that Wagner's operas present difficulties in casting and production is hardly news. This being a thread about the state of singing, the emphasis here is properly on the fact that singers who can deal with the music's demands are rarer than they once were, and it's more than reasonable to suggest that their rarity has an effect on audience interest and frequency of production. Why spend money on "stars" who are not stellar?

In the 1930s, when Flagstad and Melchior were singing at the Met, they were (I've read) the house's biggest box office draw. Nina Stemme and Geoffrey Skelton would not have excited audiences of the time, and they don't excite many people now. Whether or not it inspires audiences to have mediocre singers enact the medieval romance of Tristan and Isolde in what looks like the engine room of a WW II battleship may be a matter for debate, but your "hard numbers " suggest that it doesn't. And your "hard numbers" don't justify your personal opinion that "Wagner's continued success with commercial recordings (and concert performances) largely is due to the continued popularity of his overtures and preludes." Much more likely is that there remains a thirst among opera lovers for performances of his operas that actually do them justice, musically and visually.

Your original statement, "to me, this video is an example of how Wagner's original concept does not translate well in the 21st century" makes no sense to me. The video doesn't demonstrate anything except what we're all saying it does: operatic singing, and the singing of Wagner in particular, is not in good shape at present. If there were more singers capable of fulfilling the composer's demands, we might see more productions, and your hard numbers might well be different. Why go to the expense of mounting a production if no one whom anyone cares to hear is available to sing it ?


----------



## wkasimer

Woodduck said:


> The fact that Wagner's operas present difficulties in casting and production is hardly news. This being a thread about the state of singing, the emphasis here is properly on the fact that singers who can deal with the music's demands are rarer than they once were,


That may or may not be entirely true. The history of vocalism tends to weed out the mediocrities in favor of the better singers. The reason is pretty simple - in the past, it was the good singers who got to make records, and the good singers who were featured on broadcasts. There have never been a plethora of great Wagnerian voices - for example, the Met featured some pretty poor Wotans between about 1940 and 1965 or so. We compare Skelton's Tristan to that of Jon Vickers, forgetting that Vickers sang a total of 4 Tristan performances at the Met, and only a handful elsewhere. We heap scorn on Andreas Schager's Siegfried, forgetting that Bayreuth had to do with people like Hans Beirer, Bernd Aldenhoff, and a superannuated Max Lorenz on those days when Windgassen wasn't available - and Windgassen was hardly an ideal Heldentenor.

Yes, there's way too much bad singing out there - but there's always been plenty of bad singing. History just forgets about it.


----------



## BachIsBest

wkasimer said:


> That may or may not be entirely true. The history of vocalism tends to weed out the mediocrities in favor of the better singers. The reason is pretty simple - in the past, it was the good singers who got to make records, and the good singers who were featured on broadcasts. There have never been a plethora of great Wagnerian voices - for example, the Met featured some pretty poor Wotans between about 1940 and 1965 or so. We compare Skelton's Tristan to that of Jon Vickers, forgetting that Vickers sang a total of 4 Tristan performances at the Met, and only a handful elsewhere. We heap scorn on Andreas Schager's Siegfried, forgetting that Bayreuth had to do with people like Hans Beirer, Bernd Aldenhoff, and a superannuated Max Lorenz on those days when Windgassen wasn't available - and Windgassen was hardly an ideal Heldentenor.
> 
> Yes, there's way too much bad singing out there - but there's always been plenty of bad singing. History just forgets about it.


Except that one might actually want to listen to guys like Hans Beirer:





I mean, he was arguably better than Schager is now when he was 75 (he has developed a very unpleasant wobble here, but so has Schager):





Heck, I'd prefer Reizen at 90 to any of the Met singers (still better than modern singers at age 90!?!):





The reality is the "mediocre" singers of the past would be the stars of today. Sure Vickers only sang a handful of Tristan's, but who today could sing one Tristan as well? Kaufmann might be passable, but that's the only tenor who comes to mind, and he's no Vickers in terms of vocal heft.

Sure, it was the best singers who were featured on broadcasts and recordings, but we obviously can't compare unrecorded singers to those of today. What we can say though, is that virtually none of the singers that are being recorded today, would have been recorded in the 50s.


----------



## Barbebleu

Beirer, Aldenhoff and even a ‘superannuated’ Lorenz would still be more listenable than some of the poor excuses for Wagnerian singing that have been about for the last few years.


----------



## Woodduck

wkasimer said:


> That may or may not be entirely true. The history of vocalism tends to weed out the mediocrities in favor of the better singers. The reason is pretty simple - in the past, it was the good singers who got to make records, and the good singers who were featured on broadcasts. There have never been a plethora of great Wagnerian voices - for example, the Met featured some pretty poor Wotans between about 1940 and 1965 or so. We compare Skelton's Tristan to that of Jon Vickers, forgetting that Vickers sang a total of 4 Tristan performances at the Met, and only a handful elsewhere. We heap scorn on Andreas Schager's Siegfried, forgetting that Bayreuth had to do with people like Hans Beirer, Bernd Aldenhoff, and a superannuated Max Lorenz on those days when Windgassen wasn't available - and Windgassen was hardly an ideal Heldentenor.
> 
> Yes, there's way too much bad singing out there - but there's always been plenty of bad singing. History just forgets about it.


Certainly there's always been mediocre singing. On the other hand, how many tenors singing Wagner's tenor roles today sing as well as Jacques Urlus, Leo Slezak, Walter Widdop, Gotthelf Pistor, Paul Franz, Paul Kotter, Franz Volker, Rene Maison, Georges Thill, Max Lorenz, Lauritz Melchior, Renato Zanelli, Jess Thomas, Jon Vickers, Sandor Konya, James King...? Are Christine Goerke and Nina Stemme the vocal equals of Lilli Lehmann, Johanna Gadski, Frida Leider, Kirsten Flagstad, Marjorie Lawrence, Florence Austral, Germaine Lubin, Helen Traubel, Birgit Nilsson? Is there a true dramatic mezzo successor to Karin Branzell, Kerstin Thorborg, Margarete Klose, Christa Ludwig? Dramatic baritones equal to Schorr, Huehn, Reinmar, Hotter, Uhde, Neidlinger, London?

It isn't only poor singers who are forgotten. I'm still amazed to discover superb singers from the past whose names are unfamiliar to me. I'll be even more amazed - and delighted - when someone turns up a great heldentenor born after 1950 who's been lurking somewhere in the provinces, just waiting for the Met's talent scouts to discover him and sign him up.


----------



## wkasimer

Woodduck said:


> Certainly there's always been mediocre singing. On the other hand, how many tenors singing Wagner's tenor roles today sing as well as Jacques Urlus, Leo Slezak, Walter Widdop, Gotthelf Pistor, Paul Franz, Paul Kotter, Franz Volker, Rene Maison, Georges Thill, Max Lorenz, Lauritz Melchior, Renato Zanelli, Jess Thomas, Jon Vickers, Sandor Konya, James King...? Are Christine Goerke and Nina Stemme the vocal equals of Lilli Lehmann, Johanna Gadski, Frida Leider, Kirsten Flagstad, Marjorie Lawrence, Florence Austral, Germaine Lubin, Helen Traubel, Birgit Nilsson? Is there a true dramatic mezzo successor to Karin Branzell, Kerstin Thorborg, Margarete Klose, Christa Ludwig? Dramatic baritones equal to Schorr, Huehn, Reinmar, Hotter, Uhde, Neidlinger, London.


I obviously agree with you, but I must point out that a comparison between singers active in 2021 and singers active over the space of a century is not quite fair.


----------



## wkasimer

Barbebleu said:


> Beirer, Aldenhoff and even a 'superannuated' Lorenz would still be more listenable than some of the poor excuses for Wagnerian singing that have been about for the last few years.


That's a matter of opinion. And I don't find Lorenz particularly listenable, even in recordings from his prime.


----------



## Woodduck

wkasimer said:


> I obviously agree with you, but I must point out that a comparison between singers active in 2021 and singers active over the space of a century is not quite fair.


I wasn't really doing that. I was simply naming people who really knew how to sing, and asking for current examples of sheer vocal competence to match that of a long line of great singers, a line that seems almost to have died out. Let's not even ask where all the great Verdi baritones have gone! Up to about the 1940s you couldn't turn around without tripping over one.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> The fact that Wagner's operas present difficulties in casting and production is hardly news. This being a thread about the state of singing, the emphasis here is properly on the fact that singers who can deal with the music's demands are rarer than they once were, and it's more than reasonable to suggest that their rarity has an effect on audience interest and frequency of production. Why spend money on "stars" who are not stellar?
> 
> In the 1930s, when Flagstad and Melchior were singing at the Met, they were (I've read) the house's biggest box office draw. Nina Stemme and Geoffrey Skelton would not have excited audiences of the time, and they don't excite many people now. Whether or not it inspires audiences to have mediocre singers enact the medieval romance of Tristan and Isolde in what looks like the engine room of a WW II battleship may be a matter for debate, but your "hard numbers " suggest that it doesn't. And your "hard numbers" don't justify your personal opinion that "Wagner's continued success with commercial recordings (and concert performances) largely is due to the continued popularity of his overtures and preludes." Much more likely is that there remains a thirst among opera lovers for performances of his operas that actually do them justice, musically and visually.
> 
> Your original statement, "to me, this video is an example of how Wagner's original concept does not translate well in the 21st century" makes no sense to me. The video doesn't demonstrate anything except what we're all saying it does: operatic singing, and the singing of Wagner in particular, is not in good shape at present. If there were more singers capable of fulfilling the composer's demands, we might see more productions, and your hard numbers might well be different. Why go to the expense of mounting a production if no one whom anyone cares to hear is available to sing it ?


Sorry, I wasn't expressing a personal opinion as to commercial recordings, only referring to market data. My personal opinion here is essentially in agreement with yours, i.e., there are no equivalents of Wagner stars of the magnitude of Flagstad and Melchior today. From what I've read, the vocal demands of Wagner's operas are such that many of today's singers are reluctant to take them on, or retire from singing them well before the end of their careers. (Deborah Voigt discussed this in an interview I saw a few years ago.) Operatic singing, especially of this type, increasingly has become a less viable career choice among talented young singing students. So these roles increasingly are becoming difficult to cast with singers willing and able to do them justice.

A quick google search produced an entire paper about this very issue by Andrew Moravcsik entitled "Where Have The Great Big Wagner Voices Gone?" (link below). He concludes:

It is clear from the analysis above a decline in singing in spinto and dramatic operas is underway. Much evidence supports the three-stage "life style" explanation for this decline. Today fewer young people ever have a chance to discover whether that they are vocally gifted, fewer are willing and able to wait out the decades to maturity, and fewer are
suitable to be cast in modern visibly- and theatrically-driven opera. Each of these mechanisms has grown more pronounced over the past two generations, and each discriminates against spinto and dramatic singers. Together these three factors may well have shrunk the pool of great singers, not least in Wagnerian opera, until hardly any remain.

https://www.princeton.edu/~amoravcs/library/Final%20Chapter%20Moravcsik%20v2%20Comments.pdf


----------



## BachIsBest

fluteman said:


> It is clear from the analysis above a decline in singing in spinto and dramatic operas is underway. Much evidence supports the three-stage "life style" explanation for this decline. Today fewer young people ever have a chance to discover whether that they are vocally gifted, fewer are willing and able to wait out the decades to maturity, and fewer are
> suitable to be cast in modern visibly- and theatrically-driven opera. Each of these mechanisms has grown more pronounced over the past two generations, and each discriminates against spinto and dramatic singers. Together these three factors may well have shrunk the pool of great singers, not least in Wagnerian opera, until hardly any remain.


Interesting article, and thanks for posting it. However, in the past ~120ish years the population has increased by about 500 times. For there to actually be a smaller pool of singers these listed factors would have to account for this factor of 500 and then still be severe enough to meaningfully reduce the pool. Probably you would have to estimate these factors would account for something like a 2000 times decrease (presuming we have four times less Wagnerian tenors than yesteryear; a low estimate) which seems unlikely.


----------



## fluteman

BachIsBest said:


> Interesting article, and thanks for posting it. However, in the past ~120ish years the population has increased by about 500 times. For there to actually be a smaller pool of singers these listed factors would have to account for this factor of 500 and then still be severe enough to meaningfully reduce the pool. Probably you would have to estimate these factors would account for something like a 2000 times decrease (presuming we have four times less Wagnerian tenors than yesteryear; a low estimate) which seems unlikely.


It's a question of supply and demand. If the demand for Wagnerian tenors increased enough, more young singers would be willing to put in the considerable time, effort and training needed. But the demand for traditional classical music as a whole not only has not increased, it has decreased, and production costs have increased, to the point where the grand opera tradition in particular is less economically viable.


----------



## Barbebleu

fluteman said:


> Sorry, I wasn't expressing a personal opinion as to commercial recordings, only referring to market data. My personal opinion here is essentially in agreement with yours, i.e., there are no equivalents of Wagner stars of the magnitude of Flagstad and Melchior today. From what I've read, the vocal demands of Wagner's operas are such that many of today's singers are reluctant to take them on, or retire from singing them well before the end of their careers. (Deborah Voigt discussed this in an interview I saw a few years ago.) Operatic singing, especially of this type, increasingly has become a less viable career choice among talented young singing students. So these roles increasingly are becoming difficult to cast with singers willing and able to do them justice.
> 
> A quick google search produced an entire paper about this very issue by Andrew Moravcsik entitled "Where Have The Great Big Wagner Voices Gone?" (link below). He concludes:
> 
> It is clear from the analysis above a decline in singing in spinto and dramatic operas is underway. Much evidence supports the three-stage "life style" explanation for this decline. Today fewer young people ever have a chance to discover whether that they are vocally gifted, fewer are willing and able to wait out the decades to maturity, and fewer are
> suitable to be cast in modern visibly- and theatrically-driven opera. Each of these mechanisms has grown more pronounced over the past two generations, and each discriminates against spinto and dramatic singers. Together these three factors may well have shrunk the pool of great singers, not least in Wagnerian opera, until hardly any remain.
> 
> https://www.princeton.edu/~amoravcs/library/Final%20Chapter%20Moravcsik%20v2%20Comments.pdf


Very interesting article. Thanks for posting. I'd like to read his one on Verdi.


----------



## BachIsBest

fluteman said:


> It's a question of supply and demand. If the demand for Wagnerian tenors increased enough, more young singers would be willing to put in the considerable time, effort and training needed. But the demand for traditional classical music as a whole not only has not increased, it has decreased, and production costs have increased, to the point where the grand opera tradition in particular is less economically viable.


As the article pointed out, the number of performances of opera has increased. Classical music is listened to by a lower percentage of people now, but the number of people alive has increased.


----------



## fluteman

BachIsBest said:


> As the article pointed out, the number of performances of opera has increased. Classical music is listened to by a lower percentage of people now, but the number of people alive has increased.


None of which contradicts my posts in any way. The expense of staging the grand operas of Wagner, Verdi and Puccini the way were intended to be staged, with a large chorus and orchestra, increasingly was becoming prohibitive even before the pandemic. Even the Met, the biggest budget opera company in the US, had to adapt. Current manager Peter Gelb pushed live streaming and other multimedia programs, while critics complained bitterly about falling standards. Currently, the Met has been closed for over a year and is trying to impose huge pay cuts on stagehands and orchestra musicians that almost certainly will not be restored after performances resume, if they ever resume.

Put another way, today's opera audiences are not willing to pay what it would cost to keep this tradition going on the level it was at its peak. Opera companies have had to slash labor costs, making opera a less attractive career for the most talented young singers. It especially is not as worth their investment to develop a specialty in the big Wagner roles. This has been going on for a long time. Peter Gelb's approach of seeking a broader audience while letting standards fall is the inevitable result.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> None of which contradicts my posts in any way. The expense of staging the grand operas of Wagner, Verdi and Puccini the way were intended to be staged, with a large chorus and orchestra, increasingly was becoming prohibitive even before the pandemic. Even the Met, the biggest budget opera company in the US, had to adapt. Current manager Peter Gelb pushed live streaming and other multimedia programs, while critics complained bitterly about falling standards. Currently, the Met has been closed for over a year and is trying to impose huge pay cuts on stagehands and orchestra musicians that almost certainly will not be restored after performances resume, if they ever resume.
> 
> Put another way, today's opera audiences are not willing to pay what it would cost to keep this tradition going on the level it was at its peak. Opera companies have had to slash labor costs, making opera a less attractive career for the most talented young singers. It especially is not as worth their investment to develop a specialty in the big Wagner roles. This has been going on for a long time. Peter Gelb's approach of seeking a broader audience while letting standards fall is the inevitable result.


There's not much point in debating the causes of opera's problems. The big picture is that culture changes, and the basic opera repertoire - the operas people are willing to pay to see and hear year after year - is, like the basic classical music repertoire as a whole, mostly a product of the past, despite occasional (somewhat) viable additions to it. Caruso starred in operas written by contemporary composers, and the tradition of singing of which he was a great exponent was still vital. I have no illusions that we will ever see - or hear - the like of it again, and I'm not optimistic about any aspect of opera presentation, including singing. That is not to say that we can't or shouldn't do better, but as with every other aspect of our cultural heritage, opera will be a struggling niche interest (which, by the way, has rarely or never subsisted solely on box office receipts). There will never be another Verdi, for whom all of Italy gathered in the streets to mourn his death.


----------



## BachIsBest

fluteman said:


> None of which contradicts my posts in any way. The expense of staging the grand operas of Wagner, Verdi and Puccini the way were intended to be staged, with a large chorus and orchestra, increasingly was becoming prohibitive even before the pandemic. Even the Met, the biggest budget opera company in the US, had to adapt. Current manager Peter Gelb pushed live streaming and other multimedia programs, while critics complained bitterly about falling standards. Currently, the Met has been closed for over a year and is trying to impose huge pay cuts on stagehands and orchestra musicians that almost certainly will not be restored after performances resume, if they ever resume.
> 
> Put another way, today's opera audiences are not willing to pay what it would cost to keep this tradition going on the level it was at its peak. Opera companies have had to slash labor costs, making opera a less attractive career for the most talented young singers. It especially is not as worth their investment to develop a specialty in the big Wagner roles. This has been going on for a long time. Peter Gelb's approach of seeking a broader audience while letting standards fall is the inevitable result.


No, the article you posted itself states that there are more performances of The Ring than ever. Furthermore, the article points out Wagnerian tenors are payed more than ever so it evidently is worth the investment. Bringing up the pandemic is silly, it is obviously an extraordinary incidence and can't be pointed to.


----------



## DeGustibus

I realize that, like most things, this has been done before in this forum, but relevant to this discussion, tonight/tomorrow's Met on Demand presentation is Tristan with Jane Eaglen as Isolde from 1999. Her vocals were critically well-thought of at the time, I think, and now too, at least in another blog that discusses the broadcasts in real time present. But the unfortunate fact is that in these HD days opera is also a visual medium and she is distractingly large. (And the costumes don't do her any favors.) She is too heavy to move around the stage, it appears, so we are back to "park and bark" and by the end she is shifting back and forth between feet, again distractingly. The negative stereotype of Wagner singers noted above is not just about yelling, it's about appearance. 
I wonder if the suggestion that Wagner be set on the shelf is not such a bad one. We don't much discuss best harpsichord players anymore. Unamplified, grand, Wagnerian opera had a relatively short heyday. Is it to be held up as the exemplar of "the state of modern operatic singing" when you have current instances of very good singers who also translate well to a more visual context? Perhaps what we celebrate is simply a moment captured in amber (or wax cylinders - ) and tastes, styles, and technology have changed. We don't ask acting coaches to train dramatists in the broad manner needed in the silent film era and we can't disregard speech quality as might have been possible then (hello to Singing in the Rain.)
(I will set aside the issue of length, although I don't think it can be glossed over as easily as some have above. This production of T&I clocks in at 4 hours without intermissions or the current introductory commentary. I can't think of another current popular form of entertainment that makes that kind of demand on its audience. Every sport, for example, is struggling to make sure the games come in under 3 hours.)


----------



## Woodduck

DeGustibus said:


> I realize that, like most things, this has been done before in this forum, but relevant to this discussion, tonight/tomorrow's Met on Demand presentation is Tristan with Jane Eaglen as Isolde from 1999. Her vocals were critically well-thought of at the time, I think, and now too, at least in another blog that discusses the broadcasts in real time present. But the unfortunate fact is that in these HD days opera is also a visual medium and she is distractingly large. (And the costumes don't do her any favors.) She is too heavy to move around the stage, it appears, so we are back to "park and bark" and by the end she is shifting back and forth between feet, again distractingly. The negative stereotype of Wagner singers noted above is not just about yelling, it's about appearance.
> I wonder if the suggestion that Wagner be set on the shelf is not such a bad one. We don't much discuss best harpsichord players anymore. Unamplified, grand, Wagnerian opera had a relatively short heyday. Is it to be held up as the exemplar of "the state of modern operatic singing" when you have current instances of very good singers who also translate well to a more visual context? Perhaps what we celebrate is simply a moment captured in amber (or wax cylinders - ) and tastes, styles, and technology have changed. We don't ask acting coaches to train dramatists in the broad manner needed in the silent film era and we can't disregard speech quality as might have been possible then (hello to Singing in the Rain.)
> (I will set aside the issue of length, although I don't think it can be glossed over as easily as some have above. This production of T&I clocks in at 4 hours without intermissions or the current introductory commentary. I can't think of another current popular form of entertainment that makes that kind of demand on its audience. Every sport, for example, is struggling to make sure the games come in under 3 hours.)


That Met _Tristan_ with Jane Eaglen and Ben Heppner was about as well-sung as we've been able to hear in recent years - quite listenable - but as you point out it was visually static and dull due partly to the hypertrophied bodies of the principals. But it isn't quite fair to cite Eaglen's obesity as typical of Wagner singers, most of whom are probably no fatter than singers in other repertoire. The video medium undoubtedly draws more attention to singers' bodies than they attract in the theater, but then filmed opera is never going to draw huge crowds to movie theaters. I think this "problem" can be overstated, as most opera lovers are realistic enough not to expect Aida to look like Sophia Loren, except in the movie where Loren plays Aida and Renata Tebaldi supplies her voice. The obligatory pursuit of physical beauty in hope of popular appeal can only ensure the further deterioration of vocal technique, further robbing opera of its principal medium of expression. Nobody watches opera without the singing, but much of opera's power comes across on recordings heard in our living rooms.

I would suggest having a look at some of the Italian RAI opera films made (in black and white) in the 1950s (with Tito Gobbi among other artists), the second act of _Tosca _ from Covent Garden with Gobbi and Callas, or Tebaldi and Bjorling in the love duet from _La Boheme._ Then consider whether opera as traditionally done - and faithfully filmed as such - is just a "moment captured in amber." Acting to music while singing is an art distinct from film acting, and there's no reason to regard it as obsolescent or incomprehensible to modern audiences merely because its potential lyricism and grandeur are not seen on TV or at the movies. Indeed, in performances such as the above - which all singers should study - it is likely to be a revelation to many, just as is the stylized acting of a Garbo or an Olivier. Art such as theirs can make us realize the limitations of our own "realistic" sensibilities.

You seem not to believe in opera as an art form, or in its power to capture the contemporary imagination (or else you simply have a bias against "Wagnerian opera," whatever that means to you). I'm pretty pessimistic about our culture, but there are too many modern people who can genuinely appreciate the arts of the past to allow me to think that those arts no longer speak to us. We have little reason to be snobbish about our own sensibilities and attainments, and every reason to keep the past alive as vital to the present.


----------



## Tsaraslondon

BachIsBest said:


> . Bringing up the pandemic is silly, it is obviously an extraordinary incidence and can't be pointed to.


The pandemic may be an extraordinary incidence, but its effect on the arts will be long and far reaching. This rather grim article in The Guardian yesterday sets out the problems facing not just classical music, but the arts in general.

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2021/may/12/bouncing-back-unsettling-truth-big-reopening


----------



## Barbebleu

Tsaraslondon said:


> The pandemic may be an extraordinary incidence, but its effect on the arts will be long and far reaching. This rather grim article in The Guardian yesterday sets out the problems facing not just classical music, but the arts in general.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2021/may/12/bouncing-back-unsettling-truth-big-reopening


That's pretty gloomy reading Tsaras. I fear that the pandemic will change all our lives drastically for some time to come.


----------



## Tsaraslondon

Barbebleu said:


> That's pretty gloomy reading Tsaras. I fear that the pandemic will change all our lives drastically for some time to come.


With the recent news that this Government plans to cut arts education funding by 50%, I fear for the future of the arts in this country.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> There's not much point in debating the causes of opera's problems. The big picture is that culture changes, and the basic opera repertoire - the operas people are willing to pay to see and hear year after year - is, like the basic classical music repertoire as a whole, mostly a product of the past, despite occasional (somewhat) viable additions to it. Caruso starred in operas written by contemporary composers, and the tradition of singing of which he was a great exponent was still vital. I have no illusions that we will ever see - or hear - the like of it again, and I'm not optimistic about any aspect of opera presentation, including singing. That is not to say that we can't or shouldn't do better, but as with every other aspect of our cultural heritage, opera will be a struggling niche interest (which, by the way, has rarely or never subsisted solely on box office receipts). There will never be another Verdi, for whom all of Italy gathered in the streets to mourn his death.


Yes, agreed, though I wouldn't have used such negative language. I'd have said, there will never be another Verdi, nor should there be, or could there be. Our society, our culture, and our musical traditions have continued to evolve. Verdi won't disappear without a trace tomorrow, and so long as there are well-heeled opera lovers willing to travel the world to attend Ring cycles, those also will continue, well past our lifetimes, anyway.

But it is useless to deny cultural evolution. As a singer, you must know that operatic singing was a highly specialized skill that developed so that a voice could project unamplified into a large acoustic performance space to a large audience, over a full orchestra and often other singers if not a full chorus. It must be capable of power, intensity and volume while remaining lyrical and beautiful.

Amplification changed the game forever. Even traditional symphony orchestras and operas now sometimes use it, and they always use it for recording, broadcasts / streaming, and, of course, outdoors. Wagner and Verdi lived and worked in a different world.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> As a singer, you must know that *operatic singing was a highly specialized skill that developed so that a voice could project unamplified into a large acoustic performance space to a large audience, over a full orchestra and often other singers if not a full chorus.* It must be capable of power, intensity and volume while remaining lyrical and beautiful.
> 
> Amplification changed the game forever. Even traditional symphony orchestras and operas now sometimes use it, and they always use it for recording, broadcasts / streaming, and, of course, outdoors. Wagner and Verdi lived and worked in a different world.


The techniques of classical singing developed before there were full orchestras and full choruses as we know them, and the ancient Greeks already knew how to fill amphitheaters with their voices. Modern vocal technique developed to maximize the voice's flexibility and thus its musical potential, not its volume, although increased power is a normal result of vocal training. The deterioration of singing today has nothing to do with making a big noise, and amplification doesn't compensate us for the loss of musical values caused by inadequately trained voices.


----------



## wkasimer

Woodduck said:


> The deterioration of singing today has nothing to do with making a big noise, and amplification doesn't compensate us for the loss of musical values caused by inadequately trained voices.


There are other contributors besides lack of adequate vocal training, particularly in Wagner, but applicable to other repertoire to some degree. First is the prominence of superstar conductors in Wagner, who like their orchestras to produce a lot of sound, with which the singers must contend. There's a reason why Wagner designed Bayreuth with a covered orchestra pit. Second, too many opera houses are too large and acoustically flawed, and operagoers accustomed to recordings and overmiked broadcasts complain when singers aren't loud enough for their jaded ears.

And finally, there's the insistence on uncut Wagner performances. I love every note that Wagner wrote, but perhaps the Met and other major houses need to reconsider whether it's wise to ask a Tristan and an Isolde to sing so many uncut performances in the space of a few weeks. Melchior did not sing a single uncut Tristan in his entire career - Ben Heppner, as I recall, sang 8 performances, all uncut, in four weeks in 1999, and five performances in two weeks in 2003. It's no wonder that he cracked a few times in the final performance in 1999.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> The deterioration of singing today has nothing to do with making a big noise, and amplification doesn't compensate us for the loss of musical values caused by inadequately trained voices.


I know what you mean, and empathize. But in an absolute, overall sense, there hasn't been any deterioration in singing today, there isn't any inadequacy in training, and there hasn't been a loss of musical values. A particular 18th and 19th century European vocal tradition has receded somewhat from its peak, 'golden age', perhaps understandably, as we are no longer in the 20th century, much less the 18th or 19th. In much (but not all) of today's music, there has been a _change_ in musical values, in some cases away from the ones you find most important, towards others you find less important, or even trivial.

When Andrea Bocelli sings his "opera hits" to huge, adoring crowds in televised performances, you probably cringe and change the channel. Again, I empathize, and in fact, I change the channel too. But Bocelli is not talentless or untrained, nor is he a fool. He has adapted classic repertoire to modern tastes, rather than abandoning it entirely. You and I prefer the real thing, but his is a legitimate approach, and that is why it has been so successful.

Edit: I actually laughed out loud reading this 2006 review of a Bocelli concert by veteran NY Times critic Bernard Holland:

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/08/arts/music/08boce.html#:~:text=Bocelli%20is%20not%20a%20very,be%20the%20onset%20of%20strangulation.


----------



## BachIsBest

Tsaraslondon said:


> The pandemic may be an extraordinary incidence, but its effect on the arts will be long and far reaching. This rather grim article in The Guardian yesterday sets out the problems facing not just classical music, but the arts in general.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2021/may/12/bouncing-back-unsettling-truth-big-reopening


I don't disagree. But it was brought up in an argument about historical trends not future predictions.


----------



## Barbebleu

fluteman said:


> I know what you mean, and empathize. But in an absolute, overall sense, there hasn't been any deterioration in singing today, there isn't any inadequacy in training, and there hasn't been a loss of musical values. A particular 18th and 19th century European vocal tradition has receded somewhat from its peak, 'golden age', perhaps understandably, as we are no longer in the 20th century, much less the 18th or 19th. In much (but not all) of today's music, there has been a _change_ in musical values, in some cases away from the ones you find most important, towards others you find less important, or even trivial.
> 
> When Andrea Bocelli sings his "opera hits" to huge, adoring crowds in televised performances, you probably cringe and change the channel. Again, I empathize, and in fact, I change the channel too. But Bocelli is not talentless or untrained, nor is he a fool. He has adapted classic repertoire to modern tastes, rather than abandoning it entirely. You and I prefer the real thing, but his is a legitimate approach, and that is why it has been so successful.


As much as I dislike what you are saying here , sadly I totally agree with you. When I hear people like Bocelli, Rieux, Watson, Boe and their ilk I just shudder and ultimately shrug my shoulders and move on. This is where we are and no amount of weeping and wailing, gnashing of teeth and rending of garments is going to change it.


----------



## BachIsBest

fluteman said:


> I know what you mean, and empathize. But in an absolute, overall sense, there hasn't been any deterioration in singing today, there isn't any inadequacy in training, and there hasn't been a loss of musical values. A particular 18th and 19th century European vocal tradition has receded somewhat from its peak, 'golden age', perhaps understandably, as we are no longer in the 20th century, much less the 18th or 19th. In much (but not all) of today's music, there has been a _change_ in musical values, in some cases away from the ones you find most important, towards others you find less important, or even trivial.
> 
> When Andrea Bocelli sings his "opera hits" to huge, adoring crowds in televised performances, you probably cringe and change the channel. Again, I empathize, and in fact, I change the channel too. But Bocelli is not talentless or untrained, nor is he a fool. He has adapted classic repertoire to modern tastes, rather than abandoning it entirely. You and I prefer the real thing, but his is a legitimate approach, and that is why it has been so successful.


Pavarotti was even bigger than Bocelli in his heyday; it might have something to do with the quality of the singing. Observe:











Neither of them are Corelli, but one of these it at least respectable and I don't think it's an accident that "The Three Tenors" then climbed higher on the sales chart than Bocelli ever has.


----------



## Barbebleu

But Pavarotti (and also Domingo and Carreras, the other two in the triumvirate) was a bona fide opera singer. We are not comparing like with like here.

I have a wonderful live Boheme from Rome in 1969 where Pavarotti is just stunning.


----------



## fluteman

BachIsBest said:


> Neither of them are Corelli, but one of these it at least respectable and I don't think it's an accident that "The Three Tenors" then climbed higher on the sales chart than Bocelli ever has.


The Three Tenors was one of the best-selling classical acts of all time. Pavarotti in particular happened to have quite the charismatic personality. He even was good (and funny) in the movie comedy Yes, Giorgio. But if Bocelli wasn't blind, he might have become an even bigger star.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> I know what you mean, and empathize. But i*n an absolute, overall sense, there hasn't been any deterioration in singing today, there isn't any inadequacy in training, and there hasn't been a loss of musical values.* A particular 18th and 19th century European vocal tradition has receded somewhat from its peak, 'golden age', perhaps understandably, as we are no longer in the 20th century, much less the 18th or 19th. In much (but not all) of today's music, there has been a _change_ in musical values, in some cases away from the ones you find most important, towards others you find less important, or even trivial.
> 
> When Andrea Bocelli sings his "opera hits" to huge, adoring crowds in televised performances, you probably cringe and change the channel. Again, I empathize, and in fact, I change the channel too. But Bocelli is not talentless or untrained, nor is he a fool. He has adapted classic repertoire to modern tastes, rather than abandoning it entirely. You and I prefer the real thing, but his is a legitimate approach, and that is why it has been so successful.


This misses the point. A singer can either meet the demands of the music he's singing or he can't. There is no universe in which an inflexible, wobbly voice in need of artificial amplification represents merely a "different musical value" in the singing of Violetta or Siegfried than does a steady, flexible, powerful one. "Absolute, overall sense" is a meaningless phrase. We're talking about the proper execution of a certain kind of music, and the kind of training that makes it possible.

Your argument is of a piece with those wearisome threads where people think it's significant and useful to point out that there is no palpable, isolable, measurable, "absolute" substance or thing called "greatness" in music, while at the same time they know perfectly well that Beethoven was, in any meaningful sense of the word, a greater composer than Dittersdorf.

I wish only the best for the charming Mr. Bocelli. Just keep him away from Verdi.


----------



## annaw

Maybe this is a bit off-topic but I was wondering whether some more knowledgeable people would be willing to explain this - why did the current voice teachers abandon the old technique in the first place? There’s no way that none of them realises that, in general, singers in the past were better than the singers who are currently active. I’m aware of the chest voice issue that arised when someone came up with the theory that chest voice deteriorates the voice (or something like that) but one theory wouldn’t lead to a total collapse of a singing technique.


----------



## DeGustibus

Woodduck said:


> That Met _Tristan_ with Jane Eaglen and Ben Heppner was about as well-sung as we've been able to hear in recent years - quite listenable - but as you point out it was visually static and dull due partly to the hypertrophied bodies of the principals. But it isn't quite fair to cite Eaglen's obesity as typical of Wagner singers, most of whom are probably no fatter than singers in other repertoire. The video medium undoubtedly draws more attention to singers' bodies than they attract in the theater, but then filmed opera is never going to draw huge crowds to movie theaters. I think this "problem" can be overstated, as most opera lovers are realistic enough not to expect Aida to look like Sophia Loren, except in the movie where Loren plays Aida and Renata Tebaldi supplies her voice. The obligatory pursuit of physical beauty in hope of popular appeal can only ensure the further deterioration of vocal technique, further robbing opera of its principal medium of expression. Nobody watches opera without the singing, but much of opera's power comes across on recordings heard in our living rooms.
> 
> I would suggest having a look at some of the Italian RAI opera films made (in black and white) in the 1950s (with Tito Gobbi among other artists), the second act of _Tosca _ from Covent Garden with Gobbi and Callas, or Tebaldi and Bjorling in the love duet from _La Boheme._ Then consider whether opera as traditionally done - and faithfully filmed as such - is just a "moment captured in amber." Acting to music while singing is an art distinct from film acting, and there's no reason to regard it as obsolescent or incomprehensible to modern audiences merely because its potential lyricism and grandeur are not seen on TV or at the movies. Indeed, in performances such as the above - which all singers should study - it is likely to be a revelation to many, just as is the stylized acting of a Garbo or an Olivier. Art such as theirs can make us realize the limitations of our own "realistic" sensibilities.
> 
> You seem not to believe in opera as an art form, or in its power to capture the contemporary imagination (or else you simply have a bias against "Wagnerian opera," whatever that means to you). I'm pretty pessimistic about our culture, but there are *too many modern people who can genuinely appreciate the arts of the past to allow me to think that those arts no longer speak to us.* We have little reason to be snobbish about our own sensibilities and attainments, and every reason to keep the past alive as vital to the present.


Thanks. I certainly "believe in opera as an art form" and indeed enjoy it. I watch the Met stream almost every night, or did, until the repeats became too much, as well as Wiener on-line and other ways of listening. It is indeed true that I prefer video and subtitles, (and thanks for the pointer to the Callas/Gobbi Tosca. I know the recording very well, but didn't know there was a video.) I just think there are several interesting questions* that are so inextricably (maybe) intertwined and with a certain chicken and egg quality that I find this thread (which has been at or near the top of the page since it started 8 months ago) somewhat frustrating in that I think we are sometime talking past each other. And note that the part I bolded above really isn't the issue. I can and am spoken to by the art of the past, but is the standard for producing that art in the present the same as in the past? What does it mean to "keep the past alive?" The answer differs, I think in different art forms and varieties, and I am just trying to tease out the answer for opera.
[Well, I had more to say, but I had to put this aside for a few hours and I see that fluteman and others are saying better what I might have said, so I will bow out. Cordially, I might add. I have learned a lot from this thread.]

*Such as: How do we take note of the fact that in the "golden age," opera was a truly popular art? Is it reasonable to expect that it might ever approach that again? To what extent are the desired vocal qualities a matter of taste? In this thread, we've had some discussion IIRC of how wide a vibrato different people will accept? How much of the decline in the visibility and general popularity of opera stars can be attributed to the changes in other media, esp. TV? You don't have variety shows where opera stars sing, you don't have everyone watching one of three networks, etc. What impact does that have on career choices singers make. IOW, what direction are the various causal arrows running? 
Just for fun, a very quick poll on another newsgroup I frequent revealed, unsurprisingly, that no one who was not an opera listener could name a single current singer. Most couldn't (or didn't) name any, past or present. One Pavarotti, one "the blind guy," one "the three tenors," and one poor soul who was trying but had Maria Callas and Marian Anderson conflated somehow. Enrico Pallazzo got the most mentions and I had to google him.


----------



## Dimace

Woodduck said:


> This misses the point. A singer can either meet the demands of the music he's singing or he can't. There is no universe in which an inflexible, wobbly voice in need of artificial amplification represents merely a "different musical value" in the singing of Violetta or Siegfried than does a steady, flexible, powerful one. "Absolute, overall sense" is a meaningless phrase. We're talking about the proper execution of a certain kind of music, and the kind of training that makes it possible.
> 
> Your argument is of a piece with those wearisome threads where people think it's significant and useful to point out that there is no palpable, isolable, measurable, "absolute" substance or thing called "greatness" in music, while at the same time they know perfectly well that Beethoven was, in any meaningful sense of the word, a greater composer than Dittersdorf.
> 
> I wish only the best for the charming Mr. Bocelli. *Just keep him away from Verdi.*


Him AND many others. I'm not of the guys thinking that anything of the past was better, but as long as this concerns the music I could say it is true statement. The quality deterioration in music is enorm (also in non classical /opera music) as result of the general cultural deterioration of our days. In ten years from today (I hope all we' ll be healthy and present in this community) the music we love or worship shall be so small minority around the world, that no one will care to make quality because of the lack of audience.


----------



## BachIsBest

Barbebleu said:


> But Pavarotti (and also Domingo and Carreras, the other two in the triumvirate) was a bona fide opera singer. We are not comparing like with like here.
> 
> I have a wonderful live Boheme from Rome in 1969 where Pavarotti is just stunning.


That's precisely the point. Pavarotti was an actual opera singer with a lot of talent and sold better than Bocelli ever did. The quoted poster was claiming that Bocelli was successful because he "adapted classical repertoire to modern tastes" but, if the three tenors are any indication, people actually prefer real tenors singing arias as they were written. I'm just not convinced there are any tenors today with the voice or charisma to become as popular as Pavarotti did.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> This misses the point. A singer can either meet the demands of the music he's singing or he can't. There is no universe in which an inflexible, wobbly voice in need of artificial amplification represents merely a "different musical value" in the singing of Violetta or Siegfried than does a steady, flexible, powerful one. "Absolute, overall sense" is a meaningless phrase. We're talking about the proper execution of a certain kind of music, and the kind of training that makes it possible.
> 
> Your argument is of a piece with those wearisome threads where people think it's significant and useful to point out that there is no palpable, isolable, measurable, "absolute" substance or thing called "greatness" in music, while at the same time they know perfectly well that Beethoven was, in any meaningful sense of the word, a greater composer than Dittersdorf.
> 
> I wish only the best for the charming Mr. Bocelli. Just keep him away from Verdi.


You seem to think I am arguing with you, but I am not, except possibly for your last sentence. I suppose you are missing my point, but that's all right. I hope you read that NY Times review of Mr. Bocelli I mentioned. I think Bernard Holland (A highly knowledgeable music critic and classical musician himself) had the right attitude when it comes to the Bocellis of the world. Look at the bright side -- No doubt he has introduced the music of Verdi to millions who otherwise may never have heard it, some of whom may be motivated to investigate it further.

For example, at one point Bocelli recorded the Verdi Requiem, not a performance that would rank with the greats (though musical, he simply doesn't have the voice or technique for such heavyweight works, as you apparently have noticed) but passable. For me, I'll take Bjorling with Price, Reiner et al. on Decca in the Requiem, though even he reportedly didn't have a big enough voice to do it justice live. I'll take Haefliger with Walter in Das Lied, Corelli with Karajan in Carmen, Wunderlich in Dichterliebe, etc. But if Bocelli got even one of his groupies to listen to the Verdi Requiem (and you know it was a lot more than that), then I say, that is a victory.



BachIsBest said:


> The quoted poster was claiming that Bocelli was successful because he "adapted classical repertoire to modern tastes"


I'm not just claiming that, it is factually true. (By success, I mean commercial success.) I never said that anyone who took the trouble to listen to Verdi as sung by the greatest operatic tenors wouldn't prefer them, but many in Bocelli's audience do not listen to opera or classical music at all. BTW, I see that Pavarotti has sold 100 million records, Bocelli was at 90 million as of 2018.


----------



## vivalagentenuova

I don't think the existence of Andrea Bocelli is evidence of vocal decline. I think that the presence of artists at the world's most prestigious opera houses with major vocal defects whose singing is often unlistenable is evidence for vocal decline. Now, if the point is that modern opera singers use a different vocal technique than singers of the past, which reflects different aesthetic concerns of the times, that much seems true. But it is also true that the modern technique is still meant by serious modern opera singers to be used to sing 19th century music, and modern singers often try to use it to achieve some of the same vocal feats as singers of the past: flexibility, beauty of tone, ease of emission, varied vocal color, varied dynamics, long lines, carrying power, clarity of diction etc.. They far too often do not succeed because of the limitations of their technique. There is a new technique, but it is an inferior technique, and I don't know what it would mean to say that there's been a decline in operatic vocalism and vocal teaching if not "the increasing predominance of an inferior vocal technique".


----------



## BachIsBest

fluteman said:


> I'm not just claiming that, it is factually true. (By success, I mean commercial success.) I never said that anyone who took the trouble to listen to Verdi as sung by the greatest operatic tenors wouldn't prefer them, but many in Bocelli's audience do not listen to opera or classical music at all. BTW, I see that Pavarotti has sold 100 million records, Bocelli was at 90 million as of 2018.


If all you are claiming is Bocelli is commercially successful and that he has also fused an operatic style with a more modern one, then I agree this is just factually correct.

However, in the context of this discussion (and I may be wrong), I presumed you were claiming he was successful _because_ he "modernised" opera; I think this assumption on my part was further justified by statements like these: "he has adapted classic repertoire to modern tastes, rather than abandoning it entirely". This is what I take issue with, and why I brought up the three tenors.


----------



## fluteman

BachIsBest said:


> If all you are claiming is Bocelli is commercially successful and that he has also fused an operatic style with a more modern one, then I agree this is just factually correct.
> 
> However, in the context of this discussion (and I may be wrong), I presumed you were claiming he was successful _because_ he "modernised" opera; I think this assumption on my part was further justified by statements like these: "he has adapted classic repertoire to modern tastes, rather than abandoning it entirely". This is what I take issue with, and why I brought up the three tenors.


No, you misunderstood me, though others in this thread did understand my point. The Bocellis of the world are not modernizing opera. Far from it, alas. But they appreciate that tradition enough to incorporate it into the contemporary popular music they do, and I agree with vivalagentenouva, it is not evidence of vocal decline, and in my opinion, on the whole is beneficial for encouraging continued interest in classical music. The rock star Sting has made an album with a lutenist of songs by English Renaissance composer John Dowland. He also wrote and recorded a song to a melody from Prokofiev's Lieutenant Kije, and played a convincingly rough hewn soldier in a very good recording of Stravinsky's L'Histoire du soldat with Kent Nagano.

Now, I have heard all of the above, and when it comes to vocal technique, Andrea Bocelli is Pavarotti at his best compared with Sting. But for me, at least, Sting's work is genuinely creative, and by incorporating classical music in his work, helps keep that tradition alive. And if the tradition is not kept alive, nobody will want to devote their lives developing the skills needed to do a decent job of singing Siegfried, or for that matter playing the Tchaikovsky violin concerto.


----------



## Amadea

Go ask any serious opera singer if Bocelli is good... I did, their reaction was priceless, they wanted to cry, poor guys. But it seems to me only very casual listeners which do not really know opera like him. They like him because they see a blind man singing emotional pieces and they cry, like it's Italy's Got Talent. That's all. I wouldn't say he's the proof of decline, as he's mainly the mainstream "opera singer" that you hear in television on Xmas. Maybe the decline is to be found in the teaching. I am quite lucky I live in Parma though and even if I can't go to opera so often it seems to me the singers, at least in Italy, are still quite good. A little off topic: we've been experiencing an "invasion" of singers from Asia (Korea expecially) in the last 15 years. Basically, they arrive here already graduated and they take classes with italian teachers in italian conservatories to get better in the italian repertoire. They obviously pass the conservatory entrance exams as they're already professionists. They're good technically, but a bit cold. So I was thinking, maybe it is also a cultural problem. As an italian, I often feel like foreign singers (not only asians) do not really "get it". Not only the words, I mean, maybe they can get the words, I'm sure they check them, but I have the impression they do not really get the feeling of italian opera. They don't get the passions. So for me it is mostly an interpretation problem. They seem to have the skills but they don't get it. Therefore it sounds worse. Many musicians in general are becoming more and more mechanical. As if music were an olympic sport. Many singers sing like they have to exhibit themselves rather than display emotions.


----------



## Seattleoperafan

DeGustibus said:


> I realize that, like most things, this has been done before in this forum, but relevant to this discussion, tonight/tomorrow's Met on Demand presentation is Tristan with Jane Eaglen as Isolde from 1999. Her vocals were critically well-thought of at the time, I think, and now too, at least in another blog that discusses the broadcasts in real time present. But the unfortunate fact is that in these HD days opera is also a visual medium and she is distractingly large. (And the costumes don't do her any favors.) She is too heavy to move around the stage, it appears, so we are back to "park and bark" and by the end she is shifting back and forth between feet, again distractingly. The negative stereotype of Wagner singers noted above is not just about yelling, it's about appearance.
> I wonder if the suggestion that Wagner be set on the shelf is not such a bad one. We don't much discuss best harpsichord players anymore. Unamplified, grand, Wagnerian opera had a relatively short heyday. Is it to be held up as the exemplar of "the state of modern operatic singing" when you have current instances of very good singers who also translate well to a more visual context? Perhaps what we celebrate is simply a moment captured in amber (or wax cylinders - ) and tastes, styles, and technology have changed. We don't ask acting coaches to train dramatists in the broad manner needed in the silent film era and we can't disregard speech quality as might have been possible then (hello to Singing in the Rain.)
> (I will set aside the issue of length, although I don't think it can be glossed over as easily as some have above. This production of T&I clocks in at 4 hours without intermissions or the current introductory commentary. I can't think of another current popular form of entertainment that makes that kind of demand on its audience. Every sport, for example, is struggling to make sure the games come in under 3 hours.)


I saw Eaglen and Heppner in their Tristan premier in Seattle. You don't notice the fat so much in a house when they are small. Believe me, most people were only concentrating on hearing maybe the greatest vocal performance of Tristan and Isolde in our lifetimes. Their singing was gorgeous and both had true Wagnerian sizes to their instruments. I will never forget it. Eaglen wasn't sounding as fresh later at the Met. She didn't have a very long career before the weight caused her breathing problems. Early on she was splendid. One of my greatest live music experiences. They both sounded fresh as daisies at the end of the opera. You don't get that often.


----------



## wkasimer

Seattleoperafan said:


> I saw Eaglen and Heppner in their Tristan premier in Seattle. You don't notice the fat so much in a house when they are small. Believe me, most people were only concentrating on hearing maybe the greatest vocal performance of Tristan and Isolde in our lifetimes.


I saw one of the Met performances in 1999, and had a similar view. It was hard not to notice the avoirdupois on stage, but a lot of the blame for that lay with a very static production and lack of imaginative direction. Fortunately, I heard one of the early performances in the run, before Heppner's, and to a lesser extent Eaglen's voices began to suffer fatigue. I have a recording of the broadcast and the commercial video from that season. I can never bring myself to watch the video, but the audio-only recording is one of my favorite Tristans.


----------



## annaw

Amadea said:


> A little off topic: we've been experiencing an "invasion" of singers from Asia (Korea expecially) in the last 15 years. Basically, they arrive here already graduated and they take classes with italian teachers in italian conservatories to get better in the italian repertoire. They obviously pass the conservatory entrance exams as they're already professionists. They're good technically, but a bit cold. So I was thinking, maybe it is also a cultural problem. As an italian, I often feel like foreign singers (not only asians) do not really "get it". Not only the words, I mean, maybe they can get the words, I'm sure they check them, but I have the impression they do not really get the feeling of italian opera. They don't get the passions. So for me it is mostly an interpretation problem. They seem to have the skills but they don't get it. Therefore it sounds worse. Many musicians in general are becoming more and more mechanical. As if music were an olympic sport. Many singers sing like they have to exhibit themselves rather than display emotions.


I recall reading about the outrage which Thielemann caused when he said that "only German speakers with a native-level understanding of the words should perform Wagner." I do agree that an opera composer, a writer, and almost any other artist is best comprehended by people who share the same cultural heritage and language, but limiting opera so severely would be an immense disservice to the whole genre. Many of the greatest opera singers were not Italian nor German. Hans Hotter humorously wrote in his memoirs that "I'll never forget Wieland's [Wagner] initial reaction when I first mentioned the name of the then totally unknown soprano [Gwyneth Jones] from Wales, "What's her name? Gwyneth? You can't have a name like that sing in Bayreuth!" Well, you most certainly could, as we later discovered."

I've heard European/American singers say very questionable things about Wagner, like claiming Wotan to be an evil, unsympathetic character, and whatnot. Being German or Italian doesn't guarantee that the singer actually interprets the opera and characters well. Domingo sang Wagner without even properly speaking German and people praise his Lohengrin highly nonetheless. Many foreign singers (e.g Callas, Björling, Vickers) have been arguably better in Italian repertoire than the majority of Italian singers who've undertaken the same roles.

If there's a foreigner, who is well-trained and has a good voice, I see no reason why not trade a little interpretative authenticity for better singing, because vocal acting and interpretation can be taught. I _personally_ feel that the lack of proper vocal technique is the major problem because interpretation has little effect if you are barely even heard over the orchestra. You don't fulfil the initial requirement - a foreigner with bad interpretation but good technique does.


----------



## Woodduck

annaw said:


> I recall reading about the outrage which Thielemann caused when he said that "only German speakers with a native-level understanding of the words should perform Wagner."


Some of the greatest Wagner singers have been Scandinavian. I doubt that Thielemann would have wanted to ban Larsen-Todsen, Thorborg, Branzell, Andresen, Flagstad, Melchior, Svanholm and Nilsson from singing Wagner.


----------



## Dimace

annaw said:


> I recall reading about the outrage which Thielemann caused when he said that "*only German speakers with a native-level understanding of the words should perform Wagner."* I do agree that an opera composer, a writer, and almost any other artist is best comprehended by people who share the same cultural heritage and language, but limiting opera so severely would be an immense disservice to the whole genre. Many of the greatest opera singers were not Italian nor German. Hans Hotter humorously wrote in his memoirs that "I'll never forget Wieland's [Wagner] initial reaction when I first mentioned the name of the then totally unknown soprano [Gwyneth Jones] from Wales, "What's her name? Gwyneth? You can't have a name like that sing in Bayreuth!" Well, you most certainly could, as we later discovered."
> 
> I've heard European/American singers say very questionable things about Wagner, like claiming Wotan to be an evil, unsympathetic character, and whatnot. Being German or Italian doesn't guarantee that the singer actually interprets the opera and characters well. Domingo sang Wagner without even properly speaking German and people praise his Lohengrin highly nonetheless. Many foreign singers (e.g Callas, Björling, Vickers) have been arguably better in Italian repertoire than the majority of Italian singers who've undertaken the same roles.
> 
> If there's a foreigner, who is well-trained and has a good voice, I see no reason why not trade a little interpretative authenticity for better singing, because vocal acting and interpretation can be taught. I _personally_ feel that the lack of proper vocal technique is the major problem because interpretation has little effect if you are barely even heard over the orchestra. You don't fulfil the initial requirement - a foreigner with bad interpretation but good technique does.


I have written also something like this (unfortunately) in this community, after I have listened a terrible Wagner (or R. Strauss's) performance. Christian didn't mean this, I'm sure, the same way I didn't. (Woodduck gave the reason) ''Big'' words which provoked some temporal disappointment. (All the great composers are for every good artist.)


----------



## Amadea

annaw said:


> I recall reading about the outrage which Thielemann caused when he said that "only German speakers with a native-level understanding of the words should perform Wagner." I do agree that an opera composer, a writer, and almost any other artist is best comprehended by people who share the same cultural heritage and language, but limiting opera so severely would be an immense disservice to the whole genre.


I've never said they shouldn't perform it! I've never said I want to ban them or anything. You are talking about old singers anyway. I'm talking about today's singers. They surely have been under different training if they did get it and these don't. E.g. Callas studied with Maria Trivella, an italian who clearly understood the repertoire.


----------



## annaw

Amadea said:


> I've never said they shouldn't perform it! I've never said I want to ban them or anything. You are talking about old singers anyway. I'm talking about today's singers. They surely have been under different training if they did get it and these don't. E.g. Callas studied with Maria Trivella, an italian who clearly understood the repertoire.


I introduced the topic on my own initiative as it simply reminded me of Thielemann's earlier, more controversial comment. I apologise if it came off in an aggressive way. It's actually very interesting to hear your perspective as an Italian, because we don't have _that_ kind of opera culture in Northern Europe.

The main idea of my post was that technical proficiency is more important than interpretative accuracy as the latter seems to be easier to teach compared to revising someone's whole voice technique. That point was based on what you said in your post - that many foreign singers are "technically good". I think that's worth more than the interpretative genius of someone whom I can't hear over the orchestra.

Foreign schools seem to have always existed, and that's why I used the examples of the 20th century singers. They have potential even if the contemporary schools haven't realised theirs.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy

I really miss "This Is Opera's" channel because he hit on so many factors about modern opera that have bothered me for years. including, but not limited to
1) lack of proper chest voice engagement 
2) lack of core/squillo in the voice (every voice should have squillo. dramatic voices will have more, but all voices should have some)
3) an artificially induced scarcity of dramatic voices by pushing higher dramatic and spinto voices into lower ranges. this comes from the basic assumption that tenor = high, baritone = medium and bass = low, when really tenor and soprano are the most common because they have the most diversity, extending from leggiero voices down to dramatic ones, which may sing as much as half an octave lower. true baritones and mezzos are low voices and are less common 
4) deliberate use of bad technique to create "musicality" at the expense of beauty and vocal line. 
5) overly nasal or ingolata singing 
6) over-use of head voice in male singers. you must develop the head voice and have head voice participation in your sound, but as a male, it should never dominate any part of the voice from deep C up to tenor C. 

others I would add 
1) almost no one uses portamento anymore. in the days of Callas and before, portamento was seen as a technique staple. 
2) male singers are supposed to sing like MEN.
3) ideally we would do away with countertenors altogether.
4) people kinda just sing the music they want regardless of voice type, as if your instrument is a choice rather than a set of physiological characteristics you're born with.


----------



## Parsifal98

I too miss _This is Opera_! My faviourite video of theirs has always been this one:






It is after watching it for the first time that I realized opera's greatness. What an epiphany! But there is a channel on Youtube which has kept all their videos and is posting them again. Here is the link : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCffzbsfzOgTwYhxmgAucSPg/videos


----------



## Parsifal98

A very informative video which stresses well the importance of the vowels when singing.
Good singing and proper diction are linked.


----------



## Seattleoperafan

I forget if I posted this: one that is definitely a throwback to the heyday of huge, well produced voices is the mezzo Jamie Barton. Her voice is really big and very beautiful with a solid high C as well as plenty of chest voice. She can even sing coloratura: 



. She is not gobby fat but built like a tank, which is great for supporting a big voice.


----------



## Seattleoperafan

Woodduck said:


> That Met _Tristan_ with Jane Eaglen and Ben Heppner was about as well-sung as we've been able to hear in recent years - quite listenable - but as you point out it was visually static and dull due partly to the hypertrophied bodies of the principals. But it isn't quite fair to cite Eaglen's obesity as typical of Wagner singers, most of whom are probably no fatter than singers in other repertoire. The video medium undoubtedly draws more attention to singers' bodies than they attract in the theater, but then filmed opera is never going to draw huge crowds to movie theaters. I think this "problem" can be overstated, as most opera lovers are realistic enough not to expect Aida to look like Sophia Loren, except in the movie where Loren plays Aida and Renata Tebaldi supplies her voice. The obligatory pursuit of physical beauty in hope of popular appeal can only ensure the further deterioration of vocal technique, further robbing opera of its principal medium of expression. Nobody watches opera without the singing, but much of opera's power comes across on recordings heard in our living rooms.
> 
> I would suggest having a look at some of the Italian RAI opera films made (in black and white) in the 1950s (with Tito Gobbi among other artists), the second act of _Tosca _ from Covent Garden with Gobbi and Callas, or Tebaldi and Bjorling in the love duet from _La Boheme._ Then consider whether opera as traditionally done - and faithfully filmed as such - is just a "moment captured in amber." Acting to music while singing is an art distinct from film acting, and there's no reason to regard it as obsolescent or incomprehensible to modern audiences merely because its potential lyricism and grandeur are not seen on TV or at the movies. Indeed, in performances such as the above - which all singers should study - it is likely to be a revelation to many, just as is the stylized acting of a Garbo or an Olivier. Art such as theirs can make us realize the limitations of our own "realistic" sensibilities.
> 
> You seem not to believe in opera as an art form, or in its power to capture the contemporary imagination (or else you simply have a bias against "Wagnerian opera," whatever that means to you). I'm pretty pessimistic about our culture, but there are too many modern people who can genuinely appreciate the arts of the past to allow me to think that those arts no longer speak to us. We have little reason to be snobbish about our own sensibilities and attainments, and every reason to keep the past alive as vital to the present.


When she was an almost tiny speck on the stage you didn't really notice Jane Eaglen being as big as a house because her voice was as well and she sang really really well. She was dressed well in the Met Gala and looked ok. Tristan was unwatchable.


----------



## vivalagentenuova

A perspective on this issue:


----------



## mjohnh18

I haven't posted often on TalkClassical, but I think my perspective may add substance to this debate over old-school vs. modern singing technique.

I'm a college-age tenor who has been working on my vocal technique for around 5 years now. I'm a pretty thin guy, but my voice has always been on the large side. I originally thought I was a dramatic baritone, but a few years ago I realize I was actually a lirico-spinto tenor. In secondary school I performed in a few masterclasses with opera singers and opera coaches (this was when I was a baritone). For one, I sang "Dio di Giuda" from Nabucco, and for all the others, I sang "Ah per sempre io ti perdei" from Puritani. I figured they were probably the right pieces for a 17-18 baritone with a big voice. Unanimously, the masterclass teachers denounced my aria selections, and each one said my voice sounded "too dark" and I was singing "too heavily". 

This I believe is the crux of the issue. Yes, modern vocal pedagogy with its emphasis on "placement" and lack of emphasis on chest voice development is not good, but EVEN WORSE is vocal instructors' point-blank refusal to let big voices sing the stuff they need to sing. I was told that I should be singing "Ho capito" from Don Giovanni and other stuff considered "light" and "appropriate for my age". If you go to any university or conservatory recitals today, I bet 90% of the voices you'll hear will be light voices singing Mozart, Handel or Rossini. The reason is that each student has been forced to sing lightly for years as a result of bad vocal pedagogy and wrong aria selection.

I study privately now with a retired tenor who was a student of Tom LoMonaco. I sing spinto tenor rep. with a full, resonant voice. If I had gone to a university and studied with one of the vocal teachers there, I'd probably be singing Mozart baritone rep with a voice 1/10th the size of mine now. 

In my humble opinion, it is both modern vocal pedagogy AND terrible repertory choice on behalf of the instructors that has led to the decline in singing quality (especially among spinto/dramatic voices) over the past 40 years.


----------



## PaulFranz

Seattleoperafan said:


> I forget if I posted this: one that is definitely a throwback to the heyday of huge, well produced voices is the mezzo Jamie Barton. Her voice is really big and very beautiful with a solid high C as well as plenty of chest voice. She can even sing coloratura:
> 
> 
> 
> . She is not gobby fat but built like a tank, which is great for supporting a big voice.


If you can't hear that this is EXACTLY the kind of terrible, collapsed, woofy, unclear, swallowed, yawny, diffuse, confused singing that we've been talking about this whole time, then there really is no hope for you. You just can't listen correctly.

For anyone with functioning ears out there who's still reachable: listen to this aria by Florica Cristoforeanu or Armida Parsi-Pettinella.


----------



## Woodduck

PaulFranz said:


> If you can't hear that this is EXACTLY the kind of terrible, collapsed, woofy, unclear, swallowed, yawny, diffuse, confused singing that we've been talking about this whole time, then there really is no hope for you. You just can't listen correctly.
> 
> For anyone with functioning ears out there who's still reachable: listen to this aria by Florica Cristoforeanu or Armida Parsi-Pettinella.


Let's be more helpful to the functioning ears out there. Here's Cristoforeanu:






And here's Parsi-Petinella:






Now lets have some reactions from those with functioning fingers. The reachable ones, I mean.


----------



## BachIsBest

Woodduck said:


> Let's be more helpful to the functioning ears out there. Here's Cristoforeanu:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here's Parsi-Petinella:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now lets have some reactions from those with functioning fingers. The reachable ones, I mean.


These are both obviously and clearly better than Jamie Barton, but I would argue PaulFranz is being overly harsh. Jamie Barton, to me, is acceptable; by modern standards, she is quite good.


----------



## Barbebleu

BachIsBest said:


> but I would argue PaulFranz is being overly harsh.


Yeah, four posts in and he's already alienating the membership!:lol:


----------



## Woodduck

BachIsBest said:


> These are both obviously and clearly better than Jamie Barton, but I would argue PaulFranz is being overly harsh. Jamie Barton, to me, is acceptable; by modern standards, she is quite good.


Agree on all points, though I wouldn't have suggested the Parsi-Petinelli recording, which is obviously not a good representation of her voice.


----------



## Woodduck

Barbebleu said:


> Yeah, four posts in and he's already alienating the membership!:lol:


Only those without functioning ears, for whom there is no hope in any case, need worry. :angel:


----------



## Barbebleu

I remain unreachable and, in many ways, untouchable. Some might consider me unspeakable but I’m still unflappable and immutable.


----------



## Woodduck

Barbebleu said:


> I remain unreachable and, in many ways, untouchable. Some might consider me unspeakable but I'm still unflappable and immutable.


You're also, I've noticed, indefatigable. And possibly indefensible.


----------



## nina foresti

BachIsBest said:


> These are both obviously and clearly better than Jamie Barton, but I would argue PaulFranz is being overly harsh. Jamie Barton, to me, is acceptable; by modern standards, she is quite good.


Well I may have functioning fingers but my ears are not always in the same plane as some here. (Mr. Franz, you'd better leave the room right now because ya ain't gonna like what I am about to say.)
First of all, I think Barton is getting a raw deal. She sang that beautifully if not in the same class as Christoforeanu, certainly through my ears much more appealing than Parsi-Petinella whose voice to me sounds like flat cardboard. To me it is an extremely unappealing sound.
Barton just doesn't have enough chest voice to satisfy me, where Christoforeanu is gifted in spades. Barton also hit a high note that started out ok but became shrill at one point.
Just my 2 cents....


----------



## Barbebleu

Woodduck said:


> You're also, I've noticed, indefatigable. And possibly indefensible.


That is irrefutable! Cheers.


----------



## Seattleoperafan

nina foresti said:


> Well I may have functioning fingers but my ears are not always in the same plane as some here. (Mr. Franz, you'd better leave the room right now because ya ain't gonna like what I am about to say.)
> First of all, I think Barton is getting a raw deal. She sang that beautifully if not in the same class as Christoforeanu, certainly through my ears much more appealing than Parsi-Petinella whose voice to me sounds like flat cardboard. To me it is an extremely unappealing sound.
> Barton just doesn't have enough chest voice to satisfy me, where Christoforeanu is gifted in spades. Barton also hit a high note that started out ok but became shrill at one point.
> Just my 2 cents....


Thanks Nina. Not in this aria, but in the concert I saw live she did indeed have a rich chest register, even if she doesn't always use it. Her high C is thrilling coming from a mezzo, but it is not as good as her A5 and B5 IMHO. I always enjoy hearing from you.


----------



## Seattleoperafan

Woodduck said:


> Let's be more helpful to the functioning ears out there. Here's Cristoforian:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here's Parsi-Petinella:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now lets have some reactions from those with functioning fingers. The reachable ones, I mean.


Armida ( with the fabulous name) is spectacular. Thanks for that! Great range. Christoforeanu is wonderful but in both instances I've heard she omits that parts that go high so perhaps she was more of a contralto, unlike Obratszova who was the full meal deal.


----------



## Tsaraslondon

BachIsBest said:


> These are both obviously and clearly better than Jamie Barton, but I would argue PaulFranz is being overly harsh. Jamie Barton, to me, is acceptable; by modern standards, she is quite good.


I agree. I didn't think Barton was at all bad, even if, ultimately, I preferred both Cristoforeanu and Parsi-Pettinella.


----------



## Azol

Florica Cristoforeanu... now I regret we missed her in our continued singer polls... Bonetan?


----------



## amfortas

Barbebleu said:


> I remain unreachable and, in many ways, untouchable. Some might consider me unspeakable but I'm still unflappable and immutable.


But fortunately, not inedible.


----------



## Tsaraslondon

amfortas said:


> But fortunately, not inedible.


Fortunately? Are you advocating cannibalism? :lol:


----------



## amfortas

Tsaraslondon said:


> Fortunately? Are you advocating cannibalism? :lol:


Of course not! But remind me not to post when I'm hungry.


----------



## Bonetan

Azol said:


> Florica Cristoforeanu... now I regret we missed her in our continued singer polls... Bonetan?


Send me a matchup for her and we'll get her in


----------



## Barbebleu

Bonetan said:


> Send me a matchup for her and we'll get her in


Jamie Barton!


----------



## Bonetan

Barbebleu said:


> Jamie Barton!


I need links yall!


----------



## Barbebleu

I see Herr Franz joined in 2019 and has made four posts, the last of which seems a bit overstated. As we say here - there’s nowt stranger than folk!


----------



## PaulFranz

The fact that you referred to me as "Herr" Franz means you don't even recognize the name Paul Franz, which tells me all I need to know about your knowledge of historical singing. I spent a lot of my life being polite and trying to help people understand what they're listening to, and it typically results in absolutely nothing, so that period of my life is behind me. Many people think Andrea Bocelli is an amazing Verdi singer. Many people think Alicia Keys sings in tune. Many prefer to listen to Netrebko over Norena. I mean, what is there to say at this point? Why would I take someone seriously who argues that McDonald's Happy Meal burgers are a higher culinary achievement than a filet mignon served by an experienced chef? What do I say to someone who prefers his father's shower singing over that of Jussi Björling? 

There is nothing to say. Just much better alternatives to suggest to people who actually care about deepening their experience and understanding of the world around them. My posts are not for those who get offended by them. They're for the curious souls who stumble through the Internet searching for others who see and hear what they do.


----------



## Woodduck

PaulFranz said:


> The fact that you referred to me as "Herr" Franz means *you don't even recognize the name Paul Franz, which tells me all I need to know about your knowledge of historical singing.*


Actually, all it tells you is that a certain person has for some reason not encountered the singing of Paul Franz. I've listened to, enjoyed and thought about singing for much of my 71 years - the third decade of which I spent singing and getting paid for it - but I still occasionally discover superb singers whom I've somehow managed to miss. Paul Franz was a rather late discovery for me.

But why make assumptions about anyone's knowledge of historical singing - or of anything? Isn't it better simply to say what we think and let others glean from it what they can or wish to, without judging them?



> *I spent a lot of my life being polite *and trying to help people understand what they're listening to, and it typically results in absolutely nothing, so *that period of my life is behind me*.


What does anyone's degree of understanding of what they're listening to have to do with being polite? What does it mean to choose to put politeness behind you? That's a fascinating choice, and I can't say I've ever encountered anyone who claims to have made it.



> There is nothing to say. Just much better alternatives to suggest to *people who actually care about deepening their experience and understanding of the world around them.*


Inquiring minds long to know: how much _do_ people who don't know the name of Paul Franz care about understanding the world around them? Is there a guage for measuring that?



> My posts are not for those who get offended by them.


Of course they aren't. A statement like _"If you can't hear that this is EXACTLY the kind of terrible, collapsed, woofy, unclear, swallowed, yawny, diffuse, confused singing that we've been talking about this whole time, then there really is no hope for you"_ could not possibly be for the benefit of the person to whom it's directed. It must be for those who regard contemptuous putdowns of perfect strangers as a spectator sport.



> They're for the curious souls who stumble through the Internet searching for others who see and hear what they do.


I think there are quite a few curious souls here. The person at whom the above insult was spat is one of them. He is also a sweet, authentic soul who loves singing, loves increasing his knowledge of it, and has often expressed appreciation of what others here have contributed to his knowledge. I'll bet he would even be open to learning from you - as am I, despite all.

If you're genuinely interested in meaningful contact with curious souls, you might reconsider the value of putting politeness behind you.


----------



## Barbebleu

PaulFranz said:


> The fact that you referred to me as "Herr" Franz means you don't even recognize the name Paul Franz, which tells me all I need to know about your knowledge of historical singing. I spent a lot of my life being polite and trying to help people understand what they're listening to, and it typically results in absolutely nothing, so that period of my life is behind me. Many people think Andrea Bocelli is an amazing Verdi singer. Many people think Alicia Keys sings in tune. Many prefer to listen to Netrebko over Norena. I mean, what is there to say at this point? Why would I take someone seriously who argues that McDonald's Happy Meal burgers are a higher culinary achievement than a filet mignon served by an experienced chef? What do I say to someone who prefers his father's shower singing over that of Jussi Björling?
> 
> There is nothing to say. Just much better alternatives to suggest to people who actually care about deepening their experience and understanding of the world around them. My posts are not for those who get offended by them. They're for the curious souls who stumble through the Internet searching for others who see and hear what they do.


Ooh, tetchy!
Je suis désolée for not knowing who the estimable Paul Franz was but you are confusing me with someone who cares!
Politeness certainly doesn't seem to be your strong suit so far but I'll reserve judgement until you've posted some less, shall we say, hostile posts. A lot of us have been here for a long time and still there's always something new that piques our interest. My lack of familiarity with Franz tells you nothing about my musical knowledge. I would vouch that there are a few performers I know of whose names would mean as much to you as Franz's did to me.

Monsieur Franz (née Gauthier) has been brought to my attention for which I thank you and I shall endeavour to make myself familiar with the thousands of other singers who have appeared in the world since Homer was a boy!:tiphat:


----------



## Andjar

I for one am very excited about the new upcoming ROH Rigoletto production . Checking out the cast i realized great singers can still be found:
Lisette Oropesa(Gilda):





Liparit Avetisyan(Duke Of Mantua):





Ramona Zaharia(Maddalena):





And not least Carlos Alvarez(Rigoletto) of course:


----------



## Grigoriy

Bonetan said:


> Are you sure you want more of this?? :lol:
> 
> It's a frustrating debate if people aren't willing to do the necessary listening with a critical ear...it would be easy for us to compare videos here. Amato is not the greatest baritone of his generation, but I'd like to hear a better version from the last 50 years, let alone modern day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The vocal freedom, dynamics, consistent vibrato and resonance, clean and consistent vowels, beautiful legato, perfectly blended registers. It's all there.
> 
> If someone prefers to listen to more modern recordings with better sound, I understand 100%. But to argue that those modern versions are better sung is going to be very difficult. I welcome the attempt.


----------



## Grigoriy

Andjar said:


> I for one am very excited about the new upcoming ROH Rigoletto production . Checking out the cast i realized great singers can still be found:
> Lisette Oropesa(Gilda):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liparit Avetisyan(Duke Of Mantua):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ramona Zaharia(Maddalena):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And not least Carlos Alvarez(Rigoletto) of course:


I agree that if you search well, you can find.
Especially if you look among the Armenians. 











(née Asrian)


----------



## HenryPenfold

New to this thread and unwise about opera and singing, so be gentle - but I must say the more I listen to and enjoy opera, the more I find myself reaching back to an earlier epoch. For example, there are some modern Rings that I enjoy, but none of the singers are a patch on Nilsson, Modl, London, Hotter - I'm not going to name them all, you know who I mean.


----------



## MAS

HenryPenfold said:


> New to this thread and unwise about opera and singing, so be gentle - but I must say the more I listen to and enjoy opera, the more I find myself reaching back to an earlier epoch. For example, there are some modern Rings that I enjoy, but none of the singers are a patch on Nilsson, Modl, London, Hotter - I'm not going to name them all, you know who I mean.


Which goes to show you that you're *not* unwise.


----------



## SanAntone

After going through all 30 pages, I just want to give a big :clap: to the members who have made this thread a very informative and enjoyable read. I created a playlist of the videos posted - and will be listening to them all in the coming days/weeks.


----------



## BachIsBest

Grigoriy said:


>


Your performance is good (I'm not sure if it's quite as good), but it is from 69 years ago. The question was to find a performance in the past 50 years.


----------



## BachIsBest

Grigoriy said:


> I agree that if you search well, you can find.
> Especially if you look among the Armenians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (née Asrian)


I'm going to have to respectfully disagree here as well. In the first video, I listened to the first singer and he was obviously straining, pushing the sound, and singing with a slight nasality. The second video is a performance of Casta Diva. I really don't know where to start, so won't (but my god some of that coloratura is unbearable), and might just listen to Callas instead.


----------



## mmsbls

Some recent posts have have targeted members rather than discussed singing. Please remember our Terms of Service ask that you be polite to other members.


----------



## Woodduck

mmsbls said:


> Some recent posts have have targeted members rather than discussed singing. Please remember our Terms of Service ask that you be polite to other members.


Hmmm. I guess I've been away for a while today. Glad the vacuum cleaners are working.


----------



## Woodduck

Grigoriy said:


>


Lisitsian was a superb baritone, one of the last of the great ones. His performance of this belongs among the finest, even in translation. But of course he represents the past, not the present. The grand Romantic performance traditions in classical music endured longer in Russia and Eastern Europe than in the West.


----------



## nina foresti

barbebleu said:


> ooh, tetchy!
> Je suis désolée for not knowing who the estimable paul franz was but you are confusing me with someone who cares!
> Politeness certainly doesn't seem to be your strong suit so far but i'll reserve judgement until you've posted some less, shall we say, hostile posts. A lot of us have been here for a long time and still there's always something new that piques our interest. My lack of familiarity with franz tells you nothing about my musical knowledge. I would vouch that there are a few performers i know of whose names would mean as much to you as franz's did to me.
> 
> Monsieur franz (née gauthier) has been brought to my attention for which i thank you and i shall endeavour to make myself familiar with the thousands of other singers who have appeared in the world since homer was a boy!:tiphat:


my hero!!!!!!!!


----------



## Grigoriy

Woodduck said:


> Lisitsian was a superb baritone, one of the last of the great ones. His performance of this belongs among the finest, even in translation. But of course he represents the past, not the present. The grand Romantic performance traditions in classical music endured longer in Russia and Eastern Europe than in the West.


Okay, let's look among the more modern Armenians. How do you like Maria "Guleghina" (née Meitarjian)?


----------



## Azol

She's past her prime here, Bolero is listenable but not the first rate (orchestra is also meh) and Casta diva is something she shouldn't be performing at all.

Better example would be coming from Nabucco (obviously) but it still falls short when compared to other performances:


----------



## Seattleoperafan

Grigoriy said:


> Okay, let's look among the more modern Armenians. How do you like Maria "Guleghina" (née Meitarjian)?


I did not know she was Armenian. She is so gorgeous. She is not really a coloratura soprano but sings it. Her voice is the right size for Turandot but she mostly misses high C's, of which there is only one in Turandot, likely many more in Nabucco. She is not Dimitrova, but she can sing acceptably on video and is so gorgeous to look at and gets into the character that it gives her a pass. Aside from the C's she could be a good Tosca. I think she is not at her peak now, but she is one of the few current singers I am sad I never heard live. That is saying something from me. Something Verdi or Trovatore would have been fun.


----------



## MAS

Seattleoperafan said:


> I did not know she was Armenian. She is so gorgeous. She is not really a coloratura soprano but sings it. Her voice is the right size for Turandot but she mostly misses high C's, of which there is only one in Turandot, likely many more in Nabucco. She is not Dimitrova, but she can sing acceptably on video and is so gorgeous to look at and gets into the character that it gives her a pass. Aside from the C's she could be a good Tosca.


If I remember correctly, she was also a decent Lady Macbeth.


----------



## Seattleoperafan

MAS said:


> If I remember correctly, she was also a decent Lady Macbeth.


Yes, I saw that one from the Met library. A tad fuzzy on the coloratura, but otherwise a very strong performance, and good god that woman is gorgeous on stage. Her cheekbones and figure were showstopping. Her voice is one of the most titanic among this generation of singers I believe and from people who have heard her. An Aida at her peak with Zajick would have rattled the rafters!


----------



## Woodduck

Grigoriy said:


> Okay, let's look among the more modern Armenians. How do you like Maria "Guleghina" (née Meitarjian)?


Well, she can make a big noise. No purity of line, little dynamic shading, heavy, wobbly vibrato, weak chest voice, rough coloratura. "Casta Diva" is unbearable, the "Bolero" tolerable (maybe) only because she doesn't have to sustain a line. This isn't even good by today's low standards.


----------



## Seattleoperafan

Woodduck said:


> Well, she can make a big noise. No purity of line, little dynamic shading, heavy, wobbly vibrato, weak chest voice, rough coloratura. "Casta Diva" is unbearable, the "Bolero" tolerable (maybe) only because she doesn't have to sustain a line. This isn't even good by today's low standards.


LOL, you remind me of Paul Hollywood on the Great British Baking Show that I am addicted to. No beating around the bush LOL I am more inclined to be generous to a singer if they are gorgeous and I am watching them. It is a failing of mine.


----------



## Woodduck

Seattleoperafan said:


> LOL, you remind me of Paul Hollywood on the Great British Baking Show that I am addicted to. No beating around the bush LOL I am more inclined to be generous to a singer if they are gorgeous and I am watching them. It is a failing of mine.


Gorgeous is in the beholder's eye. To my eye she ain't so hot. To my ear she ain't even lukewarm. I wouldn't mind some of Mr. Hollywood's baked goods though.


----------



## Seattleoperafan

Woodduck said:


> Gorgeous is in the beholder's eye. To my eye she ain't so hot. To my ear she ain't even lukewarm. I wouldn't mind some of Mr. Hollywood's baked goods though.


Why can't I have a dinner party and invite you? Pity you are so far away. Even when I don't see eye to eye with you you amuse me. I do agree with some of the things you say about her I have to admit. Still these are 21st century singers and not mid 20th or earlier.


----------



## Barbebleu

Woodduck said:


> I wouldn't mind some of Mr. Hollywood's baked goods though.


Is that a euphemism W.?


----------



## MAS

Woodduck said:


> Well, she can make a big noise. No purity of line, little dynamic shading, heavy, wobbly vibrato, weak chest voice, rough coloratura. "Casta Diva" is unbearable, the "Bolero" tolerable (maybe) only because she doesn't have to sustain a line. This isn't even good by today's low standards.


In the olden days, conductors would correct and guide the singers and possibly wouldn't have let Guleghina get away with not singing trills, or smudging the coloratura. I remember Valerie Masterson telling us that Sir Charles Mackerras once told her and another singer that they had « missed a semi-demi quaver » in this phrase or that phrase. They sang it on the first night!


----------



## MAS

Seattleoperafan said:


> Why can't I have a dinner party and invite you? Pity you are so far away. Even when I don't see eye to eye with you you amuse me. I do agree with some of the things you say about her I have to admit. Still these are 21st century singers and not mid 20th or earlier.


I'd love to be invited to that dinner party!


----------



## wkasimer

Re Guleghina:



Woodduck said:


> Well, she can make a big noise. No purity of line, little dynamic shading, heavy, wobbly vibrato, weak chest voice, rough coloratura. "Casta Diva" is unbearable, the "Bolero" tolerable (maybe) only because she doesn't have to sustain a line. This isn't even good by today's low standards.


I agree completely. I heard her a couple of decades ago at the Met, singing Lisa in Pikovaya Dama. She looked good on stage (although I didn't think that she was a particularly good actress), and she sure was paint-peeling loud, but her vocalism was incredibly ugly and utterly unmusical. Really a shame, because the rest of the cast - Grigorian, Svenden, Putilin, Hvorostovsky, and Rysanek as the Old Countess - was superb.


----------



## Woodduck

Barbebleu said:


> Is that a euphemism W.?


I'll need to see who this Mr. Hollywood is before I can tell you.


----------



## Tsaraslondon

Woodduck said:


> I'll need to see who this Mr. Hollywood is before I can tell you.


----------



## Woodduck

Tsaraslondon said:


>


I'll have a raspberry Danish, warm, and an espresso with extra caffeine.


----------



## Barbebleu

MAS said:


> I'd love to be invited to that dinner party!


Put me on that invitation too!


----------



## Barbebleu

Woodduck said:


> I'll have a raspberry Danish, warm, and an espresso with extra caffeine.


Again with the euphemisms W. Tut, tut.


----------



## Tempesta

Lithuanian soprano Aušrinė Stundytė as Elektra and Asmik Grigorian as Chrysothemis recently riveted me with their compelling performances in Krzysztof Warlikowski's 2020 Salzburg Festival production on Blu-ray.


----------



## vivalagentenuova

So I think this is a very good modern performance. There is some weakness in the middle and the occasionally wobbly tone, but the upper middle is very beautiful, and a little chest voice shows up at the end. The tone is balanced, the vowels clear, and overall the voice sounds much more old-school than I am used to hearing in singers these days. She also gives a nicely dramatic interpretation.

This got me thinking about how many on this forum and elsewhere online try to deny the differences in voices by pointing to differences in recordings. Well, here is a voice recorded in the same time and general context at the same quality as other modern singers, but who gives a very different impression. Even more striking to me was this clip:




The two singers are standing right next to each other on the same stage, being picked up by the same equipment. He has what TIO opera termed a "woofy" voice, that is overly dark and lacks real squillo. You can hear immediately the way that her voice "pops" and his does not. Her voice penetrates the orchestra while his seems to merge with it, which is generally the impression that the operatic voices I've heard live in theaters have given. Her voice on this modern live recording gives the same impression as on the old recordings we point to of penetrating female voices, ie sopranos with squillo.

Of course, comparing on recordings is never as good as comparing live. I would be fascinated to hear Moore sing live and compare her to the other singers. Contrary to some opinions, I'm not invested in the past being past. Whenever anyone manages to snatch a bit of it and bring it into the present and make it new and vibrant that interests me tremendously. I hope to able to hear Moore at some point.

Anyway, long story short, it seems hard to me to deny that the differences aren't just due to recording quality and that there are real, important differences in vocal quality between modern and old singers. Having heard her, it doesn't surprise me to learn that Moore's favorite singers are Claudia Muzio (apparently her #1), Renata Tebaldi, Maria Callas, and Leontyne Price. While I wouldn't put her with those singers at this point, she clearly has taken a welcome influence from them, one that I wish more sopranos would take. More Moores would be alright with me.


----------



## vivalagentenuova

Also, a very interesting essay (though unfortunately read by a machine, with some unintentionally amusing and/or distressing results).


----------



## Woodduck

vivalagentenuova said:


>


This is exciting singing. I can't tell the size of her instrument; it seems to be of medium weight, whatever that is. She has such strong dramatic instincts that she'll have to be careful to keep the voice in balance. Right now the chest voice sounds well integrated and effective. I'll be keeping her in mind. Thanks.


----------



## Tsaraslondon

Woodduck said:


> This is exciting singing. I can't tell the size of her instrument; it seems to be of medium weight, whatever that is. She has such strong dramatic instincts that she'll have to be careful to keep the voice in balance. Right now the chest voice sounds well integrated and effective. I'll be keeping her in mind. Thanks.


This was recorded in 2010, when she would have been 31. She's 42 now. I see from Wikpedia she was singing Tosca in Australia in 2016. According to her own website, she will be singing Serena in *Porgy and Bess* at the Met and Billie in the premiere of *Fire Shut Up in My Bones*, the first opera by black composer Terence Blanchard. She will be singing Butterfy in Dallas in 2022.


----------



## Seattleoperafan

Tsaraslondon said:


> This was recorded in 2010, when she would have been 31. She's 42 now. I see from Wikpedia she was singing Tosca in Australia in 2016. According to her own website, she will be singing Serena in *Porgy and Bess* at the Met and Billie in the premiere of *Fire Shut Up in My Bones*, the first opera by black composer Terence Blanchard. She will be singing Butterfy in Dallas in 2022.


She is a breath of fresh air. For me it is nice to see more African American divas. There were some great ones in Seattle productions that never made it to the big time and should have 15 to 25 years ago. Remember how many great African American divas we had in the later half of the 20th century and they aren't so prominent now. I don't know why. I think it is because music is so stylistically segregated now you don't have shows like Ed Sullivan and the Tonight show where opera was featured along with other forms of entertainment. The younger generation never gets exposed to it anymore.


----------



## Azol

Woodduck said:


> This is exciting singing. I can't tell the size of her instrument; it seems to be of medium weight, whatever that is. She has such strong dramatic instincts that she'll have to be careful to keep the voice in balance. Right now the chest voice sounds well integrated and effective. I'll be keeping her in mind. Thanks.


Very impressive performance by today's standards (solo cello is meh). Not a big voice, most comfortable in higher registers, with less of a "chest substance".


----------



## JackRance

Elina Garanca is a very good mezzo. She is good as Christa Ludwig and all the others old school singers.


----------



## Seattleoperafan

JackRance said:


> Elina Garanca is a very good mezzo. She is good as Christa Ludwig and all the others old school singers.


I would say she is good but not great. Where she excels is she looks gorgeous in videos. Christa Ludwig and Stignani are artists I would much prefer to listen to recordings of over Garanca, but that is my opinion.


----------



## JTS

JackRance said:


> Elina Garanca is a very good mezzo. She is good as Christa Ludwig and all the others old school singers.


I wouldn't compare Garanca with Ludwig as they tended to sing different repertoire. I mean, did Ludwig sing Rossini or Garanca Leonora?


----------



## Woodduck

Christa Ludwig was one of the greatest vocal artists of the postwar era, outstanding in a wide repertoire of opera and song. No mezzo active today is in her league, certainly not Garanca.


----------



## Parsifal98

JTS said:


> I wouldn't compare Garanca with Ludwig as they tended to sing different repertoire. I mean, did Ludwig sing Rossini or Garanca Leonora?


Ludwig actually recorded a bit of Rossini (don't know if she ever sang it on stage though):


----------



## Barbebleu

Parsifal98 said:


> Ludwig actually recorded a bit of Rossini (don't know if she ever sang it on stage though):


It's singing like this that almost makes me like Rossini!. Glorious stuff even in German.


----------



## Parsifal98

Barbebleu said:


> It's singing like this that almost makes me like Rossini!. Glorious stuff even in German.


Another one!


----------



## SanAntone

Barbebleu said:


> It's singing like this that almost makes me like Rossini!. Glorious stuff even in German.


Oh, come on - *Rossini* is great, one of my top five opera composers.


----------



## FrankE

Going back further to v.1906 I can't tell from the recording and my lack of knowledge on the subject if this was a good voice technique or not. Not opera but Aleksander Bandrowski-Sas sang Wagner including at the Met, Covent Garden and the opera houses of Germany. 




And the niece:




*won't embed


----------



## Barbebleu

SanAntone said:


> Oh, come on - *Rossini* is great, one of my top five opera composers.


Glad you like Rossini. Not my cup of tea. Just not a fan of bel canto. The odd aria and overture but that's about it. :tiphat:


----------



## DeGustibus

Thought this was relevant to this thread. Some singing by some new folks very early in their career compared with the aria sung by stars of the past (although not as far past as some of you seem to prefer  )
https://www.verismohotspot.com/post/yeass-ii-triple-shot-americano-operalia-2021-preview


----------



## vivalagentenuova

I think Anita Hartig is the soprano currently on the Met's roster that I enjoy the most. Her voice is clear and bright, free of both the occluded sound of a Netrebko or the wide vibrato of Yoncheva.


----------



## Woodduck

^^^Beautiful voice. Thanks.


----------



## Parsifal98

Thoughts?


----------



## Azol

His darkened voice is not my cup of tea, but the main problem here is his voice cracking audibly several times and I wonder how he manages to handle the love duet (not even mentioning the third act). Usually his voice is most comfortable at fuller volume so I get this particular passage might be taxing for him.


----------



## Woodduck

Parsifal98 said:


> Thoughts?


This semi-soft singing doesn't show Kaufmann at his best, though I'm not sure what that is these days. There are a lot of unvibrated tones and a lack of energy in the sound. It's a quiet, somber moment in the opera, and Kaufmann's intentions are fine, but it all sounds a bit sleepy and drab.


----------



## PedroHz

Woodduck said:


> This semi-soft singing doesn't show Kaufmann at his best, though I'm not sure what that is these days. There are a lot of unvibrated tones and a lack of energy in the sound. It's a quiet, somber moment in the opera, and Kaufmann's intentions are fine, but it all sounds a bit sleepy and drab.


Kaufmann is in a slight decline, though I wouldn't say it is for his age or any similar condition.

Nevertheless, this performance doesn't do him justice, even in my alleged "declined" aspect.
He probably is letting his "artsy-fartsy" side, or the directors, ruin what he can still do with his singing.


----------



## dave2708

Kaufmann's singing voice is far far different to his speaking voice. His speaking voice is more in line with the way he used to sing in his early days.
Whatever vocal techniques he used to darken his timber to what we know him most for has meant he has to have extreme vowel modifications at the top of his range. They are quite stark and distracting and with a lot of tension. He is not merely 'covering' his vowels to give a more consistent and rounded tone throughout the range, but he has no choice because of his technique.
With some vowels, he has to change them completely at the top because of his technique.
Some may not care but for me they are quite stark. You can see the wheels turning to get up there.
My own take is the more you modify your voice to produce a particular sound ie lower the larynx, unhinged the jaw, pout the lips, round the lips, open this close that etc, the more problems you will face down the line with the artificial edifice you have created.
That doesn't mean you have no technique. There are a few basics, i.e breath and illusion of placement and the rest should take care of themselves.


----------



## PedroHz

dave2708 said:


> Kaufmann's singing voice is far far different to his speaking voice. His speaking voice is more in line with the way he used to sing in his early days.
> Whatever vocal techniques he used to darken his timber to what we know him most for has meant he has to have extreme vowel modifications at the top of his range. They are quite stark and distracting and with a lot of tension. He is not merely 'covering' his vowels to give a more consistent and rounded tone throughout the range, but he has no choice because of his technique.
> With some vowels, he has to change them completely at the top because of his technique.
> Some may not care but for me they are quite stark. You can see the wheels turning to get up there.
> My own take is the more you modify your voice to produce a particular sound ie lower the larynx, unhinged the jaw, pout the lips, round the lips, open this close that etc, the more problems you will face down the line with the artificial edifice you have created.
> That doesn't mean you have no technique. There are a few basics, i.e breath and illusion of placement and the rest should take care of themselves.


His technique was more than fine, Kaufmann's problem is that, after the 2006 Met Traviata, he decided to be lazy and or cave in others wanting him to sing less.


----------



## PedroHz

dave2708 said:


> Kaufmann's singing voice is far far different to his speaking voice. His speaking voice is more in line with the way he used to sing in his early days.
> Whatever vocal techniques he used to darken his timber to what we know him most for has meant he has to have extreme vowel modifications at the top of his range. They are quite stark and distracting and with a lot of tension. He is not merely 'covering' his vowels to give a more consistent and rounded tone throughout the range, but he has no choice because of his technique.
> With some vowels, he has to change them completely at the top because of his technique.
> Some may not care but for me they are quite stark. You can see the wheels turning to get up there.
> My own take is the more you modify your voice to produce a particular sound ie lower the larynx, unhinged the jaw, pout the lips, round the lips, open this close that etc, the more problems you will face down the line with the artificial edifice you have created.
> That doesn't mean you have no technique. There are a few basics, i.e breath and illusion of placement and the rest should take care of themselves.


Every fundamentally wrong technique necessarily reflects in a plethora of possible wrong actions of vibrato.
Kaufmann's never did and, even today, still doesn't.


----------



## amfortas

Woodduck said:


> ^^^Beautiful voice. Thanks.


I can't help wondering if it stayed quite that pure and unforced in the big house, with the big orchestra.


----------



## Woodduck

PedroHz said:


> Every fundamentally wrong technique necessarily reflects in a plethora of possible wrong actions of vibrato.
> Kaufmann's never did and, even today, still doesn't.


This is a good observation. Maybe the key word is "fundamentally." If a singer still has proper vibrato action at Kaufmann's age and after hard use of the voice - and so many do not - his technique is basically sound. That isn't to say that there aren't elements of his technique that may be less than optimal. Technique includes every aspect of the physical act of sound production.


----------



## Bonetan

PedroHz said:


> Every fundamentally wrong technique necessarily reflects in a plethora of possible wrong actions of vibrato.
> Kaufmann's never did and, even today, still doesn't.


I don't agree with this, although it's possible I've misunderstood. I can very easily artificially darken my voice and maintain a consistent vibrato. I think many male voices currently on stage do exactly that.


----------



## Woodduck

Bonetan said:


> I don't agree with this, although it's possible I've misunderstood. I can very easily artificially darken my voice and maintain a consistent vibrato. I think many male voices currently on stage do exactly that.


Is darkening your voice a "fundamentally wrong technique"? Would it be if you did it consistently? How would it affect your voice in the long run? The general impression is that Kaufmann does exactly that, and his vibrato seems unaffected. PedroHZ's point about him seems to be that such darkening does not represent a _fundamentally_ wrong technique. Maybe people have different conceptions of what's fundamental.


----------



## Bonetan

Woodduck said:


> Is darkening your voice a "fundamentally wrong technique"? Would it be if you did it consistently? How would it affect your voice in the long run? The general impression is that Kaufmann does exactly that, and his vibrato seems unaffected. PedroHZ's point about him seems to be that such darkening does not represent a _fundamentally_ wrong technique. Maybe people have different conceptions of what's fundamental.


To me if there's anything artificial going on the technique is fundamentally incorrect and should not be taught, but you're right, people have different conceptions of what's fundamentally right and wrong.


----------



## dave2708

To me vibrato is merely the passage of air over the flapping vocals folds and the resulting vibrations that reflect off the sounding boards of the vocal mechanism. You can create many artificial unnatural contortions of your vocal apparatus and still maintain a vibrato in your voice of varying quality.
The more hoops you jump through to produce a certain quality, the more you set your self up for problems later on. i have heard many a great singer say people over complicate the art of singing technique.
Kaufmann's technique is far from free and easy. It looks pained at times. He has to do all sorts of vowel modifications to keep it all going where he is vocally stretched.


----------



## Woodduck

Bonetan said:


> To me if there's anything artificial going on the technique is fundamentally incorrect and should not be taught, but you're right, people have different conceptions of what's fundamentally right and wrong.


Kaufmann claims that his darkened or covered tone is what's natural to him and that discovering it got him over an early vocal crisis. Many feel that he sounded more natural and better in his early years, but evidently he was singing in a way that put strain on his voice and caused him to tire. I don't know what we can read into this, except that human bodies differ in sometimes mysterious ways. Kaufmann's overall physical coordination apparently has some peculiarity that requires him to adjust his tone production in a way that makes many listeners uncomfortable but makes him feel secure and able to sing without strain. We'll like the result or we won't - I'm decidedly of mixed feelings - but nowadays he ranks more or less by default as one of the leading tenors presently before the public even if he's not in a class with the very best. We're desperate enough for dramatic or spinto tenors that those of us who basically like the sound of his dark-toned voice and admire his intelligence will tolerate his faults, at least in certain roles. I enjoyed his Siegmund and his Parsifal, roles in which I've liked hardly anyone since Vickers and Thomas, but in Italian opera, where I want a brighter sound with plenty of squillo, I like him less.


----------



## dave2708

Has Kaufmann been reliable over this last decade?
I haven't kept up with whether he cancels many a performance or not.
His speaking voice is miles apart from his singing voice. It's quite soft, high & light.
It's why i wonder about what he's doing to change its nature so dramatically.
i only prefer him in the German repertoire. i skip his Italian stuff.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy

imo, Jonas Kaufmann is an inconsistent singer (and it's only gotten worse as he's been overbooked and pushed into too much Wagner). However, in his prime, he was a very good singer when he was "on". This performance in particular is one of his best.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy

dave2708 said:


> Has Kaufmann been reliable over this last decade?
> I haven't kept up with whether he cancels many a performance or not.
> *His speaking voice is miles apart from his singing voice. It's quite soft, high & light.*
> It's why i wonder about what he's doing to change its nature so dramatically.
> i only prefer him in the German repertoire. i skip his Italian stuff.


this. I am probably in the minority in that I believe speaking voice correlates strongly to true singing voice. ex: baritones will have deep speaking voices, lyric tenors high, spinto and dramatic tenors in-between (listen even to the higher baritones like Nelson Eddy and it's quite clear).


----------



## Woodduck

BalalaikaBoy said:


> this. I am probably in the minority in that I believe speaking voice correlates strongly to true singing voice. ex: baritones will have deep speaking voices, lyric tenors high, spinto and dramatic tenors in-between (listen even to the higher baritones like Nelson Eddy and it's quite clear).


That seems plausible for men, but have you ever heard Beverly Sills talk?


----------



## Woodduck

BalalaikaBoy said:


> imo, Jonas Kaufmann is an inconsistent singer (and it's only gotten worse as he's been overbooked and pushed into too much Wagner). However, in his prime, he was a very good singer when he was "on". This performance in particular is one of his best.


He sounds good loud, but when he brings down the volume the tone vanishes down his throat (or somewhere). He can sometimes use this muffled quality for expressive purposes (I seem to recall expressive deployments in "La fleur que tu m'avais jetee" and "La lucevan le stelle"), but it has to be acknowledged a technical deficiency.

Why do you say he was "pushed" into Wagner? I like his Siegmund and Parsifal, find his voice well-suited to them, and am glad he took them on. Tristan, maybe not so much (I haven't heard much of it), and he was wise not to let anyone push him into that for most of his career.


----------



## Bonetan

Woodduck said:


> Kaufmann claims that his darkened or covered tone is what's natural to him and that discovering it got him over an early vocal crisis. Many feel that he sounded more natural and better in his early years, but evidently he was singing in a way that put strain on his voice and caused him to tire.


I don't enjoy calling JK a liar, but I don't buy his claim. I think the truth is revealed when he attempts to sing piano, a deficiency you also pointed out. A singer using natural placement wouldn't need to make whatever odd adjustment it is he makes. There would be no adjustment to make with a proper technique.


----------



## Woodduck

Bonetan said:


> I don't enjoy calling JK a liar, but I don't buy his claim. I think the truth is revealed when he attempts to sing piano, a deficiency you also pointed out. A singer using natural placement wouldn't need to make whatever odd adjustment it is he makes. There would be no adjustment to make with a proper technique.


I think we can believe his claim that his change of technique solved the problem he mentions, i.e. feeling tired and strained. After all, he's still going and hasn't developed the ubiquitous dramatic tenor wobble. That doesn't mean his solution is optimal.


----------



## BachIsBest

Thought this might be of interest here.


----------



## vivalagentenuova

I've seen that video before, and it was interesting to watch it again. My impression is that it recorded him fairly faithfully. His vibrato was weird and tone strained in the modern audio, and it was the same on the cylinder. He seemed to look at it like, "I can't believe it's doing that to my singing" but, man, that's what you sound like. Roughly the same impression for her.


----------



## silentio

vivalagentenuova said:


> I've seen that video before, and it was interesting to watch it again. My impression is that it recorded him fairly faithfully. *His vibrato was weird and tone strained in the modern audio, and it was the same on the cylinder. He seemed to look at it like, "I can't believe it's doing that to my singing" but, man, that's what you sound like. Roughly the same impression for her.*


Exactly! I made a detailed post here comparing the vibrato of 4 sopranos using the spectrograms. Melba showed the most consistent vibrato, and even the primitive recording technology can't hide that.


----------



## OffPitchNeb

Why do many modern singers sound kinda generic, i.e. pallid and vibrato-laden? I was doing a binge-listening of Si Mi chiamano Mimi, and most modern sopranos are rather indistinguishable.

Any theory?


----------



## Woodduck

OffPitchNeb said:


> Why do many modern singers sound kinda generic, i.e. pallid and vibrato-laden? I was doing a binge-listening of Si Mi chiamano Mimi, and most modern sopranos are rather indistinguishable.
> 
> Any theory?


A number of people here have noted the anonymous and similar sounding voices of modern singers - the lack of strongly individual timbre and style - especially among sopranos and mezzos. It's hard to think that voices are any less distinctive than they used to be, and I've suspected that modern taste and training both play a part. The most interesting and promising explanation offered by someone here (I apologize for not recalling who suggested it) was the modern neglect of the chest voice. The theory is that it's in our chest voices that our vocal individuality resides, while everyone's head voice sounds similar. If the voice is trained to incorporate too little of the "chest" mechanism (poor term, but it's what we call it), more pressure must be placed on the head voice, resulting in a blander tone and an exaggerated vibrato which is apt to degenerate into a wobble over time.


----------



## ScottK

Woodduck said:


> A number of people here have noted the anonymous and similar sounding voices of modern singers - the lack of strongly individual timbre and style - especially among sopranos and mezzos. It's hard to think that voices are any less distinctive than they used to be, and I've suspected that modern taste and training both play a part. The most interesting and promising explanation offered by someone here (I apologize for not recalling who suggested it) was the modern neglect of the chest voice. The theory is that it's in our chest voices that our vocal individuality resides, while everyone's head voice sounds similar. If the voice is trained to incorporate too little of the "chest" mechanism (poor term, but it's what we call it), more pressure must be placed on the head voice, resulting in a blander tone and an exaggerated vibrato which is apt to degenerate into a wobble over time.


First time I've heard the question or the answer and I think the answer sounds credible. Kaufman would seem to stand out for the distinctiveness of his sound, like it or not, and that sound has a good quantity of what I would call chest resonance


----------



## Woodduck

ScottK said:


> First time I've heard the question or the answer and I think the answer sounds credible. Kaufman would seem to stand out for the distinctiveness of his sound, like it or not, and that sound has a good quantity of what I would call chest resonance


I'd say that the problem afflicts women more than men, since men naturally use more chest resonance throughout their range. Sopranos can "get away" with using very little chest voice.


----------



## ScottK

Woodduck said:


> I'd say that the problem afflicts women more than men, since men naturally use more chest resonance throughout their range. Sopranos can "get away" with using very little chest voice.


Always feel far less aware of the female voice than the male voice.

As I recall it, their break, passagio....BIG passage from chest to head .....is much lower in the voice, correct?
If that's so, then the all important upper-middle will be spent more in the head voice, correct?

If those are close to accurate, is part of your take on it that a soprano can through intention and hard work, vary the degree of chest voice in her sound?


----------



## Bonetan

I just completed a week in Sicily studying with the great Salvatore Fisichella and I wanted to dig up this thread to say that there are indeed teachers who feel the way we do about the state of modern singing. Although he speaks less English than I do Italian, hearing him rail against ingolata singing and echoing my thoughts on the singing voice aligning with the speaking voice was music to my ears. I only wish that we could clone this man so that a return to the Golden Age could be possible.


----------



## gsdkfasdf

Woodduck said:


> A number of people here have noted the anonymous and similar sounding voices of modern singers - the lack of strongly individual timbre and style - especially among sopranos and mezzos. It's hard to think that voices are any less distinctive than they used to be, and I've suspected that modern taste and training both play a part. The most interesting and promising explanation offered by someone here (I apologize for not recalling who suggested it) was the modern neglect of the chest voice. The theory is that it's in our chest voices that our vocal individuality resides, while everyone's head voice sounds similar. If the voice is trained to incorporate too little of the "chest" mechanism (poor term, but it's what we call it), more pressure must be placed on the head voice, resulting in a blander tone and an exaggerated vibrato which is apt to degenerate into a wobble over time.


I msut agree, and I think the idea that young singer's voices are all similar is kind of damaging. Probably to blame. Sure, most young voices are lighter and should not be given any heavy repertoire (and will likely never grow into that), but young singers who can handle the rep exist, and teachers shouldn't act like if they give young singers one thing that's a stretch their voices would be ruined forever.


----------



## OffPitchNeb

Bonetan said:


> I just completed a week in Sicily studying with the great Salvatore Fisichella and I wanted to dig up this thread to say that there are indeed teachers who feel the way we do about the state of modern singing. Although he speaks less English than I do Italian, hearing him rail against ingolata singing and echoing my thoughts on the singing voice aligning with the speaking voice was music to my ears. I only wish that we could clone this man so that a return to the Golden Age could be possible.


Very cool!.Would love to hear more about your experience. Who are the poster- boys and girls of ingolata singing?


----------



## Parsifal98

OffPitchNeb said:


> Very cool!.Would love to hear more about your experience. Who are the poster- boys and girls of ingolata singing?


I you were asking me, I would say Herr Kaufman (I hope I didn't spoil your answer Bonetan).


----------



## Bonetan

OffPitchNeb said:


> Very cool!.Would love to hear more about your experience. Who are the poster- boys and girls of ingolata singing?


It was a tremendous experience and him being a fan of my singing and technique is a MASSIVE feather in my cap. I now finally feel qualified to write here 😄

As Parsifal stated, Herr Kaufmann immediately comes to mind. Fisichella would kick Kaufmann out of his home lol. Others like Ildar Abdrazakov currently and Leonard Warren historically spring to mind. I think the majority of low voices currently on stage are guilty of it to some degree. I'll let someone else comment on the ladies as I'm not as well versed.


----------



## ScottK

Bonetan said:


> Herr Kaufmann immediately comes to mind. ........ I think the majority of low voices currently on stage are guilty of it to some degree.


Does the mentioning of only Kaufman mean that you and Mr. Fisichella do not think of this problem as being common in todays tenors


----------



## Bonetan

ScottK said:


> Does the mentioning of only Kaufman mean that you and Mr. Fisichella do not think of this problem as being common in todays tenors


The names I mentioned are my opinion, not the Maestro's. He spoke about technique more generally, never mentioning anyone specific in regards to ingolata that I picked up on.


----------



## Op.123

Bonetan said:


> It was a tremendous experience and him being a fan of my singing and technique is a MASSIVE feather in my cap. I now finally feel qualified to write here 😄
> 
> As Parsifal stated, Herr Kaufmann immediately comes to mind. Fisichella would kick Kaufmann out of his home lol. Others like Ildar Abdrazakov currently and Leonard Warren historically spring to mind. I think the majority of low voices currently on stage are guilty of it to some degree. I'll let someone else comment on the ladies as I'm not as well versed.


Leonard Warren's voice did lack some of the Italian brightness of baritones such as Taddei and Gobbi but he was certainly not an ingolata voice, having proper core and plenty of resonance etc.


----------



## Bonetan

Op.123 said:


> Leonard Warren's voice did lack some of the Italian brightness of baritones such as Taddei and Gobbi but he was certainly not an ingolata voice, having proper core and plenty of resonance etc.


Warren covered throughout his range which gave him the over darkened sound that I consider to be produced in the throat. I also believe the notable difference between Warren's tenorial speaking voice and bassy singing voice point to an ingolata technique. I believe that his unique physiology allowed him to get away with things technically that normal singers could not, but his voice was not freely produced.


----------



## Op.123

Bonetan said:


> Warren covered throughout his range which gave him the over darkened sound that I consider to be produced in the throat. I also believe the notable difference between Warren's tenorial speaking voice and bassy singing voice point to an ingolata technique. I believe that his unique physiology allowed him to get away with things technically that normal singers could not, but his voice was not freely produced.


I would say that speaking voice isn't always a good indicator, it will line up a lot of the time but a considerable amount of time it doesn't. Warren had a unique production, but it was a free and well-produced instrument in it's prime. Admittedly his voice was as its best before most recordings of it were made.


----------



## Bonetan

Op.123 said:


> I would say that speaking voice isn't always a good indicator, it will line up a lot of the time but a considerable amount of time it doesn't. Warren had a unique production, but it was a free and well-produced instrument in it's prime. Admittedly his voice was as its best before most recordings of it were made.


I'm in the minority, but I believe they should always line up. I believe this is the only path to free, open, and natural vocal production. I know that many singers have had success doing otherwise, but this doesn't make it correct imho.


----------



## Op.123

Bonetan said:


> I'm in the minority, but I believe they should always line up. I believe this is the only path to free, open, and natural vocal production. I know that many singers have had success doing otherwise, but this doesn't make it correct imho.


The thing is people quite often speak naturally from different places and the speaking voice does not utilise the same muscles as the singing voice. My voice is naturally fairly light and high, but if I want to 'speak' or 'declaim' with any real squillo without sounding like I'm singing, I have to deepen my voice a fair amount. If you only heard my speaking voice you'd probably assume I were a tenor, but my highest comfortable notes are far below the upper tenor register, and if I worked on my voice I might _ just_ be able to manage a top A-flat. Naturally I am most likely a bass-baritone.


----------



## Seattleoperafan

At Christmas I can rather uncannily imitate Elvis Presley singing Blue Christmas to amuse my friends but if I call up a business people always assume that I am the lady of the house


----------



## ScottK

Bonetan said:


> I'm in the minority, but I believe they should always line up. I believe this is the only path to free, open, and natural vocal production. I know that many singers have had success doing otherwise, but this doesn't make it correct imho.


You're making me think of your observation in the discussion about whether some baritones are really tenors, off in another thread. You made a very wise point by asking (something like this,....from memory, not going looking) ".....if a tenor can't manage the highest notes but can sing baritone roles in a way the public enjoys, isn't he a baritone?" I agreed with you.

I'm thinking we're not far from that here. "Correct" , I'm thinking, is probably less important an idea than "effective"! Ingolata is not to your taste and, often, is not to mine. But Warren, Kaufman et al have certainly done alot of work that many have found meaningful with that technique.


----------



## OffPitchNeb

To Bonetan: I just listened to some live performances of Mr. Fisichella on youtube and was super impressed. Congratulations on finding a great instructor.


----------



## vivalagentenuova

Came across this review of a performance in Berlin. This is not necessarily emblematic of all singing today as the two leads are pretty old, but yikes, those clips are dreadful. How can anyone justify having customers (not to mention taxpayers) pay for this?
Perle Nere – Tosca in Berlin: Operatic Incompetence 4.0 - YouTube

Also, Lucas Meachem, a Met baritone, did a reaction video to Golden Age baritones like Ruffo, Urbano, and Battistini. Interesting to hear what a modern singer thinks when he actually listens to these greats.
Baritone Reacts to Baritones of the Past (HERLEA, RUFFO, URBANO, BATTISTINI) - YouTube


----------



## Bonetan

OffPitchNeb said:


> To Bonetan: I just listened to some live performances of Mr. Fisichella on youtube and was super impressed. Congratulations on finding a great instructor.


Thanks!! Just in the last week I was just speaking with someone about going back to him to continue working. What's incredible is he still sounds exactly like this and tosses off high notes in lessons like it's nothing at all to him. Voice still fresh as a daisy. I hear a lot of Lauri Volpi in his sound and we're both huge fans.


----------



## Parsifal98

vivalagentenuova said:


> Came across this review of a performance in Berlin. This is not necessarily emblematic of all singing today as the two leads are pretty old, but yikes, those clips are dreadful. How can anyone justify having customers (not to mention taxpayers) pay for this?
> Perle Nere – Tosca in Berlin: Operatic Incompetence 4.0 - YouTube
> 
> Also, Lucas Meachem, a Met baritone, did a reaction video to Golden Age baritones like Ruffo, Urbano, and Battistini. Interesting to hear what a modern singer thinks when he actually listens to these greats.
> Baritone Reacts to Baritones of the Past (HERLEA, RUFFO, URBANO, BATTISTINI) - YouTube


The first video made me want to cry. The tenor cursing after his cracked note is quite shocking.

As for the second video, Mr. Meachem offers some nice insights, but he often seems to be overwhelmed by what he's listening to, coming up with modern, unspecific terms that are an attempt at rationalising sounds that he cannot explain. And things like focusing on Ruffo's consonants, or saying that baritones now singing Tonio have a richer tone than Baitistinni, annoyed me slightly. I still get what he means, but him projecting modern training or understanding of the operatic voice on old-school singers illustrated for me the discontinuity in operatic tradition. I went to listen to videos of him afterwards and his voice actually sounds more natural and healthier than many contemporary baritones, while still being far away from the voices of the singers he reacted to. And the fact that he makes videos like this, sharing it with his audience, is something that I can appreciate. Overall, a very interesting video.


----------



## PaulFranz

Not sure why there's been so much talk about Kaufmann's vibrato holding up. It didn't. The high notes wobble, and they didn't use to.

This is him in 2020:


----------

