# Operas and their 'definitive' performances



## BaronScarpia (Apr 2, 2014)

I was inspired by the similar post in the general classical music forum (and a 'conversation' with Bellinilover I was having earlier), and thought I'd create one for opera. By 'definitive' I don't _necessarily_ mean your _favourite_ performances; I mean the performances which *define* what each opera is really about, if you catch my drift.

I'll start.

For me, the definitive recording of Norma is...


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

. . . and with a "Variation on a Theme of Baron Scarpia's" for myself: I'll go with the '55 Callas Votto _Norma_.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Peter Grimes by Benjamin Britten conducted by the composer with Peter Pears in the title role.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Tosca by Puccini, 1953 recording conducted by Victor de Sabata with Maria Callas, Giuseppe di Stefano and Tito Gobbi.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Besides the previous Tosca with Callas/di Stefano/Gobbi:
La Fanciulla del West Poker Scene with Tebaldi/Colzani
Adriana Lecouvreur with Olivero/Corelli/Bastianini/Simionato
Von Karajan Lucia di Lammermoor with Callas/di Stefano
Met Salome with Karita Mattila
Macbeth with Netrebko/Lucic/Pape/Calleja
The Consul with Patricia Neway
Madama Butterfly with Renata Scotto
Romeo et Julliette with Villazon/Netrebko


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)




----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)




----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)




----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

*dfgs*


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)




----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

This is the only recording that springs to mind as 'definitive'. Usually there are weak links in the cast which annoy and detract and tempt me to use the fast forward button, thus defeating the point of buying a complete performance- not in this case, though. Here's an extract:





The only other recording I've got which I'm tempted to call definitive is Beecham's Faust- if only he hadn't used such disappointingly light voiced singers for the title role and for Mephistopheles!

What about opera recordings conducted by the composer or recorded under his supervision, like the 1907 Pagliacci? Are those automatically 'definitive' or should they be judged by the same standards as those not personally signed off by the composer? I've no particular view on this, I'm just interested.


----------



## Bogdan (Sep 12, 2014)

I don't believe there is such a thing as a "definitive" performance; only the score is definitive. That being said, it's still a nice game to play, so here are a few:

Die Meistersinger - Furtwangler (1943) despite not being complete

Don Giovanni - Walter (1942) If you only know Walter from his later studio recordings, you're in for a surprise.

Nozze di Figaro - Rosbaud.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Figleaf said:


> View attachment 53577
> This is the only recording that springs to mind as 'definitive'. Usually there are weak links in the cast which annoy and detract and tempt me to use the fast forward button, thus defeating the point of buying a complete performance- not in this case, though. Here's an extract:
> 
> 
> ...


I hesitate to judge such performances, because, truthfully- what can you actually_ hear _in a 1907 acoustical recording?


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

MB seems to have mentioned most of mine, but I'm not sure these have been mentioned yet.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Or these


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Oh _GOD_ I _love_ that _Manon_! . . .

--- and I didn't even know of the_ existence _of that Khaikin_ Eugene Onegin_!


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Marschallin Blair said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Oh _GOD_ I _love_ that _Manon_! . . .
> 
> --- and I didn't even know of the_ existence _of that Khaikin_ Eugene Onegin_!


That Khaikin *Onegin* is a totally idiomatic and captures Vishnevskaya in freshest voice at the outset of her career.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Marschallin Blair said:


> I hesitate to judge such performances, because, truthfully- what can you actually_ hear _in a 1907 acoustical recording?


The sound quality isn't too bad if that's what you mean, at least in the solo numbers- orchestra and chorus can sound a bit muffled, but nobody buys acoustic era recordings for that. I really bought the CD for Antonio Paoli's Canio. He's not perfect- sometimes his vibrato gets unpleasantly wide and wobbly on the high climaxes- but it's a real bright pre verismo heroic tenor sound, which I find very appealing. Here he is in 'No, Pagliaccio non son':






Although so far I've only talked personal preference and not what makes it 'definitive'- I was just wondering what people made of Leoncavallo's involvement. Does involvement with a recording project signify the composer's personal stamp of approval, and would any assumed approval guarantee definitiveness? For me, authenticity is important in opera, and it's about being a part of a broader, unbroken performance tradition, if that makes sense. 'Definitive' is slightly trickier because it implies if not perfection, the highest feasible degree of perfectibility. I wouldn't argue that this Pagliacci is definitive in the sense of being near perfect, but its earliness and the quality and style of much of the singing give it a degree of authenticity, compared with a modern performance where the singing would be very different in style to what would have been heard when the opera was newly composed.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Figleaf said:


> The sound quality isn't too bad if that's what you mean, at least in the solo numbers- orchestra and chorus can sound a bit muffled, but nobody buys acoustic era recordings for that. I really bought the CD for Antonio Paoli's Canio. He's not perfect- sometimes his vibrato gets unpleasantly wide and wobbly on the high climaxes- but it's a real bright pre verismo heroic tenor sound, which I find very appealing. Here he is in 'No, Pagliaccio non son':
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You make a good point about whether a composer's involvement gives a recording the stamp of authenticity, or even makes that recording definitive. Not opera, but, as an example, Messaien was at the recording sessions of Myun Wha Chung's recording of *Turangalila* and also gave the recording his personal imprimatur, but not many critics make it their number one choice. Are they saying they know better than the composer?


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> You make a good point about whether a composer's involvement gives a recording the stamp of authenticity, or even makes that recording definitive. Not opera, but, as an example, Messaien was at the recording sessions of Myun Wha Chung's recording of *Turangalila* and also gave the recording his personal imprimatur, but not many critics make it their number one choice. Are they saying they know better than the composer?


I don't know- maybe they do think they know better, or maybe they think that better results can be got by leaving performance to practical musicians. I know nothing about the art of conducting for example, but it IS generally considered an art, and one at which composers may or may not excel, meaning that a work performed under his baton may not achieve such good results as one conducted by a professional conductor. Your Messaien example is more complicated since the composer supervised the conductor but did not replace him: I'll admit that I fudged the issue with Leoncavallo, since nobody knows for certain whether he conducted that Pagliacci personally or supervised Carlo Sabajno (I think it was) conducting it. Presumably a work supervised by the composer carries his seal of approval, unless he's on record expressing dissatisfaction with the results. So if 'definitive' means 'most in accordance with the composer's wishes' , then a composer-supervised performance has a strong claim to be the definitive performance- but a critic wouldn't be worthy of the name if they acclaimed a performance based only on its provenance, rather than their own informed opinion of how good it sounded!


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

While it's not a recording I like all that much on the whole, I do have to admit that the 1959 Giulini DON GIOVANNI referred to above is probably the one that best captures the essence of the opera.

At present I only own the highlights disc, but even based on that evidence it seems likely to me that Rene Jacobs' 1991 GIULIO CESARE is probably "definitive" as defined by the OP.

The classic de Sabata TOSCA is definitely definitive, not only for the singing-acting but because the conductor presents the opera as Puccini surely would have wanted: i.e. high tragedy, not melodrama.

I consider the second Sutherland recording of LUCIA DI LAMMERMOOR definitive, not least because the score is uncut (as some of you know, I _hate_ to hear LUCIA with any cuts whatsoever!)

On DVD, I feel that the 1981-82 Covent Garden LA BOHEME (Cotrubas, Shicoff) is definitive because it's an intimate production and captures the youth and impulsiveness of the opera -- something too many productions of BOHEME miss.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I pretty much agree that all of the Marschallin's suggested recordings are "required listening"... "essential recordings"... but I still reject the term "definitive":





Nearly every work here recorded has been recorded by other artists as well... with results worthy of hearing. The sole exception I might make would be of the recording of Strauss II's A Night in Venice and Vienna Blood that have no worthy alternatives.



As for Bohm's Die Frau Ohne Schatten... which one? I quite like the recording from the 1970s... but love the 1955 Decca recording even more. As for Salome... I must have the Solti/Nilsson and the Bohm/Stratas DVD (maybe the best performance of any opera on film). Don Giovanni & Le nozze...? Now seriously, Mozart's operas are like Lay's potato chips. You can't have just one. Giulini's Le nozze is essential... but so is Erich Kleiber's with Lisa della Casa, or Karajan's from the 50s with Wunderlich... and then there's Rene Jacobs. I absolutely love Krip's Don Giovanni... but there's also Giulini, and again the old Karajan with Schwarzkopf and Bohm's.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

_



StlukesguildOhio: As for Bohm's Die Frau Ohne Schatten... which one? I quite like the recording from the 1970s... but love the 1955 Decca recording even more. As for Salome... I must have the Solti/Nilsson and the Bohm/Stratas DVD (maybe the best performance of any opera on film). Don Giovanni & Le nozze...? Now seriously, Mozart's operas are like Lay's potato chips. You can't have just one. Giulini's Le nozze is essential... but so is Erich Kleiber's with Lisa della Casa, or Karajan's from the 50s with Wunderlich... and then there's Rene Jacobs. I absolutely love Krip's Don Giovanni... but there's also Giulini, and again the old Karajan with Schwarzkopf and Bohm's.

Click to expand...

_Its funny you say this, because initially I thought I would post a few _sine-qua-non's_-- _just _a few-- and then as I was posting my list just kept_ going_ and _going_ and _going_. . . Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. -- so I just stopped. . .

I like all of the operatic addenda you posted, but I very especially want to mention why I didn't chose the '55 Bohm_ Die Frau ohne Schatten_ over his later 1977 endeavor. I mean, 'yes,' the sound on the Decca is superb, the reading is drop-dead gorgeous, and Leonie Rysanek is a darling. It's just that I love this opera _SO MUCH_, and I had to choose one (I think I have every one on cd), so I chose the latter Bohm with Leonie Rysanek and Birgit Nilsson because of Bohm's unrivaled handling of the balances between the orchestra and the gorgeous choruses where the Empress is doing her hair in the mirror.

So yeah, I'm fully aware that these 'definitive' things can be highly subjective.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Hard to think of an art form less susceptible to "definitive" performances. There are just so many variables, none more variable than singers: we don't want to settle on just one way of performing a role, or the sound of just one singer's voice.

The two recordings in my collection that I feel are closest to capturing every essential quality of the work are the Callas/ De Sabata _Tosca_ on EMI and the 1962 Bayreuth _Parsifal_ under Knappertsbusch on Philips. These are both such utterly dedicated realizations that imperfections (if we even notice any) fade to insignificance.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Hard to think of an art form less susceptible to "definitive" performances. There are just so many variables, none more variable than singers: we don't want to settle on just one way of performing a role, or the sound of just one singer's voice.
> 
> The two recordings in my collection that I feel are closest to capturing every essential quality of the work are the Callas/ De Sabata _Tosca_ on EMI and the 1962 Bayreuth _Parsifal_ under Knappertsbusch on Philips. These are both such utterly dedicated realizations that imperfections (if we even notice any) fade to insignificance.


There_ are_ no Holy Grails. . . but let me tell you about _my_ Holy Grail.

Special pleading.

I love it.

So 'Blair.'

_;D_


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I pretty much agree that all of the Marschallin's suggested recordings are "required listening"... "essential recordings"... but I still reject the term "definitive":
> 
> Nearly every work here recorded has been recorded by other artists as well... with results worthy of hearing. The sole exception I might make would be of the recording of Strauss II's A Night in Venice and Vienna Blood that have no worthy alternatives.


I agree and disagree with you. Essential and definitive are not quite the same thing, as you say. And I'm not sure you could call the performances of the Schwarzkopf operettas you cite above as definitive, given the doubtful editions of the scores used, not that I'd want to be without them of course.

On the other hand, I can think of no other artist who challenges Callas's hegemony in the role of Norma, so, in that sense, her performance of the role is definitive, though again the edition of the score used is not. Which recording one chooses is a moot point, but no singer in the LP era comes within a mile of her achievement. (I suppose, in terms of authenticity, then Bartoli's *Norma* might be called definitive. I just hope I never have to hear it again.)

*Norma* has twice been the subject of BBC Radio 3's Building a Library, a programme where a reviewer discusses commercially available recordings of a work and selects a library choice, playing excerpts from different recordings along the way. On each occasion we had a different critic, but on both occasions they narrowed their choice down to two recordings, Callas I and Callas II, one finally plumping for Callas I and the other Callas II. Both were in agreement that Callas was essential _and_ definitive.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

I also think that there can't be a "definitive" performance of any given opera, at least if we go by a definition like "having its fixed and final form". 

Because, in a way, each generation, and each artist, will need to read again the piece, to 'define what's really about'. And regarding the merits, even if I fully agree, for instance, that Maria Callas's Norma is a towering achievement, and my preferred performance of the role so far (in fact, my favorite is precisely the one mentioned by the OP), ... who knows what will happen tomorrow?. Future is not written, for good or for bad.

'Essential" recordings... well, understood as a list of recommendations, by the person or persons compiling the list, are fine. And could be very useful for people new to the art form, or people that share the tastes and preferences of the compiler(s), in general terms.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Re 'Building a library'- it's an absolutely awful programme in my opinion, though as the only radio programme of its type it clearly has a place. What I object to is the snide and dismissive way it treats recordings from the 78rpm era, when it even mentions them at all. For example, one edition of the programme played a tiny snippet of Marie Delna singing Che faro senza Eurydice purely to ridicule it- not because of anything specific about the performance itself (which I think was pretty inoffensive) but because any recording from 1911 must necessarily be risible, in the view of the presenter and of course the audience, because surely we wouldn't presume to disagree with his ex cathedra pronouncements!

Now on this forum or any other I'm very happy to hear opinions which differ from mine and I couldn't imagine taking offence if someone said that all historical recordings are ludicrously bad and should be played for comedic purposes only. After all, it's just someone's opinion. But when a radio presenter or a well known reviewer uses the platform he has to denigrate historical performances, then I have a problem. So many remarkable performances of that time (though not complete operas that I'm aware of) have never been issued on modern formats and could thus cease to exist in any form if they are not transferred and the originals perish because their cultural significance is not appreciated. This isn't a question of simple ignorance on the part of the listening community: it's the fact that we are bombarded again and again with the dismissive remarks of critics who imply constantly that early recordings are curiosities at best, and that by implication there is a stigma attached to the records and to those who listen to them. 

In the case of Norma, I wouldn't take issue with the recommendation of Callas- I haven't listened to any complete Norma all the way through and the preference for Callas is obviously the consensus opinion. But with Building a Library (and the rest of the BBC's output for that matter, although that's another issue!) we should be aware that we are listening to somebody with a particular axe to grind and not the fair minded and disinterested guide that it presents itself as.

Sorry for the rant but some things need to be said!


----------



## Badinerie (May 3, 2008)

Glad to this hasnt degenerated into a bun fight yet. I agree with a lot of the suggestions for Definitive performances even though it does suggest a somewhat pessimistic note for the future? 

I dont like the word Essential though, not just because my doctor told me the Flu jab I had last week was Essential yet I still got the Flu  

Essential perhaps, to hear different versions of a work and pick the one that 'does it for you' and not get hung up on critic's choices.


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

Probably Gergiev for anything Russian.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Figleaf said:


> Re 'Building a library'- it's an absolutely awful programme in my opinion, though as the only radio programme of its type it clearly has a place. What I object to is the snide and dismissive way it treats recordings from the 78rpm era, when it even mentions them at all. For example, one edition of the programme played a tiny snippet of Marie Delna singing Che faro senza Eurydice purely to ridicule it- not because of anything specific about the performance itself (which I think was pretty inoffensive) but because any recording from 1911 must necessarily be risible, in the view of the presenter and of course the audience, because surely we wouldn't presume to disagree with his ex cathedra pronouncements!
> 
> Now on this forum or any other I'm very happy to hear opinions which differ from mine and I couldn't imagine taking offence if someone said that all historical recordings are ludicrously bad and should be played for comedic purposes only. After all, it's just someone's opinion. But when a radio presenter or a well known reviewer uses the platform he has to denigrate historical performances, then I have a problem. So many remarkable performances of that time (though not complete operas that I'm aware of) have never been issued on modern formats and could thus cease to exist in any form if they are not transferred and the originals perish because their cultural significance is not appreciated. This isn't a question of simple ignorance on the part of the listening community: it's the fact that we are bombarded again and again with the dismissive remarks of critics who imply constantly that early recordings are curiosities at best, and that by implication there is a stigma attached to the records and to those who listen to them.
> 
> ...


Your experience is different from mine. I have listened to plenty of Building a Library programmes where they have played and liked performances from the 78 era. If they ultimately choose a modern recording, then that is usually because they are going for a library choice, where recording quality does come to it, and, quite often they also recommend a historical choice.

Nor do I think you can tar all the reviewersl with the same brush, because they use such a wide range of different critics. I don't always agree with them, but we do get a wide range of opinion. The good thing about it is that they play excerpts from lots of different recordings, giving the listener a chance to make up their own mind, though of course there is a limit to how much they can play in 45 minutes.

I think we have to accept though that they are never going to recommend a pre-LP performance, however good it is, because of the remit of the programme, which is to find the most recommendable library choice.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

​


To name a few , highly recommended by distinguished critics .


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Elektra with Varnay and Rysenek ( Nilsson/Bohm very close but Rysenek is hard to beat.)
Ariadne: Norman, Troyanos, Battle
Tristan: Reiner, Flagstad, Melchoir 36
Gotterdammerung: Varnay, Windgassen-live Bayreuth: first stereo recording


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

The 1979 Harnoncourt L'incoronazione di Poppea.

No question about it. The best Poppea there is, visually and musically.


----------



## BaronScarpia (Apr 2, 2014)

Right. I _thought_ I'd made this clear enough, but obviously not!

By 'definitive performance' I meant 'the performance which, in your opinion, comes closest to capturing the essence of the opera'. That doesn't always mean 'favourite performance'.

The nature of opera, and indeed of any art form, makes objectivity impossible. Ergo, there is no one recording of any opera that is THE outright definitive one. I understand that some people do not believe in the idea of a definitive recording, but for me it means the recording which is closest to (one's own perception of) perfection.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

BaronScarpia said:


> Right. I _thought_ I'd made this clear enough, but obviously not!
> 
> By 'definitive performance' I meant 'the performance which, in your opinion, comes closest to capturing the essence of the opera'. That doesn't always mean 'favourite performance'.
> 
> The nature of opera, and indeed of any art form, makes objectivity impossible. Ergo, there is no one recording of any opera that is THE outright definitive one. I understand that some people do not believe in the idea of a definitive recording, but for me it means the recording which is closest to (one's own perception of) perfection.


Which is still of course completely subjective.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

hpowders said:


> Tosca by Puccini, 1953 recording conducted by Victor de Sabata with Maria Callas, Giuseppe di Stefano and Tito Gobbi.


Top _that!_

[di Stefano, and others who watched Callas and Gobbi acting the Tosca & Scarpia scenes, said their singing / acting was so intense that even those performers in the show 'who know how all of it is done,' as backstage spectators, were chilled to the bone.]


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Top _that!_
> 
> [di Stefano, and others who watched Callas and Gobbi acting the Tosca & Scarpia scenes, said it their singing / acting was so intense that even those performers in the show 'who know how it is all done' as backstage spectators, were chilled to the bone.]


An absolutely amazing performance.

You just need to see ONE performance like that in the opera house per lifetime in order to make it all worthwhile! And if not, at least have a recording.

"E avanti a lui tremava tutta Roma!" Floria Tosca.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Ravel ~ _L'Enfant et les Sortileges_ 
Lorin Maazel; l'orchestre et chouer de la Radiodiffusion Francais: Ogéas · Sénéchal (DGG)

Stravinsky:
_The Rake's Progress_ Stravinsky; Royal Philharmonic Orchestra: Colin Tilney · John Reardon · Kevin Miller · Alexander Young · Regina Sarfaty · Judith Raskin · Don Garrard.

_Le Rossignol_ Stravinsky; Opera Society of Washington, D.C.: Reri Grist · Loren Driscoll · Donald Gramm (Grist was invited by Stravinsky to perform the role.)

Berg ~ _Lulu_ (Friederich Cerha's completion) Boulez; L'orchestre de l'Opera Paris: Stratas · Minton · Schwarz · Mazura · Riegel · Blankenheim · Tear · Pampuch.


----------



## Blue Miasma (Oct 17, 2014)

BaronScarpia said:


> Right. I _thought_ I'd made this clear enough, but obviously not!
> 
> By 'definitive performance' I meant 'the performance which, in your opinion, comes closest to capturing the essence of the opera'. That doesn't always mean 'favourite performance'.
> 
> The nature of opera, and indeed of any art form, makes objectivity impossible. Ergo, there is no one recording of any opera that is THE outright definitive one. I understand that some people do not believe in the idea of a definitive recording, but for me it means the recording which is closest to (one's own perception of) perfection.


If going on that then one would need to listen to every recording available of that Opera to find which version would come closest to their perception of perfection and still may never find the right version because humans are never satisfied we always want more or better, personally I ain't keen on the term definitive for that reason but at the same time I believe that there needs to be a benchmark recording that is authoritative in the sense of being as close to the composers vision as possible (this we could call the definitive version) but the problem with this is is that we can't exactly ask Mozart or Bellini what it should be like all we have is different interpretations from Conductors and the problem with interpretations is people get it wrong


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Ravel ~ _L'Enfant et les Sortileges_
> Lorin Maazel; l'orchestre et chouer de la Radiodiffusion Francais: Ogéas · Sénéchal (DGG)
> 
> Stravinsky:
> ...


I am going to display a lack of sophistication here, but they have played Lulu on the Sirius Met Channel many times and just cannot understand why anyone would want to listen to it. I'm sure as a drama onstage it is quite effective, but musically it just sounds like an assault to my ears.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Seattleoperafan said:


> I am going to display a lack of sophistication here, but they have played Lulu on the Sirius Met Channel many times and just cannot understand why anyone would want to listen to it. I'm sure as a drama onstage it is quite effective, but musically it just sounds like an assault to my ears.


I honestly can't understand why anyone wouldn't enjoy it, because to me it sounds lush and lyrical, outside of a few more violent outbursts like that 12-note fortissimo at the end.

I don't think you "lack sophistication", but rather that you just aren't accustomed to the style, so you can't hear the melodic/harmonic sense of the music, which is why it would sound like a muddle.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

It sounds morbid and ugly to me too.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Seattleoperafan said:


> I am going to display a lack of sophistication here, but they have played Lulu on the Sirius Met Channel many times and just cannot understand why anyone would want to listen to it. I'm sure as a drama onstage it is quite effective, but musically it just sounds like an assault to my ears.


Lulu is _yet another_ of the few truly major lyric masterpieces of classical music theater.

It's a shame, really, that you find it an assault, but _all music is an assault on the ears,_ and there is plenty in the rep left for you.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Itullian said:


> It sounds morbid and ugly to me too.


Well, it is morbid all right, but so are _Tosca_, and _Carmen_ and _Dialogues des Carmélites_ and _Il pagliacci_, and... etc. I.e. it joins a passel of other great tragedies in the operatic repertoire


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Well, it is morbid all right, but so are _Tosca_, and _Carmen_ and _Dialogues des Carmélites_ and _Il pagliacci_, and... etc. I.e. it joins a passel of other great tragedies in the operatic repertoire


But they don't SOUND morbid and ugly. Lulu does.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Itullian said:


> But they don't SOUND morbid and ugly. Lulu does.


Well, blame the Eyetalians for _verismo!_ 

You know, until the nuns are all deemed criminal conspirators, and marched off --- while singing a hymn -- _to the guillotine,_ where their heads are chopped off one by one, _Dialogues des Carmélites_ doesn't have a scrap of melody or a real aria, but is all nervous agitated fragmented music. that, too, is about as morbid as it gets, an opera about nervousness and angst, and a number of people losing their head at the end.

Lulu: Morbid? Yeah, and?

Ugly? Not to my ears.

Whether you like the sound of it or not, _Lulu_ is hyper-lyric -- just not in an older-style tertian harmonic vein anymore, which upsets the apple cart for enough people no end.

Ugly to my ears are the excessive and constantly cloying melodies of Puccini (whose pieces to me have almost no other interest -- melody all the time) which is like listening to a bad case of diabetes.

To each, their own


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Well, blame the Eyetalians for _verismo!_
> 
> You know, until the nuns are all deemed criminal conspirators, and marched off --- while singing a hymn -- _to the guillotine,_ where their heads are chopped off one by one, _Dialogues des Carmélites_ doesn't have a scrap of melody or a real aria, but is all nervous agitated fragmented music. that, too, is about as morbid as it gets, an opera about nervousness and angst, and a number of people losing their head at the end.
> 
> ...


How dare you PetrB! I quite enjoy Puccini (in moderation) whose melodies can approach the sublime, possessed a knack for supporting it with rich and satisfying textures and paced his dramas pretty well. I am a bit of a romantic at heart!

Ugly to my ears is the artless Verdi - almost cynically simplistic and unmemorable tunes over the most uninspired backings (oompahpah). I'm sure it's very clever for its time but it just leaves me cold (and sometimes with piccolo ringing in my ears)

However, PetrB, we definitely agree about Lulu

Yes, the joys of "to each their own". Of note to some posters will be the contextual expression of the opinion as mine only rather than an objective truth. Maybe it's a "taken as read" thing, but I consider it better practice to acknowledge it explicitly


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Certainly, _Lulu_ is full of beautiful, enthralling passages. Berg was very worried about the formal structure of his opera. He was perfectly aware that he was getting very far from a standard Post-Romantic piece, with the twelve-row system, coming back to numbers opera, the vocal techniques,... so he tried to anchor all this, in _Wozzeck_ and also in _Lulu_, using traditional musical forms. In his view, this provided the right canvas for his style of painting. 

But coming back to the "definitive" line of reasoning, I don't think either that we could use the composer's view for that. Be aware that not always the same person has the talent to be a composer, and also a conductor, a performer, a stage director... Opera is a very complex genre.

Take Berg and _Wozzeck_, for instance. Berg was appalled by the fact that not a single "regista" cared for his indications about staging the opera. He was determined to provide a full booklet for _Lulu_ with precise instructions on how to stage the drama... He was not able to complete them, but you can bet they would have been deemed (almost) irrelevant.

If we forget about staging, and restrict ourselves to the music, things are not much clearer. Of course we can't ask Bellini about _Norma_, now. But, even if we had available by some magic the performance at La Scala in 1831, with Pasta, Grisi, Donzelli and Negrini, all coached by Bellini himself... would that be a "definitive" version?. Don't think so. To start with, Bellini was not happy with Donzelli, he preferred Rubini but the singer was not available at the time. Also, he was forced to downsize the role of Oroveso, due to some health issues of Negrini... Not to mention the last minute adaptations to the score to better suit Pasta... What was the "ideal" _Norma_ that Bellini had in his head?. I don't think we can really answer to this question.

Also, we have mentioned _Paggliaci_. Well, we have a version from 1907 with Antonio Paoli, Josefina Huguet and Ernesto Badini... under the personal supervision of Leoncavallo. Is this the "definitive" _Paggliaci_?.






Well, this is a very interesting document, surely. But for people that need to perform Pagliacci today, is just that. A document, not something we would need to mimic, or be as close as possible to play.

In my view, there are no excuses, or short paths. When a performed needs to perform a piece, he needs to learn, to try to understand, to make the piece his own, using of course the score, that is the basis, but also any past performances, or available documentation... Well, he needs to *perform*. That's what Classical music performance is about, from a piano solo, a string quartet, a symphony or a full-fledged opera staged in the theater. Performance is the responsibilty of the performers. They need to take their own decisions.


----------



## BaronScarpia (Apr 2, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> Which is still of course completely subjective.


That's why I wrote _one's own perception of_ perfection!


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Itullian said:


> But they don't SOUND morbid and ugly. Lulu does.


It doesn't sound ugly to me, or at the very least not predominantly ugly.

Do you think that's because it doesn't appeal to you, or because there's something wrong with it? What about the passionate leitmotif for Alwa, or the final elegy from Geschwitz, the Act 1 interlude, or any number of other highlights from the score?

The subject matter may be on the lurid side (which, as PetrB says, is a part of opera in general), but the music is truly a work of beauty.

Here, let Andrew Davis explain:


----------



## BaronScarpia (Apr 2, 2014)

Some of mine:


----------



## BaronScarpia (Apr 2, 2014)

View attachment 53801

View attachment 53802

View attachment 53803

View attachment 53804

View attachment 53805

(a film, I know - is that wrong?!)


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

*dgee:* I understand it's your own opinion, and I'll express mine. Those same "cynically simplistic and unmemorable tunes over the most uninspired backing" by Verdi sound excitingly rhythmic and dramatically tense to me: e.g. "Sacra la scelta," "Tu puniscimi O Signore," "Tutte le feste al tempio," "Tacea la notte placida," etc.

What irritates me is when people say things like, "I'm sure such and such a work was good _for its time_." It gives the false impression that the work only became popular because at the time there was nothing better around, but that we today know better because we're more sophisticated, having lived through more sophisticated musical periods And when it's said with regard to Verdi, Donizetti, etc. I always think the subtext is something like, "It could only have been liked by brawling, hot-blooded, provincial Latins with little education." Being of Italian descent myself, I always cringe at that sort of stereotype. I'm not saying that dgee's or anyone else's comments were intended this way; I just wanted to say that as a general rule I don't like chronological snobbery. No one _has_ to like bel canto or Verdi, and by the same token I don't have to enjoy Berg. But I'd hate to think that I'm some sort of musical hick because I prefer Verdi to Berg.

For the record, I love Richard Strauss and find it hard to believe that anyone could miss the beauty of the vocal lines in ELEKTRA because they were distracted by the turbulent-sounding orchestrations.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Bellinilover said:


> No one _has_ to like bel canto or Verdi, and by the same token I don't have to enjoy Berg. But I'd hate to think that I'm some sort of musical hick because I prefer Verdi to Berg.
> 
> For the record, I love Richard Strauss and find it hard to believe that anyone could miss the beautiful vocal lines in ELEKTRA because they were distracted by the turbulent-sounding orchestrations.


I don't consider you a musical hick at all for preferring Italian Bel Canto. It's a different kind of music, obviously it will appeal to people with different tastes. My own tastes lean towards the Austro-Germanic, especially in the 19th century, for its richness of harmony and abundance of counterpoint and development. From my perspective, listening to Berg is not all that different from listening to Wagner or Mahler: its harmonic/orchestral opulence exists together with constant melodic transformation.

What irks me about these discussions is that they usually end up positing that Berg's music (or some other bogeyman like Schoenberg or Boulez) is _inherently_ ugly (rather than simply perceived as ugly by those who are unaccustomed to or dislike the style), which poisons the well for any newcomers who may otherwise end up hearing the music as I do.

To my ears, Berg's music, especially Lulu, is far more beautiful than Elektra.


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)




----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

And I love equally Bellini, Verdi, Puccini *and* Berg. 

Of course, Berg music is not "inherently" ugly (beauty is in the ears of the listener), and Verdi's music is wonderful. Simply, it's impossible that all people enjoy all music, so there will always be someone who find Berg's imaginative musical writing dull, and others will deem that Verdi's exciting tunes are tasteless. 

But this is just personal taste.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Bellinilover said:


> *dgee:* I understand it's your own opinion, and I'll express mine. Those same "cynically simplistic and unmemorable tunes over the most uninspired backing" by Verdi sound excitingly rhythmic and dramatically tense to me: e.g. "Sacra la scelta," "Tu puniscimi O Signore," "Tutte le feste al tempio," "Tacea la notte placida," etc.
> 
> What irritates me is when people say things like, "I'm sure such and such a work was good _for its time_." It gives the false impression that the work only became popular because at the time there was nothing better around, but that we today know better because we're more sophisticated, having lived through more sophisticated musical periods And when it's said with regard to Verdi, Donizetti, etc. I always think the subtext is something like, "It could only have been liked by brawling, hot-blooded, provincial Latins with little education." Being of Italian descent myself, I always cringe at that sort of stereotype. I'm not saying that dgee's or anyone else's comments were intended this way; I just wanted to say that as a general rule I don't like chronological snobbery. No one _has_ to like bel canto or Verdi, and by the same token I don't have to enjoy Berg. But I'd hate to think that I'm some sort of musical hick because I prefer Verdi to Berg.
> 
> For the record, I love Richard Strauss and find it hard to believe that anyone could miss the beautiful vocal lines in ELEKTRA because they were distracted by the turbulent-sounding orchestrations.


I don't bite anymore when the likes of PetrB and Dgee make their jibes about Verdi and Puccini. They don't like them and they never will, just as I don't like most of the New Viennese School or the music of Boulez and I doubt I ever will.

It doesn't affect my admiration for, or appreciation of, one of the greatest opera composers who ever lived. I feel sorry for them that they can't experience it as I do, but no doubt they feel sorry for me that I can't get what they evidently do out of Berg's *Lulu*.

Like you, I used to get very hot under the collar, but ultimately it's a pointless exercise. And, anyway, we know we are right


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I suspect that what many opera lovers who enjoy Bellini, Verdi, and Puccini find most difficult in a lot of 20th-century opera is not so much the musical idiom as a whole as the kind of vocal writing that it seems to engender. The charge of being "unmelodic" was probably first leveled at Wagner because his vocal melody (at least from _Tristan_ on) is free in form and often traces the contours of rapidly changing harmonies. But these things are relative, and this tendency away from clear-cut tunefulness was continued by Strauss, whose vocal writing, when not deliberately long-lined and lyrical, can be quite "talky" and jagged beyond anything in Wagner. Berg goes farther still, setting against his busy, harmonically dense and shifting orchestral textures vocal conversations in which there may be for many minutes at a time nothing resembling a graspable melody, and no opportunity for a singer to do anything with the voice but vehemently spit out the words. Some of us, quite frankly, get tired of listening to this sort of thing.

Lack of vocal melody and of opportunities to actually _sing_ is one of the commonest complaints about much "modern" opera, and for lovers of the vocal art as it developed over the centuries this complaint does not arise from any sort of musical shallowness or ignorance. I'm not a huge fan of "bel canto" opera or early Verdi (I need great singer-actors like Callas to make it interesting for me), and Puccini can strike me as sentimental and manipulative (though I would never underestimate his artistic mastery, musical or theatrical). But I was a singer and will forever be a lover of the human voice and its powers of expression, unmatched by any instrument. Those "rum-ti-tum" accompaniments of Italian opera may not be interesting in themselves, but they are an appropriate pedestal for the glorious melodic sculpture which, one hopes, a great singer will carve with her artistry. I can appreciate the compositional genius of _Wozzeck_ and _Lulu_, and enjoy them as integrated dramatic productions, but find them wanting in their refusal, far too much of the time, to make use of the musical potential of the human voice.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> Which is still of course completely subjective.


. . . and I'd add that people can pretend that intelligence, taste, and judgement don't exist-- but of course the un-cloistered, un-ivory-tower everyday world proves them wrong.


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> I suspect that what many opera lovers who enjoy Bellini, Verdi, and Puccini find most difficult in a lot of 20th-century opera is not so much the musical idiom as a whole as the kind of vocal writing that it seems to engender. The charge of being "unmelodic" was probably first leveled at Wagner because his vocal melody (at least from _Tristan_ on) is free in form and often traces the contours of rapidly changing harmonies. But these things are relative, and this tendency away from clear-cut tunefulness was continued by Strauss, whose vocal writing, when not deliberately long-lined and lyrical, can be quite "talky" and jagged beyond anything in Wagner. Berg goes farther still, setting against his busy, harmonically dense and shifting orchestral textures vocal conversations in which there may be for many minutes at a time nothing resembling a graspable melody, and no opportunity for a singer to do anything with the voice but vehemently spit out the words. Some of us, quite frankly, get tired of listening to this sort of thing.
> 
> Lack of vocal melody and of opportunities to actually _sing_ is one of the commonest complaints about much "modern" opera, and for lovers of the vocal art as it developed over the centuries this complaint does not arise from any sort of musical shallowness or ignorance. I'm not a huge fan of "bel canto" opera or early Verdi (I need great singer-actors like Callas to make it interesting for me), and Puccini can strike me as sentimental and manipulative (though I would never underestimate his artistic mastery, musical or theatrical). But I was a singer and will forever be a lover of the human voice and its powers of expression, unmatched by any instrument. Those "rum-ti-tum" accompaniments of Italian opera may not be interesting in themselves, but they are an appropriate pedestal for the glorious melodic sculpture which, one hopes, a great singer will carve with her artistry. I can appreciate the compositional genius of _Wozzeck_ and _Lulu_, and enjoy them as integrated dramatic productions, but find them wanting in their refusal, far too much of the time, to make use of the musical potential of the human voice.


In my opinion it makes more use of the musical potential of the human voice than any opera pre-1900, and from reading your post I wonder if we are listening to the same opera. There are plenty of graceful melodic vocal lines where the singers really_ sing it_!


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> I suspect that what many opera lovers who enjoy Bellini, Verdi, and Puccini find most difficult in a lot of 20th-century opera is not so much the musical idiom as a whole as the kind of vocal writing that it seems to engender. The charge of being "unmelodic" was probably first leveled at Wagner because his vocal melody (at least from _Tristan_ on) is free in form and often traces the contours of rapidly changing harmonies. But these things are relative, and this tendency away from clear-cut tunefulness was continued by Strauss, whose vocal writing, when not deliberately long-lined and lyrical, can be quite "talky" and jagged beyond anything in Wagner. Berg goes farther still, setting against his busy, harmonically dense and shifting orchestral textures vocal conversations in which there may be for many minutes at a time nothing resembling a graspable melody, and no opportunity for a singer to do anything with the voice but vehemently spit out the words. Some of us, quite frankly, get tired of listening to this sort of thing.
> 
> Lack of vocal melody and of opportunities to actually _sing_ is one of the commonest complaints about much "modern" opera, and for lovers of the vocal art as it developed over the centuries this complaint does not arise from any sort of musical shallowness or ignorance. I'm not a huge fan of "bel canto" opera or early Verdi (I need great singer-actors like Callas to make it interesting for me), and Puccini can strike me as sentimental and manipulative (though I would never underestimate his artistic mastery, musical or theatrical). But I was a singer and will forever be a lover of the human voice and its powers of expression, unmatched by any instrument. Those "rum-ti-tum" accompaniments of Italian opera may not be interesting in themselves, but they are an appropriate pedestal for the glorious melodic sculpture which, one hopes, a great singer will carve with her artistry. I can appreciate the compositional genius of _Wozzeck_ and _Lulu_, and enjoy them as integrated dramatic productions, but find them wanting in their refusal, far too much of the time, to make use of the musical potential of the human voice.


I don't get fixated on musical form, myself; but rather on how a work of art functions as a _whole_. If proper form, harmony, and melody work for an artist's aesthetic aims- wonderful. If its primarily timbre, color, and nuance an artist is trying to evoke- wonderful. If its a densely-textured chromaticism-- all to the better.

Speaking for myself, I only ask that the work say something beautifully and meaningfully human.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> I suspect that what many opera lovers who enjoy Bellini, Verdi, and Puccini find most difficult in a lot of 20th-century opera is not so much the musical idiom as a whole as the kind of vocal writing that it seems to engender. The charge of being "unmelodic" was probably first leveled at Wagner because his vocal melody (at least from _Tristan_ on) is free in form and often traces the contours of rapidly changing harmonies. But these things are relative, and this tendency away from clear-cut tunefulness was continued by Strauss, whose vocal writing, when not deliberately long-lined and lyrical, can be quite "talky" and jagged beyond anything in Wagner. Berg goes farther still, setting against his busy, harmonically dense and shifting orchestral textures vocal conversations in which there may be for many minutes at a time nothing resembling a graspable melody, and no opportunity for a singer to do anything with the voice but vehemently spit out the words. Some of us, quite frankly, get tired of listening to this sort of thing.
> 
> Lack of vocal melody and of opportunities to actually _sing_ is one of the commonest complaints about much "modern" opera, and for lovers of the vocal art as it developed over the centuries this complaint does not arise from any sort of musical shallowness or ignorance. I'm not a huge fan of "bel canto" opera or early Verdi (I need great singer-actors like Callas to make it interesting for me), and Puccini can strike me as sentimental and manipulative (though I would never underestimate his artistic mastery, musical or theatrical). But I was a singer and will forever be a lover of the human voice and its powers of expression, unmatched by any instrument. Those "rum-ti-tum" accompaniments of Italian opera may not be interesting in themselves, but they are an appropriate pedestal for the glorious melodic sculpture which, one hopes, a great singer will carve with her artistry. I can appreciate the compositional genius of _Wozzeck_ and _Lulu_, and enjoy them as integrated dramatic productions, but find them wanting in their refusal, far too much of the time, to make use of the musical potential of the human voice.


I am reminded of a friend's description of his impressions of Birtwistle's *The Mask of Orpheus*. He recounted that after hours of cacophany, a female member of the cast came down to the front of the stage and started to scream with all her might. He turned to his companion and said, "I know _exactly_ how she feels!"


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Jobis said:


> In my opinion* it makes more use of the musical potential of the human voice than any opera pre-1900*, and from reading your post I wonder if we are listening to the same opera. There are plenty of graceful melodic vocal lines where the singers really_ sing it_!


By "it" do you mean _Lulu_ specifically? I've just listened to Act One. Are you a singer? I have to wonder what you mean by "musical potential." It can't be the same thing I mean. Yes, there are moments when singers can sustain and inflect and color a vocal line. But much of it is declamation, some of it outright speech. It all works in context; I'm not criticizing the overall effect. Berg knew what he was doing. It's just not what I'd be doing with the endowments of a Caruso or a Kipnis or a Schwarzkopf or a Callas.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> I don't bite anymore when the likes of PetrB and Dgee make their jibes about Verdi and Puccini. They don't like them and they never will, just as I don't like most of the New Viennese School or the music of Boulez and I doubt I ever will.
> 
> It doesn't affect my admiration for, or appreciation of, one of the greatest opera composers who ever lived. I feel sorry for them that they can't experience it as I do, but no doubt they feel sorry for me that I can't get what they evidently do out of Berg's *Lulu*.
> 
> Like you, I used to get very hot under the collar, but ultimately it's a pointless exercise. And, anyway, we know we are right


When someone makes a gratuitously disparaging comment about a master dramatist like Verdi-- the kind that has maximum allegation with minimum credibility-- its not that I think that person should be decapitated. Heavens no. Its that I think they shouldn't even be _ignored_.


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> By "it" do you mean _Lulu_ specifically? I've just listened to Act One. Are you a singer? I have to wonder what you mean by "musical potential." It can't be the same thing I mean. Yes, there are moments when singers can sustain and inflect and color a vocal line. But much of it is declamation, some of it outright speech. It all works in context; I'm not criticizing the overall effect. Berg knew what he was doing. It's just not what I'd be doing with the endowments of a Caruso or a Kipnis or a Schwarzkopf or a Callas.


Yes I mean Lulu, sorry for not being clear about that.

The boundaries of what is 'musical' in terms of vocal utterances are just constructs. One can limit what constitutes 'musical' singing by saying it must be pure tones, but I don't think in this day and age we need to view every other kind of vocal production as something 'other' than singing. There is a kind of music to speech, especially when it is deliberately composed as in a recitative from Mozart or a line of sprech-stimme from Berg. The voice can produce so much more than just the standard steady pitches, vibrato and trills of the bel canto style, so to say Berg is ignoring the voice's potential in comparison to prior composers just sounds ridiculous to me.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

My sister was an opera singer and had to sing a lot of 20th century music because she "could". If you don't know what you're doing you can very quickly wreck your voice. Modern composers did not write " for" the voice but wrote notes and expected the singers to sing them. Jessye Norman could actually make Berg's music very beautiful, as could Jane Eaglen.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

> Mahlerian: What irks me about these discussions is that they usually end up positing that Berg's music (or some other bogeyman like Schoenberg or Boulez) is inherently ugly (rather than simply perceived as ugly by those who are unaccustomed to or dislike the style), which poisons the well for any newcomers who may otherwise end up hearing the music as I do.
> 
> To my ears, Berg's music, especially Lulu, is far more beautiful than Elektra.


. . . and to mine, _Der Rosenkavalier_ and _Die Frau ohne Schatten _are far more breathtaking than _Lulu _or _Wozzek_.


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

There's really only one way to solve a dispute like this.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Jobis said:


> Yes I mean Lulu, sorry for not being clear about that.
> 
> The boundaries of what is 'musical' in terms of vocal utterances are just constructs. One can limit what constitutes 'musical' singing by saying it must be pure tones, but *I don't think in this day and age we need to view every other kind of vocal production as something 'other' than singing.* There is a kind of music to speech, especially when it is deliberately composed as in a recitative from Mozart or a line of sprech-stimme from Berg. *The voice can produce so much more than just the standard steady pitches, vibrato and trills of the bel canto style*, so to say Berg is ignoring the voice's potential in comparison to prior composers just sounds ridiculous to me.


On the largest sense of "musical," I certainly agree with you. Yes, there are many ways of singing, throughout the world and through time. I am obviously, and openly, biased in favor of a freely produced, open-throated, resonant, powerful, naturally vibrant voice capable of moving rapidly over a wide range of pitches, sustaining at length tones of consistent quality, effecting smoothly a full range of dynamic gradation, and altering articulation and tone quality - always, of course, allied to musical instincts that can make expressive use of these natural endowments and technical refinements. These same qualities and capabilities, it should be said, are those to which great instrumentalists aspire: even pianists strive to make their instruments "sing." Can I enjoy music that calls for other models of vocal production? Sure. But I don't hear in any other kind of singing the same _range_ of expressive possibilities. True, speech-like declamation is not "non-music", and speech itself may have "musical" qualities. These have their uses in opera. But I prefer to hear what the human voice at its most tonally and technically developed is capable of when fully employed, and we have had at least four centuries of immensely diverse music - Monteverdi, Dowland, Purcell, Handel, Mozart, Schubert, Bellini, Verdi, Wagner, Strauss, Mussorgsky, and so on and on - for which that superbly developed voice has provided the vehicle, and which has exploited its tonal magnificence and range of expression.

I have no principled objection to any additions Schoenberg or anyone else may make to "traditional" classical singing style or technique in pursuit of specific artistic objectives. I simply have a limited tolerance, as singer and listener, for sprechstimme, moaning, giggling, shrieking, or whatever other device a given composer may come up with in the name of "singing." I prefer to hear great voices in music which asks them to do what they have spent centuries learning how to do, and which only they can do. And to music listeners for whom a conversation between Wozzeck and his doctor is as expressive, in terms of singing as such, as one between Otello and Desdemona, I really have nothing to say except, perhaps, listen to all the great singers you can and hear what singing can be.

It's much, much more than steady pitches, vibrato, and trills. But you knew that.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

_I'm aiming for a singing that is capable of expressing the drama without looking to the past, and without being just a nonsense babbling_ (Salvatore Sciarrino).

This is an example of the operatic singing espoused by Sciarrino:






Both beautiful, and dramatic.

This is as much operatic singing as _Norma_ (and coming from Sicily, as well, the home country of both Sciarrino and Bellini ), just of a different kind, produced in a different way, but with exactly the same objective. In the words of Bellini himself: "Il dramma per musica deve far piangere, inorridire, morire... cantando". This is precisely Sciarrino's goal, too!.

Now, both _Norma_ and _Luci mie traditrici_ are among my favorite operas. I fully understand that some people will love only one and not the other (or even neither of them), but it's music, it's singing, it's drama... it's Opera.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

schigolch said:


> _I'm aiming for a singing that is capable of expressing the drama without looking to the past, and without being just a nonsense babbling_ (Salvatore Sciarrino).
> 
> This is an example of the operatic singing espoused by Sciarrino:
> 
> ...


This would be more interesting if I knew Italian and knew what these characters are talking about. It does have a strange, haunting quality taken purely as music, but clearly the style of the music and the structure of the vocal lines are intended to convey something specific to the text and plot. The singing as such doesn't sound idiosyncratic.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> I don't consider you a musical hick at all for preferring Italian Bel Canto. It's a different kind of music, obviously it will appeal to people with different tastes. My own tastes lean towards the Austro-Germanic, especially in the 19th century, for its richness of harmony and abundance of counterpoint and development. From my perspective, listening to Berg is not all that different from listening to Wagner or Mahler: its harmonic/orchestral opulence exists together with constant melodic transformation.
> 
> What irks me about these discussions is that they usually end up positing that Berg's music (or some other bogeyman like Schoenberg or Boulez) is _inherently_ ugly (rather than simply perceived as ugly by those who are unaccustomed to or dislike the style), which poisons the well for any newcomers who may otherwise end up hearing the music as I do.
> 
> To my ears, Berg's music, especially Lulu, is far more beautiful than Elektra.


Would you say that tonal beauty is an especially important thing for singers of Berg, etc. to cultivate? It seems to me it's needed in order to provide contrast with the demented (for lack of a better word) sounding vocal lines in, say, WOZZECK. By the same token, I don't want to hear an Elektra with an "ugly" tone, however appropriate that might be dramatically.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> By "it" do you mean _Lulu_ specifically? I've just listened to Act One. Are you a singer? I have to wonder what you mean by "musical potential." It can't be the same thing I mean. Yes, there are moments when singers can sustain and inflect and color a vocal line. But much of it is declamation, some of it outright speech. It all works in context; I'm not criticizing the overall effect. Berg knew what he was doing. *It's just not what I'd be doing with the endowments of a Caruso or a Kipnis or a Schwarzkopf or a Callas.*


B...b....but, many of today's singers can do it 'all' -- and have done it 'all' -- i.e. they're simply, as any worthwhile musician is expected to be and was expected to be, able to negotiate the styles of the past up to the present day.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Seattleoperafan said:


> My sister was an opera singer and had to sing a lot of 20th century music because she "could". If you don't know what you're doing you can very quickly wreck your voice. Modern composers did not write " for" the voice but wrote notes and expected the singers to sing them. Jessye Norman could actually make Berg's music very beautiful, as could Jane Eaglen.


Urban myth 899,363,207: If you know what you're doing, including pop screamo, you won't wreck your voice, period. 
_Inadequate training (and enough practice to include calling that a 'bit of experience') in singing styles of the past to the present day is the culprit,_ not the music as written.

The fact so many opera audiences, and it seems teachers, are living in an envelope of almost exclusively past music or a few 20th century works very much in similar to older styles is near to wholly the blame.

Berg wrote _Lulu_ with a specific soprano in mind, in the 1920's -- and I'm sure if he had completed it, the role would have been sung beautifully.

Was she "extraordinary?" At the time, only that she had an ear to clearly sing music which was not cast in common practice, or late common practice, harmony. Currently, _of all who have graduated, every undergraduate music major, has completed ear training which includes sight-singing and taking diction of -- an atonal line. (Too, all performance majors -- which includes singers, of course -- have successfully negotiated atonal music.)_


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Bellinilover said:


> Would you say that tonal beauty is an especially important thing for singers of Berg, etc. to cultivate? It seems to me it's needed in order to provide contrast with the demented (for lack of a better word) sounding vocal lines in, say, WOZZECK. By the same token, I don't want to hear an Elektra with an "ugly" tone, however appropriate that might be dramatically.


Not a verismo fan, I gather


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> When someone makes a gratuitously disparaging comment about a master dramatist like Verdi-- the kind that has maximum allegation with minimum credibility-- its not that I think that person should be decapitated. Heavens no. Its that I think they shouldn't even be _ignored_.


"When someone makes a gratuitously disparaging comment about a master dramatist like Berg -- the kind that has maximum allegation with minimum credibility-- its not that I think that person should be decapitated. Heavens no. Its that I think they shouldn't even be _ignored_."

It seems there are two sets of rules on TC, _no?_


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Bellinilover said:


> Would you say that tonal beauty is an especially important thing for singers of Berg, etc. to cultivate? It seems to me it's needed in order to provide contrast with the demented (for lack of a better word) sounding vocal lines in, say, WOZZECK. By the same token, I don't want to hear an Elektra with an "ugly" tone, however appropriate that might be dramatically.


Of course tonal beauty is crucial. It's why so many early recordings of Second Viennese repertoire sound poor: because the singers/performers have difficulty with their material. I relish hearing a singer singing the role of Lulu or Aron (in Schoenberg's magnum opus) sung with the purest possible tone, because the beauty possible is that inherent in the music itself.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Not a verismo fan, I gather


I like verismo so long as it's really _sung_ and not shouted or snarled. The bottom line for me is that the vocal acting has to sound musical.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> I have no principled objection to any additions Schoenberg or anyone else may make to "traditional" classical singing style or technique in pursuit of specific artistic objectives. I simply have a limited tolerance, as singer and listener, for sprechstimme, moaning, giggling, shrieking, or whatever other device a given composer may come up with in the name of "singing." I prefer to hear great voices in music which asks them to do what they have spent centuries learning how to do, and which only they can do. And to music listeners for whom a conversation between Wozzeck and his doctor is as expressive, in terms of singing as such, as one between Otello and Desdemona, I really have nothing to say except, perhaps, listen to all the great singers you can and hear what singing can be.
> 
> It's much, much more than steady pitches, vibrato, and trills. But you knew that.


Berg, of course, used *very little* in the way of _sprechstimme_ in his works, especially Lulu, and Schoenberg's Moses und Aron confines its use primarily to a single role (however important).

All of the singing in these works, of course, calls for accurate and expressive interpretation, which draws upon the same centuries-long traditions to which you refer, but you knew that.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

PetrB said:


> B...b....but, many of today's singers can do it 'all' -- and have done it 'all' -- i.e. they're simply, as any worthwhile musician is expected to be and was expected to be, able to negotiate the styles of the past up to the present day.


No singer today can come within a miracle _mile_ of a Callas, a Schwarzkopf, or even a Ponselle.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

PetrB said:


> "When someone makes a gratuitously disparaging comment about a master dramatist like Berg -- the kind that has maximum allegation with minimum credibility-- its not that I think that person should be decapitated. Heavens no. Its that I think they shouldn't even be _ignored_."
> 
> It seems there are two sets of rules on TC, _no? _


I really wouldn't know, as I tend not to read posts on Berg or make gratuitously disparaging remarks about him.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Marschallin Blair said:


> No singer today can come within a miracle _mile_ of a Callas, a Schwarzkopf, or even a Ponselle.


And that is of course your_ humble_ and_ modest _opinion ?


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Pugg said:


> And that is of course your_ humble_ and_ modest _opinion ?


'Immodest' and 'never humble' opinion--- yes.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> This would be more interesting if I knew Italian and knew what these characters are talking about. It does have a strange, haunting quality taken purely as music, but clearly the style of the music and the structure of the vocal lines are intended to convey something specific to the text and plot. The singing as such doesn't sound idiosyncratic.


Not quite... 

Of course, it's always much better if you know what the characters are singing. In this case, it's the sixth scene of "Luci mie traditrici", inspired on the killings of Maria d'Avalos and her lover by the composer Carlo Gesualdo, Maria's husband. This is the text of the full scene:

_IL MALASPINA 
Signora Duchessa, che fate?

LA MALASPINA 
Nulla e molto

IL MALASPINA 
Come nulla e molto?

LA MALASPINA 
Vivo per nulla e molto mi stanco di pensare alla 
colpa

IL MALASPINA 
Di ciò non più si parli

LA MALASPINA 
Di ciò sempre si pensi. Io perdonata? E come? 
Ah divisa tra due sogni, non vi stupisca s'io mi 
chiamo viva e morta

IL MALASPINA 
Parliamo d'altro, Signora Duchessa

LA MALASPINA 
Sopra di che?

IL MALASPINA 
Discorrete sopra l'amor che mi portate

LA MALASPINA 
Parlerò un infinito

IL MALASPINA 
Il vostro amore si è interrotti, dunque è imperfetto

LA MALASPINA 
Io parlo dell'amore presente che è immenso

IL MALASPINA 
Come mi amate voi?

LA MALASPINA 
Come ama vostra Eccellenza l'anima sua

IL MALASPINA 
Mi amate come voi stessa?

LA MALASPINA 
No, mio signore, ché vi odierei

IL MALASPINA 
Odiate voi medesima?

LA MALASPINA 
Odio me medesima

IL MALASPINA 
Perché?

LA MALASPINA 
Lo sapete perché

IL MALASPINA 
Peccarete più?

LA MALASPINA 
Prima morirei

IL MALASPINA 
Fenice ritrovata

LA MALASPINA 
Rea assoluta

IL MALASPINA 
V'amo, Duchessa, credete

LA MALASPINA 
Mi giova crederlo

IL MALASPINA 
Giurate fedeltà?

LA MALASPINA 
Eterna

IL MALASPINA 
Io eterno vi giuro il mio amore

LA MALASPINA 
La certezza di ciò?

IL MALASPINA 
Sia questa destra

LA MALASPINA 
O dolcissimo nodo

IL MALASPINA 
Gran maga è la bellezza

LA MALASPINA 
Gran magia l'affetto

IL MALASPINA 
Credete?

LA MALASPINA 
Lo credo

IL MALASPINA 
Sarà

LA MALASPINA 
Che cosa?

IL MALASPINA 
Quel ch'io devo

LA MALASPINA 
Ohimè!

IL MALASPINA 
Sospirate?

LA MALASPINA 
Sospiro

IL MALASPINA 
Cosa?

LA MALASPINA 
La morte

IL MALASPINA 
Eh parlate di vita, Signora!

LA MALASPINA 
Vita?

IL MALASPINA 
Vita sì

LA MALASPINA 
Animo nobile!

IL MALASPINA 
Affetto indicibile

LA MALASPINA 
Che pegno?

IL MALASPINA 
Me stesso

LA MALASPINA 
Quando?

IL MALASPINA 
Questa notte

LA MALASPINA 
E può essere?

IL MALASPINA 
Sì

LA MALASPINA 
Sole, affretta il corso

IL MALASPINA 
Tenebre, precorrete

LA MALASPINA 
Nume, grazie vi rendo

IL MALASPINA 
Vado, Duchessa

LA MALASPINA 
Dove?

IL MALASPINA 
A Pietramala

LA MALASPINA 
Il ritorno?

IL MALASPINA 
Sarà dopo la cena

LA MALASPINA 
Non mi corico

IL MALASPINA 
No, Signora

LA MALASPINA 
V'attenderò

IL MALASPINA 
Verrò

LA MALASPINA 
A Dio, mio paradiso

IL MALASPINA 
A Dio, mio inferno amoroso _

But the singing style, it's the same across most of Sciarrino's operas, it's not particular to "Luci mie traditrici" at all. It applies equally well to other pieces, and other dramatic situations, like "Macbeth":






or "Da gelo a gelo":


----------



## expat (Mar 17, 2013)

I always thought a very detailed spreadsheet for each opera where for each recording you get the following scored 

each singer, conductor, sound etc 

would be great. It is them up to the reader to decide the final subjective score of what the best recording for him/her is.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> Your experience is different from mine. I have listened to plenty of Building a Library programmes where they have played and liked performances from the 78 era. If they ultimately choose a modern recording, then that is usually because they are going for a library choice, where recording quality does come to it, and, quite often they also recommend a historical choice.
> 
> Nor do I think you can tar all the reviewersl with the same brush, because they use such a wide range of different critics. I don't always agree with them, but we do get a wide range of opinion. The good thing about it is that they play excerpts from lots of different recordings, giving the listener a chance to make up their own mind, though of course there is a limit to how much they can play in 45 minutes.
> 
> I think we have to accept though that they are never going to recommend a pre-LP performance, however good it is, because of the remit of the programme, which is to find the most recommendable library choice.


You could be right, as I haven't been a very regular listener for years. It wasn't so much that they didn't recommend old recordings, more that I didn't like the tone in which they were referred to. Which recording comes out 'top' is of less importance to me than the breadth and quality of the discussion. That said, R3 has been completely superseded as a source of recommendations by YouTube, Amazon and forums such as this- so my original criticism of Building a Library (i.e. that its opinions are perverse and excessively influential) hopefully applies less and less.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Bellinilover said:


> I like verismo so long as it's really _sung_ and not shouted or snarled. The bottom line for me is that the vocal acting has to sound musical.


Is it really verismo without those effects? Genuine question, not trying to be clever!


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

Figleaf said:


> Is it really verismo without those effects? Genuine question, not trying to be clever!


I had to think about that as well, when writing my post above. I do know that some Toscas actually sing those lines that traditionally are spoken (e.g. "Quanto...Il prezzo"). But then, is Puccini truly "verismo," or is it more "school of bel canto," with the genuine verismo operas being works like ANDREA CHENIER, PAGLIACCI, and CAVALLERIA RUSTICANA? Even in those operas I'd rather hear vocal acting that's as musical as possible. An example would be in "Nemico della patria" from CHENIER, the laugh that comes right after the first line. I'd rather hear Gerard work that laugh into the succeeding phrase (as Sherrill Milnes does on the James Levine recording) rather than laugh during the pause (as I think most Gerards do) because to my ear it sounds more musical.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Figleaf said:


> You could be right, as I haven't been a very regular listener for years. It wasn't so much that they didn't recommend old recordings, more that I didn't like the tone in which they were referred to. Which recording comes out 'top' is of less importance to me than the breadth and quality of the discussion. That said, R3 has been completely superseded as a source of recommendations by YouTube, Amazon and forums such as this- so my original criticism of Building a Library (i.e. that its opinions are perverse and excessively influential) hopefully applies less and less.


I'd certainly trust Building a Library more than Amazon. Some of the reviews are downright laughable, and Amazon also keeps attaching the wrong review to the the wrong recording. Totally unreliable.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Bellinilover said:


> I had to think about that as well, when writing my post above. I do know that some Toscas actually sing those lines that traditionally are spoken (e.g. "Quanto...Il prezzo"). But then, is Puccini truly "verismo," or is it more "school of bel canto," with the genuine verismo operas being works like ANDREA CHENIER, PAGLIACCI, and CAVALLERIA RUSTICANA? Even in those operas I'd rather hear vocal acting that's as musical as possible. An example would be in "Nemico della patria" from CHENIER, the laugh that comes right after the first line. I'd rather hear Gerard work that laugh into the succeeding phrase (as Sherrill Milnes does on the James Levine recording) rather than laugh during the pause (as I think most Gerards do) because to my ear it sounds more musical.


Maria Callas would have agreed with you. When she was asked why her Carmen doesn't cry out when Jose stabs her, she said that there is no scream in the score and that the audience already knows she is being killed. She went on to distinguish between "realism"and "truth" in art, and although _verismo_ might best be translated as "realism" it is still, I think, best to rely on the composer to make his points and to find one's dramatic effects in the music rather than apply them from without.

And that goes for acting and staging too!


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Maria Callas would have agreed with you. When she was asked why her Carmen doesn't cry out when Jose stabs her, she said that there is no scream in the score and that the audience already knows she is being killed. She goes on to distinguish between "realism"and "truth" in art, and although _verismo_ might best be translated as "realism" it is still, I think, best to rely on the composer to make his points and to find one's dramatic effects in the music rather than apply them from without.
> 
> And that goes for acting and staging too!


Just listen to her recording of *Cavalleria Rusticana*. Her Santuzza is one of the most passionate on disc, but she achieves her effects musically. No extraneous screams or sobs. Her singing, as always, is musically conceived.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

Inasmuch as _West Side Story_ contains operatic-style music I'd like to say that its original Broadway cast recording is definitive. True, there are moments when Larry Kert and Carol Lawrence (Tony and Maria) can't quite cope with the demands of the vocal writing, but they and the rest of the cast have a youthful freshness, energy, and "rightness" that it would be hard to imagine a later cast surpassing.


----------



## Pimlicopiano (Oct 23, 2014)

Elektra - as performed live this at year's Proms with Christine Goerke - I saw it and it was another on plane above her performances in Covent Garden earlier in the year which I also saw on three occasions including the dress rehearsal. A strange connection with the audience came over her and something quite marvellous happened.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Bellinilover said:


> Inasmuch as _West Side Story_ contains operatic-style music I'd like to say that its original Broadway cast recording is definitive. True, there are moments when Larry Kert and Carol Lawrence (Tony and Maria) can't quite cope with the demands of the vocal writing, but they and the rest of the cast have a youthful freshness, energy, and "rightness" that it would be hard to imagine a later cast surpassing.


It sure wasn't surpassed by Kiri Te Kanawa and Jose Carreras. What got into Lennie, anyhow?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> It sure wasn't surpassed by Kiri Te Kanawa and Jose Carreras. What got into Lennie, anyhow?


LOL. Class/artistic status issues, one could suppose. That 'opera' recording of West Side Story is a supreme example of the most inappropriate of stylistic impositions on any score I can think of. When it was released it was excessively well-promoted via airings on about every classical FM station in the U.S. and it was via that medium I heard it.

A friend who loved it asked me what I thought of it. I came up with an unpremeditated comment on it (my briefest review, like, ever) of "patently absurd."


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

PetrB said:


> LOL. Class/artistic status issues, one could suppose. That 'opera' recording of West Side Story is a supreme example of the most inappropriate of stylistic impositions on any score I can think of. When it was released it was excessively well-promoted via airings on about every classical FM station in the U.S. and it was via that medium I heard it.
> 
> A friend who loved it asked me what I thought of it. I came up with an unpremeditated comment on it (my briefest review, like, ever) of "patently absurd."


There is a little codicil to this. Apparently, when asked about casting for Tony, Lenny said "That Spanish guy," meaning Domingo and was rather surprised he got Carreras (he gave him a very hard time in the sessions, if you ever saw the video). I have no idea if this is true, but I so want it to be. :devil:


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> It sure wasn't surpassed by Kiri Te Kanawa and Jose Carreras. What got into Lennie, anyhow?


I've always assumed Bernstein's conducting, rather than the singing of the leads, is the reason that _West Side Story _ is considered a classic. Carreras as Tony just couldn't seem to conceal his accent, while Te Kanawa (whom I normally love) sounded too operatic as Maria; I even thought Tatiana Troyanos's Anita sounded "wrong." In theory, I do think Tony and Maria can be sung by opera singers (it would be _great_ to hear a Maria who can truly cope with "I Have a Love"); Carreras and Te Kanawa just weren't the right ones. Very few opera singers, I think, bother to "simplify" their voices enough to sound idiomatic in Broadway show music. One of the few who did was the late tenor Jerry Hadley, whom I feel could have been a wonderful Tony opposite, perhaps, Dawn Upshaw as Maria.

It seems to me that inherent in _West Side Story_ are a few challenges that can probably never be ideally resolved by any cast. One of these is that the characters are teenagers, yet the sentiments they're trying to articulate are quite mature. So the leads need to sound young and "unspoiled" but at the same time cope with vocal demands beyond those which most musicals make. (For example, I remember reading somewhere that Maria's "I Have a Love" might have been based on Sieglinde's "O herstes Wunder" from DIE WALKEURE -- which I do agree that it sounds like -- and I keep thinking that "One Hand, One Heart" almost needs the breath control of a Bellini aria.) Singers who can do this, however, tend not to be quite so young themselves and might end up sounding too old and "artful." That's why I think the original Broadway cast got it just right: they actually do sound like teens, especially the guys playing the Jets -- who in most productions hardly seem as young as they're supposed to be.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Bellinilover said:


> I've always assumed Bernstein's conducting, rather than the singing of the leads, is the reason that _West Side Story _ is considered a classic. Carreras as Tony just couldn't seem to conceal his accent, while Te Kanawa (whom I normally love) sounded too operatic as Maria; I even thought Tatiana Troyanos's Anita sounded "wrong." In theory, I do think Tony and Maria can be sung by opera singers (it would be _great_ to hear a Maria who can truly cope with "I Have a Love"); Carreras and Te Kanawa just weren't the right ones. Very few opera singers, I think, bother to "simplify" their voices enough to sound idiomatic in Broadway show music. One of the few who did was the late tenor Jerry Hadley, whom I feel could have been a wonderful Tony opposite, perhaps, Dawn Upshaw as Maria.
> 
> It seems to me that inherent in _West Side Story_ are a few challenges that can probably never be ideally resolved by any cast. One of these is that the characters are teenagers, yet the sentiments they're trying to articulate are quite mature. So the leads need to sound young and "unspoiled" but at the same time cope with vocal demands beyond those which most musicals make. (For example, I remember reading somewhere that Maria's "I Have a Love" might have been based on Sieglinde's "O herstes Wunder" from DIE WALKEURE -- which I do agree that it sounds like -- and I keep thinking that "One Hand, One Heart" almost needs the breath control of a Bellini aria.) Singers who can do this, however, tend not to be quite so young themselves and might end up sounding too old and "artful." That's why I think the original Broadway cast got it just right: they actually do sound like teens, especially the guys playing the Jets -- who in most productions hardly seem as young as they're supposed to be.


I feel the same about the original recording of *Candide*. _Glitter and be gay_ is probably Bernstein's most difficult and most overtly operatic aria, and yet my favourite version of the piece to this day remains Barbara Cook's on the Original Cast Recording. She sings all the notes with accuracy, her diction is superb, and furthermore wrings every last ounce of humour out of it, without sounding arch. I like it more than any of the versions by more vocally entitled singers I've heard; June Anderson, Renee Fleming, even Dawn Upshaw.

In an interview I heard once, Cook stated that she was so young and inexperienced at the time she had no idea how difficult the piece was. Bernstein presented it to her and she just learned it and sang it. She says she listens to it now, and can't believe she was ever able to sing it! Youth and inexperience can sometimes have advantages!


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

GregMitchell said:


> I feel the same about the original recording of *Candide*. _Glitter and be gay_ is probably Bernstein's most difficult and most overtly operatic aria, and yet my favourite version of the piece to this day remains Barbara Cook's on the Original Cast Recording. She sings all the notes with accuracy, her diction is superb, and furthermore wrings every last ounce of humour out of it, without sounding arch. I like it more than any of the versions by more vocally entitled singers I've heard; June Anderson, Renee Fleming, even Dawn Upshaw.
> 
> In an interview I heard once, Cook stated that she was so young and inexperienced at the time she had no idea how difficult the piece was. Bernstein presented it to her and she just learned it and sang it. She says she listens to it now, and can't believe she was ever able to sing it! Youth and inexperience can sometimes have advantages!


Barbara Cook's is my favorite recording if it, too, followed by Dawn Upshaw's. I actually think that, from the listener's point of view, part of the thrill of "Glitter and Be Gay" lies in hearing a Broadway soprano sing very challenging music that pushes her right to her limit. This is what I get from Cook's rendition, whereas the opera singers' voices encompass the piece so easily that, paradoxically, some of the thrill disappears (for me, at least). Not that Cook sounds over-parted, but there is definitely an exciting sense that she's singing something technically beyond what she and most singers of her type usually sing.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

GregMitchell said:


> There is a little codicil to this. Apparently, when asked about casting for Tony, Lenny said "That Spanish guy," meaning Domingo and was rather surprised he got Carreras (he gave him a very hard time in the sessions, if you ever saw the video). I have no idea if this is true, but I so want it to be. :devil:


From what I read Bernstein thought he was getting Jerry Hadley to sing Tony and was surprised when Carerras showed up. The casting is ludicrous as he sounds as in-American as he can. The thing was made a best seller due to strong advertising, a very imaginative record cover and the fact that people wanted to hear Lennie conduct the score. But the whole thing is inappropriate.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> From what I read Bernstein thought he was getting Jerry Hadley to sing Tony and was surprised when Carerras showed up. The casting is ludicrous as he sounds as in-American as he can. The thing was made a best seller due to strong advertising, a very imaginative record cover and the fact that people wanted to hear Lennie conduct the score. But the whole thing is inappropriate.


Isn't that rather unlikely, given the fact that they wanted big names to sell the recording? I wouldn't have thought Hadley was well enough known at the time.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

GregMitchell said:


> Isn't that rather unlikely, given the fact that they wanted big names to sell the recording? I wouldn't have thought Hadley was well enough known at the time.


Hadley did sing Candide for Bernstein, though, not too long after that.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Bellinilover said:


> Hadley did sing Candide for Bernstein, though, not too long after that.


True - that was four years later though. Performances recorded in London with the London Symphony Orchestra, which were also given live in concert (there is a DVD of the event).

Hadley had sung Gaylord Ravenal in John McGlinn's seminal complete recording of *Show Boat* the previous year.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Except for some such as the Tosca with Callas and Gobbi and the Peter Grimes with Pears, conducted by Britten, it's really hard to label an entire production as "definitive" because there are just too many roles in a performance and are they ever all "definitive"? And then there's the orchestra and conductor to factor in too. It's really tough!!


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

PetrB- B...b....but, many of today's singers can do it 'all' -- and have done it 'all' -- i.e. they're simply, as any worthwhile musician is expected to be and was expected to be, able to negotiate the styles of the past up to the present day.

Come on Petr... that has never been true of singers. Singers have a range or an oeuvre that they focus upon. In part this is dictated by their personal tastes, but also it is a result of their abilities. A singer who is masterful at singing Faure melodies may not be suitable to performing Verdi or Wagner.


----------

