# Big problem for Metropolitan Opera opening night



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Hear, hear. Trouble brewing for the Met's opening night featuring _Anna Bolena_.

Come on, folks, I know that opera requires suspension of disbelief, but enough is enough.

How can someone believe that Henry VIII would have preferred this:










to this?










:lol::lol::lol:


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

No harder to believe than the astonishing idea that someone would prefer this:










to this:


----------



## AmericanGesamtkunstwerk (May 9, 2011)

the first production of Aida I saw, the titular princess was played by a woman who would've made a really good Maid in Romeo and Juliette... with no previous concept of plot, this made it impossible to follow. hahahaahha "is that her mom? why ramedes so attached to his lover's mother?"


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I saw *Ekaterina Gubanova *- who's in the first picture - live here last year (singing some Mahler songs at an orchestral concert). She did look a bit "hefty," but not as "big" as in that picture. Maybe that's just a bad photo, not representing her in a natural way. To me, she came across as being more like this photo I found of her below, but (then again) I saw her about a year ago, so she may well have put on weight since then...












Almaviva said:


> Hear, hear. Trouble brewing for the Met's opening night featuring _Anna Bolena_.
> 
> Come on, folks, I know that opera requires suspension of disbelief, but enough is enough.
> 
> ...


Well, maybe old Henry liked big women? Some guys do, you know?...


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

The original Anne Boleyn was charming and piquant rather than beautiful.










Jane Seymour was rather plainer but Henry found her restful and submissive after Anne's lively character.










Of course Henry was no oil painting (haha) himself at this point, already getting overweight and beginning to suffer from the stinking leg ulcer that dominated his last years.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Sid James said:


> I saw *Ekaterina Gubanova *- who's in the first picture - live here last year (singing some Mahler songs at an orchestral concert). She did look a bit "hefty," but not as "big" as in that picture. Maybe that's just a bad photo, not representing her in a natural way. To me, she came across as being more like this photo I found of her below, but (then again) I saw her about a year ago, so she may well have put on weight since then...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sid, the picture you have posted is of Anna, not of Ekaterina. Is it a mistake, or a joke? Sometimes without body language and tone of voice it's hard to tell, especially when there are no smileys to indicate what one is trying to accomplish.
What may explain the mistake is that sometimes when you do Google Image under a name (such as Ekaterina Gubanova's) pictures come up from web sites that quote her name AND someone else's name side by side. Since they are both starring in the upcoming Met Anna Bolena, Anna's picture may have popped up under your search. But the above picture is Anna Netrebko's, not Ekaterina Gubanova's, my point exactly - Anna is so much more attractive than Ekaterina!

@Natalie - independently of the historical veracity, it will still look weird to the audience that any man in his right state of mind would prefer plain Ekaterina to gorgeous Anna.


----------



## BalloinMaschera (Apr 4, 2011)

this thread is a little odd to me
I do understand fun and amusement, but...to me, the focus on appearances here, is a bit of a let down.

We get it; some people are more attractive than others. And singers are people.

$ 0.02


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

BalloinMaschera said:


> this thread is a little odd to me
> I do understand fun and amusement, but...to me, the focus on appearances here, is a bit of a let down.
> 
> We get it; some people are more attractive than others. And singers are people.
> ...


Yeah, we're bad boys and girls sometimes.
I think we do respect these artists (I was actually the one who proposed the Great Singers threads with the rationale that they should focus on singers' well, singing, instead of their physical attributes like the Lovely Sopranos and similar threads) for their art regardless of looks.
But sometimes, we reflect society here, and society does place disproportional value on looks.
We're just human beings. We're as seduced by hot looks as the next person. It doesn't stop me from admiring a Montserrat Caballé or a Joan Sutherland for their voices, but when we praise Anna's and Dmitri's looks, it's for a bit of fun.

Besides, we did a poll on this a couple of months back, with the question addressing whether members here were bothered by this emphasis on looks or not. Remember, the overwhelming majority said they weren't bothered (although I believe you were one of those who voted for being bothered if I'm not mistaken). I had pledged to refrain from this lowly behavior if the poll showed strong opposition to it from the membership, but it is not what happened, much the opposite. So, I continue to be bad from time to time.

So, the thread reflects what TC is... part of imperfect humankind.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Sid James said:


> Well, maybe old Henry liked big women? Some guys do, you know?...


Remember Benny Hill's character in the original _The Italian Job_?


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

BalloinMaschera said:


> this thread is a little odd to me
> I do understand fun and amusement, but...to me, the focus on appearances here, is a bit of a let down.
> 
> We get it; some people are more attractive than others. And singers are people.
> ...


I'm guilty but in a tongue in cheek sort of way.

I am totally in awe of what these guys do each and every time they get up on stage. Singing is natural but operatic singing ain't.

And not only do we expect them to sing every note to perfection & for us to hear that note even if we're sitting up amongst the spiders' webs but to sing that perfect note dressed as pumpkins or in 14 layers of medieval costume.

And we blame them for not making us believe they really are a love-lorn pumpkin/Will the Conq.


----------



## MAuer (Feb 6, 2011)

Sid James said:


> Well, maybe old Henry liked big women? Some guys do, you know?...


Not Henry, to judge from what I've read about him and his six wives. He was rather emphatically displeased by the tall, robustly healthy Anne of Cleves, who was apparently too tall and too robust for his tastes.

In any case, I've been looking forward to a DVD of the Met production with Anna as Anna . . . hope this doesn't change things


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

MAuer said:


> He was rather emphatically displeased by the tall, robustly healthy Anne of Cleves, who was apparently too tall and too robust for his tastes.


Actually he said she smelled bad and it put him off his stroke (only in rather more Renaissance language!)


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

*@ almaviva* - I didn't know that the pic I posted was Ms Netrebko, not Ms Gubanova. I'm not that good with this. But I think this kind of talks to the difference between shots made in the studio & live on stage at opera & in concert/recital (& also how I don't remember Ms Gubanova as looking like her in the photo you posted). I think my point still stands, that she may well have put on weight since then, so maybe you are right in her not being a good "fit" now, but in the end opera IS about suspension of disbelief, whether it's tragic or whimsical/comedy. Maybe an issue is that Ms Gubanova is also a good actor, which CAN make a difference, regardless of her appearance. There was a great stage actress of the past, I think it was Sarah Bernhardt, who played Juliet when she was pushing eighty, but critics said then it was the finest performance of this great actor's life...


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Sid James said:


> *@ almaviva* - I didn't know that the pic I posted was Ms Netrebko, not Ms Gubanova. I'm not that good with this. But I think this kind of talks to the difference between shots made in the studio & live on stage at opera & in concert/recital (& also how I don't remember Ms Gubanova as looking like her in the photo you posted). I think my point still stands, that she may well have put on weight since then, so maybe you are right in her not being a good "fit" now, but in the end opera IS about suspension of disbelief, whether it's tragic or whimsical/comedy. Maybe an issue is that Ms Gubanova is also a good actor, which CAN make a difference, regardless of her appearance. There was a great stage actress of the past, I think it was Sarah Bernhardt, who played Juliet when she was pushing eighty, but critics said then it was the finest performance of this great actor's life...


I know, Sid. There *are* pictures of Ms. Gubanova that aren't as bad as the one I picked. This entire thread is tongue-in-cheek. Don't worry, I actually like Ekaterina (it's just that I *love* Anna, LOL).


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Almaviva said:


> I know, Sid. There *are* pictures of Ms. Gubanova that aren't as bad as the one I picked. .


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Almaviva said:


> I know, Sid. There *are* pictures of Ms. Gubanova that aren't as bad as the one I picked.


Yes, the one that Natalie fished out (she's more thorogh than I am with these things) looks exactly how I remember Ms Gubanova when I saw her singing "in the flesh" a year ago (as I said, it was a concert performance, not in opera).



> This entire thread is tongue-in-cheek...


Well, I know you are a kind of whimsical person! I actually wouldn't have commented about this at all, had it not been for seeing Ms Gubanova last year & remembering her very differently compared to the photo of her you posted.



> Don't worry, I actually like Ekaterina (it's just that I *love* Anna, LOL).


I know exactly what you mean, I'm exactly the same with my favourite composers, but in the end I try not to compare them too much, just take them as they are, on their own terms, with their unique quirks, attributes & foibles. They're all good (& many of them not half as "attractive" to look at compared to either of these gorgeous ladies!!!)...


----------



## BalloinMaschera (Apr 4, 2011)

my feeling is that it's generally fine to point out that a singer or performer is attractive and becoming on stage.
however, singling someone out specifically for being unattractive- or less attractive than someone else , is... well, just not nice (even when meant in jest); i'd like to think that you wouldn't do that to someone in the flesh, so by extension it's not ok to do so online, either.

the internet should not give such commentary more latitute, than otherwise


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

BalloinMaschera said:


> my feeling is that it's generally fine to point out that a singer or performer is attractive and becoming on stage.
> however, singling someone out specifically for being unattractive- or less attractive than someone else , is... well, just not nice (even when meant in jest); i'd like to think that you wouldn't do that to someone in the flesh, so by extension it's not ok to do so online, either.
> 
> the internet should not give such commentary more latitute, than otherwise


I respectfully disagree with you on this, Ballo. Performers of theatrical arts put themselves out there on stage or on screen with their entire bodies and criticism is fair game. While I wouldn't say to the face of one of my acquaintances "you're less attractive than such and such" I believe it is absolutely fair game to criticize an actor/actress for their looks. We hear multiple times someone saying about a movie, stage play, or opera "I didn't like the casting of such and such for this role because he/she is unattractive, I would have preferred such and such instead." So if people do this in society, and this forum is a microcosm of society, I don't see why we need to hold ourselves to a higher standard. Like I said, society is imperfect, so am I, and I allow myself to misbehave from time to time. Besides, there is some degree of license for humor. Just think of political cartoons and the such. What a cartoonist does in these drawings intends to accentuate the unbecoming physical characteristics of his/her "target" for comic effect, and I haven't seen too many letters to the editor complaining that a cartoonist presented such and such in an unflattering way, for example making fun of the person's big nose. This thread was clearly humor, starting with the way I wrote the title and the first comment (you don't think there is real trouble brewing from this for the Met opening, do you?) and I deliberately picked an unflattering picture of Ms. Gubanova (not too different from drawing a cartoon of her that would accentuate those traits) to enhance the comic effect. It's fine that you think the humor was in bad taste, but I am absolutely unapologetic. There have been other threads (not authored by me) that have depicted these singers in unflattering pictures (like one about big mouths) and I see nothing wrong with this sort of comic relief.


----------



## BalloinMaschera (Apr 4, 2011)

I suppose you are right, on some level... standards (and choice of standards) are relative and personal in nature, and therefore the level of taste in commentary/posting delivery on TC is (fortunately) not really arguable

perhaps my own standards (even while allowing for the perceived injected humor) are simply not compatible with the original intention of the thread. 

We disagree; that's fine. So be it.

*blows a kiss**


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Yep, I'm content with my lower standards. If what is good for you is to have higher standards, it's your prerogative and I wish you the best. I agree to disagree with you, and blow you back another kiss.


----------



## MAuer (Feb 6, 2011)

mamascarlatti said:


> Actually he said she smelled bad and it put him off his stroke (only in rather more Renaissance language!)


http://englishhistory.net/tudor/monarchs/cleves.html

Evidently, she was both malodorous and unattractive -- at least from his point of view.


----------



## Sieglinde (Oct 25, 2009)

Liza is an idiot. Yeletzky (sp?) is hot, noble, gentle and has a gorgeous baritone voice... and Hermann is a neurotic with an addiction (or more - does he drink too?) even if a slimmer tenor sings him.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Some guys like hefty chicks. De gustibus non est disputandum . Not, me though.
I like the cute and curvaceous kind, not to big,not too small,.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

superhorn said:


> Some guys like hefty chicks. De gustibus non est disputandum . Not, me though.
> I like the cute and curvaceous kind, not to big,not too small,.


 It reminds me of the French movie _Trop belle pour toi.









_


----------



## Philmwri (Apr 8, 2011)

I think it's sad. Opera singers are being judged by their looks.I don't care if a singer is ugly or less cute if they can sing well.It's only natural for people to be attracted to good looking people but the voice should always be the determining factor.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Philmwri said:


> I think it's sad. Opera singers are being judged by their looks.I don't care if a singer is ugly or less cute if they can sing well.It's only natural for people to be attracted to good looking people but the voice should always be the determining factor.


 What's new? Most human beings are judged by their looks. It's the human condition. We're merely reflecting it. The voice *should* be the determining factor, sure, but it just isn't the *only* factor any longer. What you and Ballo are failing to realize is that the tides have changed. The raise of visual media has changed the equation. Talk to any opera house manager, and you'll see that these days looks and acting ability matter. You're trying to grab the past and keep it, but like everything else, the past is the past and you can't grab it forever. Things evolve, and like it or not, opera has evolved to become more visual than before, thanks to the new visual technology.

This thread was just for humor, maybe in bad taste. But it does reflect the larger question of survival of the art form. In this day and age, it won't survive without attractive artists. Call it shallow, but it's the reality, and pragmatic opera managers know it very well.

Just take a boxset like the M22, which contains a full and large sample of the next generation of young singers. The vast majority of them are attractive. Get a similar sampling of the singing pool 50 years ago and you'll see the exact opposite numbers. The older sample probably did sing better (it's hard to say), but it definitely didn't look as good, and like it or not (you and Ballo don't seem to like it), you can't stop the wheels of history.

Current opera scene = good looking singers who can act. Period. Maybe it's sad, I don't know. For me, it's just another development, and I take the good of it with the bad (it certainly adds to the enjoyment when you can see a gifted acting artist who is good looking and sings reasonably well). Is it unfair to the unattractive ones? Sure. But life is unfair.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

I don't quite agree.

To sing opera, you need to be a vocal artist. And it's very difficult to be a vocal artist. You need a lot of talent, and a lot of work.

It's not possible, like in pop music, just to get along with your looks.

It's true that looks help. Always, since Monteverdi onwards. And in the past, we had very beautiful singers, too: della Casa, Schwarzkopf, Moffo... just to name a few.

However, while it's true people today can not find believable an overweight soprano singing Traviata (hey, this was not believable for Verdi himself!), the most beautiful woman in the world, with three Tony awards in her career, singing badly, it will be for sure booed. Even at the MET, not to tell you what will happen at La Scala or other italian theaters.

Recently, I watched Tosca sung by Marco Berti and Violeta Urmana. Not the most attractive of singers, but they sung well and the public was very happy with their performance. Today, I will watch Tosca again, but with Sondra Radvanovsky and Jorge de Leon. Well, marginally more attractive, but not Hollywood material, either.

What's needed is, first and foremost, the voice and the big amount of work to develop that voice. Just because it's much more difficult, a talent much more rare, than the others. Then, acting abilities comes second, and can be learned, up to the point they are needed for most operas. And looks, well... let's say you just need to be reasonably fit for many roles, and that's about it.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

schigolch said:


> And in the past, we had very beautiful singers, too: della Casa, Schwarzkopf, Moffo... just to name a few.


I knew nothing about opera when I was a teenager. But, I can remember seeing a picture of Anna Moffo in one of the picture magazines popular back then (Look, Life, Saturday Evening Post?) and thinking, "That's an opera singer?" As a complete outsider, I had always thought opera singers had to look like Kate Smith (only they had to sing in an even stranger way).

It still wasn't enough to get me to look into opera, though.


----------



## BalloinMaschera (Apr 4, 2011)

Almaviva said:


> What's new? Most human beings are judged by their looks. It's the human condition. We're merely reflecting it. The voice *should* be the determining factor, sure, but it just isn't the *only* factor any longer. What you and Ballo are failing to realize is that the tides have changed. The raise of visual media has changed the equation. Talk to any opera house manager, and you'll see that these days looks and acting ability matter. You're trying to grab the past and keep it, but like everything else, the past is the past and you can't grab it forever. Things evolve, and like it or not, opera has evolved to become more visual than before, thanks to the new visual technology.
> 
> This thread was just for humor, maybe in bad taste. But it does reflect the larger question of survival of the art form. In this day and age, it won't survive without attractive artists. Call it shallow, but it's the reality, and pragmatic opera managers know it very well.
> 
> ...


I never said that I don't think that looks matter; in fact I agree that they do.

I just was not particularly taken by the mocking tone of the OP.

It was meant in jest, and to be humorous. I wasn't laughing, and clearly (some) others aren't either.

To have an operatic discussion solely on looks, strikes me as cheap and decidedly non-erudite (evidently by choice), rather than funny and/or entertaining.

Trust me, I know quite a bit about changing tides in the business of classical music; it's how I make a living.

$ 0.02 (again!)


----------



## rgz (Mar 6, 2010)

Philmwri said:


> I think it's sad. Opera singers are being judged by their looks.I don't care if a singer is ugly or less cute if they can sing well.It's only natural for people to be attracted to good looking people but the voice should always be the determining factor.


If it makes me shallow, than so be it. But watching the Voight - Dessay Ariadne auf Naxos, I couldn't help but think "_This_ is supposed to be a desirable princess?" I mean, obviously singing is paramount of importance, but if the performers don't look the part then it is impossible for me to be drawn into the story and I'm essentially left with a concert performance, not an opera.

Indeed, if voice is the only thing that matters and appearance / staging counts for nothing, then there is no reason to ever attend a live performance. The performance surely will not be up to the standards of some historical version recorded in the studio (where they could do take after take to get it perfect).


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

rgz said:


> Indeed, if voice is the only thing that matters and appearance / staging counts for nothing, then there is no reason to ever attend a live performance. The performance surely will not be up to the standards of some historical version recorded in the studio (where they could do take after take to get it perfect).


Well . . . there is always something to be said for the immediacy of a live performance, regardless of how the singer looks. Opera makes incredible demands on the performer. So many things can go wrong, yet it's so thrilling when everything goes right. Nothing can replace that sense of uncertainty and risk you get in a live performance--any more than watching a recording of a tightrope walker can ever be the same as seeing them perform live without a net.

This does not resolve the question about opera performers and their looks. But it does at least suggest that even the less visually attractive performers can still give us some memorable moments live on stage, as well as in the safety of the studio.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Of course amfortas is right, live performance is like reading a good thriller. Every performance is different.

I'm just back from a really nice one of _Tosca_ with three not very attractive singers in the cast (well, at least they are not very attractive to me), with a full house, and a tremendous standing ovation at the end. Nobody cared about looks or any other thing related to the physical aspect of the singers. Neither Violeta Urmana nor Sondra Radvanovsky are a beauty, nor do they resemble the Floria Tosca that Mario Cavaradossi and Scarpia adored. For sure they don't.

However, to more than two thousand people in the audience, this was not important at all, and both of these ladies get their fair share of 'bravas', and applauses. Today, after "Vissi d'arte", Sondra got an ovation of more than one minute by my clock.

And this is happening in 2011, in the hot month of July, in Madrid. Not in the times of Joan Sutherland or Montserrat Caballé.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

rgz said:


> If it makes me shallow, than so be it. But watching the Voight - Dessay Ariadne auf Naxos, I couldn't help but think "_This_ is supposed to be a desirable princess?" I mean, obviously singing is paramount of importance, but if the performers don't look the part then it is impossible for me to be drawn into the story and I'm essentially left with a concert performance, not an opera.
> 
> Indeed, if voice is the only thing that matters and appearance / staging counts for nothing, then there is no reason to ever attend a live performance. The performance surely will not be up to the standards of some historical version recorded in the studio (where they could do take after take to get it perfect).


This doesn't make you shallow, of course. 

It's just a matter of taste, and perhaps, of exposure.

There are many ways of enjoying opera. If you can't "suspend your disbelief" enough to buy that a good singer like Voigt is princess Ariadne, there is nothing wrong with that. Maybe with time, you will. Or maybe not. It's impossible that everybody likes everything.

On the other hand, you must also understand that for many people, it's not very important if Ms. Voigt resembles Ariadne or not, because for them the important thing is how she handles the role from a vocal point of view.

After more than 30 years of watching opera, I can tell you I've found people thinking one way or the other (I can assure you that, at least in Europe the second view is by far the more extended, but this doesn't mean a thing, just numbers, and Art is about what is meaning to you, to me, to each of us, as individuals), and there is no right or wrong here. Just taste and aesthetics convictions.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

schigolch said:


> This doesn't make you shallow, of course.
> 
> It's just a matter of taste, and perhaps, of exposure.
> 
> ...


While I still disagree with you, at least *you* are not saying that those who value (or criticize) singers' looks are shallow, cheap, non-erudite, or have low standards.

Maybe it's the American shallowness versus the European cultural traditions... maybe on this side of the pound we *are* more superficial... But while of course we do applaud and yell "brava" at the less attractive ladies who sing very well, it is in my opinion just an undeniable fact that the business of opera has been shifting to favor the attractive ones.

Not only this, but also the otherwise very good singers who also *do* happen to look good - two notable examples are Anna Netrebko and Jonas Kaufmann - *do* have an easier path to success.

More than 30 years of watching opera = well equipped to enjoy the art form regardless of singers' looks, given how you've witnessed the great ones. Unfortunately for the less than good-looking ones, your exposure is the exception rather than the rule, in today's public.

I profoundly disagree with the notion that it's business as usual for the less than attractive ones. It's nice that Violetta and Sondra got a standing ovation. They also happen to be veterans of the trade. Again, look at the M22 and the young crop. 95% of them look rather like Anna and Miah than like Violetta and Sondra.

In this day and age of DVD and blu-ray, the less attractive ones have a much harder time than when opera outside of the large metropolitan areas with live opera companies was exclusively enjoyed over vinyl LPs. I don't even understand how you guys can deny it. It seems quite obvious to me.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

It depends, for me dramatic soprano roles are 100% about the voice, they HAVE to be sung proficiently, supermodel looks aren't enough to forgive a weak voice. But lighter lyric soprano roles in comedies, who cares if the singer isn't flawless, let's have some eye candy. It also depends on the role, it's fairly awkward when characters refer to another character as a youthful awe-inspiring beauty when the singer is old and frumpy. Salome is probably the most awkward role of all time, the singer is expected be built with a Wagnerian voice AND also be able to seduce the audience with an erotic dance...


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

^This much is very true and we all understand it, but let me just focus on the point we've been really disagreeing about here (not me disagreeing with you, Couchie, I mean the thread as a whole).

The essential point of this debate - a debate that is interesting in itself, thus proving the validity of the idea of the thread, after all, even if there is debate on whether the original post was innocent fun or bad taste - is this:

Is the new environment with focus on visual media (there's been a lot more DVDs/blu-rays releases than landmark studio CD releases lately - orchestras/conductors/singers are rarely doing the latter these days as opposed to it being the norm a few decades ago - changing the ability of non-attractive singers to have a successful career, yes or no?

I'd like a show of hands to see what people think.

Regardless of this being right or wrong, sad or not, fair or unfair; regardless of the voter praising the change or feeling dismayed at the change, the question is: is it happening, yes or no? I repeat, I'm not interested in polling you guys for your OPINION on whether it's fair or unfair, shallow or not, in bad taste or not, just, on whether as far as you know and for a FACT, it is happening or not happening.

I don't think there is a way to insert a poll in the middle of a thread, so, please you all (participants of this thread or new readers of it), just say it and we'll count the votes: yes or no?

I say yes.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Something that brought home that to some extent beauty is increasingly important was the recent DVD of Ercole sul Termodonte, where the title role was required to be played stark naked. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Zachary Stains was cast for his physical beauty not his voice which is in my view rather painful to listen to.

That was a time when I definitely would have preferred the usual tubby bearded tenor who sounds lovely.

On the other hand given the choice between tubby tenor or Zachary, both with similar vocal abilities, I'll go for Zachary.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

^so I take your post as a "yes" to my question, right? Remember, the question is not about whether you agree with or welcome the change, but rather, whether the change is happening or not.


----------



## rgz (Mar 6, 2010)

Almaviva said:


> ^This much is very true and we all understand it, but let me just focus on the point we've been really disagreeing about here (not me disagreeing with you, Couchie, I mean the thread as a whole).
> 
> The essential point of this debate - a debate that is interesting in itself, thus proving the validity of the idea of the thread, after all, even if there is debate on whether the original post was innocent fun or bad taste - is this:
> 
> ...


I think unquestionably yes. As you note, opinions can differ on whether it is a positive or negative change.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

I vote yes.

But here's my two cents on the subject.

There's nothing you can do about your basic bone structure but you can certainly make the most of what you've got. I doubt whether a singer would risk having cosmetic surgery for fear of damaging their voice but there's plenty they can do.

The tubby bearded tenor could easily improve his visual appeal as there's no reason these days why a singer should be overweight (unlikely to be a medical problem in this case).

In Day in the Life of Madeleine Pierard says the Young Artists are provided with a personal trainer so the ROH sees the importance for a singer to not only have good stamina but also to look as good as they can.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Yes, I've seen an interview in Opera News with a young female singer saying that these days if she wants a job she needs to spend as much time in the gym as in the vocal classroom - which again proves my point that the business *is* changing. And even if plastic surgery seems a little extreme, well, we know that Hollywood actresses do it all the time to sculpt their bodies, so I wouldn't be surprised if opera singers started doing it as well.

And my final point once this is proven will be: if the business itself is changing, what is wrong with acknowledging it and going along with it, and even making some fun out of it? Nothing, I say. People need to move along with the times. Opera needs to survive, and it won't survive by placing 350-lbs singers who park and bark on stage.

The past is nice. It informs the present and can even help with predicting the future. But the past is past. It ain't coming back.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Well, I can't comment on Almaviva's specific question, esp. in terms of current opera productions (my knowledge of that area is not as comprehensive as many here). But in general or historic terms, this kind of thing - the attractiveness of performers - is not new (maybe I'm being too obvious here?). Liszt clearly had movie-star looks & this caused a number of ladies to faint at his recitals. These looks, coupled with Liszt's enormous wealth, caused (& still kind of causes) a lot of critics to rubbish him as superficial. Then they start on a tirade against his music, saying it's without substance, and this leads to a snowball effect of negativity & (imo) unreason (or "rubbery" reasoning at least).

& in terms of chamber or vocal groups that I see live "on the ground" here in Australia, there are quite a few of them that are mainly comprised of "good looking" younger members, or at least older members who've kept their age well. Some of these groups are well known here & have toured the world. Others are not as well known, eg. made up of young musicians fresh out of university. I must admit it does give me a kind of special pleasure to see these young people engaging in their art to such a high level. It's really a combination of factors, not only their looks (but sometimes, I do "go" for their looks!). By the same token, it's also good to see the "veterans" who have been in the game for decades, strut their stuff. There is deep experience there, a kind of "lived" knowledge which shines through to me.

So basically, it's a balance between the "looks" and the "goods," the beauty of youth and the "wisdom" of older age. Probably in opera, looks are more important for obvious reasons, maybe they always have kind of been. Maybe the old adage "it's not over until the fat lady sings" is kind of beginning to bite the dust now, talking to what people have said above about their favourite svelte sopranos of today?...


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

For the record, I think there is no bad taste involved in chatting about singers (or conductors, or members of the orchestra, or ....) looks, it's just innocent fun and have no problem with that.

On the other, and for me more interesting debate, again I think there is more than one side to it. For instance, Almaviva here (I use you just as an example, because you have shared with us this information, needless to say no pun or disrespect intended) is going to spend a little fortune in an expedition to the MET just to watch Anna Netrebko sings. Of course Ms. Netrebko has the looks and the voice. Will you go if her looks were, let's say, those of Ms. Gubanova, or if she were twenty five years older?. I guess only you can answer to this question.

What I can share with all members is that I know many fans, a lot of them. From teenagers, to senior people. I can tell you about two young boys doing crazy things to be able to buy some cheap flights and two tickets, just to listen to Mariella Devia sings Maria Stuarda. Ms. Devia was never the stunner, and at her age even less so.

I can also tell you about an older guy, in his mid thirties, that do everything in his power just to listen to Edita Gruberova sings. Last weekend, for instance, a Lucretia Borgia. Again, you all know Ms. Gruberova.

On a more personal note, I can tell you about myself last December, going thru a nightmare of shifting personal and professional commitments, just to be able to fly to Catania, and listen to Dimitra Theodossiou (again, not a likely candidate for a beauty contest) singing Beatrice di Tenda. It was not a big deal in terms of money in this case, but it was a major thing in terms of moving dates and meetings.

To my point: people, of all ages and conditions, love opera for different reasons. In my experience, one of the more common reasons (the most common, in fact) is they love singing. And they need this singing to be up to what they perceive as the highest possible standard. And they don't really mind a lot about looks, productions,...

There always will be a big number of these people. Not everyone will be just as prepared to travel or do "crazy" things, but for sure they will flock to the nearest theater to listen to their favourite vocal artist.

The CD/DVD business is a little bit different than the stage. With DVD we watch opera in a very 'untheatrical' way, with close-ups, and other stuff. And for this business, the looks are more important. But, as some member shared before, we don't need movie star looks. We just need reasonably fit people, with a good makeup. Because the really important thing is the singing. At least, if the singer wants to go to major opera houses, and get his share of applauses. Bad singing, in my view, is never (well, let's say is rarely) condoned. And if you pretend, for instance, to sing Violetta at La Scala, you better have a good voice and show it, or you are lined up for a major disaster, irrespective of your looks.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

And, yes, I do think that with the changes in the business, your road to stardom is easier if you also have the looks. Always had been, but with the DVD and the media exposure, it's more important today.

But the most critical thing, if you really want a career on the stage, it's still the voice.


----------



## BalloinMaschera (Apr 4, 2011)

I do like how this thread has evolved, now that the original question of looks has been put *into the operatic context*, by various participants. A discussion about looks, for the sake of looks, was never going to have very long legs, even if it was (at first) supposed to be funny.

I have clearly offended the OP; in his own words (which apparently can serve as an explanation for transgressions): life is unfair.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Sure, I never said that the voice was not important, and even prominent or principal.

What I've been saying is that the voice *alone* coupled with very unfortunate looks is often not enough for a *successful* career *these days* (let's not talk about veterans who have already made it - I'm actually thinking about the new crop - like I said, I was surprised at the very prevalent good looks of the young singers hired by the Salzburg festival for the M22 performances).

Exceptions will always exist both among the artists (some will still make it), and among the public (like your committed friends who don't care at all for singers' looks). I don't doubt that these folks exist. But I'm talking about the chances of the average prospective singer, and the tastes of the general opera public. The tide *is* turning against the unattractive ones.

If I'd go to see Anna if she looked like Ekaterina (I mean, if she looked like the picture I picked of Ekaterina for my OP, because actually Ekaterina looks a lot better than that)? I think I've answered this already. I'd get one of her CDs and would listen to it on my car sound system during my commute and trips and would be delighted with her voice. I wouldn't feel as compelled to go *see* her, especially, given the expenses (might still go if she came to my local opera company - which she would only do if she didn't look like she does... because with her actual looks, fat chance that she'll ever show up at the door of my local opera company).

I mean, it's not just Anna's looks (although they are the finest), but also her stage presence, her radiance, her playfulness, her acting ability. I'm kind of putting this all together on the account of looks. I mean, her physical presence.

Because if she only had the voice (and all the above elements sucked) then I'd still value her, but like I said, I'd probably get a CD of hers for $20 instead of spending a small fortune to *see* her. Doesn't it make some sense? Is it being shallow? I don't think so. It's a question of financial sense and motivation.

I do have Anna's CDs, mind you - like you said she's got the looks AND the voice.

But why would I necessarily go out of my way and spend a small fortune (some $2,500 all things considered) to *see* a visually unappealing artist with poor stage presence and poor acting whose only quality was her voice, if I could have her voice readily available with modern technology on my 8-speaker sound system with great acoustic effect? I could buy 125 CDs with the same money!!!

The point is, the easily availability of superior technology - perfect LPCM tracks on CD to be played in fantastically performing sound systems, crystal clear blu-ray image with DTS master sound track 7.1, etc., containing the voices and images of these artists, provides alternative venues for the fan, who then needs something more to be motivated to go the extra mile for a live performance.

Oh sure, there's nothing better than live opera. But easier said than done for someone like me who lives 14 hours away from a major opera house in terms of driving distance (much less by plane which is what I use to go there, but then the costs are much higher).

Would I go see Anna live if I still lived in New York City and she looked like my picture of Ekaterina? Sure. I used to live in the Upper West Side and could *walk* to Lincoln Center. But would I spend $2,500 in a 72-hour trip especially to *see* her in that case? No. I'd buy all of her CDs, and many other CDs, DVDs and blu-rays of other artists with that money.

Now, would I spend $2,500 in a 72-hour trip especially to *see* legendary opera singers like Montserrat Caballé, regardless of her looks? You bet.

But then, Ekaterina (I'm just using poor abused Ekaterina as an example - like I said I do like her, and think she is a talented artist with reasonable looks) is no Montserrat Caballé. Not even Anna is a Montserrat Caballé. And it's not every day that a Montserrat Caballé gets made.

And the way the business is changing, it will be more and more difficult for a new Montserrat Caballé to see the light of the day, even because of something like the size of the talent pool.

A 350-pound unattractive lady with a good voice may not even *get* to vocal training, because people may tell her - "well, you don't have a chance at a career in opera, go do something else." Sad, but true. She won't even get to be a part of the talent pool, to start her slow climb to success by dodging the competition.

One of these days a vocal teacher posted here on TC Opera video clips of three of his students, recent graduates. He asked for people's opinions about them, to give them feedback.

One of them was a rather fat, unattractive lady. Some of our members (not me) said loud and clear, "well, this one [name] should get to the gym and do something about her physical appearance, because she won't have a chance, looking like this."

Unfair, sad, but true.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

About Szalburg, I haven't watched those dvd's but I've asked a good friend of mine, one incredible expert on anything Mozart, and according to him the reason behind the young cast is one of budget. The quality of the singing is variable, it seems.

In my view, there is a disagreement about the "tastes of the general public". In my own experience, long in years, but also in contact with a large number of operagoers, both young and veteran, the most common taste, by far, is the singing and the voice. Even, if you want, the younger the fan, the more important for him the voice, over anything else.

This is what I experience, daily.

Of course, even if I know a large number of people, this is still a drop of water in an ocean, and the sample can just not be representative. But, may I suggest your view is perhaps also a little bit biased by an 'average US (or even "anglo-saxon") fan' point of view?. Believe me, I'm very open minded, and I *do* think looks are important, and becoming more important in our days. But if you were to share your views in, let's say, an spanish equivalent of TC, you will be surprised at the level of criticism they will arise. Less so in the general public, but for sure in an opera forum, those views will be frowned upon. Even if they are true, as I agree they are, up to a certain point.

I don't have that many US friends that are opera fans (a good reason for me to join TC!), in fact, the only US fan I really came to know well, and love, was an older person, an old ponsellite (perhaps one of the last persons alive to have watched Ponselle to sing in the MET), and he was all for the voice. So maybe I got this wrong, no problem, just thinking perhaps could be also a cultural bias involved.

About new singers, let me talk about one very promising young soprano, and from the US. She is Julianna Di Giacomo, and my prediction is she will rise to be a major star in a few years. Again, I can be wrong (it won't be the first time, if I was able to be right always about this kind of thing, I will be working as an artist manager, of course ), but let's say time will tell. About her looks, this is her picture:


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

schigolch, read post #36, I had already acknowledged the cultural difference across the pound there, and had already said that maybe it's a question of us Americans being more in tune with the culture of beauty as opposed to our friends across the pound who seem to be more in tune with singing traditions. 

This lady above is very nice looking in my opinion.

About your Spanish equivalent of TC, I guess this is also a question of culture - and how far people want to go in disclosing their real feelings - people being candid, versus being politically correct.

I think on TC we're quite outspoken. I see our members as a generally friendly bunch with little posturing or snobbery. I've seen other fora in which certain behaviors were considered a no-no and frowned upon, but I never felt people were being actually sincere, but rather going with the flow of the cultural norm and group expectations.

People will frequently refrain from appearing like they value too much the physical side of operatic artists because they'll be afraid of being labeled "shallow." But I wonder what they *really* think, deep inside.

About how this is perceived in Talk Classical (which does have a mixture of people from all over the world, but apparently we Americans do slightly predominate according to recent polls), before you joined I did take care of starting a poll to see if this kind of talk with a focus on singers' physical attributes was bothersome to members.

The result of this poll was that the overwhelming majority of members said that they weren't bothered.

So I guess this *is* a difference between TC and your Spanish equivalent.

About the M22 and the young cast - sure, of course they've been hired because it was expensive to produce 22 operas in a space of days, still with some of the most prominent singers in many of them (Anna Netrebko, Diana Damrau, etc.) so of course they had to fill the other roles with youngsters. 

But my point is, they had what I can only assume is a representative sample of the current generation of beginning professional singers (they did come from all over the place in terms of national origin). And most of them were very good looking!!!

I'm not saying that they were hired for their looks (even possible if you say that singing was uneven - although I did have a rather positive opinion of their singing, overall). It may be a conclusion to be drawn, but I'm not even going that far. What I'm saying is that, say, 40 years ago, if you gathered the same number (a representative sample) of young professional singers of that time, I'm prepared to bet my house that you wouldn't get such a huge proportion of attractive people as we got in the M22.

What I'm saying is that it looks like the people who are going into the operatic profession nowadays look better than their predecessors in previous generations, likely (it's my guess) because of the prominence of visual media now, which limits access to the less fortunate-looking ones.

I mean, it's not even me saying it. Like sospiro said, the young professional soprano from New Zealand who posted here - she looks just fine, by the way - said as much in her blog, and one of the young sopranos interviewed by Opera News Magazine (who has a pretty face but is a bit chubby) also said as much (the gym quote).

I don't think it can be denied, and I'm actually appalled that someone would try and deny this phenomenon. Like I said, in my opinion it's a rather obvious phenomenon.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

It is, just not so big as you think it is, in my opinion.

About the lady in the picture above, I'm not going to discuss her looks, this is something very individual, of course. What I can tell you, having watched her sing in the theater a few months ago, is that her weigth is much (very much) nearer two hundred than one hundred pounds, with a height of around 5'2" or 5'3" more or less. 

I can share another example in the rising soprano Mariola Cantarero. Or male singers like José Manuel Zapata, or Aquiles Machado, or Francisco Casanova or...

For each one that looks attractive, we can find one that doesn't. At least, from a conventional point of view. I do understand that beauty is, after all, in the eyes of the beholder, but we are talking average views here.

So, just for the sake of argument, let's say that the importance of looks was, 20 or 30 years ago, 15% for the average singer. I do think that today is 25 or even 30%. But the voice is still the most important thing for an opera singer, and it will likely ever be (at least while operatic singing is involved. Things can change further if microphone singing is allowed for traditional Verdi, or Massenet, or Wagner operas), just because is quite hard to get the gift in the first time, and then educate your voice. 

Do you think there is any active singer that owes his career to looks, more than his vocal prowess?. (Actually, I can think of at least one, and I can share it if you want, but I think is the exception, rather than the rule).


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

I don't disagree with you - maybe our only disagreement is on the degree of this phenomenon.

Look what I said myself in one of the reviews of Pucini's Edgar on DVD (and this may answer you other question too):



> The other female, Halla Margret, not only can't sing, but also can't act. She is not bad looking, though (it's her, on the cover), but this can't save her. I like my cute sopranos better when they can sing.


Another professional soprano who is incredibly bad is Montserrat Martí. It may be that she got in the business rather thanks to her famous mother (Caballé) than her looks, though. Nevertheless, she's much more fit and better looking than her mother. The voice apparently wasn't inherited, unfortunately.


----------



## BalloinMaschera (Apr 4, 2011)

@ Almaviva- I wish you a great trip and performances in NY... I may be going to some of those MET performances... Look for me; I'm a long legged, skinny, pretty, bitch.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

BalloinMaschera said:


> @ Almaviva- I wish you a great trip and performances in NY...


Thanks.


> I may be going to some of those MET performances... Look for me; I'm a long legged, skinny, pretty, bitch.


Thanks, but no, thanks.
Thread closed.


----------

