# MEZZO/CONTRALTO TOURNAMENT (Semifinal 2): Bumbry vs Mantelli



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

Grace Bumbry, USA, 1937- (defeated Rachvelishvilli 13-3, Cossotto 7-6)

https://www.talkclassical.com/71137-mezzo-contralto-tournament-round.html

https://www.talkclassical.com/71349-mezzo-contralto-tournament-quarterfinal.html






Eugenia Mantelli, Italy, 1860-1926 (defeated Horne 9-6, Podles 9-3)

https://www.talkclassical.com/71225-mezzo-contralto-tournament-round.html

https://www.talkclassical.com/71336-mezzo-contralto-tournament-quarterfinal.html






'Stride la vampa' from Verdi's _Il Trovatore_.

Who's singing did you prefer and why?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The difference in recording quality here is so extreme that these singers can't really be compared with respect to the impact of their vocal sound. Bumbry's voice is presented in its full brilliance; Mantelli might be singing inside a cigar box. Nonetheless the precision of Mantelli's singing, all the little notes and trills in place, wins the day for me. I have no doubt, based on this and the other recordings we've heard, that hers was an exciting voice to hear in the flesh.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Both are great. Bumbry was very stirring and I prefer her as a mezzo. Mantelli won this by negotiating the coloratura and the trill better, which figure prominently in this aria, and having a slightly more beautiful voice.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

We have become so used to mezzos not articulating all the grace notes and trills that it comes as quite a surprise when a singer executes them so cleanly, which is why I am giving this to Mantelli, despite a recording which no doubt doesn't do her any justice. She was clearly quite an exceptional singer.


----------



## Parley (May 29, 2021)

As has been said, there is no comparison as the recordings cannot compare sonically. The only way you can judge is to actually hear the artists in the same acoustic with the same recording techniques. As it is Mantelli sounds feeble, but how much of this is due to the recording is anyone's guess.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Parley said:


> As has been said, there is no comparison as the recordings cannot compare sonically. The only way you can judge is to actually hear the artists in the same acoustic with the same recording techniques. As it is Mantelli sounds feeble, but how much of this is due to the recording is anyone's guess.


Even with the poor recording you can still hear how Mantelli is better at articulating the fioritire. I was actually surprised at how clumsy Bumbry was here. I expected her to be better, especially considering she sang both Adalgisa and Norma.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Tsaraslondon said:


> Even with the poor recording you can still hear how Mantelli is better at articulating the fioritire. I was actually surprised at how clumsy Bumbry was here. I expected her to be better, especially considering she sang both Adalgisa and Norma.


I agree about Bumbry and Bellini!!!!!!!


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Here I am probably alone again but it is Bumbry by a mile for me. Love her sound.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Parley said:


> As has been said, there is no comparison as the recordings cannot compare sonically. The only way you can judge is to actually hear the artists in the same acoustic with the same recording techniques. As it is Mantelli sounds feeble, but how much of this is due to the recording is anyone's guess.


I grant that both imagination and charity are needed in listening to a recording such as Mantelli's here. I mean, just listen to how pathetic that piano sounds! But there's more to understanding and enjoying these ancient documents than mere guesswork. It really is possible to supply mentally some of the missing qualities in acoustic recordings of voices, but this requires a lot of experience in listening to recordings made over the roughly 60 years between the advent of recording and the post WWII era. It's especially helpful to hear recordings by singers whose careers spanned much of that period, or at least the period of the transition between acoustic and electrical recording. Very good illustrations of the ways in which recording processes affected the sounds of voices are heard in recordings of Rosa Ponselle, Beniamino Gigli and Riccardo Stracciari made before and after that transition, and from the knowledge we gain in listening to these singers and others we can gain a fair idea of the voices of other singers we know only from their pre-electrical recordings. For that matter, there were sufficient improvements in acoustical recordings to tell us much about the voices of singers such as Caruso, who died before the advent of electrical recording but whose later recordings give a much fuller picture of the timbre of his voice than those made at the start of his recording career. It's true that we'll never know exactly how many 19th- and early-20th-century singers sounded (singers of that era often expressed dislike of what they heard on playback), but the more we listen the closer we can come to a just appreciation of how they sang and a sense of the impact their voices would have had. Good vocal technique, such as Mantelli exhibits clearly, is almost impossible to disguise even by the poorest recordings. I do understand that many people will never be able to enjoy some of these relics, but those who can will find them indispensable to understanding the potentialities of the human voice.


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

Mantelli for me. I agree with Woodduck, Seattleoperafan and Tsaraslondon and don't have much to add: a beautifully sung, articulate performance, I think we're really lucky that it has survived.


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

In every recording Mantelli's virtuosity is apparent despite the admitted limitations. Her voice is natural, fluid, able to sustain long lines with subtle inflections, and never sounds uncontrolled or effortful.



Woodduck said:


> It's especially helpful to hear recordings by singers whose careers spanned much of that period, or at least the period of the transition between acoustic and electrical recording.


I think this is an important and fascinating issue. In fact I was just listening last night to two recordings of Carmen Melis, Tebaldi's teacher. One was made in 1911 and one in 1929, and the difference was extraordinary. The 1911 recording overaccentuated the bright part of her voice, making the sound shrill and off-putting, and it was a revelation to hear her in 1929 suddenly add a whole new dimension to her voice. On the other hand, there are a few singers who made acoustic recordings that were obviously highly technically accomplished on the engineering level and their voices don't really sound all that different on electricals made shortly thereafter. Overall, though, the average case seems to be that acoustics distort female voices especially by shaving off the darker qualities that give the voice a more rounded sound.

Honestly though, I've gotten to the point where I find even this Mantelli recording quite enjoyable. The voice doesn't come across as shrill or harsh, but rather quite round and liquid. I actually prefer the sound of her voice even as rendered here to Bumbry's, though I think Bumbry was a very good singer with a great voice. There are still acoustics that scare me off and singers whose voices clearly did not take well to the recording process, but overall I've really come to appreciate the beauty that is still there despite all the limitations.


----------



## Esclarmonde (May 10, 2021)

nina foresti said:


> Here I am probably alone again but it is Bumbry by a mile for me. Love her sound.


I don't understand the reasoning behind choosing Mantelli.

Votes for her, and other artists recorded using primitive technology, seem to be based more on the formation of beliefs based on what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than on evidence, rationality, or reality.

Brava Bumbry!


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Esclarmonde said:


> I don't understand the reasoning behind choosing Mantelli.
> 
> Votes for her, and other artists recorded using primitive technology, seem to be based more on the formation of beliefs based on what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than on evidence, rationality, or reality.
> 
> Brava Bumbry!


So the scores and scores of very very serious opera aficionados who rave about Ponselle and Stignani and Flagstad and early Callas are all deceived or have poor judgement in singers??????????? By saying this I am not diminishing what a wondeful singer Bumbry was.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Esclarmonde said:


> I don't understand the reasoning behind choosing Mantelli.
> 
> Votes for her, and other artists recorded using primitive technology, seem to be based more on the formation of beliefs based on what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than on evidence, rationality, or reality.
> 
> Brava Bumbry!


Even making allowances for the primitive recording techniques, surely you can hear that Mantelli clearly articulates the fioriture Verdi wrote into the aria, whilst Bumbry does not. I'm not imagining that she clearly articulates the fioriture. I can hear it for myself. Does the score not matter?

Incidentally, this rather surprised me in the Bumbry performance as she was a great believer in obeying the written score and once observed that if you were to write down what Callas sang, you would write down exactly what the composer wrote, every expression mark, every trill.


----------



## Parley (May 29, 2021)

Esclarmonde said:


> I don't understand the reasoning behind choosing Mantelli.
> 
> Votes for her, and other artists recorded using primitive technology, seem to be based more on the formation of beliefs based on what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than on evidence, rationality, or reality.
> 
> Brava Bumbry!


It is of course not based on rationality but imagination, as you say. You simply cannot hear what the voice might be like. To me it sounds weak and pallid but of course peopke in the know reckon they can hear things that are simply not on the oscilloscope.


----------



## Parley (May 29, 2021)

Esclarmonde said:


> I don't understand the reasoning behind choosing Mantelli.
> 
> Votes for her, and other artists recorded using primitive technology, seem to be based more on the formation of beliefs based on what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than on evidence, rationality, or reality.
> 
> Brava Bumbry!


It is of course not based on rationality but imagination, as you say. You simply cannot hear what the voice might be like. To me it sounds weak and pallid but of course peopke in the know reckon they can hear things that are simply not on the oscilloscope. They are of course entitled to their opinion but I do not believe it is based on the ears but rather on the imagination


----------



## Parley (May 29, 2021)

Seattleoperafan said:


> So the scores and scores of very very serious opera aficionados who rave about Ponselle and Stignani and Flagstad and early Callas are all deceived or have poor judgement in singers??????????? By saying this I am not diminishing what a wondeful singer Bumbry was.


What we are saying is that a very primitive recording like the example given cannot possibly convey was a singer was like. I had a recording of a Callas Aida and gave it away because it simply gave no pleasure as the recording was so bad there was no idea of what a great singer was like. You had to imagine what it might have been like. But he's not denigration of Callas but just saying, as recorded, there is no idea of her true voice. Of course, with Stignani and Flagstad and even early Callas we have recordings which do at least tolerably show what the voice was actually like.


----------



## Azol (Jan 25, 2015)

Late to the party, but Mantelli easily wins this round with her technically superb rendition and hitting all the right emotional chords with me. I'm quite surprised not having voted for Grace Bumbry!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Parley said:


> *It is of course not based on rationality but imagination*, as you say. You simply cannot hear what the voice might be like. To me it sounds weak and pallid but *of course peopke in the know reckon they can hear things that are simply not on the oscilloscope. They are of course entitled to their opinion but I do not believe it is based on the ears but rather on the imagination*


A preference for the singing of Mantelli over that of Bumbry is not "based on" either imagination or rationality, whatever that might mean. It's based on what the singer actually does with her voice and with the music, which is perfectly audible and comprehensible to anyone who can hear vocal skill and read music. Mantelli executes the music clearly and easily; Bumbry gives us the approximation we generally get from mezzos singing this aria. Some of us hear this and prefer Mantelli's skill over Bumbry's more accurately recorded sound, and do not care to have people more dependent for their enjoyment on sonic qualities questioning our rationality.

I said at the end of post #9, "Good vocal technique, such as Mantelli exhibits clearly, is almost impossible to disguise even by the poorest recordings. *I do understand that many people will never be able to enjoy some of these relics, but those who can will find them indispensable to understanding the potentialities of the human voice.*" In saying that, I show respect for those whose preferences are different from mine. Please try to do similarly.


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

We don't just have our ears to go by... This is what Mantelli's recording looks like as a spectrogram - first on a linear frequency scale then logarithmic where you can see more detail.















(The louder parts of the signal are brighter: if it is visible it means that it is audible)

If we take Bumbry's recording, mono it and cut everything above 4000Hz and below 200Hz we get this similar-looking approximation:















Here is how that truncated MP3 version sounds:





Barring the MP3 quality, isn't most of the critical information still apparent?

I know that the truncated-looking version by Mantelli 'looks' wrong but the middle is where the key info is for voices. Perhaps it is surprising that big chunks of the frequency range can be removed and yet we still have a good idea what is going on?

It probably shouldn't be too much of a surprise given that we manage just fine with bad quality phone calls, video conferencing, radio signals and cope with background noise in our everyday life.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Revitalized Classics said:


> We don't just have our ears to go by... This is what Mantelli's recording looks like as a spectrogram - first on a linear frequency scale then logarithmic where you can see more detail.
> View attachment 156580
> 
> View attachment 156581
> ...


The spectrograms don't look similar to me. On the Bumbry all frequencies are clear right to the cutoff point. On the Mantelli there appears to be a gradual loss toward the margins, as one would expect with an acoustical recording, so that in addition to the absolute losses a fair amount of what you call the "key information" is compromised. Vocal timbre is very much a product of these marginal frequencies, which is why the voices as recorded of sopranos of the acoustic age tend to have a peculiar, shallow, flutey or childlike quality in common. Birgit Nilsson was recorded using the acoustic process, and the striking brilliance of timbre which made Nilsson Nilsson was almost entirely absent - exposing, to her horror, the less attractive qualities of her singing.


----------



## Parley (May 29, 2021)

Woodduck said:


> A preference for the singing of Mantelli over that of Bumbry is not "based on" either imagination or rationality, whatever that might mean. It's based on what the singer actually does with her voice and with the music, which is perfectly audible and comprehensible to anyone who can hear vocal skill and read music. Mantelli executes the music clearly and easily; Bumbry gives us the approximation we generally get from mezzos singing this aria. Some of us hear this and prefer Mantelli's skill over Bumbry's more accurately recorded sound, and do not care to have people more dependent for their enjoyment on sonic qualities questioning our rationality.
> 
> I said at the end of post #9, "Good vocal technique, such as Mantelli exhibits clearly, is almost impossible to disguise even by the poorest recordings. *I do understand that many people will never be able to enjoy some of these relics, but those who can will find them indispensable to understanding the potentialities of the human voice.*" In saying that, I show respect for those whose preferences are different from mine. Please try to do similarly.


I show respect for those who differ from me while reserving the right to my opinion and giving you the right to yours without rancour. Unfortunately whatever the rights and wrong is of the technique it is impossible for me to enjoy them on such an elderly recording. Please respect my opinion


----------



## Parley (May 29, 2021)

Woodduck said:


> The spectrograms don't look similar to me. On the Bumbry all frequencies are clear right to the cutoff point. On the Mantelli there appears to be a gradual loss toward the margins, as one would expect with an acoustical recording, so that in addition to the absolute losses a fair amount of what you call the "key information" is compromised. Vocal timbre is very much a product of these marginal frequencies, which is why the voices as recorded of sopranos of the acoustic age tend to have a peculiar, shallow, flutey or childlike quality in common. Birgit Nilsson was recorded using the acoustic process, and the striking brilliance of timbre which made Nilsson Nilsson was almost entirely absent - exposing, to her horror, the less attractive qualities of her singing.


Nilsson's reaction was that she never wanted to hear it again! "That's not me!" She was right of course because a lot of her vocal quality was missed out. You cannot judge a singer by these recordings.


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> The spectrograms don't look similar to me. On the Bumbry all frequencies are clear right to the cutoff point. On the Mantelli there appears to be a gradual loss toward the margins, as one would expect with an acoustical recording, so that in addition to the absolute losses a fair amount of what you call the "key information" is compromised. Vocal timbre is very much a product of these marginal frequencies, which is why the voices as recorded of sopranos of the acoustic age tend to have a peculiar, shallow, flutey or childlike quality in common. Birgit Nilsson was recorded using the acoustic process, and the striking brilliance of timbre which made Nilsson Nilsson was almost entirely absent - exposing, to her horror, the less attractive qualities of her singing.


One of the ways used more recently to enhance the sound of old recordings is boosting the various EQ bands to resemble a modern recording. This has only really been practical since software got more flexible and costs came down.

Re: Mantelli, a pretty hefty boost is required to make it resemble the frequency spectrum of Bumbry's recording







Yellow line = Mantelli, Blue line = Bumbry, Red line is the EQ applied: note the big spike required by the software at the singers' formant which, as you mentioned adds the necessary brilliance particularly to voices like Nilsson's.

Which sounds like this - only partially addressing the flutey sound you mention but also making the background noise more conspicuous





Will be interesting to see where remastering software improves in the future.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Parley said:


> I show respect for those who differ from me while reserving the right to my opinion and giving you the right to yours without rancour. Unfortunately whatever the rights and wrong is of the technique it is impossible for me to enjoy them on such an elderly recording. Please respect my opinion


You said that people who appreciate singers on acoustical recordings do so because they're imagining things rather than using their rationality. That is a misconception. I have corrected you.

These things are not hard to grasp:

1.) If you're incapable of enjoying what you hear on acoustic recordings, don't listen to them.

2.) If "respect" for people's statements concerns you, don't make presumptuous judgments about their mental processes. People bring to the listening process imagination, rationality, experience, knowledge, expectation, prejudice, taste, and more. No one can or should speak for anyone else's perceptions.

Did I miss anything, David?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Revitalized Classics said:


> One of the ways used more recently to enhance the sound of old recordings is boosting the various EQ bands to resemble a modern recording. This has only really been practical since software got more flexible and costs came down.
> 
> Re: Mantelli, a pretty hefty boost is required to make it resemble the frequency spectrum of Bumbry's recording
> View attachment 156601
> ...


That does add a bit of bite or edge to the voice, along with what sounds like some reverb. It sounds like she's across the room from the horn or microphone. I'm not sure how much more true to life it is, but I can't say I find it pleasant. It is, as you say, noisy.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Perhaps it might be fairer if they had two acoustical singers doing the same aria. That way we'd be able to acquaint ourselves with the same kind of technical issues.
Just sayin'.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

nina foresti said:


> Perhaps it might be fairer if they had two acoustical singers doing the same aria. That way we'd be able to acquaint ourselves with the same kind of technical issues.
> Just sayin'.


It might at least remove the temptation for certain people to disparage acoustical recordings and the rationality of those who can appreciate them.

But it might not...


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

The Nilsson example is perfect because those who heard her live -- including Nilsson herself -- famously say that her recordings, that is, her modern, stereo recordings, don't do her voice any justice and that they don't like how they sound. Clearly we are therefore incapable of making any judgment as to whether or not Birgit Nilsson was a great singer and anyone who says otherwise simply has an overactive imagination.


----------



## Esclarmonde (May 10, 2021)

Seattleoperafan said:


> So the scores and scores of very very serious opera aficionados who rave about Ponselle and Stignani and Flagstad and early Callas are all deceived or have poor judgement in singers??????????? By saying this I am not diminishing what a wondeful singer Bumbry was.


Not at all. 
My intention was to highlight the subjective nature of listening tests.
Acoustical recordings draw on our subjective resources more than others.

Electrical recordings seem to allower a truer indication of the voice.
I adore La Divina - and I admit to listening beyond the recording.

One is fruitful only at the cost of being rich in contradictions.


----------



## Esclarmonde (May 10, 2021)

Tsaraslondon said:


> Even making allowances for the primitive recording techniques, surely you can hear that Mantelli clearly articulates the fioriture Verdi wrote into the aria, whilst Bumbry does not. I'm not imagining that she clearly articulates the fioriture. I can hear it for myself. Does the score not matter?
> 
> Incidentally, this rather surprised me in the Bumbry performance as she was a great believer in obeying the written score and once observed that if you were to write down what Callas sang, you would write down exactly what the composer wrote, every expression mark, every trill.


I can hear Mantelli articulating the fioriture.
My aunt manages the fioriture quite nicely too - she's a fine singer.

However, if I were heading to the opera, I would choose Bumbry over my aunt any night.


----------



## Esclarmonde (May 10, 2021)

Woodduck said:


> You said that people who appreciate singers on acoustical recordings do so because they're imagining things rather than using their rationality. That is a misconception. I have corrected you.
> 
> These things are not hard to grasp:
> 
> ...


I have enjoyed the passion of this discussion. 
If I have offended anyone, please accept my apologies.

My thoughts were not intended to disparage. 
In fact - I think I am in agreement with many of the sentiments expressed. 
Listening is a subjective art.
And those early recordings draw on the imagination in all its fullness.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Esclarmonde said:


> I have enjoyed the passion of this discussion.
> If I have offended anyone, please accept my apologies.
> 
> My thoughts were not intended to disparage.
> ...


No grudges held...but the following statement does not state the reality of the case:
_
"Votes for [Mantelli], and other artists recorded using primitive technology, seem to be based more on the formation of beliefs based on what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than on evidence, rationality, or reality."_ (post #12)

If nothing else, you might acknowledge the sheer number of people - and note their credentials - who speak articulately and appreciatively of singers whose vocal timbres we can't hear as they were heard in life, and ask what they hear that makes them speak thus. Sonic impact is only a part of the power of a singer, and for many - including particularly other singers, of whom several participate on this forum - not necessarily the largest part. Admittedly, it's the part that most easily grabs our attention and provides the visceral thrill we all enjoy and which is sufficient for many - or, conversely, the part that makes even some justly renowned singers impossible for some of us to like. I'm as susceptible to the seduction of a beautiful, powerful voice as anyone, I recognize such reactions as primarily subjective, and I would never argue with anyone about them. But I relish a good argument about vocal technique, musicianship, style, or dramatic interpretation, and the evidence for these remains largely uncompromised by early recording technologies. As I think you'll agree, we're free to weight these factors in whatever way we please in forming our own tastes. Anyone may legitimately prefer a recording of "Di provenza il mar il suol" by Sherrill Milnes from 1970 to one of Mattia Battistini from 1906. But those who rate Battistini's superior are bringing plenty of evidence, rationality and reality to bear, and many can explain their preference quite cogently.


----------



## Esclarmonde (May 10, 2021)

Woodduck said:


> No grudges held...but the following statement does not state the reality of the case:
> _
> "Votes for [Mantelli], and other artists recorded using primitive technology, seem to be based more on the formation of beliefs based on what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than on evidence, rationality, or reality."_ (post #12)
> 
> If nothing else, you might acknowledge the sheer number of people - and note their credentials - who speak articulately and appreciatively of singers whose vocal timbres we can't hear as they were heard in life, and ask what they hear that makes them speak thus. Sonic impact is only a part of the power of a singer, and for many - including particularly other singers, of whom several participate on this forum - not necessarily the largest part...]


Indeed…no grudges held.

And I, too, hold to my original statement.

As much as one may play down the quality of the recorded voice favouring discussion of technique, musicianship, style and dramatic interpretation - all of which are vital - if one cannot hear a reasonable representation of the voice, one cannot evaluate the voice fairly.

And perhaps that is where we differ. My imagination cannot stretch as far.
Listening is a subjective art - full of imagination.
And those early recordings draw on the imagination in all its fullness.

Hopefully, these acoustical recordings are an acquired taste, and the sheer numbers of credentialed people who agree with you may persuade me otherwise. Although wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> It might at least remove the temptation for certain people to disparage acoustical recordings and the rationality of those who can appreciate them.
> 
> But it might not...


It so happens I am one of those lucky ones who, after being trained on the Maplesons, am actually able to enjoy those delicious old recordings as I wash away the background hisses and sounds that serve to distort the voice quality. 
In the case of Mantelli, what I was hearing was not so much her fine technique but the actual voice sound which didn't happen to appeal to me as much as Bumbry's did. I chose purely on the beauty of the voice alone in this particular case.
Now it is entirely possible that the recording distorted her sound to a more light Pons-like voice (the kind I don't prefer in a singer) but I cannot be sure and that is why I suggested that both voices being considered should both have the same quality of sound technically.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> No grudges held...but the following statement does not state the reality of the case:
> _
> "Votes for [Mantelli], and other artists recorded using primitive technology, seem to be based more on the formation of beliefs based on what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than on evidence, rationality, or reality."_ (post #12)
> 
> If nothing else, you might acknowledge the sheer number of people - and note their credentials - who speak articulately and appreciatively of singers whose vocal timbres we can't hear as they were heard in life, and ask what they hear that makes them speak thus. Sonic impact is only a part of the power of a singer, and for many - including particularly other singers, of whom several participate on this forum - not necessarily the largest part. Admittedly, it's the part that most easily grabs our attention and provides the visceral thrill we all enjoy and which is sufficient for many - or, conversely, the part that makes even some justly renowned singers impossible for some of us to like. I'm as susceptible to the seduction of a beautiful, powerful voice as anyone, I recognize such reactions as primarily subjective, and I would never argue with anyone about them. But I relish a good argument about vocal technique, musicianship, style, or dramatic interpretation, and the evidence for these remains largely uncompromised by early recording technologies. As I think you'll agree, we're free to weight these factors in whatever way we please in forming our own tastes. Anyone may legitimately prefer a recording of "Di provenza il mar il suol" by Sherrill Milnes from 1970 to one of Mattia Battistini from 1906. But those who rate Battistini's superior are bringing plenty of evidence, rationality and reality to bear, and many can explain their preference quite cogently.


Woodduck:
I am grateful for your 2 examples even though perhaps I would have preferred to hear another voice as competition to Battistini's in the acoustic vein to seem fairer, because I must admit that I am not a particular fan of Milnes whereas I am a big fan of Battistini's voice so I would once again feel my vote for Battistini somehow wouldn't have been fair in the first place.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Esclarmonde said:


> Indeed…no grudges held.
> 
> And I, too, hold to my original statement.


That statement was: _"Votes for [Mantelli], and other artists recorded using primitive technology, seem to be based more on the formation of beliefs based on what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than on evidence, rationality, or reality."_

I'm sorry to hear that you feel unable to modify a statement like that. How is it to be understood as anything but a putdown? Do you expect us to assume that when you accuse us of being captive to mere "beliefs," of lacking evidence, and of being deficient in rationality and out of touch with reality, no insult is intended?

That's asking a lot.



> As much as one may play down the quality of the recorded voice favouring discussion of technique, musicianship, style and dramatic interpretation - all of which are vital - if one cannot hear a reasonable representation of the voice, one cannot *evaluate the voice* fairly.


What we have here appears to be a problem of meaning and purpose. You're arguing within the boundaries of your own limited definitions and assumptions. "Evaluating a voice" means much more than expressing a feeling about the sound of a voice. But even when more expansively and accurately defined, "evaluating a voice" is only a part of what we're asked to do here. This thread is titled "Who sang it better?" - not "Whose vocal sound makes more of an impact on you?" If your appreciation of singing extends scarcely farther than the latter consideration, you're simply not fully addressing the subject at hand. You certainly have a right to that approach, but it doesn't entitle you to be dismissive of those who are concerned with more than the acoustical impact of singers, singers whose extraordinary technical skill and fascinating artistry may be vividly apparent, despite inferior reproduction, to those who know what to listen for, and who consider such factors important in answering the thread's title question.



> *Hopefully, these acoustical recordings are an acquired taste*, and the sheer numbers of credentialed people who agree with you may persuade me otherwise. Although wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.


Whether or not you can ever enjoy the recordings of Patti, Plançon, Urlus or Tetrazzini, do consider the possibility that those who can are perceiving reality and not seeing unicorns. It may even give you something to look forward to!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

nina foresti said:


> Woodduck:
> I am grateful for your 2 examples even though perhaps I would have preferred to hear another voice as competition to Battistini's in the acoustic vein to seem fairer, because I must admit that I am not a particular fan of Milnes whereas I am a big fan of Battistini's voice so I would once again feel my vote for Battistini somehow wouldn't have been fair in the first place.


I chose those examples precisely because one was an acoustic recording and one was not. See post #33 for the rationale.


----------



## Esclarmonde (May 10, 2021)

Esclarmonde said:


> As much as one may play down the quality of the recorded voice favouring discussion of technique, musicianship, style and dramatic interpretation - *all of which are vital* - if one cannot hear a reasonable representation of the voice, one cannot evaluate the voice fairly.





Woodduck said:


> What we have here appears to be a problem of meaning and purpose. *You're arguing within the boundaries of your own limited definitions and assumptions*. "*Evaluating a voice" means much more than expressing a feeling about the sound of a voice.* But even when more expansively and accurately defined, "evaluating a voice" is only a part of what we're asked to do here. This thread is titled "Who sang it better?" - not "Whose vocal sound makes more of an impact on you?" If your appreciation of singing extends scarcely farther than the latter consideration, you're simply not fully addressing the subject at hand.


Now, now. I suspect you're purposely misrepresenting me now.

Did you ignore my premise that technique, musicianship, style and dramatic interpretation are vital to any evaluation?

I suspect you're electing to be imperceptive to fan a few flames.

I will take my limited definitions and assumptions at your suggestion - and chase a few of those unicorns.

Although my partner refuses to have Mantelli played for fear of scaring the heavy-metal-loving neighbours.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Esclarmonde said:


> Now, now. I suspect you're purposely misrepresenting me now.


Not at all. I addressed your exact words - the words you apparently still stand by.



> Did you ignore my premise that technique, musicianship, style and dramatic interpretation are vital to any evaluation?


I didn't ignore it. I merely see nothing in your remarks to indicate that those things actually matter much to you, at least in this case. Your very first comment on Mantelli was _"I don't understand the reasoning behind choosing Mantelli."_ And your insistence on standing by the statement - here we go again - _"Votes for her, and other artists recorded using primitive technology, seem to be based more on the formation of beliefs based on what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than on evidence, rationality, or reality,"_ further confirms that the factors of technique, musicianship, style and dramatic interpretation are not on your radar, or matter little to you, when you listen to acoustically recorded singers. I wish only to point out that they are very much on the radar of others, and that there are good reasons for the judgments based on them.



> I suspect you're electing to be imperceptive to fan a few flames.


I suspect you're shifting your rhetoric, if not your position, a little so as to evade the challenge to your extreme and categorical statements. If you really care about aspects of singing beyond the sound of a voice, then you can surely understand, contrary to your assertion, that in the appreciation of those factors lies the rationality of preferring certain acoustically recorded singers over their modern counterparts. It really isn't mysterious.


----------



## Esclarmonde (May 10, 2021)

Woodduck said:


> I didn't ignore it. I merely see nothing in your remarks to indicate that those things actually matter much to you, at least in this case.
> 
> I suspect you're shifting your rhetoric, if not your position, a little so as to evade the challenge to your extreme and categorical statements.


Such an emotion-driven diatribe has reinforced my initial view.

Technique, musicianship, style, dramatic interpretation and vocal quality are vital to any evaluation of a singer.

Realistic assessment of these elements through the medium of acoustical recordings is problematic.

Leading to an assessment driven by emotion and imagination - rather than by any objective evidence.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Esclarmonde said:


> Such an emotion-driven diatribe has reinforced my initial view.


This is what I call an emotion-driven response, not Woodduck's well reasoned argument, which carefully dissects each of your arguments in an objective way,



Esclarmonde said:


> Technique, musicianship, style, dramatic interpretation and vocal quality are vital to any evaluation of a singer.


Agreed.



Esclarmonde said:


> Realistic assessment of these elements through the medium of acoustical recordings is problematic.


Problematic for you maybe but evidently not so for those more used to listening to recordings of the acoustic era.



Esclarmonde said:


> Leading to an assessment driven by emotion and imagination - rather than by any objective evidence.


I had absolutely no emotional attachment to Mantelli, who, before these challenges, was a singer completely new to me. Indeed, I had more emotional attachment to Bumbry who is a singer I usually enjoy. The objective evidence was that Mantelli perfectly executed the trills and little turns Verdi wrote and Bumbry did not. My assessment was not in any way based on emotion and imagination and in fact I went into the challenge sure that I would be voting for Bumbry. To my ears Mantelli was clearly superior and evidently quite a few members agree with me.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Esclarmonde said:


> Such an emotion-driven diatribe has reinforced my initial view.
> 
> Technique, musicianship, style, dramatic interpretation and vocal quality are vital to any evaluation of a singer.
> 
> ...


Nothing is more emotion-driven than an inability to accept criticism of one's statements and a need to double down in the face of evidence and facts which others perceive and understand perfectly.

Accusing people who hear what you fail to hear of being irrational and of imagining things is just not on - and, as I've pointed out to you, there are many, many of us out here who've been hearing, appreciating, and talking about the excellence of singers recorded acoustically since the dawn of the technology. Many of us understand the limitations of that technology perfectly well, well enough to know what it does and does not enable us to hear and understand about singing thus recorded. We are not victims of a mass delusion of which we need to be disabused by some self- styled oracle of "rationality."

A person who drops into a gathering of strangers, hears a bit of their discussion, and informs them that they don't know what they're talking about is unlikely to win friends. We had until recently another member here who seemed obsessed with telling everyone that he got no pleasure from singers recorded acoustically, and he, like you, thought that this gave him the authority to tell others that the virtues they perceived in such singers were unreal. That member acquired a well-deserved reputation of being a pain in the derriere.

If you can't hear qualities of excellence in singers recorded acoustically, or are indifferent to such qualities, no one is forcing you to listen. But ordinary respect for those who do hear and enjoy such qualities would not seem too much to ask.


----------

