# Rate the following in order of importance



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

this is a matter of personal tastes. there is no right/wrong answer, but feel free to elaborate or ask others to do so:

interpretation
legato
agility 
placement/resonance
chest voice
high notes 
musicianship**
dynamic contrast 
raw vocal power 

**defined as a general ability to execute specific functions like staccato, portamento, messa di voce, fil di voce


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I would never be able to do this exercise, given the diversity of music and what it requires for its performance. But I need to point out that what you're calling "musicianship" is actually technique. Musicianship is not the _ability_ to execute musical effects but the sense of when to employ them to make the music coherent and meaningful. You can have the ability to do all the things you list and many more, and yet be a poor musician - or conversely, have superior musical insights and instincts but lack the technique to realize them.

Beyond the first requirement of musicianship - the ability to execute the notes as written - the most necessary elements of good musicianship are rhythm, timing, and a sense of the shape of a musical unit, whether a single phrase or a whole aria. Given the actual meaning of musicianship, I would place it at the top of any list of requisites for good singing, regardless of the qualities of a voice. Clueless, clumsy or vulgar musicianship is completely offputting to me. Beyond that I'd have a hard time ranking these things in a way that covered all or even most cases.

That would be my objective view. Subjectively, I suspect I'm like most people: I want to hear a voice whose timbre strikes some chord inside me, employed by a person who can use it with sincere feeling. In opera, that second point is going to imply fairly high levels of both musicianship and technical skill, but where certain skills are lacking I will listen if I can believe what the singer is saying. If the singer can't make me believe, I'm not interested no matter how brilliant her coloratura is, or how scintillating her high Eb (I'll mention no names...).


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

I'll approach this topic in this way: I tend to follow certain artists over others and number one in importance for me is an instantly recognizable voice. This applies to both opera and popular music. I mostly listen in the car as opposed to video, so a unique sound matters more. I like Didonato a lot on video but would never listen to her in the car. Agility matters in bel canto music. I tend to like voices that carry some weight as opposed to more lyric voices. Having a good chest voice is most welcome but can be overlooked when other factors such as great high notes are at play. Emotional interpretation matters more than the ability to pronounce the language as I don't speak any other languages. I place more importance on overall beauty of sound over subtlety of interpretation as I don't always know what is going on. As a steady diet I prefer the gorgeous voice of Sutherland over Callas, though I go through periods of really being into the later. With Callas I primarily like her coloratura roles and not much past the mid 50's usually. I can be impressed by showy singing as opposed to overly refined singing but don't tell anyone. The absolute brilliance and complexity of say Callas's revealing of a role is often lost on me but I admire greatly the ability of my friends here to hear things that are beyond my hearing. I like learning about what i am missing.


----------



## dave2708 (Sep 28, 2020)

That's all a bit too finicky.
In opera I would say what is most important? Is it the music, the singing or the acting?
The answer is you can't do without the first two as you would have no opera.
Of course you want a fusion of all three but if someone says the interpretation(acting) is of prime importance above all else, then my response is, well, go and see a play then.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

dave2708 said:


> That's all a bit too finicky.
> In opera I would say what is most important? Is it the music, the singing or the acting?
> The answer is you can't do without the first two as you would have no opera.
> Of course you want a fusion of all three but if someone says the interpretation(acting) is of prime importance above all else, then my response is, well, go and see a play then.


There is much to what you say. From my perspective it is very different talking about live theater and what I listen to in my car. I loved The Turn of the Screw and Mourning Becomes Electra, but only in the theater. Acting is much more important onstage than in a recording to me. Different contexts.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Wow, very difficult to say. I put interpretation in first place, followed by legato and then the other matters of technique in no particular order (I'm more bothered if a Lucia lacks agility rather than a Sieglinde for example). Last for me comes raw vocal power.

However, it is rare for singers to be completely lacking in some of these, whilst being highly skilled in others. I might choose a singer with decent technique, better than average interpretation and immense vocal power over another with perfect technique, superb interpretation, but a dull voice. It depends on the overall vocal package (I care very little whether the singers look the part or how convincing their acting is).

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

dave2708 said:


> That's all a bit too finicky.
> In opera I would say what is most important? Is it the music, the singing or the acting?
> The answer is you can't do without the first two as you would have no opera.
> Of course you want a fusion of all three but if someone says the interpretation(acting) is of prime importance above all else, then my response is, well, go and see a play then.


Interpretation isn't mere _acting_, nor is it necessarily separate from the music. We might talk of a pianist's interpretation of a piano concerto for example.

N.


----------



## dave2708 (Sep 28, 2020)

Your interpretation will manifest in how you perform/act the role. It's the only way the audience will see and hear it.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

I hesitate answering this because all are needed, but if forced to break it down (Sophie's Choice-like), I would first have to say that recognition of a voice is important for a special singer and musicianship comes next. If they have those two major qualities, automatically everything else will fall into place.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

The ability to sing in tune is my first requirement. I can just about take someone singing slightly sharp but flat? Aargh. Kill me now. :lol:


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Barbebleu said:


> The ability to sing in tune is my first requirement. I can just about take someone singing slightly sharp but flat? Aargh. Kill me now. :lol:


There are some excuses that can be made.
Can you say Tebaldi/MDM?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Barbebleu said:


> The ability to sing in tune is my first requirement. I can just about take someone singing slightly sharp but flat? Aargh. Kill me now. :lol:


I largely agree. Sometimes a slight sharping can even be musically effective, at least if it isn't sustained or perceived as a problem. I can think of few occasioins when flatting is acceptable. I think the reason for the difference is psychological; flatting suggests weakness, laziness or some other sort of incapacity, and anyone who has sung in a choir knows which way pitch drifts when there's no instrumental accompaniment to hold it up.


----------



## JanacekTheGreat (Feb 26, 2021)

nina foresti said:


> There are some excuses that can be made.
> Can you say Tebaldi/MDM?


Tebaldi/MDM tend to be flat on the higher notes. Unlike the like of Netrebko, with whom hitting a note in tune is already an achievement these days.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> I largely agree. Sometimes a slight sharping can even be musically effective, at least if it isn't sustained or perceived as a problem. I can think of few occasioins when flatting is acceptable. I think the reason for the difference is psychological; flatting suggests weakness, laziness or some other sort of incapacity, and anyone who has sung in a choir knows which way pitch drifts when there's no instrumental accompaniment to hold it up.


For me, singing flat suggests that you can't hear the note in your head. Pavarotti tended to go sharp on occasion but not by much and it wasn't unlistenable. :lol:


----------



## dave2708 (Sep 28, 2020)

Florence Foster Jenkins managed a rather successful stint of modest proportions without needing any of OP's singing requirements.
There's hope for all.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> I largely agree. Sometimes a slight sharping can even be musically effective, at least if it isn't sustained or perceived as a problem. I can think of few occasioins when flatting is acceptable. I think the reason for the difference is psychological; flatting suggests weakness, laziness or some other sort of incapacity, and anyone who has sung in a choir knows which way pitch drifts when there's no instrumental accompaniment to hold it up.


It's interesting that we talk about flatting a lot but few seem to be bothered as much by sharping. 
An example is, Mario Lanza who has been known to be so involved with the last note that he has sharpened occasionally and frankly, it doesn't bother me in the least. 
On the other hand, I go crazy with flatting. I start "helping" them.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

^^^ Exactly. .................


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

nina foresti said:


> It's interesting that we talk about flatting a lot but few seem to be bothered as much by sharping.
> An example is, Mario Lanza who has been known to be so involved with the last note that he has sharpened occasionally and frankly, it doesn't bother me in the least.
> On the other hand, I go crazy with flatting. I start "helping" them.


Roberto Alagna has been accused of singing "above the note" on occasion.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

MAS said:


> Roberto Alagna has been accused of singing "above the note" on occasion.


I think it's mainly a tenor thing.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

dave2708 said:


> Florence Foster Jenkins managed a rather successful stint of modest proportions without needing any of OP's singing requirements.
> There's hope for all.


Mrs. Jenkins had all the qualities of a singer in approximately equal measure.


----------

