# The problem with the fach system



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

More specifically, the problem with its application. There is nothing wrong with having a thorough system of categorization for the human voice. Classical and operatic repertoire is designed to push the boundaries of what the human voice is capable of, and this requires recognition of the differing limitations and potential of certain groups of voices with similar characteristics. 

The problem is that such characteristics change with age. Unfortunately freakishly consistent voices like Pavarotti and Nilsson are rare exceptions, not the rule. Listen to the voice of a woman of 20 vs a woman of 30, 40 and 50 and this will be readily apparent. Why then would we expect singers to stay within the same category over the course of a 30-40 year career? examples abound
- Eva Podles morphing from a bright, spitfire coloratura mezzo to a smokey, heavy contralto after her first pregnancy
- Sherill Milnes beginning his career as, by his own admission, a "thin, nasally tenor" (or something to that effect)
- Christine Goerke suddenly moving from lyric coloratura soprano down to dramatic soprano in her early 30s
- either as the result of vocal strain or natural progression, Asrid Varnay moved more and more from soprano to mezzo soprano rep throughout the second leg of her career


One could say this is "just semantics", "putting people into boxes", etc, but....if it means addressing underlying problems in how singers manage their careers and their voices, is that merely a matter of semantics? I would argue that, if anything, the music world would benefit from greater rather than lesser emphasis on technicalities, provided they are readily applicable to real-world choices. When one looks at the vast majority of unsexy detail-pounding that already goes into semesters of music theory, learning to site read and endless repetitions of musical scales throughout a singer's career, I believe it shortsighted to dismiss such a topic so readily. 

imo, several other singers had significant transformations as well, and few seem to handle it proficiently. some singers I suspect had vastly different between the beginning and ends of their career are:
- Jessye Norman began her career as a soprano, there is virtually nothing soprano left in the voice today, but a chocolaty dramatic mezzo (maybe even contralto)
- I heard Dimtri Hvorostovsky live in Chicago around 2 years ago. I was impressed many aspects of that performance (almost immediately following a bout with treatment for throat cancer), but omg....those LOW NOTES! I'd suspected for awhile that his tone, even for a dramatic baritone, was almost exaggeratedly dark, and that his high notes seemed pushed and unnatural, but after listening to him live, those suspicions were confirmed: clearly a bass-baritone in disguise.
- Joan Sutherland overstayed her time in the coloratura spotlight, or at least joyful, virginal ingenues of the standard bel canto rep. the voice by the mid 70s had developed more depth, weight, a more somber timbre. as much as I love her, I think she got lazy toward the end of the year when she should have done a bit of retraining and added some spinto/dramatic rep to her arsenal. What little we have of her in more dramatic rep like Oberon, Turandot and Idomeneo is spectacular, and I feel like her last 15 years or so would have been even more astounding had she moved closer to this sort of rep being the norm.
- last but not least (although perhaps the most obvious), late-career Callas was about as coloratura as Robert Merrill was tenor. The voice has become wobbly and shriek-y on anything above an A, while the middle register possessed the color and consistency of nutella and the chest register sounded dam near like a dramatic tenor.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Aaaah yes! That's the problem with your fach system (or possibly the _German_ fach system).

I don't have as many categories as you do and the fach system that I follow _only_ considers itself with intrinsic qualities of the voice such as colour and weight of the voice. I would say that the colour of the voice indicates whether it is a soprano, mezzo etc. voice and the weight at its most basic is whether a voice is heavy (dramatic) or light (lyric). I don't view 'coloratura' as an _intrinsic_ characteristic of a voice, it's a skill that can be acquired and all singers should seek to do so.

N.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I do not see the problem you're trying to solve.

Are you hoping for yet another system of somewhat arbitrarily rigid labels which refer not merely to voice types but to the changes voices undergo? A system which will recognize and characterize changes in progress? 

How will this work? And how will it help anyone do anything better?

Singers should sing what they're comfortable singing, turn down assignments they're not comfortable accepting, use their judgment and ask the advice of others who know their voices well, and forget labels. The last thing anyone needs is more of them.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

I don't see a problem either. If a singer's voice progresses into a new fach, the agent will be made aware & will look for the corresponding opportunities.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> - I heard Dimtri Hvorostovsky live in Chicago around 2 years ago. I was impressed many aspects of that performance (almost immediately following a bout with treatment for throat cancer), but omg....those LOW NOTES! I'd suspected for awhile that his tone, even for a dramatic baritone, was almost exaggeratedly dark, and that his high notes seemed pushed and unnatural, but after listening to him live, those suspicions were confirmed: clearly a bass-baritone in disguise.
> - Joan Sutherland overstayed her time in the coloratura spotlight, or at least joyful, virginal ingenues of the standard bel canto rep. the voice by the mid 70s had developed more depth, weight, a more somber timbre. as much as I love her, I think she got lazy toward the end of the year when she should have done a bit of retraining and added some spinto/dramatic rep to her arsenal. What little we have of her in more dramatic rep like Oberon, Turandot and Idomeneo is spectacular, and I feel like her last 15 years or so would have been even more astounding had she moved closer to this sort of rep being the norm.
> - last but not least (although perhaps the most obvious), late-career Callas was about as coloratura as Robert Merrill was tenor. The voice has become wobbly and shriek-y on anything above an A, while the middle register possessed the color and consistency of nutella and the chest register sounded dam near like a dramatic tenor.


I know you love to classify, declassify, and reclassify singers and put them in repertoire they didn't sing. I'll just go on record here and say that I think the singers you mention all did more or less the repertoire they were best suited to. Hvorostovsky was a superb baritone who sounded just fine in his upper range and would have been wasted growling around in a lower tessitura. Sutherland, lacking a substantial chest voice and a dramatic edge to her tone, was never meant for spinto or dramatic parts; she was merely louder than most other people who sang her roles, and her strong upper range allowed her to record a few more dramatic parts successfully. Callas lost quality and volume but not skill in coloratura. But why do you even bring her up? She never did fit into your neat little fach boxes.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

So basically categorising singers really isn't worth a fach!


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

Barbebleu said:


> So basically categorising singers really isn't worth a fach!


I think its very useful & important for the agents, houses, & singers. There is grey area & a lot of overlap however.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Bonetan said:


> I think its very useful & important for the agents, houses, & singers. There is grey area & a lot of overlap however.


And that is its only value. Singers are born with unique voices, not fachs, in their throats, and operas are written with music, not fachs, in mind. Many singers can sing successfully roles of considerable variety, and many roles are suitable for a variety of dissimilar singers. The fact that sopranos as diverse as Sills, Moffo, Callas and Sutherland can sing Lucia superbly illustrates the imprecision and limits of the system. That imprecision is not a problem to be solved by creating still more categories.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> More specifically, the problem with its application. There is nothing wrong with having a thorough system of categorization for the human voice. Classical and operatic repertoire is designed to push the boundaries of what the human voice is capable of, and this requires recognition of the differing limitations and potential of certain groups of voices with similar characteristics.
> 
> The problem is that such characteristics change with age. Unfortunately freakishly consistent voices like Pavarotti and Nilsson are rare exceptions, not the rule. Listen to the voice of a woman of 20 vs a woman of 30, 40 and 50 and this will be readily apparent. Why then would we expect singers to stay within the same category over the course of a 30-40 year career? examples abound
> - Eva Podles morphing from a bright, spitfire coloratura mezzo to a smokey, heavy contralto after her first pregnancy
> ...


Could you please tell me when Hvorostovsky had treatment for a bout with throat cancer? Two years ago he was diagnosed with a glioblastoma brain cancer--the most deadly kind. I never heard anything about his throat cancer treatments too.
He was not actually known for being a bass baritone that I'd ever heard. His baritone voice was not a powerful one. Sometimes he tended to push it when singing at the Met (But a more burnished and beautiful sound it would have been hard to find!).


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

I don't know what Hvorostovsky might have sung that showcased amazing low notes, but he was certainly a baritone (not a genuine Verdi one though). 

Also, has anyone else noticed the correlation between overly dark voices & lack of projection?? 

But it was indeed a very attractive voice.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> I do not see the problem you're trying to solve.
> 
> Are you hoping for yet another system of somewhat arbitrarily rigid labels which refer not merely to voice types but to the changes voices undergo? A system which will recognize and characterize changes in progress?
> 
> ...


I'm not proposing a new system. I'm proposing better application of the current one via being more mindful of the effects of age on the voice.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Bonetan said:


> I don't know what Hvorostovsky might have sung that showcased amazing low notes, but he was certainly a baritone (not a genuine Verdi one though).


He sung mostly Russian romantic music at the concert I went to. I don't remember any of the pieces specifically



> Also, has anyone else noticed the correlation between overly dark voices & lack of projection??


overtones carry far more readily than undertones.



> But it was indeed a very attractive voice.


absolutely! <3


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> And that is its only value. Singers are born with unique voices, not fachs, in their throats, and operas are written with music, not fachs, in mind. Many singers can sing successfully roles of considerable variety, and many roles are suitable for a variety of dissimilar singers. The fact that sopranos as diverse as Sills, Moffo, Callas and Sutherland can sing Lucia superbly illustrates the imprecision and limits of the system. That imprecision is not a problem to be solved by creating still more categories.


I understand exactly what you mean, but the fach system is very effective in Germany. What Balalaika Boy likes to do is a different use of the fach system altogether lol.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Bonetan said:


> I understand exactly what you mean, but the fach system is very effective in Germany.


Does this mean that it stops working when you cross the border?


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

Becca said:


> Does this mean that it stops working when you cross the border?


No lol. Just meaning that they are more proficient with it, especially considering the number of agents, singers, & houses there.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

nina foresti said:


> Could you please tell me when Hvorostovsky had treatment for a bout with throat cancer? Two years ago he was diagnosed with a glioblastoma brain cancer--the most deadly kind. I never heard anything about his throat cancer treatments too.


thank you for correcting me



> He was not actually known for being a bass baritone that I'd ever heard.


I know, that's my opinion, but it's not a common one.



> His baritone voice was not a powerful one. Sometimes he tended to push it when singing at the Met (But a more burnished and beautiful sound it would have been hard to find!).


I don't think it was pushed because his voice wasn't powerful enough. I think it was pushed because it wasn't high enough.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> thank you for correcting me
> 
> I know, that's my opinion, but it's not a common one.
> 
> ...


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> I'm not proposing a new system. I'm proposing better application of the current one via being more mindful of the effects of age on the voice.


Obviously, voices change with age and with other factors such as hormonal changes. Opera managements need to be aware of what singers are capable of over the span of their vocal careers, and not cast people in roles they can no longer sing well. I really don't see where the fach system has any relevance to this at all. You either know what a singer can do or you don't. A management that's relying on a fach classification for knowledge of a singer is just not doing its job.

If all you're implying is that managements shouldn't rely on the fach system to guage the current capabilities of singers, I agree. All the rest of your post pertaining to how individual singers should or shouldn't be classified is just smoke keeping us from pinpointing where the fire is. If anything it shows not that the fach system _has_ a problem but that it _is_ a problem, since, according to you, some of the world's leading singers have been placed, and placed themselves, in the wrong fachs.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> Singers should sing what they're comfortable singing, turn down assignments they're not comfortable accepting, use their judgment and ask the advice of others who know their voices well, and forget labels. The last thing anyone needs is more of them.


Exactly. The Fach system, as I understand it, was created for the sole purpose of defining repertoire for singers under contract to a particular opera house in German-speaking countries. If you were paid a salary as a particular voice type (Fach), you could be expected by management to perform roles considered part of that Fach.

Quote from Wikipedia:

"The Fach system is a convenience for singers and opera houses. It prevents singers from being asked to sing roles which they are incapable of performing. Opera companies keep lists of available singers by Fach so that when they are casting roles for an upcoming production, they do not inadvertently contact performers who would be inappropriate for the part."

Beyond that use, I agree with Wooduck. Such labels are pretty useless. A singer can either sing a role effectively, or not - the label doesn't provide any useful information.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

I wonder what fach encompasses Isolde, Norma, Medea, Lady Macbeth, Butterfly and the Barbiere Rosina? Just idle curiosity.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I can see how a list of singers of a certain general type could come in handy when a management is in a bind and needs to cast a part quickly. Our common vocal categories - "dramatic soprano," "lyric soprano," "coloratura soprano," etc. - are a convenient shorthand, and if you have to get a loud-voiced soprano or a tweetie-bird in a hurry you can use such lists to (hopefully) avoid major casting snafus. But to get the best available singer for a part (which ought, obviously, to be your goal), you're going to have to be familiar with the work of individual singers, and labels won't help you.

I haven't been able to find out who invented the fach system, but it doesn't surprise me that it seems to have originated in Germany. I may be stereotyping here, but I can't imagine the Italians being an*l enough to think it up.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

Becca said:


> I wonder what fach encompasses Isolde, Norma, Medea, Lady Macbeth, Butterfly and the Barbiere Rosina? Just idle curiosity.


Well off the top I know Isolde is a hoch dramatischer sopran, but I think Norma defies the fach system lol. They usually want a dramatic soprano or big lyric for Lady M & Butterfly. The others I'm not too sure.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Bonetan said:


> Well off the top I know Isolde is a hoch dramatischer sopran, but I think Norma defies the fach system lol. They usually want a dramatic soprano or big lyric for Lady M & Butterfly. The others I'm not too sure.


The question was: what fach ENCOMPASSES all these roles.

The answer is: the "Lilli Lehmann fach," the "Frida Leider fach" or the "Maria Callas fach," unless those are just subfachs of the same fach. Whatever the case, fachs are certainly fachinating to think about.

Fachism: _n._ a dictatorial insistence on imposing the fach system

Fachismo: _n._ an excessively confident reliance on fachs

Fached: _adj._ having a _tenore di grazia_ show up to sing Siegfried because your swaggering fachismo made you think casting opera was simple


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> The question was: what fach ENCOMPASSES all these roles.


Oh I'm sorry! My mistake!!

I have a hard time understanding why anyone has a problem with the fach system however. Full disclosure, I sing in Germany. I have an agent there. & I see only positives. It's good for the agents. It's good for the houses. It's good for the singers. The agents are aware of what roles have some crossover & they're aware when a singer adds to his or her repertoire. I can see why someone would have an issue with fans trying to pigeonhole & classify singers, but I can see only benefits that come from the fach system itself.

What I'm trying to say is, the fach system gets a bad rap lol


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Obviously, voices change with age and with other factors such as hormonal changes.


Has a soprano ever become a bass? We accept that a soprano is a soprano, a baritone, a baritone etc. and the roles that are therefore right for them. (I realise that I am touching on the topic of gender in opera as seen on a different thread.) Every two/three months or so the fach topic comes up and a binary discussion between the idea that a series of detailed and precise categories can be used to pigeon-hole singers based on what they can and can't do and the opposing theory that singers can't be categorised at all. Does anybody really think that there can be absolutely no categories at all? Isn't the issue rather on how wide the categories are?

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Becca said:


> I wonder what fach encompasses Isolde, Norma, Medea, Lady Macbeth, Butterfly and the Barbiere Rosina? Just idle curiosity.


Easy peasy. A very good dramatic mezzo should be able to sing all those roles convincingly.

N.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

The Conte said:


> Easy peasy. A very good dramatic mezzo should be able to sing all those roles convincingly.
> 
> N.


Isolde? A mezzo? Butterfly? A mezzo? Goodness me. Who woulda thunk it?


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

Barbebleu said:


> Isolde? A mezzo? Butterfly? A mezzo? Goodness me. Who woulda thunk it?


There have been solid Isolde mezzos recently with Waltraud Meier & Petra Lang. Violeta Urmana was decent too. I don't know much about Butterflies doe.

Or maybe they're sopranos at that point? idk


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Bonetan said:


> There have been solid Isolde mezzos recently with Waltraud Meier & Petra Lang. Violeta Urmana was decent too. I don't know much about Butterflies doe.
> 
> Or maybe they're sopranos at that point? idk


I have heard Meier live singing Isolde and while she was pretty good she did struggle with the top notes. You need a true hochdramatische soprano to do this part justice.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The Conte said:


> Easy peasy. A very good dramatic mezzo should be able to sing all those roles convincingly.
> 
> N.


Convincingly to whom? How many mezzos possessing simultaneously enough power for Isolde, coloratura facility for Bellini and Rossini, and facility at the top of their ranges for most of these parts, can you name?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The Conte said:


> Has a soprano ever become a bass? We accept that a soprano is a soprano, a baritone, a baritone etc. and the roles that are therefore right for them. (I realise that I am touching on the topic of gender in opera as seen on a different thread.) Every two/three months or so the fach topic comes up and a binary discussion between the idea that a series of detailed and precise categories can be used to pigeon-hole singers based on what they can and can't do and the opposing theory that singers can't be categorised at all. Does anybody really think that there can be absolutely no categories at all? Isn't the issue rather on how wide the categories are?
> 
> N.


I don't believe that anyone has said that singers can't be categorized. The question is: what then? How clear-cut, and then how useful, are the categories we decide on?


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Barbebleu said:


> Isolde? A mezzo? Butterfly? A mezzo? Goodness me. Who woulda thunk it?


It partly depends on how you define a 'mezzo'. I would put forward the theory that we don't classify female voices very well and a lot of what we call "mezzos" are actually contraltos. I agree that Isolde and Butterfly are soprano roles, Isolde a dramatic soprano role, Butterfly a spinto soprano. (Although, Waltraud Meier (who I would classify as a dramatic mezzo) was a wonderful Isolde and other mezzos have sung the role). Just because we can categorise roles and voices, that doesn't mean that only singers of a particular category should sing roles in that category. If we are to have a system of categorisation, then we also need guidelines to go with that system. Some singers will fit into a particular category and not sing roles outside of that category. Others will be able to sing roles in neighboring categories. Therefore I don't see anything controversial with a dramatic mezzo singing a dramatic soprano role. (Less so a spinto soprano role such as Butterfly. Whilst a very good singer might be convincing in the role, I wouldn't advise it for their long term vocal health.)

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> I don't believe that anyone has said that singers can't be categorized. The question is: what then? How clear-cut, and then how useful, are the categories we decide on?


Great question. )

I think the best way I can describe my view is to say that it is like biological gender verses a skill you might learn.

I am a male and have the associated body parts that you would therefore expect. Save having an operation, that isn't going to change, it's a physical reality that can't be changed by work or study on my part.

I speak Italian, because I studied and learned it as an adult. I didn't grow up learning it. I don't speak Turkish, but I could learn to if I wanted to by work and study.

The voice category is only useful if it reflects a physical reality that you can't change with work and study. Whereas skills you can learn shouldn't be part of a system. I am a baritone and no amount of study is going to turn me into a bass. I can't sing in French because I don't know how to pronounce the language, but that is something I can change, I could learn. Therefore I find the following categories are useful:

Lyric Soprano
Spinto Soprano
Dramatic Soprano
Lyric Mezzo
Dramatic Mezzo
Lyric Contralto
Dramatic Contralto
Lyric Tenor
Spinto Tenor
Dramatic Tenor
Lyric Baritone
Dramatic Baritone
Lyric Bass
Dramatic Bass

N.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

The Conte said:


> Lyric Soprano
> Spinto Soprano
> Dramatic Soprano
> Lyric Mezzo
> ...


What about the poor bass baritones?


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Bonetan said:


> What about the poor bass baritones?


That's either the dramatic baritone or lyric bass category.

N.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

The Conte said:


> That's either the dramatic baritone or lyric bass category.
> 
> N.


I like your faching categories 

Interesting, & I never thought about it til now, that only tenor & soprano have the spinto category...do you really think its necessary?


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

The Conte said:


> It partly depends on how you define a 'mezzo'. I would put forward the theory that we don't classify female voices very well and a lot of what we call "mezzos" are actually contraltos. I agree that Isolde and Butterfly are soprano roles, Isolde a dramatic soprano role, Butterfly a spinto soprano. (Although, Waltraud Meier (who I would classify as a dramatic mezzo) was a wonderful Isolde and other mezzos have sung the role). Just because we can categorise roles and voices, that doesn't mean that only singers of a particular category should sing roles in that category. If we are to have a system of categorisation, then we also need guidelines to go with that system. Some singers will fit into a particular category and not sing roles outside of that category. Others will be able to sing roles in neighboring categories. Therefore I don't see anything controversial with a dramatic mezzo singing a dramatic soprano role. (Less so a spinto soprano role such as Butterfly. Whilst a very good singer might be convincing in the role, I wouldn't advise it for their long term vocal health.)
> 
> N.


I don't see anything controversial either about a mezzo singing Isolde or Butterfly. They just wouldn't be as good at singing those parts as someone with a more appropriate voice would, or indeed, should be.

I also wouldn't say Meier was a wonderful Isolde. Certainly well acted but not the best part for her voice. Had she essayed the part she would have probably been a sensational Brangäne!
Incidentally which other mezzos have tackled Isolde? Can't count Petra Lang who moved up from mezzo to soprano in 2012.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Duplicate post.....


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The Conte said:


> Great question. )
> 
> I think the best way I can describe my view is to say that it is like biological gender verses a skill you might learn.
> 
> ...


The analogy doesn't hold. Singers are not born into fachs the way you were born biologically male. Many singers - probably most of the best singers - have capabilities outside of any single fach, and some mediocre singers can't even do properly what one fach suggests they ought to be capable of. How many "lyric" tenors are not very lyric at all? "Soft tenor" and "loud tenor" might be more meaningful terminology, given the general quality of operatic singing to which we're subjected.

These fachs don't exist in nature, and they don't exist in music either; composers don't think about our categories when they create operas. We make fachs up, and we can make up other ones, more of them, or fewer of them, as many people have done. Then we can all fight over whether Madame Donna Suprema is "really" a "dramatic coloratura." There's nothing wrong with using terms like that, but we need to remember that no classification will predict or limit what a singer can or should do.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Bonetan said:


> I have a hard time understanding why anyone has a problem with the fach system however. Full disclosure, I sing in Germany. I have an agent there. & I see only positives. It's good for the agents. It's good for the houses. It's good for the singers. The agents are aware of what roles have some crossover & they're aware when a singer adds to his or her repertoire.


Of course, this is exactly what the fach system was intended to do



> I can see why someone would have an issue with fans trying to pigeonhole & classify singers


Exactly. Statements like "he can't sing Tristan, because he's not a Heldentenor".


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

wkasimer said:


> Exactly. Statements like "he can't sing Tristan, because he's not a Heldentenor".


I would never say such a thing! What I might say though is "he hasn't sung Tristan, Tannhauser, or Siegfried? He's no heldentenor" :lol:


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Bonetan said:


> I like your faching categories
> 
> Interesting, & I never thought about it til now, that only tenor & soprano have the spinto category...do you really think its necessary?


Yes, categories relate to singers and also to roles. Since there are a wider range of roles for tenors and sopranos you need another category. I also think that there is a greater gap between a tenor and a baritone and a baritone and a bass. If you know and understand voices then it makes sense after some thought.

N.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

The Conte said:


> Yes, categories relate to singers and also to roles. Since there are a wider range of roles for tenors and sopranos you need another category. I also think that there is a greater gap between a tenor and a baritone and a baritone and a bass. If you know and understand voices then it makes sense after some thought.
> 
> N.


I'm not very familiar with italian tenor & soprano rep, but what spinto roles are there that a dramatic couldn't sing?


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> The analogy doesn't hold. Singers are not born into fachs the way you were born biologically male.


Yes, that's exactly my point. The German fach system can be misleading for teachers and singers precisely _because_ it doesn't relate to the biological nature of a singer's voice (although I understand how it can be useful for agents and houses). You have said that you aren't against _all_ categorisation of singers into a number of types. My suggestion is that the types should relate to the intrinsic qualities of the voice that relate to the size of the vocal chords and I believe my types do.



Woodduck said:


> Many singers - probably most of the best singers - have capabilities outside of any single fach, and some mediocre singers can't even do properly what one fach suggests they ought to be capable of.


I don't think it useful to think about the exceptionally gifted or those who haven't reached the full potential of an art form when considering categories. In any case a violin doesn't become a cello when a Paganini plays it, nor does it become a viola when someone who has never had a lesson has a go. A violin is and always will be a violin unless it undergoes some form of physical change.



Woodduck said:


> How many "lyric" tenors are not very lyric at all? "Soft tenor" and "loud tenor" might be more meaningful terminology, given the general quality of operatic singing to which we're subjected.


I'm not wedded to the names I've given my categories, in fact I really dislike 'spinto' as a term. Call them high, medium and low soprano, tenor etc. if you prefer or light and heavy. I use "lyric" and "dramatic" because these are accepted terms and it makes it easier for people to understand my categories.



Woodduck said:


> These fachs don't exist in nature, and they don't exist in music either; composers don't think about our categories when they create operas. We make fachs up, and we can make up other ones, more of them, or fewer of them, as many people have done. Then we can all fight over whether Madame Donna Suprema is "really" a "dramatic coloratura." There's nothing wrong with using terms like that, but we need to remember that no classification will predict or limit what a singer can or should do.


I get the feeling that Madam Donna Suprema is a vocal phenomenon, a true rara avis and it seems sophistry to me to use an exception to disprove something that is meant as a general guide. That said, I will continue to "predict and limit" what she can and can't sing until I see her in performance as the Queen of the Night one evening and Hagen in Goetterdaemerung the next.

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Bonetan said:


> I'm not very familiar with italian tenor & soprano rep, but what spinto roles are there that a dramatic couldn't sing?


One thing to bear in mind is that there is variance within the categories, that's why you need some flexibility around singing things outside of your category. A dramatic soprano who sings Isolde, Brunhilde and turandot, would normally not be suited to Butterfly, Leonora (in Trov and Forza), Donna Anna or the Countess in Figaro.

N.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The Conte said:


> I get the feeling that Madam Donna Suprema is a vocal phenomenon, a true rara avis and it seems sophistry to me to use an exception to disprove something that is meant as a general guide. That said, I will continue to "predict and limit" what she can and can't sing until I see her in performance as *the Queen of the Night one evening and Hagen in Goetterdaemerung the next.*


:lol: Lilli Lehmann came pretty close. She sang the Queen of the Night and graduated to Norma, Isolde and Brunnhilde. Nobody was going to fach her!

No, I wasn't positing Donna Suprema to prove that we shouldn't have vocal classification, but only to show that we shouldn't take our categories too seriously, as some do when they get into arguments about whether a given singer "really" belongs in one fach or another. I could have chosen Don Comprimario to make the same point.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The Conte said:


> One thing to bear in mind is that there is variance within the categories, that's why you need some flexibility around singing things outside of your category. *A dramatic soprano who sings Isolde, Brunhilde and turandot, would normally not be suited to Butterfly, Leonora (in Trov and Forza), Donna Anna or the Countess in Figaro.*
> 
> N.


Turandot and Wagner's _hochdramatische_ roles are exceptionally demanding of sheer power and are sung by few, but all the other roles you mention, varied as they are, can be done and have been done by the same singer. All that's needed is a soprano with a fairly big voice and good technique (flexibility and dynamic conrol). There's no need to consult fachs.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

The Conte said:


> One thing to bear in mind is that there is variance within the categories, that's why you need some flexibility around singing things outside of your category. A dramatic soprano who sings Isolde, Brunhilde and turandot, would normally not be suited to Butterfly, Leonora (in Trov and Forza), Donna Anna or the Countess in Figaro.
> 
> N.


That's why I think a bass baritone category would probably be as relevant as the spinto ones. A Wotan would normally not be suitable for Posa for instance. That said, I think if we can do away with bass baritone we can also do away with spinto categories. I know these are your personal categories, just playing devil's advocate


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> :lol: Lilli Lehmann came pretty close. She sang the Queen of the Night and graduated to Norma, Isolde and Brunnhilde. Nobody was going to fach her!
> 
> No, I wasn't positing Donna Suprema to prove that we shouldn't have vocal classification, but only to show that we shouldn't take our categories too seriously, as some do when they get into arguments about whether a given singer "really" belongs in one fach or another. I could have chosen Don Comprimario to make the same point.


Don Comprimario? That alludes to a good point. Do voice types extend to comprimarios? I don't think we need as many as 14 categories for smaller roles and the usual chorus divisions will work here: SATB Just as with the voice types for principal parts singers can sing outside their category at times (a baritone may well be able to sing a tenor comprimario role).

N.

P.S. In my system Queen of the Night, Norma, Isolde and Brunnhilde are all dramatic soprano roles, so I don't think Lehmann is in any way a singer who sang outside her voice type.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Turandot and Wagner's _hochdramatische_ roles are exceptionally demanding of sheer power and are sung by few, but all the other roles you mention, varied as they are, can be done and have been done by the same singer. All that's needed is a soprano with a fairly big voice and good technique (flexibility and dynamic conrol). There's no need to consult fachs.


Yes, I wouldn't have put it that way, but I more or less agree. However, your reply is worded as if you think you are disagreeing with me. You may have misunderstood my post.

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Bonetan said:


> That's why I think a bass baritone category would probably be as relevant as the spinto ones. A Wotan would normally not be suitable for Posa for instance. That said, I think if we can do away with bass baritone we can also do away with spinto categories. I know these are your personal categories, just playing devil's advocate


It''s good to test any system. Wotan is a tough one as it is a role that sits between baritone and bass. I think a good dark voiced Posa would make a great Wotan, but more basses have sung Wotan. Therefore I would put Wotan in the lyric bass category. This doesn't mean that it should only be sung by singers who I would categorise as a lyric bass, most good Wotans will be lyric basses, but there will be some dramatic baritones and dramatic basses suitable for the role.

N.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

The Conte said:


> It''s good to test any system. Wotan is a tough one as it is a role that sits between baritone and bass. I think a good dark voiced Posa would make a great Wotan, but more basses have sung Wotan. Therefore I would put Wotan in the lyric bass category. This doesn't mean that it should only be sung by singers who I would categorise as a lyric bass, most good Wotans will be lyric basses, but there will be some dramatic baritones and dramatic basses suitable for the role.
> 
> N.


Strangely enough, almost no basses sing Wotan anymore. I'm not sure why that is. Kowaljow is the only one that's coming to mind.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The Conte said:


> It''s good to test any system. Wotan is a tough one as it is a role that sits between baritone and bass. I think a good dark voiced Posa would make a great Wotan, but more basses have sung Wotan. Therefore I would put Wotan in the lyric bass category. This doesn't mean that it should only be sung by singers who I would categorise as a lyric bass, most good Wotans will be lyric basses, but there will be some dramatic baritones and dramatic basses suitable for the role.
> 
> N.


For the record, Hans Hotter, Hermann Uhde, George London, Gustav Neidlinger, and James Morris, some of the notable performers of Wagner in my lifetime, have all been billed as bass-baritones, a term which recognizes the fact that these roles - Wotan, Alberich, the Dutchman, Telramund, Kurwenal, Sachs, Amfortas, Klingsor - ideally call for a voice possessing great power and tonal body throughout a wide vocal range.

Wagner's bass-baritone roles have a lower center of gravity than Verdi's typical baritone roles.They do require great power above the staff up to high F (or very occasionally G), but generally only intermittently or momentarily. Wagner himself used the term "Hoher bass" to distinguish a Wotan voice from both "tiefer Bass" (Gurnemanz, Pogner, Marke) and "Bariton" (Wolfram, a genuinely "lyric" role effectively taken by a high baritone such as Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau.) The other term customarily used is "Heldenbariton," which is fully as apt as "Heldentenor" and "Hochdramatische Sopran" in their vocal categories.

If we're going to apply fach terminology, it should at least be accurately descriptive. "Lyric baritone " is certainly a poor word to use for what are among the most dramatically demanding roles in opera, but "dramatic baritone," which aptly fits a role such as Rigoletto, doesn't recognize the distinct requirements of Wagner's vocal writing. Terminology shouldn't proliferate beyond need, but it should recognize important differences. Wagner's vocal requirements have always been recognized as peculiar, and if any operatic roles call for special terminology, his do.

I would emphasize again that very dissimilar singers have sung these roles (with, of course, varying effectiveness). Fischer-Dieskau didn't become "Heldenbariton" material by recording them, and whatever success we may think he had in them must really be considered a triumph of art over nature.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> For the record, Hans Hotter, Hermann Uhde, George London, Gustav Neidlinger, and James Morris, some of the notable performers of Wagner in my lifetime, have all been billed as bass-baritones, a term which recognizes the fact that these roles - Wotan, Alberich, the Dutchman, Telramund, Kurwenal, Sachs, Amfortas, Klingsor - ideally call for a voice possessing great power and tonal body throughout a wide vocal range.
> 
> Wagner's bass-baritone roles have a lower center of gravity than Verdi's typical baritone roles.They do require great power above the staff up to high F (or very occasionally G), but generally only intermittently or momentarily. Wagner himself used the term "Hoher bass" to distinguish a Wotan voice from both "tiefer Bass" (Gurnemanz, Pogner, Marke) and "Bariton" (Wolfram, a genuinely "lyric" role effectively taken by a high baritone such as Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau.) The other term customarily used is "Heldenbariton," which is fully as apt as "Heldentenor" and "Hochdramatische Sopran" in their vocal categories.
> 
> If we're going to apply fach terminology, it should at least be accurately descriptive. "Lyric baritone " is certainly a poor word to use for what are among the most dramatically demanding roles in opera, but "dramatic baritone," which aptly fits a role such as Rigoletto, doesn't recognize the distinct requirements of Wagner's vocal writing. Terminology shouldn't proliferate beyond need, but it should recognize important differences. Wagner's vocal requirements have always been recognized as peculiar, and if any operatic roles call for special terminology, his do.


Exactly. Strauss made similar demands when he wrote for Jochanaan, Barak, Orest, & Mandryka. Must be a German thing.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Bonetan said:


> Strangely enough, almost no basses sing Wotan anymore. I'm not sure why that is. Kowaljow is the only one that's coming to mind.


Rene Pape and Bryn Terfel have been recent Wotans, I would class both those singers as lyric basses. I haven't heard enough of John Lundgren to say with certainty, but he seems to me to be a dramatic baritone. Note that I am not saying that you can categorise both singers and roles AND that singers shouldn't sing anything outside of their cateogory, but rather that the categories act as a guide and singers will find that their are roles in neighbouring categories that they suit and that work for them.

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> For the record, Hans Hotter, Hermann Uhde, George London, Gustav Neidlinger, and James Morris, some of the notable performers of Wagner in my lifetime, have all been billed as bass-baritones, a term which recognizes the fact that these roles - Wotan, Alberich, the Dutchman, Telramund, Kurwenal, Sachs, Amfortas, Klingsor - ideally call for a voice possessing great power and tonal body throughout a wide vocal range.


Whilst 'bass-baritone' has made it into the Italian lexicon as basso-baritono, it is a neologism that has crept in from non Italian singers singing in Italy. Does that mean that Italians somehow have a genetic make up that distinguishes them from other nationalities? No, of course not. The reason is that the Italian system has the basso cantante that is roughly equivalent in terms of the intrinsic nature of the voice. I would consider all those singers lyric basses. Taking the roles you mention, I would put them in the following categories:

Dramatic Baritone
Telramund, 
Kurwenal, 
Amfortas,
the Dutchman,
Sachs,

Lyric Bass
Wotan, 
Alberich,

Dramatic Bass 
Klingsor

As I have explained a number of times, any system of categorisation has to come with guidelines and one of my guidelines is that a singer of a particular category isn't limited to roles in that category, but will be able to consider a number of roles from neighbouring categories. Neither does it mean that all roles of a particular category will suit a singer in that category.



Woodduck said:


> Wagner's bass-baritone roles have a lower center of gravity than Verdi's typical baritone roles.They do require great power above the staff up to high F (or very occasionally G), but generally only intermittently or momentarily. Wagner himself used the term "Hoher bass" to distinguish a Wotan voice from both "tiefer Bass" (Gurnemanz, Pogner, Marke) and "Bariton" (Wolfram, a genuinely "lyric" role effectively taken by a high baritone such as Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau.) The other term customarily used is "Heldenbariton," which is fully as apt as "Heldentenor" and "Hochdramatische Sopran" in their vocal categories.
> 
> If we're going to apply fach terminology, it should at least be accurately descriptive. "Lyric baritone " is certainly a poor word to use for what are among the most dramatically demanding roles in opera, but "dramatic baritone," which aptly fits a role such as Rigoletto, doesn't recognize the distinct requirements of Wagner's vocal writing. Terminology shouldn't proliferate beyond need, but it should recognize important differences. Wagner's vocal requirements have always been recognized as peculiar, and if any operatic roles call for special terminology, his do.


There's a difference between the question whether something exists or not and the question of what to call that thing. I am not totally convinced by lyric versus dramatic, high and low or light and heavy. I tend to be a 'rose by any other name' type of person. Since you have a stronger interest in how the categories are named than I, what terms do you suggest?



Woodduck said:


> I would emphasize again that very dissimilar singers have sung these roles (with, of course, varying effectiveness). Fischer-Dieskau didn't become "Heldenbariton" material by recording them, and whatever success we may think he had in them must really be considered a triumph of art over nature.


You have said that you aren't against _any_ categorisation of singers, so where do you draw the lines, what are your categories?

N.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

The Conte said:


> Rene Pape and Bryn Terfel have been recent Wotans, I would class both those singers as lyric basses. I haven't heard enough of John Lundgren to say with certainty, but he seems to me to be a dramatic baritone. Note that I am not saying that you can categorise both singers and roles AND that singers shouldn't sing anything outside of their cateogory, but rather that the categories act as a guide and singers will find that their are roles in neighbouring categories that they suit and that work for them.
> 
> N.


I think Terfel has to be a bass baritone. His best role is Scarpia & I don't believe he sings any traditional bass roles (maybe Mephisto)...Pape cannot/will not sing the Siegfried Wotan (Wanderer) so I'm not sure he qualifies...Lundgren is definitely a dramatic baritone. He sings Scarpia, Rance, Iago, Macbeth etc. He's quite good 

I think I have a hard time with a "lyric" anything singing such an un-lyrical role as Alberich lol. Or to a lesser extent Wotan. I think Alberich has to go in your dramatic baritone category because its too high & screamy for a bass to sing comfortably. It belongs with Telramund & Klingsor.

I hope you don't mind going back & forth on this! I'm a bass baritone so I must fight for my faching fach :lol:


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Becca said:


> I wonder what fach encompasses Isolde, Norma, Medea, Lady Macbeth, Butterfly and the Barbiere Rosina? Just idle curiosity.


with the exception of Rosina, a dramatic soprano with substantial agility could sing all those roles


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> *with the exception* of Rosina, a dramatic soprano with substantial agility could sing all those roles


...and therein lies the rub. Once you start with exceptions, it's all downhill.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Becca said:


> ...and therein lies the rub. Once you start with exceptions, it's all downhill.


only if you view the fach system with a degree of rigidity which was never intended. certain voices span a wider range of capabilities than others


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> only if you view the fach system with a degree of rigidity which was never intended. certain voices span a wider range of capabilities than others


That is exactly the point that has been made all along, voices and capabilities vary widely so you either end up making a system which has more and more tightly defined categories (eventually getting to every person being their own fach?) or there are so many exceptions that the existing categories become meaningless (assuming that they aren't already.)


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Is this not easily solved? You find out what easily attainable range a singer has and you classify that range as whatever you choose to call it to be. So for instance a male singer can hit a C above the stave without sounding as if he is struggling and you can classify him as a, I don't know, say leggero tenor. But if he can still hit that B or C with some real stentorian heft then he would be a real "heldentenor". So we have a little problem here. Pavarotti hitting the high Cs in La Fille du Regiment wouldn't be at all the same voice as Melchior doing it in Lohengrin where B is I think as high as it goes. I think you need to think in terms of what a voice sounds at ease in. Some singers will hit those high notes but they won't sound comfortable so as far as I am concerned that is not their true range. I may be being a tad bit simplistic but that's my opinion so suck it up fans!:lol:


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Proper details on the 25 Fach voice classifications before arguing for or against the system: 
http://choirly.com/voice-types-fach-system/

*Evaluations are based on the following vocal characteristics:*

range - the notes your body can produce
weight - light voices, bright and agile; heavy voices, powerful, rich, and darker
size - the amount of sound you can produce and your voice's dramatic effect
tessitura - part of the range which is most comfortable to sing
timbre or color - unique voice quality and texture
transition points - points where you change from chest, to middle, to head register
vocal registers - how extended each register is
speech level - speaking range
physical characteristics - height and build
age and experience

These could be very helpful in order to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of one's voice without placing anyone in a box.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

Larkenfield said:


> Proper details on the 25 Fach voice classifications before arguing for or against the system:


Thanks for the link Larkenfield, but I don't necessarily agree with their classifications either because they're leaving some out. For instance, wikipedia lists over 30...


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Becca said:


> That is exactly the point that has been made all along, voices and capabilities vary widely so you either end up making a system which has more and more tightly defined categories (eventually getting to every person being their own fach?) or there are so many exceptions that the existing categories become meaningless (assuming that they aren't already.)


It doesn't need to be that black and white. you don't have to choose between a rigid category vs one that has no meaning whatsoever. It's an example of Nirvana Fallacy to claim that a system needs to be 100% objective with no exceptions in order to be useful. We wouldn't have fields like psychology and statistics if that were the case (ironically, the initial phases of statistics are indeed extremely subjective).


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Larkenfield said:


> Proper details on the 25 Fach voice classifications before arguing for or against the system:
> http://choirly.com/voice-types-fach-system/
> 
> *Evaluations are based on the following vocal characteristics:*
> ...


I'm a bass-baritone, so...apparently I don't exist :/


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The Conte said:


> Whilst 'bass-baritone' has made it into the Italian lexicon as basso-baritono, it is a neologism that has crept in from non Italian singers singing in Italy. Does that mean that Italians somehow have a genetic make up that distinguishes them from other nationalities? No, of course not. The reason is that the Italian system has the basso cantante that is roughly equivalent in terms of the intrinsic nature of the voice. I would consider all those singers lyric basses. Taking the roles you mention, I would put them in the following categories:
> 
> Dramatic Baritone
> Telramund,
> ...


Heh heh. I'm just a vacuum cleaner here. I sweep up messes made by others.

I mean by that that I have very little interest in how voices are categorized and named, unless I think the categories are, A, inappropriate or incomprehensible, or B, unnecessary. Both "A" and "B" would apply to your breakdown of the bass-baritone Wagner roles above, which can all be sung well by the same sort of voice - one with a wide range and power throughout that range - and simply don't need, for any imaginable purpose, differentiating in this way.

Really, the breakdown of categories for the practical purpose of deciding what singers to call on for an upcoming production - the only useful purpose of fachs - can be fairly arbitrary. It doesn't matter what you call them, as long as it gets the job done. Outside that practical context, I don't find categorization very useful. I find fachs vague, restrictive, and often illogical, and they just don't tell us much about the singers they get applied to.

What, for example, is a "lyric" singer? Shouldn't every singer sing lyrically most of the time? It seems to me that that term is applied mainly to singers who lack exceptional traits - facility in coloratura, or power, or striking vocal color, or incisive verbal articulation, or the ability to bring recitative or declamatory phrases to life. A "lyric soprano" might as well be called "soprano ordinario." There are plenty of those around, but why dignify their ordinariness with a name?

Often there is a distinction without a difference. What distinguishes a "spinto tenor" from a "dramatic tenor"? The fact that one has a little more power? How much more is a little more? We can reasonably distinguish a "tenore di grazia" or "tenore leggiero" from a "spinto/dramatic tenor," but we still have singers like Bjorling who can sing both Alfredo and Manrico effectively. And what on earth was Caruso, who sang just about every major Italian and French role, blew out the back wall of the auditorium, and sang a coloratura cadenza to make Joan Sutherland's head spin? Why categorize him at all? It makes more sense just to call him a tenor who can sing varied repertoire. A wise opera management that employed the fach system would list him under more than one fach rather than try to assign a fach to him, and we (being wise) wouldn't have fruitless debates about what he "really" is.

So... I don't feel the need to invent vocal categories - but I'll comment on the inaptness of others' categories, or the pointlessness and injustice of trying to define singers by them. When Wagner asked for a "low bass" for Marke, a "high bass" for Wotan, and a "baritone" for Wolfram, he was being descriptive and practical. I'm certain he didn't waste time arguing with Hermann Levi whether the particular singer playing Amfortas was "really" a high bass or a low baritone or a "lyric" this or a "cantante" that or a "dramatic" something else. There's a difference between describing a voice and categorizing it; the former can be enlightening. For example, it aids our understanding to point out that Maria Callas is a soprano of great dramatic power, whose technique and musical comprehension allow her to express that drama through coloratura. She is without question a supremely dramatic coloratura. But does this mean that we should categorize her as a "dramatic coloratura"? For what purpose would we want to do that? Is that really a thing?


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Becca said:


> ...and therein lies the rub. Once you start with exceptions, it's all downhill.


When I read your list of roles, I immediately thought of Callas and since she was a vocal exception it wouldn't be surprising if she didn't fit into systems of categorisation. You can't disprove a generalisation by focusing on an exception. Furthermore Callas is also well known for her vocal decline, so by singing outside of her category or fach she _proves_ categorisation theories rather well.

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Really, the breakdown of categories for the practical purpose of deciding what singers to call on for an upcoming production - *the only useful purpose of fachs* - can be fairly arbitrary. It doesn't matter what you call them, as long as it gets the job done. Outside that practical context, I don't find categorization very useful. I find fachs vague, restrictive, and often illogical, and they just don't tell us much about the singers they get applied to.


I would suggest that's why you don't understand my point. I think categories are indispensable for singers and voice teachers as a guide to a path of study and the likely career path for a singer once formed. I think most singers and teachers have an instinctive understanding of the importance of categories for self identification.



Woodduck said:


> What, for example, is a "lyric" singer? Shouldn't every singer sing lyrically most of the time? It seems to me that that term is applied mainly to singers who lack exceptional traits - facility in coloratura, or power, or striking vocal color, or incisive verbal articulation, or the ability to bring recitative or declamatory phrases to life. A "lyric soprano" might as well be called "soprano ordinario." There are plenty of those around, but why dignify their ordinariness with a name?


It is of no interest to me to debate semantics. I have made it clear many times that I am not wedded to the use of 'lyric soprano' as a description for a light soprano (which may be better terminology). More importantly I have made it clear what I mean by the term and you seem to understand as you haven't asked for more clarity on my system.



Woodduck said:


> Often there is a distinction without a difference. What distinguishes a "spinto tenor" from a "dramatic tenor"? The fact that one has a little more power? How much more is a little more? We can reasonably distinguish a "tenore di grazia" or "tenore leggiero" from a "spinto/dramatic tenor," but we still have singers like Bjorling who can sing both Alfredo and Manrico effectively. And what on earth was Caruso, who sang just about every major Italian and French role, blew out the back wall of the auditorium, and sang a coloratura cadenza to make Joan Sutherland's head spin? Why categorize him at all? It makes more sense just to call him a tenor who can sing varied repertoire. A wise opera management that employed the fach system would list him under more than one fach rather than try to assign a fach to him, and we (being wise) wouldn't have fruitless debates about what he "really" is.
> 
> So... I don't feel the need to invent vocal categories - but I'll comment on the inaptness of others' categories, or the pointlessness and injustice of trying to define singers by them. When Wagner asked for a "low bass" for Marke, a "high bass" for Wotan, and a "baritone" for Wolfram, he was being descriptive and practical. I'm certain he didn't waste time arguing with Hermann Levi whether the particular singer playing Amfortas was "really" a high bass or a low baritone or a "lyric" this or a "cantante" that or a "dramatic" something else. There's a difference between describing a voice and categorizing it; the former can be enlightening. For example, it aids our understanding to point out that Maria Callas is a soprano of great dramatic power, whose technique and musical comprehension allow her to express that drama through coloratura. She is without question a supremely dramatic coloratura. But does this mean that we should categorize her as a "dramatic coloratura"? For what purpose would we want to do that? Is that really a thing?


I have already answered these points so I get the feeling you aren't really reading my posts, but using exceptions to make a point. One of the use of categories is to choose roles wisely so as not to ruin the voice. Why the anti-fachistas think that taking the example of a singer who is almost just as famous for their vocal decline as for their extraordinary singing as an example of why fachs or categories don't work is actually highly amusing.

I feel we are going round in circles here. I enjoy debate and discussion as a way to hone ones views, however I'm not sure it is helpful in this case.

N.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Bonetan said:


> Pape cannot/will not sing the Siegfried Wotan (Wanderer) so I'm not sure he qualifies


I've been told that the Wanderer lies higher than the other Wotan roles in the Ring. The only true bass I've heard in the role is Josef Greindl at Bayreuth in 1965,and I suspect that he might have been a last minute substitution.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

The Conte said:


> When I read your list of roles, I immediately thought of Callas and since she was a vocal exception it wouldn't be surprising if she didn't fit into systems of categorisation. You can't disprove a generalisation by focusing on an exception. Furthermore Callas is also well known for her vocal decline, so by singing outside of her category or fach she _proves_ categorisation theories rather well.
> 
> N.


Callas was in a category (fach) all her own in her generation just as Patti was in hers. Can you name me another soprano sfogato(assoluta)?


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

nina foresti said:


> Callas was in a category (fach) all her own in her generation just as Patti was in hers. Can you name me another soprano sfogato(assoluta)?


'soprano sfogato(assoluta)' isn't part of my system. I think Callas was a dramatic mezzo (n.b. for those who don't find that term useful, then substitute 'heavy mezzo' or 'low mezzo' semantics doesn't invalidate my point). IMO that's why her voice went as she mostly sang as a dramatic soprano (n.b. for those who don't find that term useful, then substitute 'heavy soprano' or 'low soprano' semantics doesn't invalidate my point).

My point is why choose a singer who didn't have vocal longevity and didn't follow the guidelines of a system to help singers achieve vocal longevity as an example that that system doesn't work.

N.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

nina foresti said:


> Callas was in a category (fach) all her own in her generation just as Patti was in hers. Can you name me another soprano sfogato(assoluta)?


I can name a few.

solidly assoluta:
- Marisa Galvany
- Shirley Verrett

quasi-assoluta
- Leyla Gencer 
- Ghena Dimitrova
- Elena Souliotis (pre-vocal crisis)


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> I can name a few.
> 
> solidly assoluta:
> - Marisa Galvany
> ...


I didn't realize Shirley Verrett was a soprano although she finally transitioned to one.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

wkasimer said:


> I've been told that the Wanderer lies higher than the other Wotan roles in the Ring. The only true bass I've heard in the role is Josef Greindl at Bayreuth in 1965,and I suspect that he might have been a last minute substitution.


Exactly right, especially act 3. I think that particular act is what keeps most basses away from the Wanderer.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

The Conte said:


> Furthermore Callas is also well known for her vocal decline, so by singing outside of her category or fach she _proves_ categorisation theories rather well.
> 
> N.


This is a really good point. On the other hand you have singers like Dolora Zajick who has stayed stricly within her dramatic mezzo fach, even though she has the capabilities to sing dramatic soprano, & is still singing well in lead roles well into her 60's.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

wkasimer said:


> I've been told that the Wanderer lies higher than the other Wotan roles in the Ring. The only true bass I've heard in the role is Josef Greindl at Bayreuth in 1965,and I suspect that he might have been a last minute substitution.


I imagine what you call a 'true bass' would be a dramatic bass in my system (what Wagner termed a 'low bass'). That makes perfect sense, Wagner termed Wotan a 'high bass' which fits with my lyric bass (or call it a bass-baritone, basso cantante or light bass - just because you have a different name for it doesn't mean it doesn't exist).

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Bonetan said:


> This is a really good point. On the other hand you have singers like Dolora Zajick who has stayed stricly within her dramatic mezzo fach, even though she has the capabilities to sing dramatic soprano, & is still singing well in lead roles well into her 60's.


I have some controversial opinions when it comes to mezzos and contraltos. Are there really that few contraltos around? Is there a difference between mezzos and contraltos? I think we use mezzo too widely. At one time this voice type (like baritone) didn't exist. There is a huge difference between a light (or lyric) mezzo like Joyce Di Donato and a singer like Giulietta Simionato who is usually termed a dramatic mezzo. I would argue that Simionato and Zajick would be termed dramatic contraltos in my system. In any case, whatever we call it, she did stay pretty much within one category.

N.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

nina foresti said:


> I didn't realize Shirley Verrett was a soprano although she finally transitioned to one.


she handled roles solidly in the soprano rep, but there was always a mezzo-y quality to them. darker, more cavernous, a bit steely














@Woodduck
for all of our back-and-forths on this topic as a general trend, I don't think we have a great deal of disagreement on this specific point.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

The Conte said:


> When I read your list of roles, I immediately thought of Callas and since she was a vocal exception it wouldn't be surprising if she didn't fit into systems of categorisation. You can't disprove a generalisation by focusing on an exception. Furthermore Callas is also well known for her vocal decline, so by singing outside of her category or fach she _proves_ categorisation theories rather well.
> 
> N.


She doesn't prove a thing as there is no evidence that her vocal decline was caused by singing 'outside of her category', and quite a bit of evidence that it was caused by health & weight loss related issues. I picked those roles particularly because she was singing them (or parts of them in the case of Isolde) into the mid 50's. The example also points out just how easy it is to find cases that don't fit into what I consider to be rather arbitrary categories.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Becca said:


> She doesn't prove a thing as there is no evidence that her vocal decline was caused by singing 'outside of her category', and quite a bit of evidence that it was caused by health & weight loss related issues. I picked those roles particularly because she was singing them (or parts of them in the case of Isolde) into the mid 50's. The example also points out just how easy it is to find cases that don't fit into what I consider to be rather arbitrary categories.


We can only speculate on what caused Callas' vocal decline, yet since there was a vocal decline, I don't think we should use her to as an example why a system of categories doesn't work. In any case, I think what I term a dramatic mezzo shouldn't have a problem singing all those roles. (I would class Martha Moedl and Astrid Varnay as dramatic mezzos, as well as Callas.) I wouldn't class any of those roles as dramatic mezzo roles, though. There's no reason why an accomplished dramatic soprano couldn't give us a full bodied, interesting Rosina, so a dramatic soprano might also be able to undertake all those roles. As Balalaikaboy has pointed out having a system doesn't mean having to observe it rigidly.

N.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Becca said:


> She doesn't prove a thing as there is no evidence that her vocal decline was caused by singing 'outside of her category', and quite a bit of evidence that it was caused by health & weight loss related issues. I picked those roles particularly because she was singing them (or parts of them in the case of Isolde) into the mid 50's. The example also points out just how easy it is to find cases that don't fit into what I consider to be rather arbitrary categories.


Exactly. Calling Callas a mezzo, implying that she should have sung roles such as Amneris, Azucena, and Dalila rather than Lucia, Norma and Medea, or lumping her with Martha Modl and Astrid Varnay - singers of far different (and much more limited) capabilities - makes abundantly clear the perils of categorization.

The Callas revisionists should remember that Callas was trained, beginning in 1937, by soprano Maria Trivella, considered one of the finest voice teachers in Greece, and then by the brilliant soprano Elvira de Hidalgo. We have no reason to doubt that they knew in what range their pupil should be singing. Trivella at first felt that Callas, with her dark timbre, was a contralto, but very early changed her assessment. Callas herself said that as a beginner she had no chest voice. She began singing a variety of soprano roles in 1941, had a range extending to high Eb, and could execute flawlessly the most difficult coloratura throughout that range. Late in her career, when she recorded a number of mezzo arias, she said she was not entirely comfortable sustaining the low-lying phrases of Dalila's music. In her last recitals she exhibits weakness in the lower mid-range where a mezzo would be strong, and has to carry her chest voice high to compensate. These are not the characteristics of a singer meant to perform mezzo roles. The dramatic chest tones she developed - in order, she said, to have a vocal arsenal adequate for bel canto - shouldn't fool us, regardless of how creatively she uses them in her fascinating portrayal of Carmen.


----------



## davidglasgow (Aug 19, 2017)

While there have been a few great artists who succeeded in specialising in a limited repertoire e.g. Schipa and Kraus - it seems to me that versatility has been a far greater factor in the success of Sutherland, Pavarotti, Domingo, Leontyne Price etc etc

In fact, the explanations for vocal decline based on singing outside a particular fach seem pretty suspect to me.

If we take Giuseppe di Stefano as an example, much is made of him singing heavier parts through the 1950s with the corresponding theory that he was singing outside his fach and causing harm to his voice. Critics can point to his Otello, Rienzi, Hoffmann and accuse him of hubris.

Although this seems commonsensical, his career was much more complex than that.

The aforementioned dramatic-tenor parts were in short runs and not repeated. He was still singing in _Lucia di Lammermoor_, _L'incoronazione di Poppea_(!), _Elisir d'amore_ and _Boheme_, albeit less frequently, late into the 1960s/early seventies.

I don't subscribe to the idea that because his technique was problematic that singing 'lighter' roles would have been an answer. It seems implausible to me that anyone listening to his Almaviva, Arturo or Nemorino would think that by rights he should have been a bel-canto specialist?

It is worth mentioning that di Stefano was still singing Arturo in _I Puritani_ as late as 1956 - i.e. after runs at La Scala in _Cavalleria Rusticana_ and _Forza del Destino_. Yes, he sang the lyrical Nadir in _Pecheurs de Perles_ in July 1953 but he was also singing Enzo in _La Gioconda_ that month. His very best years are criss-crossed with examples of similar adaptability.

It seems to me, rather than looking at fach-flouting (?) as an automatic warning sign, as an intimation of problems to come, flouting these rather artificial categories should instead be seen as not only ok but positive: it was the lifeblood of his career, and the aforementioned careers which exceeded his in longevity.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Exactly. Calling Callas a mezzo, implying that she should have sung roles such as Amneris, Azucena, and Dalila rather than Lucia, Norma and Medea, or lumping her with Martha Modl and Astrid Varnay - singers of far different (and much more limited) capabilities - makes abundantly clear the perils of categorization.


I don't consider Amneris, Azucena and Dalila mezzo roles. I would call them contralto roles.

Martha Moedl and Astrid Varnay may have had much more limitied capabilities, but I've never said that my system is about _capabilities_, it's about voice type. During their careers Callas, Moedl and Varnay were called 'sopranos' and nobody has a problem about that categorisation or sugests that it implies that they have limited capabilities. If you feel that 'dramatic', 'low' or 'heavy' mezzo as a term implies that a singer should _only_ sing certain roles or has certain limitations or it describes the totality of what that singer is about as an artist, then you haven't understood what vocal categories are far.

A person who is 6 foot 5 is taller than someone 5 foot 8. Once they've reached adulthood they can't change that. They might both speak fluent french, but that doesn't make them the same height.

N.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

The Conte said:


> I don't consider Amneris, Azucena and Dalila mezzo roles. I would call them contralto roles.


Dalilah could easily be classified that way, but Amneris is higherm and Azucena has high parts as well, including an optional high C in one scene.



> Martha Moedl and Astrid Varnay may have had much more limitied capabilities, but I've never said that my system is about _capabilities_, it's about voice type. During their careers Callas, Moedl and Varnay were called 'sopranos' and nobody has a problem about that categorisation or sugests that it implies that they have limited capabilities. If you feel that 'dramatic', 'low' or 'heavy' mezzo as a term implies that a singer should _only_ sing certain roles or has certain limitations or it describes the totality of what that singer is about as an artist, then you haven't understood what vocal categories are far.
> 
> A person who is 6 foot 5 is taller than someone 5 foot 8. Once they've reached adulthood they can't change that. They might both speak fluent french, but that doesn't make them the same height.
> 
> N.


allow me to reiterate to see if I'm getting your point: you see fach as a range of capabilities, and some singers can perform within multiple ranges of capabilities. ex: a dramatic soprano could sing Tosca even though they are dramatic and not spinto. I would be inclined to agree with that if that's the case.

as for Callas. early Callas was a thrilling dramatic soprano with shot-gun coloratura and glissandi. by the end of her career though, I agree she was solidly in the mezzo camp. the middle of her career is up for interpretation.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Exactly. Calling Callas a mezzo, implying that she should have sung roles such as Amneris, Azucena, and Dalila rather than Lucia, Norma and Medea, or lumping her with Martha Modl and Astrid Varnay - singers of far different (and much more limited) capabilities - makes abundantly clear the perils of categorization.
> 
> The Callas revisionists should remember that Callas was trained, beginning in 1937, by soprano Maria Trivella, considered one of the finest voice teachers in Greece, and then by the brilliant soprano Elvira de Hidalgo. We have no reason to doubt that they knew in what range their pupil should be singing. Trivella at first felt that Callas, with her dark timbre, was a contralto, but very early changed her assessment. Callas herself said that as a beginner she had no chest voice. She began singing a variety of soprano roles in 1941, had a range extending to high Eb, and could execute flawlessly the most difficult coloratura throughout that range. Late in her career, when she recorded a number of mezzo arias, she said she was not entirely comfortable sustaining the low-lying phrases of Dalila's music. In her last recitals she exhibits weakness in the lower mid-range where a mezzo would be strong, and has to carry her chest voice high to compensate. These are not the characteristics of a singer meant to perform mezzo roles. The dramatic chest tones she developed - in order, she said, to have a vocal arsenal adequate for bel canto - shouldn't fool us, regardless of how creatively she uses them in her fascinating portrayal of Carmen.


Fair points. With that said, I don't think any singer who isn't a bass or contralto has good low notes before age 18. With that said, her low range was incredible even at age 23-24, even though this is clearly soprano singing here.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The Conte said:


> I don't consider Amneris, Azucena and Dalila mezzo roles. I would call them contralto roles.


Considering the huge number of singers described as mezzos who've been successful in those roles, and the general scarcity of voices most of us would unambiguously call contralto, isn't yours either an eccentric view or simply quibbling? This is exactly what drives me crazy in the discussion of fachs.

Those roles, like any number of roles in opera, are for low sopranos, mezzos, contraltos, transsexuals, countertenors in drag, or whoever the hell can sing them effectively. To call them "contralto roles" is to reify an abstraction - to mistake a concept for reality. Fachs are only a rough guide, not a scientific nomenclature.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

davidglasgow said:


> While there have been a few great artists who succeeded in specialising in a limited repertoire e.g. Schipa and Kraus - it seems to me that *versatility has been a far greater factor in the success of Sutherland, Pavarotti, Domingo, Leontyne Price etc etc
> *
> In fact, the explanations for vocal decline based on singing outside a particular fach seem pretty suspect to me.
> 
> It seems to me, rather than looking at fach-flouting (?) as an automatic warning sign, as an intimation of problems to come, flouting these rather artificial categories should instead be seen as not only ok but positive: it was the lifeblood of [Di Stefano's] career, and the aforementioned careers which exceeded his in longevity.


Versatility is not only not the exception among great singers; it's the rule. Most singers of sufficient technical accomplishment should be able to sing roles quite variable in their requirements, and most want to. Likewise, most roles can be sung effectively by very different singers. Carmen sung by Supervia, De los Angeles, Price, and Callas is quite a different experience in each case, but all are effective and their renderings are valid despite the fact that the singers are generally assigned to different fachs.

It's just common sense that a singer shouldn't push his voice beyond its capacity. Instances of this usually involve taking on parts that ask for too much sustained power, too extreme a tessitura, or both. A large, heavy voice might also get into trouble trying to do roles too light, although human psychology is more likely to favor the former problem. Consulting one's "fach" may help to avoid such mistakes, but it may also be unnecessarily limiting. Ultimately you have to try singing the music to know how it feels, and when you know that, it doesn't matter what fach anyone assigns to you.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> Dalilah could easily be classified that way, but Amneris is higherm and Azucena has high parts as well, including an optional high C in one scene.
> 
> allow me to reiterate to see if I'm getting your point: you see fach as a range of capabilities


I think the German fach system is based to some degree on capabilities and that's what I consider is its short coming. Therefore I prefer to use the term voice category. Voice categories are nothing to do with capabilities. Capisce?!

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Considering the huge number of singers described as mezzos who've been successful in those roles, and the general scarcity of voices most of us would unambiguously call contralto, isn't yours either an eccentric view or simply quibbling? This is exactly what drives me crazy in the discussion of fachs.


Apologies, my fault, I didn't write what I meant, which was that in my system those would be contralto roles. I don't think it eccentric to question nomenclature or perceived norms and I find it strange that someone who values independent thought like yourself, might think such a thing is so.

By the way, I'm not discussing fachs, I'm discussing voice categories, which is a similar, yet different concept.

N.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The Conte said:


> Apologies, my fault, I didn't write what I meant, which was that in my system those would be contralto roles. I don't think it eccentric to question nomenclature or perceived norms and I find it strange that someone who values independent thought like yourself, might think such a thing is so.
> 
> By the way, I'm not discussing fachs, I'm discussing voice categories, which is a similar, yet different concept.
> 
> N.


Perhaps the logical question, then, is what it is about those roles that makes you want to give them to contraltos in particular. Contralto, as generally understood, is the deepest and darkest of female voices, and the sounds that come to my mind's ear are those of voices like Marian Anderson's, Maureen Forrester's, and Kathleen Ferrier's. Maybe these singers could all have handled the roles in question (or maybe not), but the only Verdi role that comes to mind that's unambiguously for that sort of voice is Ulrica, which I believe was Marian Anderson's Met debut role. In Wagner, I think, we have only Erda, the First Norn, and the celestial voice at the end of Act 1 of Parsifal. Most of Verdi's roles for lower female voice go pretty high and require great intensity at the top, and Wagner actually refers to most of his as "tiefer Sopran." Dalila was written with Pauline Viardot in mind, and she's generally referred to as a mezzo. How many major roles in opera actually specify contralto in the score?


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> How many major roles in opera actually specify contralto in the score?


Klytemnestra comes to mind immediately. Other than that, I can't really think of one.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> Klytemnestra comes to mind immediately. Other than that, I can't really think of one.


How about Amahl's mother? And La Cieca, La Gioconda's mother? (If those are major roles... Maybe you have to be someone's mother.)


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> How about Amahl's mother? And La Cieca, La Gioconda's mother? (If those are major roles... Maybe you have to be someone's mother.)


I've just had a look through my scores and Angelina in Cenerentola is listed as a contralto role, whereas Rosina in Barber is a Mezzo one. One thing to bear in mind is that Baritone and Mezzo as terms for voice types weren't universally adopted until the mid 19th century. If Mozart is to be believed he only wrote roles for Sopranos, Tenors and Basses in Nozze di Figaro! Isabella Colbran who Rossini wrote many roles for is often termed a contralto, but perhaps we would call her a mezzo today. Interestingly the great contralto Ernestine Schumann-Heink debuted as Azucena!

This is the list of contralto roles on Wikipedia:

Examples of contralto roles in the standard operatic repertoire include the following:.[13]

Angelina*, La Cenerentola (Rossini)
Arsace, Semiramide (Rossini)
Art Banker, Facing Goya (Nyman)
Auntie*, landlady of The Boar, Peter Grimes (Britten)
Azucena*, Il trovatore (Verdi)
The Baroness, Vanessa (Barber)
Bradamante, Alcina (Handel)
La Cieca, La Gioconda (Ponchielli)
Cornelia Giulio Cesare (Handel)
The Countess*, The Queen of Spades (Tchaikovsky)
Didone, Egisto (Cavalli)
Erda, Das Rheingold, Siegfried (Wagner)
Madame Flora, The Medium (Menotti)
Fides, Le prophète (Meyerbeer)
Florence, Albert Herring (Britten)
Isabella*, L'italiana in Algeri (Rossini)
Katisha, The Mikado (Gilbert and Sullivan)
Klytemnestra*, Elektra (Richard Strauss)
Lel, The Snow Maiden (Rimsky-Korsakov)
Little Buttercup, H.M.S. Pinafore (Gilbert and Sullivan)
Lucretia, The Rape of Lucretia (Britten)
Maddalena*, Rigoletto (Verdi)
Magdelone, Maskarade (Nielsen)
Mama Lucia, Cavalleria rusticana (Mascagni)
Ma Moss, The Tender Land (Copland)
Malcolm*, La donna del lago (Rossini)
Margret, Wozzeck (Berg)
Maria, Porgy and Bess (Gershwin)
The Marquise of Berkenfield, La fille du régiment (Donizetti)
Marthe, Faust (Gounoud)
Mary, Der fliegende Holländer (Wagner)
Mother, The Consul (Menotti)
Mother Goose, The Rake's Progress (Stravinsky)
Mrs Quickly, Falstaff (Verdi)
Norn (I), Götterdämmerung (Wagner)
Olga*, Eugene Onegin (Tchaikovsky)
Orfeo, Orfeo ed Euridice (Gluck)
Orsini, Lucrezia Borgia (Donizetti)
Pauline, The Queen of Spades (Tchaikovsky)
La Principessa, Suor Angelica (Puccini)
Ratmir, Ruslan and Lyudmila (Glinka)
Rosina*, The Barber of Seville (Rossini)
Rosmira/Eurimene*, Partenope (Handel)
Ruth, The Pirates of Penzance (Gilbert and Sullivan)
Schwertleite, Die Walküre (Wagner)
Smeaton, Anna Bolena (Donizetti)
Sosostris, The Midsummer Marriage (Tippett)
Stella, What Next? (Carter)
Tancredi, Tancredi (Rossini)
Ulrica, Un ballo in maschera (Verdi)
Widow Begbick*, Rise and Fall of the City of Mahagonny (Weill)
3rd Woodsprite, Rusalka (Dvořák)
* indicates a role that may also be sung by a mezzo-soprano.

I don't necessarily agree with that list, but it's not as clear cut as we think, perhaps.

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Senesino who was the first to sing the title role in Giulio Cesare was considered a contralto castrato.

N.


----------



## davidglasgow (Aug 19, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> Perhaps the logical question, then, is what it is about those roles that makes you want to give them to contraltos in particular. Contralto, as generally understood, is the deepest and darkest of female voices, and the sounds that come to my mind's ear are those of voices like Marian Anderson's, Maureen Forrester's, and *Kathleen Ferrier's. Maybe these singers could all have handled the roles in question (or maybe not), but the only Verdi role that comes to mind that's unambiguously for that sort of voice is Ulrica, which I believe was Marian Anderson's Met debut role*. In Wagner, I think, we have only Erda, the First Norn, and the celestial voice at the end of Act 1 of Parsifal. Most of Verdi's roles for lower female voice go pretty high and require great intensity at the top, and Wagner actually refers to most of his as "tiefer Sopran." Dalila was written with Pauline Viardot in mind, and she's generally referred to as a mezzo. How many major roles in opera actually specify contralto in the score?


There's an interesting reference in Kathleen Ferrier's letters and diaries to being offered the part of Ulrica in the 1949 Edinburgh Festival


> She declined politely [...] she recognised herself that for Verdi a weightier voice than hers is required. Yet she did make the occasional concessions, such as taking the contralto part of Maddalena in the Quartet from _Rigoletto_


Re: Azucena in her diaries/letters


> I feel that the tessitura is high, and that I should be inclined to tie myself in knots


Also from her diaries/letters


> I'm sorry about the Verdi _Requiem_, it breaks mi bloomin' heart, but it's no good it's too high. The more I see of opera, the less I want to take part in it, except _Orfeo_


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The Conte said:


> I've just had a look through my scores and Angelina in Cenerentola is listed as a contralto role, whereas Rosina in Barber is a Mezzo one. One thing to bear in mind is that Baritone and Mezzo as terms for voice types weren't universally adopted until the mid 19th century. If Mozart is to be believed he only wrote roles for Sopranos, Tenors and Basses in Nozze di Figaro! Isabella Colbran who Rossini wrote many roles for is often termed a contralto, but perhaps we would call her a mezzo today. Interestingly the great contralto Ernestine Schumann-Heink debuted as Azucena!
> 
> This is the list of contralto roles on Wikipedia:
> 
> ...


It's rarely clear cut, I'd say. Sometimes the call for a certain voice type might to refer to range, sometimes to timbre. We'll never know what some composers had in mind if we can no longer ask them. I wonder how many of the roles on that list actually specified contralto? When did the category actually acquire a separate designation? Wasn't everyone just "soprano" or "alto" before sometime in the 19th century?


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

I thought it would be interesting to go back to the OP and reconsider the question that was posed at the beginning of the thread.

It was suggested that as singers' voices change throughout their careers, then they should also change fach.

It seems to me that that is what the fach system does do, which makes sense for a system designed for use by theatres and agents. Whilst there are always exceptions, most voices develop in the same way as a singer ages and become somewhat darker and fuller. However, singers normally don't change voice _type_ as they age. If you have a system of 30 categories such as the German fach model, then singers are going to move through different fachs (this is inevitable in a system where some categories only have as few as 2 roles).

I am interested in how we can categorise voices best to help teachers and students. Whilst an open mind is necessary during study, it is also useful to have an idea of where you are going and which roles a student can start with, which they should avoid and which should be left for now, but are likely to be future roles. All singers should be prepared to sing outside their category, but most of their roles should be within their category. If most of their roles are in categories that are wildly different to their voice category then they could end up damaging the voice.

I wouldn't limit categories solely to the six voice types, but the 25-30 fachs is too prescriptive to be useful to singers. Whilst a voice changes I wouldn't expect most singers to change voice category in my system of 14 categories over their career, but I would expect them to sing roles at the heavier end of their category that they weren't ready for previously. Taking Sutherland as an example I would class her a spinto (or middle or medium soprano if you don't like the term 'spinto'), that she had a high extension, the flexibility to sing coloratura and the volume of a dramatic soprano is neither here nor there. Therefore had she moved from bel canto to what are normally considered spinto roles I would have seen it as a natural development of the voice within her category.

N.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

Piggybacking from The Conte's list, how about categories as simple as this?

Lyric Soprano
Dramatic Soprano
Lyric Mezzo
Dramatic Mezzo
Contralto
Lyric Tenor
Dramatic Tenor
Lyric Baritone
Dramatic Baritone
Bass Baritone
Lyric Bass
Dramatic Bass

I think I covered everyone & every role...


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Bonetan said:


> Piggybacking from The Conte's list, how about categories as simple as this?
> 
> Lyric Soprano
> Dramatic Soprano
> ...


A noble effort. But if the fach system is to serve its purpose of guiding casting by opera managements, I'll have to suggest a few additions. 1. We need to specify skill in coloratura for all vocal ranges. Most singers are not up to the demands of Rossini and other bel canto roles, or of certain coloratura specialty roles such as Lakme or Zerlina. 2. The heldentenor (basically, Tannhauser, Tristan, Siegmund and Siegfried) really is a bit different from the dramatic tenor in needing not only great power and endurance but a full-bodied lower range and the ability to sing for long periods around the passaggio. 3. Contraltos should surely be differentiated like other range categories. Kathleen Ferrier (see story above) was a very different singer from Ewa Podles.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> A noble effort. But if the fach system is to serve its purpose of guiding casting by opera managements, I'll have to suggest a few additions. 1. We need to specify skill in coloratura for all vocal ranges. Most singers are not up to the demands of Rossini and other bel canto roles, or of certain coloratura specialty roles such as Lakme or Zerlina. 2. The heldentenor (basically, Tannhauser, Tristan, Siegmund and Siegfried) really is a bit different from the dramatic tenor in needing not only great power and endurance but a full-bodied lower range and the ability to sing for long periods around the passaggio. 3. Contraltos should surely be differentiated like other range categories. Kathleen Ferrier (see story above) was a very different singer from Ewa Podles.


I figure those are singers within my categories, only with specific strengths. For instance a lyric soprano with exceptional coloratura, or a dramatic tenor who excels in the Wagner repertoire. I can add a lyric & dramatic contralto though. That makes sense. From there it would be up to the agents to differentiate...


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> A noble effort. But if the fach system is to serve its purpose of guiding casting by opera managements, I'll have to suggest a few additions.


Why does a fach system have to serve the purpose of guiding casting by opera managements? Perhaps singing managements shouldn't cast principal role debuts without having heard the singer first.

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Bonetan said:


> Piggybacking from The Conte's list, how about categories as simple as this?
> 
> Lyric Soprano
> Dramatic Soprano
> ...


I agree with Woodduck that you need a lyric and dramatic contralto (Ferrier and Simionato had similar voices in terms of colour, but range, weight and volume were different).

I'm still not sure about the Bass Baritone, what roles would be Bass Baritone ones without being a Dramatic Baritone or a Lyric Bass?

N.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The Conte said:


> Why does a fach system have to serve the purpose of guiding casting by opera managements? Perhaps singing managements shouldn't cast principal role debuts without having heard the singer first.
> 
> N.


That's presumably why the "fach system" was invented (see Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fach ). I'm not recommending it, just pointing it out. Obviously, one ought to have heard a singer before hiring him, but someone way back in the mists of time evidently thought they needed this catalogue as well. If they think they need it, that's fine by me.

I'm not suggesting categories because I like categorizing singers. I should think I've made that clear approximately 50 times since the first discussions of fachs appeared here. In this case I was just trying to supplement Bonetan's thoughts. I mean, if we have to have fachs, we may as well be as precise about them as possible.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The Conte said:


> I agree with Woodduck that you need a lyric and dramatic contralto (Ferrier and Simionato had similar voices in terms of colour, but range, weight and volume were different).
> 
> I'm still not sure about the Bass Baritone, what roles would be Bass Baritone ones without being a Dramatic Baritone or a Lyric Bass?
> 
> N.


A bass-baritone is someone capable of singing Wotan! :lol:

But seriously, a bass-baritone is someone capable of singing Wotan - the whole role, effectively. He has to have volume and dramatic force throughout the normal ranges of both bass and baritone. Wagner keeps him growling in the depths in places - his monologue with Brunnhilde in Act 2 of Walkure - but requires huge power above the staff elsewhere. He also needs a dark, rich tone and plenty of endurance. Most basses and baritones are not up to this.

Obviously Wotan isn't the only suitable role for this voice, but he is the archetypal one. Most of Wagner's low men's parts are best taken by bass-baritones. Friedrich Schorr, Hans Hotter and George London were outstanding examples. Hotter was also able to sing true bass roles effectively (Gurnemanz).

We might say that Wagner invented the bass-baritone, as he invented the heldentenor, a somewhat distinct vocal type that crosses the boundary between tenor and baritone."Baritenor" might be a good term.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

The Conte said:


> I'm still not sure about the Bass Baritone, what roles would be Bass Baritone ones without being a Dramatic Baritone or a Lyric Bass?
> 
> N.


Woodduck basically covered it, but to go into more detail there are roles that are in the 2 octave range from about low F# to high F# that really require a bass baritone. As Woodduck mentioned, Wotan is the prime example. The monologue in Act 2 goes as low as F, & as high as G flat. Too low for most baritones & too high for most basses. Act 3 in Siegfried is another example where its just too high for most basses. Sure a baritone can growl out the monologue & a bass can scream through Siegfried act 3, but a bass baritone can sing through both comfortably. Other such roles would be Dutchman, Sachs, Barak, Jochanaan, Mandryka, & Orest. You can add Escamillo & The 4 Villains from Hoffman as other roles that are best suited for a bass baritone. Personally, I don't know of any roles in the Italian rep that require this voice.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> A bass-baritone is someone capable of singing Wotan! :lol:
> 
> But seriously, a bass-baritone is someone capable of singing Wotan - the whole role, effectively. He has to have volume and dramatic force throughout the normal ranges of both bass and baritone.


In an earlier post you said that composers didn't use fachs and I would agree as I agree with all your points about fachs. BUT when it comes to the Bass Baritone, you do believe in a fach! Wagner didn't use the term Bass Baritone as far as I know, but instead divided the Bass voice type into two categories: High Bass and Deep Bass. I also divide the Bass voice type into two categories. Why is sauce for the Wagner goose not sauce for the Conte gander?

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Bonetan said:


> Too low for most baritones & too high for most basses.


They need to work on their technique, then! :devil:

A baritone (certainly a dramatic one) should have a low F.



Bonetan said:


> Other such roles would be Dutchman, Sachs, Barak, Jochanaan, Mandryka, & Orest. You can add Escamillo & The 4 Villains from Hoffman as other roles that are best suited for a bass baritone. Personally, I don't know of any roles in the Italian rep that require this voice.


I would class all of those (except Jochanaan and possibly Mandryka) Dramatic Baritone roles in my system.

I thought Jochanaan was more bassey and Mandryka more baritoney, but I admit I don't know the tessitura of the roles well.

N.

P.S. I find it fascinating that the three people who have most faith in categorising voices on this thread are all what some would term Bass Baritones.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The Conte said:


> In an earlier post you said that composers didn't use fachs and I would agree as I agree with all your points about fachs. BUT when it comes to the Bass Baritone, you do believe in a fach! Wagner didn't use the term Bass Baritone as far as I know, but instead divided the Bass voice type into two categories: High Bass and Deep Bass. I also divide the Bass voice type into two categories. Why is sauce for the Wagner goose not sauce for the Conte gander?
> 
> N.


Ha! No cigar, gander. :lol:

I hardly think that Wagner's indication that Wotan and Fafner required different sorts of voices suggested an interest in a fach system. He didn't write for a fach called "bass-baritone" or even "high bass"; he wrote a difficult role for a voice of a certain basic type, and probably had no intention of making it as demanding as it turned out to be.

All I object to is the attempt to force singers and roles into categories - they may fit your categories or they may not - and the silly debates over who is "really" what. Kundry, for example, is called "sopran" by Wagner, but it has so much low-lying stuff that requires a full, dramatic, or sensuous tone that for my taste its best exemplars have been mezzos with strong tops (on recordings, I'd pick Christa Ludwig and Irene Dalis). I can't think of a greater waste of time than a debate over whether Kundry is "really" a soprano or a mezzo role, or whether it "should" be sung by a mezzo or a soprano.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

The Conte said:


> They need to work on their technique, then! :devil:
> 
> A baritone (certainly a dramatic one) should have a low F.
> 
> ...


Shoot, there are many basses who struggle with the low F. Check this out & you'll hear some examples. F is damn low:






Most verdi baritones don't have anything below an A flat! Jochanaan & Mandryka would be more towards dramatic baritone than high bass. Orest, Wotan, & Sachs would be closer to high bass.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

The Conte said:


> In an earlier post you said that composers didn't use fachs and I would agree as I agree with all your points about fachs. BUT when it comes to the Bass Baritone, you do believe in a fach! Wagner didn't use the term Bass Baritone as far as I know, but instead divided the Bass voice type into two categories: High Bass and Deep Bass. I also divide the Bass voice type into two categories. Why is sauce for the Wagner goose not sauce for the Conte gander?
> 
> N.


I believe Wagner could have just as easily said "low baritone". I think his differentiation just goes to show that there is indeed a voice type that lies between bass & baritone.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Bonetan said:


> I believe Wagner could have just as easily said "low baritone". I think his differentiation just goes to show that there is indeed a voice type that lies between bass & baritone.


If you consider that there are only three basic types of male voice, then yes that makes total sense, of course. However if you divide the tenor type into three more specific types and the lower voices into four types there is no need for the Bass Baritone.

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Ha! No cigar, gander. :lol:
> 
> I hardly think that Wagner's indication that Wotan and Fafner required different sorts of voices suggested an interest in a fach system. He didn't write for a fach called "bass-baritone" or even "high bass"; he wrote a difficult role for a voice of a certain basic type, and probably had no intention of making it as demanding as it turned out to be.
> 
> All I object to is the attempt to force singers and roles into categories - they may fit your categories or they may not - and the silly debates over who is "really" what. Kundry, for example, is called "sopran" by Wagner, but it has so much low-lying stuff that requires a full, dramatic, or sensuous tone that for my taste its best exemplars have been mezzos with strong tops (on recordings, I'd pick Christa Ludwig and Irene Dalis). I can't think of a greater waste of time than a debate over whether Kundry is "really" a soprano or a mezzo role, or whether it "should" be sung by a mezzo or a soprano.


I agree with pretty much all of this and I think I see where the confusion comes in. I am not advocating for fewer fachs, I'm suggesting having more basic types than the six: Soprano, Mezzo, Contralto, Tenor, Baritone, Bass. I haven't said that Wagner wrote Wotan for a specific fach, like you, I think Wagner wrote Wotan for a basic voice type he called 'high bass' and he wrote Fafner for a basic voice type he called 'low bass' and didn't Wagner write roles for more than six basic types? That doesn't mean that anybody who has sung Fafner should never sing Wotan. (And to be fair to the fachistas they don't say that either, so it's a strawman.) I would expect though, that most Wotans wouldn't also sing Fafner and vice versa. I agree with Wagner, there are more than six basic voice types.

Kundry is an interesting example. We have already discussed how and why a composer's voice type specification isn't necessarily of help when thinking about the vocal landscape of a role and singers who would and wouldn't be associated with it. When I think of the nature of the role I would class it as a dramatic mezzo role and when I think of the most successful singers in the role, they are all singers I would call dramatic mezzos! It may be _thought of_ as a soprano role and those singers may have called themselves sopranos, but since these random examples you throw up confirm my hypothesis, I would posit that my classifications are more valid.

If you were to see a performance of Parsifal at which the Kundry had a full, sensuous tone, but not a strong top, then I understand that you are perfectly happy thinking that you would have preferred the Kundry to have a stronger top and leave it there. The singer (and/or the singer's teacher) would need to also understand _why_ the singer isn't making the high notes however. Assuming that it wasn't an off night and the singer doesn't have any health problems, then I think there are only two possibilities. The singer needs to improve their technique to master those high notes or no matter how hard they work they just aren't going to get there. I don't see how it is possible to distinguish between the two without a good knowledge of voice types.

N.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> A noble effort. But if the fach system is to serve its purpose of guiding casting by opera managements, I'll have to suggest a few additions. 1. We need to specify skill in coloratura for all vocal ranges. Most singers are not up to the demands of Rossini and other bel canto roles, or of certain coloratura specialty roles such as Lakme or Zerlina.


exactly.



> 2. The heldentenor (basically, Tannhauser, Tristan, Siegmund and Siegfried) really is a bit different from the dramatic tenor in needing not only great power and endurance but a full-bodied lower range and the ability to sing for long periods around the passaggio.


It's also a bit lower by my estimation. When I listen to James King, I generally feel as if I'm listening to a baritone.



> 3. Contraltos should surely be differentiated like other range categories. Kathleen Ferrier (see story above) was a very different singer from Ewa Podles.


The more I listen to them, I divide contraltos largely into more androgynous, countertenor-y sounding contraltos (Nathalie Stutzmann, Marilyn Horne) vs more sultry, feminine contralto voices (Monica Sinclair, Claramae Turner). Not proposing this as a potential fach division, but it's the most clear difference between contraltos I notice


----------



## Siren (Apr 5, 2018)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> I'm not proposing a new system. I'm proposing better application of the current one via being more mindful of the effects of age on the voice.


I agree that we should just be more mindful and aware that as our voices progress our fach's are bound to change and for us to accept and adjust our repertoire accordingly. I don't think we need to change the fach System at all as it is very useful for casting directors and choosing the appropriate voice for the appropriate Roles so it certainly does serve a purpose. It can be challenging for some vocalists though to let go of an old fach and accept a new one into their bodies. It's a deeply personal transition. Judging a singer for their lack of ability to make that transition flawlessly is simply having unrealistic expectations. These people with freakish voices are humans too. They deserve as much right as anyone for a transitory period. I am transitioning into a dramatic Coloratura from a Lyric Coloratura and I am having difficutly through this transition especially while preparing for the Santa Fe Opera Apprenticeship Program Auditions.


----------

