# Technical brilliance vs emotional impact



## Fable (May 19, 2015)

I realise that this is quite subjective but I was wondering what other people considered more important in their enjoyment of opera. For me opera is all about how it makes me feel, a really good opera recording or performance is almost like a spiritual experience. I don't have a great ear, so I can't always tell if something is technically brilliant but I can tell if it moves me or not. For instance, I am a huge Wagner fan and my favourite opera of all time is Tristan und Isolde. I was lucky enough to be able to go and see the ROH's production last summer. I was so excited, the reviews were incredible but I was left disappointed. Nina Stemme was utterly incredible as Isolde, as were most of the cast, but overall the performance just left me feeling flat. Technically it was superb, but the emotional impact just wasn't there, partly, I think, because of the orchestra. I didn't feel that they captured the spirit of the piece, only perhaps at the very end.

In contrast I have seen other Wagner productions by less distinguished companies that have captured the very soul of the pieces, where the singers have lacked technical brilliance but overall the emotional impact was much greater. 

My favourite Wagner recordings are those by Karajan, there is something about them that just touches me. I have heard that there are other recordings that are technically better and have tried them but they just leave me cold. Anyway, I was just wondering what people felt was more important, or perhaps it's a combination of the two? My ear has improved since I've started to listen to more classical music but even when I can hear that something isn't quite right I still prefer it to the more polished 'colder' versions. 

Hope that all makes sense and doesn't sound silly.


----------



## Cesare Impalatore (Apr 16, 2015)

Well, of course ultimately the enjoyment of art is subjective, guided by emotions etc. but I disagree with your basic premise, i.e. looking at a contrast of what you call technical _brilliance vs. emotional impact_, or in other words cold, technical singing vs. emotional singing. Such a contrast doesn't really exist in the world of opera singing. There is nothing cold about a clean technique, to the contrary, it is the basic requirement which enables great singers like Maria Callas (just going for the most obvious example) to sing in an emotionally rich way in the first place. I think it's almost the same for great scientists like Albert Einstein or Steven Hawking, they make very interesting and fascinating discoveries about the world but they couldn't make them without knowing all about dry mathematic formulas and all that _technical_ stuff that would drive us ordinary mortals crazy. The former doesn't stand in contrast with the latter but requires it to even exist. Think of the human voice like an instrument, first you have to master it on a technical level, then you can go on to the dimension of more sophisticated interpretation.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

*takes a seat and waits for inevitable Callas/Sutherland debate*


----------



## graziesignore (Mar 13, 2015)

Some of my favorite singers are technocrats! Unless they're completely robotic, though, for me the virtuosity of great technique produces its own emotional force field. The "either-or" thing, I don't get. How the emotion is produced in me is not as important as what I do feel. Either we feel something or we don't. Right now I have trouble listening to quite a few highly recommended current-day singers because, while _they're_ feeling the music, they have technical flaws which I just can't overlook. Let's not name names.  Anyone can emote and not have proper technique and it seems to get a pass. Not that I have any huge issue with that, I just enjoy what I enjoy. Don't we all?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> *takes a seat and waits for inevitable Callas/Sutherland debate*


No need for debate. Callas had both technique and expression.

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!

OK. Just kidding (but you asked for it, Balalaikabuster)! (and she did)

Back on topic, I agree with Cesare that technique is necessary for expression in operatic singing, but I don't think they always go hand in hand in a simple way. We've all, I think, listened to singers with fine techniques whose performances we found cold and unmoving - and, on the other hand, singers with over-the-hill voices no longer capable of meeting all the music's demands, or singers who have never quite mastered their instruments, whose fervor, sincerity, and musical and dramatic insight moved us. There are leading operatic artists in both of those categories. As an example of the former, Elina Garanca's Carmen, as heard on the Met broadcast, was beautifully vocalized throughout but about as sexy and exciting to me as frozen fish fillets. On the other hand, Martha Modl, whose vocal production always sounded iffy and got more so with the years, bent her odd voice to her expressive will and gave enormously compelling performances of Kundry, Isolde, and other roles.

Of course what we want is both technique and expression in full. The combination defines the greatest artists.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

It really is a false dichotomy, because without technique a singer can't hope to express much of anything; it's technique that frees an artist (of any type) to be communicative. The book ON THE ART OF SINGING by the (now-deceased) voice teacher Richard Miller makes this point time and again. For example: "A singing personality...can be the most imaginative and expressive in the world, but if the vocal instrument is not at a high level of technical proficiency, the world will never know those qualities." Without a solid technical backing, little emotion can come across.

Of course, different singing artists affect listeners emotionally in different ways. I've always sensed considerable warmth and concern for drama in the singing of the technically dazzling Joan Sutherland, though I realize that she tends to leave other listeners cold. But I don't think there has been a single famous (or even semi-famous) opera singer who has been unconcerned with the dramatic aspect of his/her work; watch just about any high-level operatic master class, and you'll see how much interpretive work goes on. In other words, I don't believe there's an opera singer in the world who simply stands on stage and makes beautiful sounds with no thought of meaning or dramatic context. It's true that certain singers might not be _dramatic enough_ for certain listeners, but this is subjective.


----------



## graziesignore (Mar 13, 2015)

I've used the rollercoaster analogy when debating expressivity and style...

There's an insane rollercoaster called The Opera. No seatbelts are allowed, you just have to hang on with your own talent, or else get pitched over the side. The Opera has devoured many riders. So... three guys get on (and you're going to stay off the coaster and watch them ride)...

The first guy, who doesn't have the technique, gets pitched out of his seat every time there's a challenging bump. He sails into the air and is terrified. One time he manages to (quite by accident) do a midair trick while he's struggling to hang on. The crowd cheers! So, this is what the first guy does from now on. He does little tricks every time he's pitched out of his seat, and the less knowledgeable watchers think he's a real daredevil. Maybe he'll gain technique, maybe he'll just muddle along, who knows. But if he doesn't, one of these days he's going to go sailing off into the stratosphere, never to be heard from (or heard) again.

The second guy has solid technique, experience, etc that the first guy doesn't. The first few times he got pitched out of his seat, he learned how the ride works. Now he is in control of gravity on this ride, and knows when to let go and do the most spectacular somersaults in midair that make the crowd go wild, and when to hang on. That's musical expression grounded in technique.

The third guy is something else entirely. He rides the whole ride with butt planted firmly in seat, hanging on with one hand (or one pinky finger) the whole way through, suavely smoking a cigarette. He never, ever gets pitched out of his seat. Ever. No matter what roller coaster it is. He might occasionally raise an eyebrow, for a change of pace. The crowd loves him too, and despite the fact he never does anything differently, he's so amazing in his defiance of gravity that they want to see him ride every coaster. And that's style. It also depends on technique - or at least, the gift of a magnetic rear end.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Bellinilover said:


> It really is a false dichotomy, because without technique a singer can't hope to express much of anything; it's technique that frees an artist (of any type) to be communicative. The book ON THE ART OF SINGING by the (now-deceased) voice teacher Richard Miller makes this point time and again. For example: "A singing personality...can be the most imaginative and expressive in the world, but if the vocal instrument is not at a high level of technical proficiency, the world will never know those qualities." Without a solid technical backing, little emotion can come across.
> 
> Of course, different singing artists affect listeners emotionally in different ways. I've always sensed considerable warmth and concern for drama in the singing of the technically dazzling Joan Sutherland, though I realize that she tends to leave other listeners cold. But I don't think there has been a single famous (or even semi-famous) opera singer who has been unconcerned with the dramatic aspect of his/her work; watch just about any high-level operatic master class, and you'll see how much interpretive work goes on. In other words, I don't believe there's an opera singer in the world who simply stands on stage and makes beautiful sounds with no thought of meaning or dramatic context. It's true that certain singers might not be _dramatic enough_ for certain listeners, but this is subjective.


I _almost_ agree with you, as I _almost_ agreed with Cesare. But when you say "without technique a singer can't hope to express much of anything," I think you're creating a false dichotomy too. I really don't think anyone is talking about really poor vocal technique. The question is: how highly developed a technique does a singer need to put across a given piece of music meaningfully and move a listener? And, conversely, is a superbly polished technique any guarantee of musical effectiveness? Sure, all singers try to say something when they sing, but it's far from true that all succeed in saying very much (just tune in to the Met on Saturdays), and successful interpretation isn't an entirely subjective matter, despite the differing tastes of listeners. Any vocal coach, having worked with singers on the expressive aspects of their art, will tell you that some singers "have" it, and others need to have it pounded into them (and still may not get it).

Having been a singer when I was young, I can report that my voice was never highly developed. I had a smooth, mellow, low tenor (would-be tenor, let's be frank!) of no great resonance or power, which people found easy to listen to. I could handle a fair amount of song repertoire with confidence, but never dreamed of opera or oratorio. I was an asset to any choir, I made money singing in churches, and I gave a few song recitals. I knew my vocal attainments were modest and didn't expect to be praised for them. But I also knew that I was an insightful musician, and when I sang Schubert or Faure other people knew that too, and were moved by my projection of the text, mood and meaning of songs. A fine pianist with whom I worked told me that she felt it extraordinary that I never made an unfelt sound. In short, I didn't have a highly developed voice, but I could make fine music with what I had.

I don't disagree with you that I could have made even better music with a better-trained instrument, and that any singer can. But I wouldn't want to be without the late recordings of singers whose voices may no longer be fully up to the task, but who can draw on a lifetime of experience and give us performances their younger, vocally pristine colleagues can't yet even imagine.

We've been talking only about the vocal aspect of opera, but the OP also mentions live performances. That brings up other factors. Most of us are more forgiving of less-than-great singing if the staging and acting are impressive. Whether we're happier with better singing or a better overall production will be an individual matter and a case-by-case one.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Fable said:


> I was lucky enough to be able to go and see the ROH's production last summer. I was so excited, the reviews were incredible but I was left disappointed. Nina Stemme was utterly incredible as Isolde, as were most of the cast, but overall the performance just left me feeling flat. Technically it was superb, but the emotional impact just wasn't there, partly, I think, because of the orchestra. I didn't feel that they captured the spirit of the piece, only perhaps at the very end.
> 
> In contrast I have seen other Wagner productions by less distinguished companies that have captured the very soul of the pieces, where the singers have lacked technical brilliance but overall the emotional impact was much greater.


I have to wonder just how much raised expectations fits into this, i.e. sometimes we expect something special and there is no way that it can really live up to that, whereas if we aren't expecting a lot, then the good seems great.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

*Woodduck wrote:*
_I almost agree with you, as I almost agreed with Cesare. But when you say "without technique a singer can't hope to express much of anything," I think you're creating a false dichotomy too. I really don't think anyone is talking about really poor vocal technique. The question is: how highly developed a technique does a singer need to put across a given piece of music meaningfully and move a listener? And, conversely, is a superbly polished technique any guarantee of musical effectiveness?_

Actually, I wrote my post above primarily with student singers in mind. According to Miller (and I think this is true because I've observed a bit of it myself), many young students think that because _they_ "feel the music," that that feeling will automatically come across in their singing. In other words, they think the audience will necessarily feel what they feel, when in reality feeling needs to be projected via technical means, and above all it needs to be found in the music itself, rather than imposed onto the music. But the singer can't apply the subtler nuances if he/she is incapable of simply "phonating through the material" (Miller's words), which is the most basic thing. Trying to master the finer points of interpretation without solidly produced tone in all registers is something Miller likens to trying to ice an incompletely baked cake.

You asked how highly developed a technique a singer needs in order to move a listener. I can speak only of my own personal experiences as a listener, but for me personally it's dynamic variety that tends to make the difference between a "flat" performance and an interesting and affecting one. The ability to shade (an already solidly produced and resonant) tone dynamically requires a mastery of breath control.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Fable said:


> I realise that this is quite subjective but I was wondering what other people considered more important in their enjoyment of opera. For me opera is all about how it makes me feel, a really good opera recording or performance is almost like a spiritual experience. I don't have a great ear, so I can't always tell if something is technically brilliant but I can tell if it moves me or not. For instance, I am a huge Wagner fan and my favourite opera of all time is Tristan und Isolde. I was lucky enough to be able to go and see the ROH's production last summer. I was so excited, the reviews were incredible but I was left disappointed. Nina Stemme was utterly incredible as Isolde, as were most of the cast, but overall the performance just left me feeling flat. Technically it was superb, but the emotional impact just wasn't there, partly, I think, because of the orchestra. I didn't feel that they captured the spirit of the piece, only perhaps at the very end.
> 
> In contrast I have seen other Wagner productions by less distinguished companies that have captured the very soul of the pieces, where the singers have lacked technical brilliance but overall the emotional impact was much greater.
> 
> ...


It makes sense to me and doesn't sound silly.

Unlike most of the other responses which you've had, I totally agree with you. I've been to operas which received huge praise and where the singers were technically brilliant and I experienced no emotion whatsoever.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

I think it's an interesting question, and look forward to reading more replies, with examples. Unfortunately, I don't have enough experience of opera myself to make any valid comment; but on general principles, if I had to choose between a performance that was clinically brilliant and one that was flawed but compelling emotionally, I'd choose the latter.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Ingélou said:


> if I had to choose between a performance that was clinically brilliant and one that was flawed but compelling emotionally, I'd choose the latter.


Absotively, posilutely


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Bellinilover said:


> It really is a false dichotomy, because without technique a singer can't hope to express much of anything; it's technique that frees an artist (of any type) to be communicative. The book ON THE ART OF SINGING by the (now-deceased) voice teacher Richard Miller makes this point time and again. For example: "A singing personality...can be the most imaginative and expressive in the world, but if the vocal instrument is not at a high level of technical proficiency, the world will never know those qualities." Without a solid technical backing, little emotion can come across.
> 
> Of course, different singing artists affect listeners emotionally in different ways. I've always sensed considerable warmth and concern for drama in the singing of the technically dazzling Joan Sutherland, though I realize that she tends to leave other listeners cold. But I don't think there has been a single famous (or even semi-famous) opera singer who has been unconcerned with the dramatic aspect of his/her work; watch just about any high-level operatic master class, and you'll see how much interpretive work goes on. In other words, I don't believe there's an opera singer in the world who simply stands on stage and makes beautiful sounds with no thought of meaning or dramatic context. It's true that certain singers might not be _dramatic enough_ for certain listeners, but this is subjective.


I agree with you about Joan Sutherland. I think she had a lot of dramatic flair and was a much warmer singer than she is given credit for. however, despite her charisma, her interpretations tended to be a little repetitive, and she didn't have the, well, *bitchiness* to interpret certain roles convincingly. using Norma as an example, her Casta Diva and Ah Bello a me Ritorna are second to none, but her interpretation does not even begin to capture the insane, vindictive intensity of Norma (who could essentially be described as a druid priestess version of Cersei Lannister).

that said, I disagree with your belief that the dichotomy between emotion and technique is a false one. a certain level of emotion can actually aid in vocal production, providing energy and making singing feel more intuitive, but there is a line of emotion that should never be crossed. brilliant vocal technique should be easy and natural with good practice, but it also requires a certain levelheadedness and control. one cannot simply "become the character" in its entirety because the emotional toll it would take would take away from performance ability. as before, Norma serves as an obvious example. I think we can all agree that the more majority of angry women who had been cheated on are in not state to performance flawless coloratura in the lower/middle register only to climb up to spinning high C.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

I think a mixture of both is absolutely possible. I think of Pollini's perhaps unmatched pianistic virtuosity as the perfect example. I hear plenty of emotion and expression in his playing.

That said, technical brilliance isn't necessary for a brilliant performance. I remember Woodduck created a thread on something related to this, he brought up Furtwangler's performances often not possessing technical brilliance but the emotional breadth and power of Furtwangler's direction was immense. My response was that the proof is in the pudding, if the end result is brilliant, awe-inspiring, deep, or whatever other positive adjective you find in the music, then that's what matters, not the occasional missed, sloppy, or wrong notes.

*Ferdinand Ries, Beethoven's pupil*, left this relevant account of how Beethoven was as a teacher:

"_If I made mistakes in a passage, hit the wrong keys or missed intervals... he seldom said anything. But if I had not grasped the expression of crescendos and so forth, or the essential character of the work, he grew angry, for he said errors of the first type were mere accidents, but the other kind displayed a lack of knowledge, of feeling or of attention_"

This is why even the "sloppiest" of Furtwangler's Beethoven's Ninth performances can still be an extremely powerful experience.


----------



## graziesignore (Mar 13, 2015)

> I agree with you about Joan Sutherland. I think she had a lot of dramatic flair and was a much warmer singer than she is given credit for. however, despite her charisma, her interpretations tended to be a little repetitive, and she didn't have the, well, bitchiness to interpret certain roles convincingly.


And I think for men, the counterpart to "bitchiness" is "vulnerability." What you said about Sutherland, I could say about Giorgio Zancanaro, who sang with a great deal of flair and a masterly attentiveness to the emotional rhythms of a scene, but who didn't let much vulnerability into his singing. Thus he wound up with a reputation as a technician. And he actually was capable of some very good acting, but with the same "all the feelings count, but none too much" approach as the singing, I think. But for example his Rigoletto, although well sung, is not my favorite role of his, because it's a role that needed more than he seemed willing to give. Toward the end of his career he seemed to improve in this area, however.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

graziesignore said:


> And I think for men, the counterpart to "bitchiness" is "vulnerability." What you said about Sutherland, I could say about Giorgio Zancanaro, who sang with a great deal of flair and a masterly attentiveness to the emotional rhythms of a scene, but who didn't let much vulnerability into his singing. Thus he wound up with a reputation as a technician. And he actually was capable of some very good acting, but with the same "all the feelings count, but none too much" approach as the singing, I think. But for example his Rigoletto, although well sung, is not my favorite role of his, because it's a role that needed more than he seemed willing to give. Toward the end of his career he seemed to improve in this area, however.


vulnerability can help a bit, but it needs to be done tastefully. many opera singers (male and female) overdo vulnerability, so much so that I feel like I've just been forced to drink a gallon of sugar water (yes, I'm looking at you lyric tenors and soubrettes  ).

here is an what I'm talking about: vulnerable, but still tasteful and dignified.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> vulnerability can help a bit, but it needs to be done tastefully. many opera singers (male and female) overdo vulnerability, so much so that I feel like I've just been forced to drink a gallon of sugar water (yes, I'm looking at you lyric tenors and soubrettes  ).
> 
> here is an what I'm talking about: vulnerable, but still tasteful and dignified.


Interesting choice of video! That's Terrence Mann, right? His Javert on the original Broadway cast album of LES MISERABLES is kind of like that, too -- well-sung and "biting" but understated rather than overtly villainous.


----------

