# "The Met is a big opera house for Mozart!!!" Marlow



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

I agree! But I didn't use Marlow's thought to start a thread just about the Met but about "How important is the space?" We talk endlessly about composers, singers and conductors. How important is the space?
Too big?... covered orchestras?... appropriateness for a given composer?...potentially many angles.

Note from across the tracks: I heard the Yale Philharmonia perform Brahm's third two nights ago. It was beyond beautiful! But I had to ask, is Woolsey Hall an enormous player in making me respond to this excellent student orchestra as though they were the Vienna Philharmonic?!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

My first thought is that the Met is a big space for small voices. A week ago someone on the Met's intermission feature pointed out that _Cosi fan tutte_ at the Met might offer us large-voiced singers such as Eleanor Steber and Richard Tucker.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Woodduck said:


> My first thought is that the Met is a big space for small voices. A week ago someone on the Met's intermission feature pointed out that _Cosi fan tutte_ at the Met might offer us large-voiced singers such as Eleanor Steber and Richard Tucker.


And, at least in my experience, the production with the two of them has always been mentioned as being quite memorable. But Katheen Battle's wonderful Mozart on radio and TV just did not hold up in the house live.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

I've always wondered what the impact of the Bayreuth covered pit was like? It always felt like it must make for smaller Wagner but must be easier for the singers.


----------



## marlow (11 mo ago)

ScottK said:


> I've always wondered what the impact of the Bayreuth covered pit was like? It always felt like it must make for smaller Wagner but must be easier for the singers.


The factor in Bayreuth is not just the covered pit but the reverberation time which would make it unsuitable for Mozart.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

ScottK said:


> I've always wondered what the impact of the Bayreuth covered pit was like? It always felt like it must make for smaller Wagner but must be easier for the singers.


What is smaller Wagner? Listen to recordings made at Bayreuth. Does the music sound small?


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Woodduck said:


> What is smaller Wagner? Listen to recordings made at Bayreuth. Does the music sound small?


I will.

But the thought here would be simply less loud Wagner. Doesn't the covering of the pit make the orchestral sound less loud?


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

marlow said:


> The factor in Bayreuth is not just the covered pit but the reverberation time which would make it unsuitable for Mozart.


Does that mean that Bayreuth does not produce the kind of crystal clear, precise sound that we associate with Mozart? (right or wrong!!!)


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

marlow said:


> The factor in Bayreuth is not just the covered pit but the reverberation time which would make it unsuitable for Mozart.


This sounds unlikely. I turn up the following statement:

"Reverberation times in opera houses are shorter than in concert halls, between 1.2 and 1.5 seconds. European theaters tend to fall into the low end of this range. Festspielhaus in Bayreuth, Germany (Fig. 1.16), built by Richard Wagner for his romantic operas, is one exception with a reverberation time of 1.55 seconds occupied."

The large concert halls of the world have reverberation times longer than 1.55 seconds. Sources suggest 1.7 to 2.2 seconds as optimal. Mozart is performed satisfactorily in these halls. Recordings made at Bayreuth don't sound overreverberant. What's your evidence that Mozart wouldn't sound good there? What else do you think wouldn't sound good at Bayreuth?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

ScottK said:


> I will.
> 
> But the thought here would be simply less loud Wagner. Doesn't the covering of the pit make the orchestral sound less loud?


Yes, it does, but I don't know by how much in decibels. Singers feel more at ease without a huge orchestra between them and the audience. There's also a "mellowing" and blending effect that's audible on recordings. People argue about the desirability of this as applied to the different operas. It's generally thought effective in _Parsifal,_ which Wagner wrote knowing the acoustics of the house, but less so for the _Ring._ Reportedly the overall acoustics of the auditorium are excellent, so I'm not sure that the general effect is "smaller." I suspect it's nicely enveloping.


----------



## marlow (11 mo ago)

Woodduck said:


> This sounds unlikely. I turn up the following statement:
> 
> "Reverberation times in opera houses are shorter than in concert halls, between 1.2 and 1.5 seconds. European theaters tend to fall into the low end of this range. Festspielhaus in Bayreuth, Germany (Fig. 1.16), built by Richard Wagner for his romantic operas, is one exception with a reverberation time of 1.55 seconds occupied."
> 
> The large concert halls of the world have reverberation times longer than 1.55 seconds. Sources suggest 1.7 to 2.2 seconds as optimal. Mozart is performed satisfactorily in these halls. Recordings made at Bayreuth don't sound overreverberant. What's your evidence that Mozart wouldn't sound good there? What else do you think wouldn't sound good at Bayreuth?


As you say the 'mellowing' and 'blending' effect which is good for Parsifal might not be good for Figaro. Of course it is completely speculative as Bayreuth has not been used for anything other than Wagner apart from American troops using it as a music hall during WW2 and of course the 1951 Beethoven 9


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

marlow said:


> As you say the 'mellowing' and 'blending' effect which is good for Parsifal might not be good for Figaro. Of course it is completely speculative as Bayreuth has not been used for anything other than Wagner apart from American troops using it as a music hall during WW2 and of course the 1951 Beethoven 9


I'd say that it's the covered pit, not the reverberation time - which is apparently long for an opera house but not for music halls in general - that might be suboptimal for pre-Romantic opera. I think we'd agree that Baroque and Classical music and opera are ideally performed by smaller forces in more intimate spaces. Of course there's that story about Mozart hearing one of his works performed by a huge orchestra and loving it.


----------



## marlow (11 mo ago)

Woodduck said:


> I'd say that it's the covered pit, not the reverberation time - which is apparently long for an opera house but not for music halls in general - that might be suboptimal for pre-Romantic opera. I think we'd agree that Baroque and Classical music and opera are ideally performed by smaller forces in more intimate spaces. *Of course there's that story about Mozart hearing one of his works performed by a huge orchestra and loving it.*


Another apocryphal one?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

marlow said:


> Another apocryphal one?


Not sure, but I've encountered it more than once and the specifics (which I've forgotten) seemed authentic.


----------



## marlow (11 mo ago)

Woodduck said:


> Not sure, but I've encountered it more than once and the specifics (which I've forgotten) seemed authentic.


From out of Amadeus?


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

marlow said:


> As you say the 'mellowing' and 'blending' effect which is good for Parsifal might not be good for Figaro.


I wonder if this "mellowing and blending" , if it showed up as a genuinely audible difference in Mozart, might lead the sound in the direction of the less careful, more full bodied approach to Mozart that gets attention from various quarters. But, like you say, it aint going to happen, at least at Bayreuth.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

marlow said:


> From out of Amadeus?


Haha. No. I've mercifully forgotten that portrayal of Mozart, except for the pink wig, Tom Hulce's weird gesticulations on the podium, and some language (no doubt true to life) that shouldn't be repeated here.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Woodduck said:


> I think we'd agree that Baroque and Classical music and opera are ideally performed by smaller forces in more intimate spaces. Of course there's that story about Mozart hearing one of his works performed by a huge orchestra and loving it.


Growing up on Bruno Walter Mozart symphonies, I would not want to be without them, so I can take the additional size at times.
At the same time, Mozart at the Met....just about always an "if only the house were smaller" feeling.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

ScottK said:


> I wonder if this "mellowing and blending" , if it showed up as a genuinely audible difference in Mozart, might lead the sound in the direction of the less careful, more full bodied approach to Mozart that gets attention from various quarters. But, like you say, it aint going to happen, at least at Bayreuth.


Right. We don't have to worry about it. I don't know how Mozart sounds in the huge spaces of the Met - biggest house in the world, isn't it? - but nobody's suggesting we don't perform his operas there, and apparently you don't have to be Richard Tucker to be audible.


----------



## marlow (11 mo ago)

Woodduck said:


> Haha. No. I've mercifully forgotten that portrayal of Mozart, except for the pink wig, Tom Hulce's weird gesticulations on the podium, and some language (no doubt true to life) that shouldn't be repeated here.


Yes it is better forgotten. The problem is that it was based on the theory that the vulgarity shown in Mozart's private correspondence (which is widow naïvely handed over after his death and which was never intended for publication) was what he showed in public. Of course I'm sure we have all known people who can enjoy a vulgar joke among friends or family but are quite proper when in a formal situation. Schaeffer appeared to have had the somewhat unintelligent fancy that because Mozart could be vulgar with friends he was all the time. The fact is he had been properly raised up by a very strict father who had told him correct courtly manners


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> Of course there's that story about Mozart hearing one of his works performed by a huge orchestra and loving it.


You mean:
// "A third new element in Idomeneo is the wholly unprecedented attention to orchestral color. The young Mozart was excited that the finest orchestra in the world, the Mannheim ensemble, was following the elector to Munich for the premiere. It was a virtuoso ensemble. According to a description of the day, "Its piano was a vernal breath, its forte was thunder, its crescendo a cataract, its diminuendo a crystal stream murmuring as it evanesced into the distance." All of those effects Mozart wrote into Idomeneo, using muted tympani, muted trumpets, and massed trombones. The sea that surges and foams around the island of Crete is suggested, in the overture and the storm music, by swirling strings. The color conjured up in those passages is, for me, a kind of grayish green. But many more colors are suggested throughout the opera, especially by the woodwind writing. This was virtuoso music for its day, and music of a wholly new loveliness." //
[ First Intermissions: Twenty-One Great Operas Explored, Explained, and Brought to Life from the Met | M. Owen Lee | P. 10 ]


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Woodduck said:


> Right. We don't have to worry about it. I don't know how Mozart sounds in the huge spaces of the Met - biggest house in the world, isn't it? - but nobody's suggesting we don't perform his operas there, and apparently you don't have to be Richard Tucker to be audible.


Correct! Always audible. Just *sometimes* seems to get small and sometimes flat, in a way Verdi et.al. don't.

Donald Gramm won pretty much universal kudos for his urbane Don Alfonso, and I was a real fan of his. But from just half-way up I thought he just seemed to be....walking around the stage. Not sure this is blamable on it being a Mozart opera but it lingers as an example of the Mozart doesn't always succeed fully here, thing.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

marlow said:


> The problem is that it was based on the theory that the vulgarity shown in Mozart's private correspondence (which is widow naïvely handed over after his death and which was never intended for publication) was what he showed in public.


That side of his was of course exaggerated (I mean it was more a cultural thing);
// "In German folklore, one finds an inordinate number of texts concerned with anality. Scheiße (****), Dreck (dirt), Mist (manure), Arsch (***), and other locutions are commonplace. Folksongs, folktales, proverbs, folk speech-all attest to the Germans' longstanding special interest in this area of human activity. 
Dundes (1984) provides ample coverage of scatological humor in Mozart, but also cites scatological texts from Martin Luther, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Heinrich Heine, and others who helped shaped German culture. Karhausen (1993) asserts that "scatology was common in Mitteleuropa [central Europe]", noting for instance that Mozart's Salzburg colleague Michael Haydn also wrote a scatological canon ("Scheiß nieder, armer Sünder")." // [ wikipedia ]


----------



## marlow (11 mo ago)

hammeredklavier said:


> It is of course exaggerated (I mean it was more a cultural thing);
> // "In German folklore, one finds an inordinate number of texts concerned with anality. Scheiße (****), Dreck (dirt), Mist (manure), Arsch (***), and other locutions are commonplace. Folksongs, folktales, proverbs, folk speech-all attest to the Germans' longstanding special interest in this area of human activity.
> Dundes (1984) provides ample coverage of scatological humor in Mozart, but also cites scatological texts from Martin Luther, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Heinrich Heine, and others who helped shaped German culture. Karhausen (1993) asserts that "scatology was common in Mitteleuropa [central Europe]", noting for instance that Mozart's Salzburg colleague Michael Haydn also wrote a scatological canon ("Scheiß nieder, armer Sünder")." // [ wikipedia ]


It just tallies with the general humour of the time. Chaucer and Shakespeare has his dose of it


----------



## marlow (11 mo ago)

hammeredklavier said:


> You mean:
> // "A third new element in Idomeneo is the wholly unprecedented attention to orchestral color. The young Mozart was excited that the finest orchestra in the world, the Mannheim ensemble, was following the elector to Munich for the premiere. It was a virtuoso ensemble. According to a description of the day, "Its piano was a vernal breath, its forte was thunder, its crescendo a cataract, its diminuendo a crystal stream murmuring as it evanesced into the distance." All of those effects Mozart wrote into Idomeneo, using muted tympani, muted trumpets, and massed trombones. The sea that surges and foams around the island of Crete is suggested, in the overture and the storm music, by swirling strings. The color conjured up in those passages is, for me, a kind of grayish green. But many more colors are suggested throughout the opera, especially by the woodwind writing. This was virtuoso music for its day, and music of a wholly new loveliness." //
> [ First Intermissions: Twenty-One Great Operas Explored, Explained, and Brought to Life from the Met | M. Owen Lee | P. 10 ]


One wonders how big the orchestra actually was compared with today. A clue might be the fact that the piano's 'forte was thunder'. Anyone who has heard a fortepiano from this period will know that it did not exactly thunder like a Steinway!


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

marlow said:


> It just tallies with the general humour of the time. Chaucer and Shakespeare has his dose of it


And it just plain works....for all time. Scatalogical/blue/vulgar...go hear an unheralded stand-up comic...if she or he is brave enough to work without vulgarity its more than possible they don't work.


----------



## marlow (11 mo ago)

ScottK said:


> And it just plain works....for all time. Scatalogical/blue/vulgar...go hear an unheralded stand-up comic...if she or he is brave enough to work without vulgarity its more than possible they don't work.


Actually I was brought up in the age when you could hear a really funny comic without all that. And they were actually a lot funnier


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

marlow said:


> Amadeus











Btw, I like this better. There is this part watch?v=HRfldU6zhWk&t=31m30s (~ the end)
that portrays his hardships with Colloredo. Whenever I watch it, I'm like


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

marlow said:


> Actually I was brought up in the age when you could hear a really funny comic without all that. And they were actually a lot funnier


No argument in the least! I do not equate the certainty of laughter, if a comic swears, with genuine humor. I just acknowledge that it works.

But as to the spaces.....any auditoriums in which you think Mozart succeeds extra well?


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> You mean:
> // "A third new element in Idomeneo is the wholly unprecedented attention to orchestral color. The young Mozart was excited that the finest orchestra in the world, the Mannheim ensemble, was following the elector to Munich for the premiere. It was a virtuoso ensemble. According to a description of the day, "Its piano was a vernal breath, its forte was thunder, its crescendo a cataract, its diminuendo a crystal stream murmuring as it evanesced into the distance." All of those effects Mozart wrote into Idomeneo, using muted tympani, muted trumpets, and massed trombones. The sea that surges and foams around the island of Crete is suggested, in the overture and the storm music, by swirling strings. The color conjured up in those passages is, for me, a kind of grayish green. But many more colors are suggested throughout the opera, especially by the woodwind writing. This was virtuoso music for its day, and music of a wholly new loveliness." //
> [ First Intermissions: Twenty-One Great Operas Explored, Explained, and Brought to Life from the Met | M. Owen Lee | P. 10 ]


Love this passage....does it point at the SIZE of the orchestra?


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

marlow said:


> One wonders how big the orchestra actually was compared with today. A clue might be the fact that the piano's 'forte was thunder'. Anyone who has heard a fortepiano from this period will know that it did not exactly thunder like a Steinway!


When it talks about 'piano' there I believe it is talking about the dynamic marking not the instrument.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

marlow said:


> The fact is he had been properly raised up by a very strict father who had told him correct courtly manners


// "Johann Adolph Hasse, a famous German musician who had lived for long periods in Italy, had become the official composer of the court in Vienna in 1764. After examining Wolfgang, he wrote of him, "I took him through various tests on the harpsichord, on which he let me hear things that are prodigious for his age and would be admirable even for a mature man." Hasse adds, "The boy is moreover handsome, vivacious, graceful, and full of good manners; and knowing him, it is difficult to avoid loving him. I am sure that if his development keeps due pace with his year, he will be a prodigy." // Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart: A Biography | Piero Melograni · 2007 | P. 30


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

As far as voices go, the Met has been kind to smaller voices like Battle for example. But my feeling is that the ones who use their voices properly will be heard with no problem there like Bjorling, Gheorghiu, Hvorostovsky -- to name a few.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

nina foresti said:


> As far as voices go, the Met has been kind to smaller voices like Battle for example. But my feeling is that the ones who use their voices properly will be heard with no problem there like Bjorling, Gheorghiu, Hvorostovsky -- to name a few.


A common observation about great singers is that they're clearly audible even when their voices may not be large. The same observation is made about soft singing when the tone is free and focused. I think we've all noticed this about speaking voices too, especially on radio and TV, where some speakers can be clearly understood from the next room while others with rougher or cloudier tone are hard to hear. "Vocal fry" (pet peeve) is annoying in this regard. Anyone who speaks in media should study singing!


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

nina foresti said:


> As far as voices go, the Met has been kind to smaller voices like Battle for example. But my feeling is that the ones who use their voices properly will be heard with no problem there like Bjorling, Gheorghiu, Hvorostovsky -- to name a few.


A Will Crutchfield review from years ago has always stayed with me and fortunately, is still available online:
"What a pleasure to hear a singer who trusts unforced tone and relaxed, clear diction to carry a song to the back and top of the auditorium!"
He was talking about Carnegie Hall but the point is clear... these are the elements that work everywhere!


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

nina foresti said:


> As far as voices go, the Met has been kind to smaller voices like Battle for example. But my feeling is that the ones who use their voices properly will be heard with no problem there like Bjorling, Gheorghiu, Hvorostovsky -- to name a few.


I agree with you, but I bristle at Hvorostovsky's voice being mentioned alongside Bjorling's in this instance. DH's technique was questionable and the freedom with which Bjorling sang was something DH never experienced.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Yes, it does, but I don't know by how much in decibels. Singers feel more at ease without a huge orchestra between them and the audience. There's also a "mellowing" and blending effect that's audible on recordings. People argue about the desirability of this as applied to the different operas. It's generally thought effective in _Parsifal,_ which Wagner wrote knowing the acoustics of the house, but less so for the _Ring._ Reportedly the overall acoustics of the auditorium are excellent, so I'm not sure that the general effect is "smaller." I suspect it's nicely enveloping.


Il stupido here. So there is a noticeable lag between the sound sung on the stage at the Met and when it is heard at the back of the house ( same effect in Seattle as well)?


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Woodduck said:


> Of course there's that story about Mozart hearing one of his works performed by a huge orchestra and loving it.





marlow said:


> Another apocryphal one?





Woodduck said:


> Not sure, but I've encountered it more than once and the specifics (which I've forgotten) seemed authentic.


In a letter dated 11 April 1781, Mozart describes a symphony performance as 'magnificent', played with 40 violins, wind instruments all doubled, ten tenors, ten double basses, eight violoncellos and six bassoons.

I found this through a Google Books search...

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=QO8PAAAAYAAJ&pg=PP9&lpg=PP9&dq=mozart+11+april+letter+1781&source=bl&ots=SXrZTRdBBh&sig=ACfU3U1d1-nG5bv6TR3TfuAwbT10qpoNDg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjBuO2nxYv3AhWhnVwKHa6xA3gQ6AF6BAg9EAM#v=onepage&q=mozart%2011%20april%20letter%201781&f=false
I also found a website which suggests it was the Paris Symphony.



> Mozart's Symphony in C K338 (Nr. 34) consists of 3 movements (Allegro vivace; Andante di molto piu tosto allegretto; Finale.Allegro vivace), and is dated August 29, 1780 in Salzburg. His sister, Nannerl, reported Wolfgang played at court on September 2, 3, 4, 1780; so it is likely this symphony was first heard at one of these concerts. Some older authors/researchers believed Mozart's report in an April 11, 1781 letter that a symphony was performed with an orchestral setting of 40 Violins, 10 Violas, 8 Cellos and 10 Doublebasses, with all the winds doubled and the Bassoons even tripled, referred to K338. However this now is believed to refer to the "Paris" Symphony.


https://web.archive.org/web/20070311004454/http://www.mozartforum.com/Lore/article.php?id=333&pt_sid=b74839b094835dec072ef8e9f59a8c3


----------



## marlow (11 mo ago)

Forster said:


> In a letter dated 11 April 1781, Mozart describes a symphony performance as 'magnificent', played with 40 violins, wind instruments all doubled, ten tenors, ten double basses, eight violoncellos and six bassoons.
> 
> I found this through a Google Books search...
> 
> ...


No question that Mozart enjoyed this. I remember Karajan saying that Mozart played his symphonies with large orchestras when he could. Of course the sound they would've made would've been different. To me the music is great enough to take all sorts of interpretation even though today the fashion is more for stripped down interpretation. I remember André Previn saying in an interview how he couldn't abide HIP as he questioned why people went to so much trouble to play out of tune! He preferred Bruno Walter's way of doing Mozart! Beauty! Of course with the operas it is somewhat different. 
Just take Figaro. It depends whether you believe Mozart as the beautiful boy descended from heaven or whether he was the subversive poking one at the aristocracy. You can get the jolly comedy or the satirical subversive. I have both on my shelf


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Bonetan said:


> I agree with you, but I bristle at Hvorostovsky's voice being mentioned alongside Bjorling's in this instance. DH's technique was questionable and the freedom with which Bjorling sang was something DH never experienced.


. You do throw down those gauntlets Bonetan . I adore Bjoerling but it took me years to get there, why?....because the compilation recitals my Dad owned had so many hard sounding, pushed high notes. From a tenor who had one of the glorious tops when young! He didn't have everything worked out! And much as I recognize your concerns with Warrens technique, Ive never had qualms with Dimitrys technique. Aside from a somewhat contained top, What does he do wrong?


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

ScottK said:


> . You do throw down those gauntlets Bonetan . I adore Bjoerling but it took me years to get there, why?....because the compilation recitals my Dad owned had so many hard sounding, pushed high notes. From a tenor who had one of the glorious tops when young! He didn't have everything worked out! And much as I recognize your concerns with Warrens technique, Ive never had qualms with Dimitrys technique. Aside from a somewhat contained top, What does he do wrong?


I've become such a stickler for good singing technique that I annoy myself. I can only imagine what others must think of me :lol:

DH sang with some of the same artificiality that plagues most of today's low voices. Imo his technique runs counter to what one would want to do to be heard to best advantage in a big house. Admittedly I don't know Bjorling's voice well enough to analyze it from top to bottom and I won't argue that he was perfect, but I know in general his voice was very free, easy, and natural. Listen to De Luca and DH here and see if you hear the artificial aspect of DH's sound. I think even in soft passages its clear how much more effortful DH's sound is, and check out how De Luca sings the repeated "dio mi guido" (1:30) after just having come down from singing high notes. Only a fantastic technique allows for singing like that. I don't think DH's technique allows for such sounds.











Sorry for getting off topic yall.


----------



## marlow (11 mo ago)

Op.123 said:


> When it talks about 'piano' there I believe it is talking about the dynamic marking not the instrument.


Makes the point furtherthen


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Bonetan said:


> *I've become such a stickler for good singing technique that I annoy myself. I can only imagine what others must think of me :lol:*
> 
> You do it so well and so honestly that I can't imagine anyone minding. Besides, without purists like you, pragmatists like me would simply continue on their way enjoying life far too much until they found they had a bad back from lack of bending to pick up thrown gauntlets. En Garde!!
> *
> ...


And as for off topic, this one became a hodge-podge very quickly. Does Art Rock show up to put such things in order?


----------



## marlow (11 mo ago)

Bonetan said:


> I've become such a stickler for good singing technique that I annoy myself. I can only imagine what others must think of me :lol:
> 
> DH sang with some of the same artificiality that plagues most of today's low voices. Imo his technique runs counter to what one would want to do to be heard to best advantage in a big house. Admittedly I don't know Bjorling's voice well enough to analyze it from top to bottom and I won't argue that he was perfect, but I know in general his voice was very free, easy, and natural. Listen to De Luca and DH here and see if you hear the artificial aspect of DH's sound. I think even in soft passages its clear how much more effortful DH's sound is, and check out how De Luca sings the repeated "dio mi guido" (1:30) after just having come down from singing high notes. Only a fantastic technique allows for singing like that. I don't think DH's technique allows for such sounds.
> 
> ...


Can I please ask what this has to do with the topic under discussion ?


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

marlow said:


> Can I please ask what this has to do with the topic under discussion ?


Of course, but as I've already acknowledged and apologized for going off topic I'd have to ask why you would, especially as the thread isn't yours.

But to answer your question it only relates as far as how to sing in and be best heard in large houses.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Bonetan said:


> Of course, but as I've already acknowledged and apologized for going off topic I'd have to ask why you would, especially as the thread isn't yours.
> 
> But to answer your question it only relates as far as how to sing in and be best heard in large houses.


. I'm the guilty one. You and Nina Answered just as you said above, concisely, and I took a quip and responded with a dissertation! I do like the well organized way here so Ill express my mea culpa and move on


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Bonetan said:


> Of course, but as I've already acknowledged and apologized for going off topic I'd have to ask why you would, especially as the thread isn't yours.
> 
> But to answer your question it only relates as far as how to sing in and be best heard in large houses.


. I'm the guilty one. You and Nina Answered just as you said above, concisely, and I took a quip and responded with a dissertation! I do like the well organized way here so Ill express my mea culpa and move on


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

ScottK said:


> . I'm the guilty one. You and Nina Answered just as you said above, concisely, and I took a quip and responded with a dissertation! I do like the well organized way here so Ill express my mea culpa and move on


But it's your thread bro! No need to apologize. I love talking singing with you and Nina and I knew you wouldn't mind whatever direction your thread took. But if anyone was out of line here, it was me. My apologies everyone!!!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Just to be a team player I'll apologize too. I don't know what for, but whoever is asking for apologies should be more than satisfied with the quantity on offer.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Woodduck said:


> Just to be a team player I'll apologize too. I don't know what for, but whoever is asking for apologies should be more than satisfied with the quantity on offer.


.....:lol::lol::lol:.........


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Bonetan said:


> But it's your thread bro! No need to apologize. I love talking singing with you and Nina and I knew you wouldn't mind whatever direction your thread took. But if anyone was out of line here, it was me. My apologies everyone!!!


I've actually come up with the perfect answer we'll just share it all around......we'll say we're equally guilty and Hvorostovsky and DeLuca ar equal singers!!!!!!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

ScottK said:


> I've actually come up with the perfect answer we'll just share it all around......we'll say we're equally guilty and Hvorostovsky and DeLuca ar equal singers!!!!!!


Well, they're both male and both baritones. That surely counts for something.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

ScottK said:


> I've actually come up with the perfect answer we'll just share it all around......we'll say we're equally guilty and *Hvorostovsky and DeLuca ar equal singers!!!!!!*


Now this I cannot do. You've taken it too far!!! :lol:


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

ScottK said:


> And as for off topic, this one became a hodge-podge very quickly. Does Art Rock show up to put such things in order?


Usually only when summoned. :devil:

In general, we do not mind some off-topic discussion. From a quick glance, the thread looks fine to me. If you disagree, PM me with examples.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Bonetan said:


> I've become such a stickler for good singing technique that I annoy myself. I can only imagine what others must think of me :lol:
> 
> DH sang with some of the same artificiality that plagues most of today's low voices. Imo his technique runs counter to what one would want to do to be heard to best advantage in a big house. Admittedly I don't know Bjorling's voice well enough to analyze it from top to bottom and I won't argue that he was perfect, but I know in general his voice was very free, easy, and natural. Listen to De Luca and DH here and see if you hear the artificial aspect of DH's sound. I think even in soft passages its clear how much more effortful DH's sound is, and check out how De Luca sings the repeated "dio mi guido" (1:30) after just having come down from singing high notes. Only a fantastic technique allows for singing like that. I don't think DH's technique allows for such sounds.
> 
> ...


Gads man! That is nit-picking to me. They both sounded superb with De Luca holding that note a wee bit longer which was truly lovely.
However, this wasn't what my post was about at all. It didn't have to do with who had the better voice but which singers with small voices were utilized so well that they were able to be heard in the last row with no problem.
To me both baritones did a fine job with De Luca perhaps a bit more delicately.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

nina foresti said:


> Gads man! That is nit-picking to me. They both sounded superb with De Luca holding that note a wee bit longer which was truly lovely.
> However, this wasn't what my post was about at all. It didn't have to do with who had the better voice but which singers with small voices were utilized so well that they were able to be heard in the last row with no problem.
> To me both baritones did a fine job with De Luca perhaps a bit more delicately.


I understand, but I feel in DH's case it's the opposite. He sang in a way that lessens a singer's volume and ability to cut through an orchestra.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

B-b-b-b-ut I was there -- several times -- and he definitely DID!!
Are you saying you too saw him live and could not hear him?


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Bonetan said:


> I understand, but I feel in DH's case it's the opposite. He sang in a way that lessens a singer's volume and ability to cut through an orchestra.


I feel his way of singing was important to the gorgeous sound he made. Certainly that matters. I can't say for me, De Luca;s sound is as beautiful as Hvorostovsky and its not just the age. Tibbet was around the same time and his voice to me is more beautiful.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Bonetan said:


> I understand, but I feel in DH's case it's the opposite. He sang in a way that lessens a singer's volume and ability to cut through an orchestra.


But I guess I am obligated to admit this....downstairs, Posa....just great! Upstairs, Di Luna....not quite the presence of sound I wanted.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

nina foresti said:


> B-b-b-b-ut I was there -- several times -- and he definitely DID!!
> Are you saying you too saw him live and could not hear him?


I'm not saying he can't be heard, just that his technique was not optimal for being heard.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

ScottK said:


> I feel his way of singing was important to the gorgeous sound he made. Certainly that matters. I can't say for me, De Luca;s sound is as beautiful as Hvorostovsky and its not just the age. Tibbet was around the same time and his voice to me is more beautiful.


There have been baritone voices more beautiful than De Luca's, but I would argue that none were more well used. I don't find DH's voice beautiful but I wouldn't argue with those that do. Instead I just wanted to comment on who's technique is more conducive to carrying power in the house. There's a reason a tiny, small voiced man like De Luca could sing credible Rigolettos while DH was never able to do the role justice.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Bonetan said:


> There have been baritone voices more beautiful than De Luca's, but I would argue that none were more well used. I don't find DH's voice beautiful but I wouldn't argue with those that do. Instead I just wanted to comment on who's technique is more conducive to carrying power in the house. There's a reason a tiny, small voiced man like De Luca could sing credible Rigolettos while DH was never able to do the role justice.


I wish you wouldn't make arguments that. I have no rebuttal for!


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

marlow said:


> Can I please ask what this has to do with the topic under discussion ?


About as much Monteverdian has to do with Handelian


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

nina foresti said:


> B-b-b-b-ut I was there -- several times -- and he definitely DID!!
> Are you saying you too saw him live and could not hear him?


I hear Hvorostovsky a number of times, at the Met and in Boston, in opera, concert, and recital. I can't deny that his voice was attractive and of adequate size, but I always had the feeling that his technique was such as to make his voice sound darker than it was naturally - as though he was trying to sound more like Bastianini. The problem was that this technique produced an upper range that lacked much by way of brilliance and heft - his voice seemed to get smaller as he ascended the scale.


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> My first thought is that the Met is a big space for small voices. A week ago someone on the Met's intermission feature pointed out that _Cosi fan tutte_ at the Met might offer us large-voiced singers such as Eleanor Steber and Richard Tucker.


The thing is that when Steber and Tucker appeared together at the Old Met in _Zauberflote_ in 1950, they were alternating with their run in Verdi's _Don Carlo. _I don't get a sense that they were treating Mozart as a different animal and the management were not short of lighter-voiced singers if they had so-desired: they wanted big voices for that big opera house.

Going further, a review of Steber in _Cosi fan tutte _from 1952 describes how she had sang Desdemona - with Vinay and Warren - in the afternoon and then Fiordiligi - with Tucker and Thebom - in the evening. The critic does mention that she did not sound the same in both operas but it speaks to the size of lyric voice the management and audience expected in the role in that big opera house:

"*Eleanor Steber gave a particularly brilliant performance as Fiordiligi only a few hours after she had undertaken, at the matinee, the first Desdemona of her career. It was not unprecedented for a leading singer to appear in two roles in a single day at the Metropolitan-Jarmila Novotna and Kurt Baum, and probably others, have done it before. But it is doubtful whether any prima donna ever sang in one day two roles so taxing and so utterly different in their requirements of vocal technique and voice placement. Perhaps I was influenced by my admiration for Miss Steber's demonstration of her secure schooling, but I thought that she had never before sung Fiordiligi's fiendish part with a tone so consistently fresh, unstrained, and malleable.* "


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Haha. No. I've mercifully forgotten that portrayal of Mozart, except for the pink wig, Tom Hulce's weird gesticulations on the podium, and some language (no doubt true to life) that shouldn't be repeated here.


I actually really like both the movie and the Shaeffer play on which it is based. It's not actually about Mozart and Salieri, but rather the nature of genius, and the way they are portrayed in the play has as little basis in fact as does that of Richard III in Shakespeare's play.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I don't disagree. I did enjoy the movie as entertainment, and F. Murray Abraham deserved his Oscar. I read the play but never saw it.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

It might be slightly off-topic, but I'm curious what Grieg meant by this, which I posted in another thread recently. Mozart would have been tolerant of newer practices?:

"What kind of face would Bach, Handel, Haydn, and Mozart make after hearing an opera by Wagner? asks an English writer. I shall not attempt to answer for the first three, but it is safe to say that Mozart, the universal genius whose mind was free from Philistinism and one-sidedness, would not only open his eyes wide, but would be as delighted as a child with all the new acquisitions in the departments of drama and orchestra." -Edvard Grieg


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> I did enjoy the movie as entertainment, and F. Murray Abraham deserved his Oscar.


You don't think Tom Hulce also deserved one for his giggles and his theatrics with his pink powdered wig?—arguably the best elements of "entertainment" in the movie.


----------

