# The Soprano Assoluta and its place in the world of Opera today



## BaritoneAssoluto (Jun 6, 2016)

Hello everyone. it's your neighborhood Baritone, BaritoneAssoluto here and I've got a great deal to talk about. Today's topic might be something a few of us may know and a lot of us may not understand just in-depth what truly is the cause of said topic. Today's topic I will be examining will be the Soprano Assoluta voice also known as the Soprano Sfogato and its place in the world of Opera today. I'm going to start this conversation off with a video from a youtuber by the name of Primohomme. He released three videos on the "in-between" Soprano voices: Assoluta, Falcon, and the Dugazon (which is just a Mezzo-Soprano Soubrette). I started the video within 00:22 seconds of the video so we can skip the filler.






Historically, this term was given to the past "divas" of Opera's yesteryear such as Giuditta Pasta, Maria Malibran, Giulia Grisi, Adelina Patti, and Henriette Sontag. More commonly, the term has been used to describe the Greek-American Soprano of the 20th century, Maria Callas. Here's a brief history behind the usage of the name and how it was appliedinoperasofit's day:

"The assoluta's heyday was the first four of five decades of the nineteenth century, the period which coincides with the flourishing of Romanticism all over Europe, and she represented the artistic emancipation from the neo-Aristotelian proprieties of character: consistency, suitability to station, trueness to type, appropriateness of behavior, and so forth, along with the Romantic interest in human heroism, the defiance of the gods, the extremes of human character, of situtation and behavior, and a total unpredictability." (Source: The Assoluta Voice in opera: 1797-1847, by Geoffrey S. Riggs)

Here's a few characteristics of the assoluta/Soprano Sfogato voice:

 It possesses a dark timbre with a rich and strong low register, as well as the high notes of a soprano and occasionally a coloratura soprano. Those voices are typically strong, dramatic and agile, supported by an excellent bel canto technique and an ability to sing in the soprano tessitura as well as in the contralto tessitura with great ease.
The common requirements for the roles associated with this voice type are:


widely varied tessitura throughout the role, extended segments lying well into the low mezzo or contralto tessitura and segments lying in high soprano tessitura
a range extending down to at least low B and at least up to high B with at least one whole tone required at either end
fioratura (coloratura) singing in the most intricate bel canto style
florid singing combined with heroic weight
a heavy or dense sound in the lower range
vocal power over energetic orchestral accompaniment.

With that being said, the Assoluta voice is more than rare in the Opera world today. We have been forced to accept the notion that only canaries can sing Lucia di Lammermoor, Roberto Deveraux and that only dramatic/spintos can sing Aid, Leonora from Destino and Trovatore, Medea, and Norma. In the days of the Assoluta, you were REQUIRED to sing Norma, Donna Anna, Donna Elvira, Medea, Tosca, Kundry, Aida, Norma, Gioconda, Countess, Armida, Armina, Elisabetta, Leonora (destino and Trovatore), Mimi. We must eliminate that notion once again and bring back the good old singing... where those singers gave it their all and didn't regret it.

The Assoluta of today is nowhere to be found (and please don't sayDevia or Gruberova because those two queens are horrible.) Angela Meade is the only one who is close to an actual dramatic coloratura soprano but she doesn't have that extra "it" to be an Assoluta (unless she retrains her entire instrument like they did back in the 19th and 18th centuries.)

Please discuss guys, I'm always ready! Once again this is your neighborhood Baritone, BaritoneAssoluta speaking and saying "Out"!


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Here we go again, wonder how long it will last before this thread escalate .


----------



## BaritoneAssoluto (Jun 6, 2016)

Has that sort of activity happened on this topic? I wished you would you would've told me that before. But honestly, I know the people are mature here.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Actually, it would be proper to use the term 'soprano assoluto', as soprano is masculine in Italian: 'il soprano'.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

schigolch said:


> Actually, it would be proper to use the term 'soprano assoluto', as soprano is masculine in Italian: 'il soprano'.


This always confuses people. Perhaps they get 'assoluta' from the expression 'prima donna assoluta' and forget to change the ending when they want to talk about a soprano rather than a prima donna. (I don't know any Italian, so please don't hesitate to tell me if 'prima donna assoluta' is grammatically incorrect as well! )


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

You still owe us a POS explanation about Sam Ramey on the other thread, sir!


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Figleaf said:


> This always confuses people. Perhaps they get 'assoluta' from the expression 'prima donna assoluta' and forget to change the ending when they want to talk about a soprano rather than a prima donna. (I don't know any Italian, so please don't hesitate to tell me if 'prima donna assoluta' is grammatically incorrect as well! )


No, prima donna is feminine. 

It's a very interesting subject, anyway. Personally, I'm fully convinced that the voices, and the singing, of Giuditta Pasta and Maria Callas, were very close, and that the Greek diva was indeed the heir of the Italian singer, even if more than 100 years separated them.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

schigolch said:


> No, prima donna is feminine.
> 
> It's a very interesting subject, anyway. Personally, I'm fully convinced that the voices, and the singing, of Giuditta Pasta and Maria Callas, were very close, and that the Greek diva was indeed the heir of the Italian singer, even if more than 100 years separated them.


So if Pasta and Callas were each the _prima donna assoluta_ of her own day, does the use of this phrase describe a particular Fach as the OP seems to use the phrase _soprano assoluto_, or is it more like a kind of compliment bestowed on the most famous and accomplished diva of any given time?


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

No, it does refer to the same type of voice. Capable at the same time of having a very strong low register, and also the higher notes in the soprano repertory, along with coloratura. Of course, there is a price to pay (unless some day we can get an exceptional gift from Nature), as lack of homogeinity in the singing, that going to the extreme it can sounds like two voices, in just one body. 

Reading about Pasta, and listening to Callas, we can see that there were a lot of similarities between the two.


----------



## BaritoneAssoluto (Jun 6, 2016)

As the historians have noted, it is a particular fach that is described for a rare type of Soprano. There's only been one pure Assoluta in the 20th century but there's been some others who have "proto-assoluta" like qualities, but they lack some of the mean ideal characteristics that would classifiy them wholly as an Assoluta.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

I can name someone who is a "wholly assoluta"


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BaritoneAssoluto said:


> Here's a few characteristics of the assoluta/Soprano Sfogato voice:
> 
> It possesses a dark timbre with a rich and strong low register, as well as the high notes of a soprano and occasionally a coloratura soprano. Those voices are typically strong, dramatic and agile, supported by an excellent bel canto technique and an ability to sing in the soprano tessitura as well as in the contralto tessitura with great ease.
> 
> ...


By your description, I can't see any reason for withholding the "assoluta" title from Rosa Ponselle. She had the amplitude, the timbral richness, and the flexibility to sing virtually anything. Even Callas called her "the greatest singer of us all."

I would caution against the assumption that nineteenth century singers were normally equally competent in the entire repertoire they sang. Certainly, there were lighter and heavier voices, just as now, and the major difference was that in those pre-Wagner, pre-verismo days, thorough bel canto schooling was expected of all front-rank singers; specialization hadn't yet divided singers into the "fachs" some of us are so fond of distinguishing.

Wagner himself asked that his music be sung "in the Italian style" (when that actually meant something), and personally praised baritone Mattia Battistini for his superb singing. But I have no doubt that he would have been overjoyed to hear his Tristan and Isolde sung by Melchior and Flagstad, who sensibly did not sing Rossini and Bellini (though Flagstad may have in her early years in Norway). Flagstad was offered Norma and studied the part carefully, but knew she didn't have the coloratura flexibility for it. Her Wagnerian predecessors Lilli Lehmann and Frida Leider did sing Norma, the former to considerable acclaim, but her Wagnerian successors Birgit Nilsson and Astrid Varnay couldn't have come within a mile of its demands. The diminishing technical facility of these leading dramatic sopranos tells the story of the gradual decline of the bel canto tradition, and the emergence of the vocal typology we're used to today.

I agree with you about the absence of the "assoluta" soprano at present. Meade doesn't strike me as a candidate; Radvanovsky may be a mite closer. Neither of them is a Lehmann, a Ponselle, or a Callas.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> I would caution against the assumption that nineteenth century singers were normally equally competent in the entire repertoire they sang. Certainly, there were lighter and heavier voices, just as now, and the major difference was that in those pre-Wagner, pre-verismo days, thorough bel canto schooling was expected of all front-rank singers; specialization hadn't yet divided singers into the "fachs" some of us are so fond of distinguishing.


you're probably expecting some major disagreement from me, but you are criticizing technical trends which arouse out of the fach system, not the fach system itself. with that in mind, your criticism is valid. several examples I think of are:
1) failure to teach heavier voices to sing some degree of coloratura. among healthily-produced big voices, everyone from Kirsten Flagstad to Dolora Zajick to Tito Gobbi believes that vocal flexibility is important in keeping the voice fresh.
2) teaching lighter voices that they don't need to support the bottom 2/3 of their range (except for tenors, in which case it's all types of tenors and the bottom 4/5 of the range lmao).
3) (especially in Wagner), the notion that big voices do not need to sing with legato (hell, we basically expect _lyric_ singers to sing legato anymore. after dramatic voices, some of the biggest offenders are those girly lil coloraturas, and it seems like we've given up on the concept of male voices singing legato altogether apart from Hvorostovsky).


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

some counter-examples:
1) Brigitte Fassbaender: a large dramatic mezzo with ample agilty (chest register is a tad bang-y, but a wonderful performance overall)





2) Kirsten Flagstad: a huge Wagnerian voice capable of singing with elegant legato (ia slower, more tragedian legato for sure, but still a solid legato)





3) Elvira de Hidalgo: a lyric coloratura with strong support down through to the chest register


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I don't know whether this is another thread exulting great singers of the past, but I want to say that I was around 50 or so reading the reviews of some of Callas' Bel Canto recordings in the Gramophone and they were not universally favourable. Perhaps a perceptive comment at the time was made by (I think) Andrew Porter who said something like: "A Callas, a Sutherland, a Caballe comes along, and all we can do is to talk about their failings......" There appears to be this myth about great singers of the past but frankly hearing some of them (albeit in totally inadequate recordings) I do find it difficult to enthuse.


----------



## BaritoneAssoluto (Jun 6, 2016)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> you're probably expecting some major disagreement from me, but you are criticizing technical trends which arouse out of the fach system, not the fach system itself. with that in mind, your criticism is valid. several examples I think of are:
> 1) failure to teach heavier voices to sing some degree of coloratura. among healthily-produced big voices, everyone from Kirsten Flagstad to Dolora Zajick to Tito Gobbi believes that vocal flexibility is important in keeping the voice fresh.
> 2) teaching lighter voices that they don't need to support the bottom 2/3 of their range (except for tenors, in which case it's all types of tenors and the bottom 4/5 of the range lmao).
> 3) (especially in Wagner), the notion that big voices do not need to sing with legato (hell, we basically expect _lyric_ singers to sing legato anymore. after dramatic voices, some of the biggest offenders are those girly lil coloraturas, and it seems like we've given up on the concept of male voices singing legato altogether apart from Hvorostovsky).


And this is why you have less and less dramatic voices and more for a lack of a better term "screwed" up voices, that only sound good with microphones. Cecilia Bartoli is the only light lyric coloratura Mezzo-Soprano i know that hasn't wandered off and sung inappropriate repertory because she knows her small sized voice limits here ability to do anything dramatic.

There's a wonder why Dolora Zajick made a foundation specifically created to cultivate and to further help big-sized voices or Dramatic voices to have a career. They are being pushed aside for "lyrics" or small-sized instruments and the reasons are:
1. They're cheaper.
2. They can delude people that the sound that they make are their "own" aka with a microphone, eliminating the "work to be heard from the floor seats to the cheap seats" out of the equation.
3. They're more primed to sing then the dramatic voice and thus as a result of neglecting a big, dramatic artist/voice, they are killing the true purpose of what Opera is all about: The art and not the actually "look" of the singers.

All in all,I can't name you one person from each voice type that is going to save us because half of the ones we already know are pushing to retirement (due to age) or they lost their former vocal glory and have moved on to "easier" work (Terfel, Fleming, Otter singing and performing on broadway more).

Hvorostovsky sings with a microphone so he's not a good example for legato singing. He basically huffs and puffs his way through the intricate Verdian line and it distorts his breath and overall vocal production.


----------



## BaritoneAssoluto (Jun 6, 2016)

DavidA said:


> I don't know whether this is another thread exulting great singers of the past, but I want to say that I was around 50 or so reading the reviews of some of Callas' Bel Canto recordings in the Gramophone and they were not universally favourable. Perhaps a perceptive comment at the time was made by (I think) Andrew Porter who said something like: "A Callas, a Sutherland, a Caballe comes along, and all we can do is to talk about their failings......" There appears to be this myth about great singers of the past but frankly hearing some of them (albeit in totally inadequate recordings) I do find it difficult to enthuse.


So because of a few bad reviews, must one completely ignore all of the positive and mostly pin-point accurate reviews that are not based off on a previous bias? I mean what's the purpose of a musical historian then? And no this will not turn into one of the other threads because I will regularly check that it doesn't. We're not just discussing Madame Callas (despite using as a prime example,) anyone with actual characteristics (not just because of a big or huge voice can be termed an assoluta,) are welcomed in this discussion.


----------



## DarkAngel (Aug 11, 2010)

BaritoneAssoluto said:


> And this is why you have less and less dramatic voices and more for a lack of a better term "screwed" up voices, that only sound good with microphones. *Cecilia Bartoli is the only light lyric coloratura Mezzo-Soprano i know that hasn't wandered off and sung inappropriate repertory because she knows her small sized voice limits here ability to do anything dramatic.*












Someone forgot to tell her that...............


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

BaritoneAssoluto said:


> So because of a few bad reviews, must one completely ignore all of the positive and mostly pin-point accurate reviews that are not based off on a previous bias? I mean what's the purpose of a musical historian then? And no this will not turn into one of the other threads because I will regularly check that it doesn't. We're not just discussing Madame Callas (despite using as a prime example,) anyone with actual characteristics (not just because of a big or huge voice can be termed an assoluta,) are welcomed in this discussion.


The purpose of a musical historian is to try and get the facts not the legend; part of which is to point out that at the time reviews of those now judged great singers were not all positive. Else you get the John Ford syndrome - 'Print the Legend!'


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

DarkAngel said:


> Someone forgot to tell her that...............


lmao! I was just about to post that XD


----------



## BaritoneAssoluto (Jun 6, 2016)

DarkAngel said:


> Someone forgot to tell her that...............


Oh yeah... that. Cecilia Bartoli that she needs to stick to the earlier operas of Paisiello, Scarlatti, Caccini, and Vivaldi. She shouldn't EVER touch Bellini (especially Norma or La Sonnambula where she "thinks" just because of her idol, Maria Malibran did them, that she is DESTINED to follow "past greatness"). Bartoli is suited for stuff that isn't heavy or sits in one place. She's the complete opposite of an assoluta and is a Dugazon... a much lower tessitura-filled Soubrette voice, suited for the great trouser roles.

Same could be said for Caballe or Sutherland when they touched it as well. Caballe thinks that by singing PPP (even though they WEREN'T written in the score), they make her interpretation more "personal" and actually good. I can't even consider Caballe an Assoluta but she's a nice lyric soprano who made her make doing things that released Hell's gates upon the world of Opera ever since then.

Sutherland? No question or no comment on that one. You guys could probably do a better job of ripping her to shreds then myself.


----------



## BaritoneAssoluto (Jun 6, 2016)

Yes to get the facts and not to fill it up with lies based upon their own pre-existing biases. No critic I've known have fit their criteria and that's the main reason why Opera Singers hate critics. They lie and make-up nonsense to sell their stories. It happened in the 30's with Ponselle, 50-60's with Callas, 70's-80's with Sherill Milnes and it has happened now with Hvorostovsky and Netrebko.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

BaritoneAssoluto said:


> Oh yeah... that. Cecilia Bartoli that she needs to stick to the earlier operas of Paisiello, Scarlatti, Caccini, and Vivaldi. She shouldn't EVER touch Bellini (especially Norma or La Sonnambula where she "thinks" just because of her idol, Maria Malibran did them, that she is DESTINED to follow "past greatness"). Bartoli is suited for stuff that isn't heavy or sits in one place. She's the complete opposite of an assoluta and is a Dugazon... a much lower tessitura-filled Soubrette voice, suited for the great trouser roles.
> 
> Same could be said for Caballe or Sutherland when they touched it as well. Caballe thinks that by singing PPP (even though they WEREN'T written in the score), they make her interpretation more "personal" and actually good. I can't even consider Caballe an Assoluta but she's a nice lyric soprano who made her make doing things that released Hell's gates upon the world of Opera ever since then.
> 
> Sutherland? No question or no comment on that one. You guys could probably do a better job of ripping her to shreds then myself.


first off, Caballe is a spinto, not a lyric. she has wonderful recordings of heavier roles like Armida, Forza del Destino, Turandot, even some Wagner. the voice was large, powerful and capable of hefty dramatic weight when called for

as for Norma, I mostly agree, except that....I actually prefer Sutherland's interpretation of both of the arias, the cabaletta and trio. this is ironic, because she is ill suited for the role overall. other than that, Callas is THE Norma (especially the duet. omfg.......).


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

I knew it, didn't take long till the bashing started and here we go _again_.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Pugg said:


> I knew it, didn't take long till the bashing started and here we go _again_.


what are you talking about? I don't see any bashing


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> what are you talking about? I don't see any bashing


I refer to the post you refers to, about Dame Joan.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I don't think we need worry about the occasional critical remark. When assolutas are in view, others must come up short.  

About Caballe - she was versatile. She had substantial lyric, spinto and coloratura capabilities. Must we assign her a fach? After all, we're not creating potential cast lists for an opera company. Personally, I find her most agreeable in her earlier (1960s) years, and in the more lyric parts of her repertoire. Dramatic force, though often effective, came at the expense of vocal beauty and function, more so as her career wore on, when she became self-indulgent and abused her pianissimo, glottal attacks and register breaks. Her combination of gifts made her basically well-suited to Norma - more so than Sutherland, who certainly had plenty of voice (except for a few chest tones) but was characteristically marmoreal and mealy-mouthed, and Bartoli, who verges on the grotesque. Bartoli and colleagues turn the opera into a 1960s Italian soap, "Adultery in Druidsville," stripping it of its classical nobility (and, if that cover photo is any hint, of other things as well... All it lacks is Vittorio Grigolo staring down her cleavage.)


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> I don't think we need worry about the occasional critical remark. When assolutas are in view, others must come up short.


I concur



> About Caballe - she was versatile. She had substantial lyric, spinto and coloratura capabilities. Must we assign her a fach?


since we are discussing appropriate choice of repertoire (just as you have done below), yes (at the very least, the concept if going to come up).



> After all, we're not creating potential cast lists for an opera company. Personally, I find her most agreeable in her earlier (1960s) years, and in the more lyric parts of her repertoire. Dramatic force, though often effective, came at the expense of vocal beauty and function, more so as her career wore on, when she became self-indulgent and abused her pianissimo, glottal attacks and register breaks. Her combination of gifts made her basically well-suited to Norma - more so than Sutherland, who certainly had plenty of voice (except for a few chest tones) but was characteristically marmoreal and mealy-mouthed, and Bartoli, who verges on the grotesque. Bartoli and colleagues turn the opera into a 1960s Italian soap, "Adultery in Druidsville," stripping it of its classical nobility (and, if that cover photo is any hint, of other things as well... All it lacks is Vittorio Grigolo staring down her cleavage.)


some of the really heavy rep was too much for her, but her Verdi and even some of her lighter Wagner are just fine. I don't take issue with her singing some coloratura, provided it was taken _slowly_ (as in her recording of Armida's aria, which is phenomenal), but in other performances, her coloratura was distractedly messy.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

BaritoneAssoluto said:


> Yes to get the facts and not to fill it up with lies based upon their own pre-existing biases. No critic I've known have fit their criteria and that's the main reason why Opera Singers hate critics. They lie and make-up nonsense to sell their stories. It happened in the 30's with Ponselle, 50-60's with Callas, 70's-80's with Sherill Milnes and it has happened now with Hvorostovsky and Netrebko.


If you look at past reviews the facts are that singers sometimes got iffy reviews, not as you appear to imply that all critics lied and made up nonsense. That is not history. The fact that some critics (e.g. Claudia Cassidy in Chicago) made up poisonous reviews to sell newspapers does not mean all critics were mean spirited. If we're going to do the history thing let's be impartial ourselves.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> I concur
> 
> since we are discussing appropriate choice of repertoire (just as you have done below), yes (at the very least, the concept if going to come up).
> 
> some of the really heavy rep was too much for her, but her Verdi and even some of her lighter Wagner are just fine. I don't take issue with her singing some coloratura, provided it was taken _slowly_ (as in her recording of Armida's aria, which is phenomenal), but in other performances, her coloratura was distractedly messy.


I try to be diplomatic. Look where it gets me.

To be direct: your categorical statement, "first off, Caballe _IS_ a spinto, not a lyric" (my emphasis), stated as if it were an objective fact that ought to be obvious to everyone, is not only mere opinion but reifies the notion of "fach," as if "fach" were a natural object and not a creation of the human mind. People who talk about singers need to learn to say, not that singers "are" specimens belonging to this or that category - spinto or lyric - but that we hear them as having more or less of this or that vocal character.

The only context in which the concept of "fach" is useful - in which it is accurate enough to say that someone _IS_ this and not that - is the original context in which the notion of fach originated: in the administration of opera houses, where it's convenient to have a shorthand way of identifying singers who are likely to be suitable for certain roles. Sensible people will recognize that these categories are loose and general, and that the character and capabilities of singers are not limited or bound by them.

It's reasonable to say, "I think Caballe's voice is more spinto than lyric in quality" or "To me she is more effective in spinto than in lyric repertoire." A categorical statement "Caballe is a spinto, not a lyric," is not reasonable. It is false and arrogant, as it claims objective knowledge of something that has no objective reality.

I had hoped that my statement that Caballe was versatile, and that I found her generally more pleasing in the lyric parts of her repertoire but still found her qualified to sing a satisfactory Norma, would have served as an example of how to talk about a singer's qualities without transgressing the proper bounds of what can objectively be said. So long as people insist on assigning singers to clear-cut categories which do not define voices at all, but are mere rough guides to the practical business of casting, those bounds will be transgressed.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

....whatever


----------



## BaritoneAssoluto (Jun 6, 2016)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> first off, Caballe is a spinto, not a lyric. she has wonderful recordings of heavier roles like Armida, Forza del Destino, Turandot, even some Wagner. the voice was large, powerful and capable of hefty dramatic weight when called for
> 
> as for Norma, I mostly agree, except that....I actually prefer Sutherland's interpretation of both of the arias, the cabaletta and trio. this is ironic, because she is ill suited for the role overall. other than that, Callas is THE Norma (especially the duet. omfg.......).


The thing is Caballe stated in an interview before she was also a "full-lyric soprano," so that Spinto thing just doesn't work. She may have done those roles but technically (speaking on the assolutas requirements,) she didn't fit the bill to be classified as an assoluta -- yet alone the even scarce Spinto. It was a medium sized instrument (in it's prime with some agilita, but that went away around 1975-1981) that only got it's recognition for her overall abuse of PPPs. The voice was quite ugly when sung out in full force as her Turandot and Leonora proves that and she was quite restricted on low notes (again, they weren't as present but better than Sutherlands by a mile.)

Sutherland's horrible diction, loss of her vocal agility, and her husband all adds to the core of the problem: Sutherland wasn't primed to singing the great Bel canto roles in Opera. She got away with a having a vocally secure Lucia and Armina but when it came down to the "nitty, gritty", she suffered. By 1975, she had lost 65% of her once acclaimed agility, her diction was always horrible and was just mush and her lower register and middle registers developed a nasty mid-career wobble. She had to transpose her pieces up in order to avoid climatic phrases that required her to sing lower notes and thanks to her husband, was forced to sing repertory that showcased her worst spots. Sutherland singing Norma, Elvira, Violetta, Lucrezi and Maria Stuarda were not good. And don't get me started on her poor attempt of singing Versimo with Puccini's Turandot.


----------



## BaritoneAssoluto (Jun 6, 2016)

Pugg said:


> I knew it, didn't take long till the bashing started and here we go _again_.


Not bashing. Trust me, I can bash but I'm keeping it honest. We need to fully be honest with each other in order to have such a candid conversation.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BaritoneAssoluto said:


> Sutherland's horrible diction, loss of her vocal agility, and her husband all adds to the core of the problem: Sutherland wasn't primed to singing the great Bel canto roles in Opera. She got away with a having a vocally secure Lucia and Armina but when it came down to the "nitty, gritty", she suffered. By 1975, she had lost 65% of her once acclaimed agility, her diction was always horrible and was just mush and her lower register and middle registers developed a nasty mid-career wobble. She had to transpose her pieces up in order to avoid climatic phrases that required her to sing lower notes and thanks to her husband, was forced to sing repertory that showcased her worst spots. Sutherland singing Norma, Elvira, Violetta, Lucrezi and Maria Stuarda were not good. And don't get me started on her ****-poor attempt of singing Versimo with Puccini's Turandot.


And I thought _I_ was tough on singers! :lol:

The faults you point to were real, though isn't 65% a bit excessive and overspecific? Even in late career Sutherland had fine coloratura, even if the voice was no longer the clean, silvery instrument it had been. I don't much like the way her voice and musicianship developed after the early 1960s - the mushy diction and swoony phrasing were just unmusical, and of course the encroaching wobble - but my ears tell me that in early career she was vocally superb in the lighter bel canto roles, and that even in the '70s there was no one with her combination of range, power and agility in that repertoire. For that matter there hasn't been since, as far as I'm aware (Radvanovsky may be the best we have at the moment, and her coloratura is no match even for late Sutherland, though she's a better musician and actress).


----------



## BaritoneAssoluto (Jun 6, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> And I thought _I_ was tough on singers! :lol:
> 
> The faults you point to were real, though isn't 65% a bit excessive and overspecific? Even in late career Sutherland had fine coloratura, even if the voice was no longer the clean, silvery instrument it had been. I don't much like the way her voice and musicianship developed after the early 1960s - the mushy diction and swoony phrasing were just unmusical, and of course the encroaching wobble - but my ears tell me that in early career she was vocally superb in the lighter bel canto roles, and that even in the '70s there was no one with her combination of range, power and agility in that repertoire. For that matter there hasn't been since, as far as I'm aware (Radvanovsky may be the best we have at the moment, and her coloratura is no match even for late Sutherland, though she's a better musician and actress).


Sutherland's voice was fit to restoring the great Baroque and earlier light-Belcanto (opera Buffo) roles. The heavier the role she picked, the worst it sounded in her voice. There's a reason why her Lakme and Alcina still outsells the rest of her entire discography. The voice was silvery like a bell, had the colorization of a true lyric coloratura and her voice was more energetic than when she got caught up with her husband and his nefarious demands of her singing the harder Belcanto repertorie. I wholeheartedly believe that Early SUtherland 1959-1968 will always be her prime. Not a big fan of her voice but she was good in that period. The "Horne, Pavarotti" era is where the voice was at its lowest and the 70's weren't kind to her either.

I don't know why but I really miss Jennifer Larmore and Carol Vaness. Where are those two lovely ladies?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BaritoneAssoluto said:


> Sutherland's voice was fit to restoring the great Baroque and earlier light-Belcanto (opera Buffo) roles. The heavier the role she picked, the worst it sounded in her voice. There's a reason why her Lakme and Alcina still outsells the rest of her entire discography. The voice was silvery like a bell, had the colorization of a true lyric coloratura and her voice was more energetic than when she got caught up with her husband and his nefarious demands of her singing the harder Belcanto repertorie. I wholeheartedly believe that Early SUtherland 1959-1968 will always be her prime. Not a big fan of her voice but she was good in that period. The "Horne, Pavarotti" era is where the voice was at its lowest and the 70's weren't kind to her either.
> 
> I don't know why but I really miss Jennifer Larmore and Carol Vaness. Where are those two lovely ladies?


I don't think Sutherland's voice, as such, was a major problem in bel canto repertoire. Her early _Lucias_, as well as her Baroque work of that period, are magnificent pieces of singing. She actually enunciated rather well then, and her phrasing was clear and direct. I think that from a purely vocal standpoint she was perfectly well-suited to Donizetti and Bellini, and that her defects were musical and stylistic. The wilted, mooning phrasing compromised the musical line and, together with the incomprehensible diction, also compromised the music's potential for specific expression. If we can blame Bonynge for this, we might say that he tried to turn her into a giant canary. There's plenty of recorded evidence that she was more than that, and had she come under the influence of Callas's mentor Serafin we might have had quite a superior artist. For those who simply glory in her vocal brilliance, this is no doubt unimportant, whereas those of us who demand that opera be as musically and dramatically integral as it is vocally exciting will enjoy Sutherland very selectively.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

BaritoneAssoluto said:


> Not bashing. Trust me, I can bash but I'm keeping it honest. We need to fully be honest with each other in order to have such a candid conversation.


....whatever:devil:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

There seems to be developing a fashion for saying "whatever."

Whatever can it mean?


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> There seems to be developing a fashion for saying "whatever."
> Whatever can it mean?


what I mean is, I'm not going to sit here arguing about the validity of voice classification....on a thread about voice classification (and yes, I like do like to put things in more intellectually nuanced categories. it's just how my mind works lol).


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> what I mean is, I'm not going to sit here arguing about the validity of voice classification....on a thread about voice classification (and yes, I like do like to put things in more intellectually nuanced categories. it's just how my mind works lol).


How is ramming versatile singers into narrow fachs intellectually nuanced? How is stating categorically that "Caballe is a spinto, not a lyric" intellectually nuanced? I believe that nuance is the one characteristic most conspicuously absent from such statements, and that nuance is the habit of thought I am nigh-unto-desperately pleading for when we talk about voices.

When I was a college student I was justly proud of my ability to make fine discriminations intellectually, and to break down reality into nice clean categories. Then, at a certain point, I realized that those categories I thought reality consisted of were inventions of my own mind, tools I needed to help me find my way, but which became hindrances to further understanding if I held on to them once they'd served their purpose. That realization was liberating. Now, I am far more interested in discovering what realities lie outside conventional categories than in seeing how much of the world I can stuff into them.

There are some singers who fit rather neatly into the conventional "fach" classifications. There is no question that Birgit Nilsson was correctly described as a _hochdramatische sopran_, simply because she was a great Brunnhilde and Elektra, and because that was virtually the only kind of singing she truly excelled at. Besides, it's a narrow and easily defined category with few inhabitants. Some things are sufficiently lacking in nuance to be talked about so categorically. But in those cases there tends to be little controversy and the discussion is quickly over. Anything more _nuanced_ than that, and we'd best crawl out of our classificatory boxes and learn to qualify our statements. Debates over whether someone is "really" a strong lyric soprano or a lyrico-spinto soprano are only going to make the visitors from other galaxies wonder why they bothered coming all this way to study us.

But - I know - "What-EVVAAH!" :tiphat:


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> How is ramming versatile singers into narrow fachs intellectually nuanced? How is stating categorically that "Caballe is a spinto, not a lyric" intellectually nuanced? I believe that nuance is the one characteristic most conspicuously absent from such statements, and that nuance is the habit of thought I am nigh-unto-desperately pleading for when we talk about voices.
> 
> When I was a college student I was justly proud of my ability to make fine discriminations intellectually, and to break down reality into nice clean categories. Then, at a certain point, I realized that those categories I thought reality consisted of were inventions of my own mind, tools I needed to help me find my way, but which became hindrances to further understanding if I held on to them once they'd served their purpose. That realization was liberating. Now, I am far more interested in discovering what realities lie outside conventional categories than in seeing how much of the world I can stuff into them.
> 
> ...


How is it "ramming a singer into a narrow fach" when I clearly listed examples of lyric, coloratura and spinto rep she performed well? You seem to be under the impression that my concept of fach is far more rigid and narrow than it actually is (fach is a singer's home base, not necessarily their entire rep. I could give you an insanely long list of well-performed arias by singers of a different fach. hell, when I posted my list of top 5 Bel Raggios, _all 5_ singers were different fachs singing the same thing  )

Honestly, you make it sound like I'm some stern Prussian Frau trying to march singers into a rigid, military school. That isn't and has never been the point XD


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> I don't think Sutherland's voice, as such, was a major problem in bel canto repertoire. Her early _Lucias_, as well as her Baroque work of that period, are magnificent pieces of singing. She actually enunciated rather well then, and her phrasing was clear and direct. I think that from a purely vocal standpoint she was perfectly well-suited to Donizetti and Bellini, and that her defects were musical and stylistic. The wilted, mooning phrasing compromised the musical line and, together with the incomprehensible diction, also compromised the music's potential for specific expression. If we can blame Bonynge for this, we might say that he tried to turn her into a giant canary. There's plenty of recorded evidence that she was more than that, and had she come under the influence of Callas's mentor Serafin we might have had quite a superior artist. For those who simply glory in her vocal brilliance, this is no doubt unimportant, whereas those of us who demand that opera be as musically and dramatically integral as it is vocally exciting will enjoy Sutherland very selectively.


Bonynge was Sutherland's coach before and after they married. We must give him credit for turning the voice into the incredible instrument it became. The downside was that he later became Sutherland's conductor, and hence she didn't tend to work with the great conductors of her day. But she was obviously happy working within this mainly Bel Canto repertoire. One exception was the Mehta Turandot where she gives an astounding performance which shows how big the voice was.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

I'd like to propose some new contestants for the assoluta fach 

1) Marisa Galvany









2) Leyla Gencer





3) Alexandrina Pendatchanska(her technique isn't quite to my liking, but in terms of sheer vocal capabilities, I'd say she is a contender)





4) Shirley Verrett


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> I'd like to propose some new contestants for the assoluta fach
> 
> 1) Marisa Galvany
> 
> ...


Galvany is a monochromatic singer. She has basically one quality of expression: maniacal. Lucia as Lady Macbeth. Her coloratura is hit or miss, OK when she can ride her powerful vibrato but terrible in the Norma excerpt. She has no trill. Can you imagine that voice as Amina? More like Santuzza, regardless of the role. Far from "assoluta," if the term actually means more than high, low, and loud.

Gencer was a strong artist but not exactly a paragon of musical poise and style. Versatile yes, but that clip's attempt to portray her as all those different types, from lyric coloratura to contralto, is absurd. Still, despite a certain roughness, a better candidate for "assoluta" than Galvany.

There's an unidentified mezzo in the Pendatchanska clip. It's mostly a lot of loud coloratura singing anyway. I think this is more revealing:






Well, it isn't bel canto, is it? Such uneven tonal emission, and a weird, wild, bumpy ride, musically speaking. She does have a trill. I think her Lucia is stylistically saner and technically better, though the approach to high notes is sometimes crude and the phrasing not very imaginative or finely drawn:






She has another one of these voices, so common nowadays, that I couldn't necessarily pick out in a lineup.

Well. Now for the real deal. You only have to listen to Shirley Verrett for a few moments to hear that she completely outclasses the others in every way. I'd also say she's the only true falcon in the group, with a range encompassing securely both soprano and mezzo. She had the voice, technique, musicianship and sense of style to sing virtually anything, beautifully and memorably.

I'd just like to add this, a performance worthy to stand beside assoluta Rosa Ponselle's "O nume tutelar" as an exemplar of the fine art of singing:






My verdict? One out of four: *Shirley Verrett, Assoluta.*


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Galvany is a monochromatic singer. She has basically one quality of expression: maniacal. Lucia as Lady Macbeth. Her coloratura is hit or miss, OK when she can ride her powerful vibrato but terrible in the Norma excerpt. She has no trill. Can you imagine that voice as Amina? More like Santuzza, regardless of the role. Far from "assoluta," if the term actually means more than high, low, and loud.


I'll settle for "unrealized assoluta potential" (she had the sheer vocal mechanism)



> Gencer was a strong artist but not exactly a paragon of musical poise and style. Versatile yes, but that clip's attempt to portray her as all those different types, from lyric coloratura to contralto, is absurd. Still, despite a certain roughness, a better candidate for "assoluta" than Galvany.


admittedly, I thought the video was a little silly as well, but it captured the versatility at least.



> There's an unidentified mezzo in the Pendatchanska clip. It's mostly a lot of loud coloratura singing anyway. I think this is more revealing:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


she is about as bel canto as Gheorghiu is Turandot. no argument there :lol:



> Well. Now for the real deal. You only have to listen to Shirley Verrett for a few moments to hear that she completely outclasses the others in every way. I'd also say she's the only true falcon in the group, with a range encompassing securely both soprano and mezzo. She had the voice, technique, musicianship and sense of style to sing virtually anything, beautifully and memorably.
> 
> I'd just like to add this, a performance worthy to stand beside assoluta Rosa Ponselle's "O nume tutelar" as an exemplar of the fine art of singing:


glad we agree there. easily one of the finest singers of the 20th century


----------



## BaritoneAssoluto (Jun 6, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> Galvany is a monochromatic singer. She has basically one quality of expression: maniacal. Lucia as Lady Macbeth. Her coloratura is hit or miss, OK when she can ride her powerful vibrato but terrible in the Norma excerpt. She has no trill. Can you imagine that voice as Amina? More like Santuzza, regardless of the role. Far from "assoluta," if the term actually means more than high, low, and loud.
> 
> Gencer was a strong artist but not exactly a paragon of musical poise and style. Versatile yes, but that clip's attempt to portray her as all those different types, from lyric coloratura to contralto, is absurd. Still, despite a certain roughness, a better candidate for "assoluta" than Galvany.
> 
> ...


I've classified Mrs. Verrett as a Proto-Assoluta, meaning she's got assoluta-like qualities but her coloratura wasn't as stable as say a Callas or Sutherland. I think Soprano Falcon works for her best. While she had great high notes, some of those high notes were quite strident and often weaker when compared to her counterpart, Grace Bumbry (who was often afraid of her own high notes as well and didn't have the stronger coloratura either.)


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BaritoneAssoluto said:


> I've classified Mrs. Verrett as a Proto-Assoluta, meaning she's got assoluta-like qualities but her coloratura wasn't as stable as say a Callas or Sutherland. I think Soprano Falcon works for her best. While she had great high notes, some of those high notes were quite strident and often weaker when compared to her counterpart, Grace Bumbry (who was often afraid of her own high notes as well and didn't have the stronger coloratura either.)


Well, nobody's perfect - certainly not Callas, after her voice started to go. Verrett did after all begin as a mezzo (I believe) and conquered soprano territory like no other mezzo I can think of, and Callas didn't have the body and solidity down low to do the same in the mezzo repertoire, despite some successful late recordings of mezzo arias. I'd say Callas deserves the "assoluta" title more than any other singer of the postwar period by dint of combining vocal range, flexibility, dramatic power and stylistic versatility, but that Verrett comes closer to her than anyone else, and even surpasses Callas in the consistent beauty of her tone.

I'm not really "classifying" anybody, since we all have our own ideas about what qualities are necessary, and in what proportion, to merit a particular term. Terms are partly subjective, and "assoluta" must certainly be. If we wanted to be really tough, we could nominate just one "assoluta" and find all the rest wanting! I have a hard time withholding the honor from Verrett, one of the most accomplished and versatile singers of her time or, probably, any other time.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Well, nobody's perfect - certainly not Callas, after her voice started to go. Verrett did after all begin as a mezzo (I believe) and conquered soprano territory like no other mezzo I can think of, and Callas didn't have the body and solidity down low to do the same in the mezzo repertoire, despite some successful late recordings of mezzo arias. I'd say Callas deserves the "assoluta" title more than any other singer of the postwar period by dint of combining vocal range, flexibility, and dramatic power and versatility, but that Verrett comes closer to her than anyone else, and even surpasses Callas in the consistent beauty of her tone.


^this, except I actually prefer Verrett to Callas. Verrett's tone was pleasant, easy, relaxed, natural. Whenever Callas sung, all I could hear was _pain_. This is not necessarily a bad thing. In many instances it worked wonderfully, especially if one was in a blood-and-guts sort of mood from the start, but I have a general preference for smoothness and ease above emotion.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Well, nobody's perfect - certainly not Callas, after her voice started to go. Verrett did after all begin as a mezzo (I believe) and conquered soprano territory like no other mezzo I can think of, and Callas didn't have the body and solidity down low to do the same in the mezzo repertoire, despite some successful late recordings of mezzo arias. I'd say Callas deserves the "assoluta" title more than any other singer of the postwar period by dint of combining vocal range, flexibility, dramatic power and stylistic versatility, but that Verrett comes closer to her than anyone else, and even surpasses Callas in the consistent beauty of her tone.
> 
> I'm not really "classifying" anybody, since we all have our own ideas about what qualities are necessary, and in what proportion, to merit a particular term. Terms are partly subjective, and "assoluta" must certainly be. If we wanted to be really tough, we could nominate just one "assoluta" and find all the rest wanting! I have a hard time withholding the honor from Verrett, one of the most accomplished and versatile singers of her time or, probably, any other time.


Verrett comes as close as anyone. Her voice was simply one of the most beautiful ever. I always felt cheated when she sang soprano as her lower register was so amazingly beautiful. She was one of the greatest Arsaces ever but was also a killer Norma. I even heard her sing a high D very well in the trio of Act II of Norma. Not denying Callas' fabulousness, but Verrett's voice to my ears was much more beautiful. 
I would like to mention another singer who I believe deserves some mention. Dimitrova, who was equally adept as Turandot, Norma, and Amneris. She had an astonishingly huge voice, distinctive in sound, solid from killer high C's to chest voice, and more than adequate at coloratura.She was one of the great Amneris's of her generation. Some don't like her voice, but I find it thrilling.
Eileen Farrell was another singer who came close when she was young, but after a lot of Wagner her high notes failed her later in her career. Her coloratura was of astonishing dexterity, her voice as big as they come, and in Interrupted Melody sang mezzo and soprano roles equally well. in her retirement she recorded many pop songs all in the contralto register.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Seattleoperafan said:


> Verrett comes as close as anyone. Her voice was simply one of the most beautiful ever. I always felt cheated when she sang soprano as her lower register was so amazingly beautiful. She was one of the greatest Arsaces ever but was also a killer Norma. I even heard her sing a high D very well in the trio of Act II of Norma. Not denying Callas' fabulousness, but Verrett's voice to my ears was much more beautiful.


^pretty much this



> I would like to mention another singer who I believe deserves some mention. Dimitrova, who was equally adept as Turandot, Norma, and Amneris. She had an astonishingly huge voice, distinctive in sound, solid from killer high C's to chest voice, and more than adequate at coloratura.She was one of the great Amneris's of her generation. Some don't like her voice, but I find it thrilling.


an amazing singer. I would have mentioned her myself; however, she lacked the light coloratura and more tender/lyrical component to be an assoluta.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Seattleoperafan said:


> Verrett comes as close as anyone. Her voice was simply one of the most beautiful ever. I always felt cheated when she sang soprano as her lower register was so amazingly beautiful. She was one of the greatest Arsaces ever but was also a killer Norma. I even heard her sing a high D very well in the trio of Act II of Norma. Not denying Callas' fabulousness, but Verrett's voice to my ears was much more beautiful.
> I would like to mention another singer who I believe deserves some mention. Dimitrova, who was equally adept as Turandot, Norma, and Amneris. She had an astonishingly huge voice, distinctive in sound, solid from killer high C's to chest voice, and more than adequate at coloratura.She was one of the great Amneris's of her generation. Some don't like her voice, but I find it thrilling.
> Eileen Farrell was another singer who came close when she was young, but after a lot of Wagner her high notes failed her later in her career. Her coloratura was of astonishing dexterity, her voice as big as they come, and in Interrupted Melody sang mezzo and soprano roles equally well. in her retirement she recorded many pop songs all in the contralto register.


I agree that Verrett's voice was more beautiful in basic timbre than Callas.' What Callas had, more than any singer I can think of, was the ability to alter her timbre for expressive purposes, to the point of finding different "voices" for different characters. In her Butterfly she carries off the virtuoso feat of transforming her voice completely over the course of the work from that of naive young girl to tragic woman, and the effect is devastatingly powerful. In vocal acting she remains in a class by herself.

I was thinking of Eileen Farrell as a candidate for "assoluta," but as you point out the high notes became difficult, as they did with Ponselle, Flagstad, Traubel, and other sopranos with rich low registers and dramatic power. They all became, essentially, mezzo-sopranos of great beauty, but their soprano years were spectacular.

Callas, by the way, was impressed with Farrell. She once said, "The Met can hardly be considered a serious artistic institution. They don't even have Farrell."


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Might I suggest that the three singers who I would say came closest to the Soprano Assoluta defintion were fleeting phenomena in three great careers. Ponselle in her 20's when she was still secure up top and Horne as she was transitioning into mezzo parts and was engaged to sing Lucretia Borga in Carnegie Hall. Lastly, Farrell in her thirties. All three at that time in their careers HAD IT ALL. Top to bottom with coloratura to boot. Capable of incredible lyrical singing but possessing huge voices. What do you say??? All three had voices that migrated south as they matured.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Seattleoperafan said:


> Might I suggest that the three singers who I would say came closest to the Soprano Assoluta defintion were fleeting phenomena in three great careers. Ponselle in her 20's when she was still secure up top and Horne as she was transitioning into mezzo parts and was engaged to sing Lucretia Borga in Carnegie Hall. Lastly, Farrell in her thirties. All three at that time in their careers HAD IT ALL. Top to bottom with coloratura to boot. Capable of incredible lyrical singing but possessing huge voices. What do you say??? All three had voices that migrated south as they matured.


even in her glorious Immolation Scene, Horne still lacks the security above the staff and never displays ease of coloratura at the top of the range like an assoluta.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> even in her glorious Immolation Scene, Horne still lacks the security above the staff and never displays ease of coloratura at the top of the range like an assoluta.


 The Immolation Scene was in 67. The period I had in mind was more like '61 when she first sang with Sutherland, and might have only been for a few years.She was still wowing people with her Wozzeck at this point in her career up until 64. This is all hypothetical, so no way to know. She did have a secure C in her Norma with Sutherland at the start of her career. She likely didn't keep that for long. By 67 her voice had darkened to my ears. Even when she sang soprano she said she always had that extra extension on the bottom of her voice and sang tenor in choir very easily when she was a soprano in school.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Seattleoperafan said:


> Might I suggest that the three singers who I would say came closest to the Soprano Assoluta defintion were fleeting phenomena in three great careers. Ponselle in her 20's when she was still secure up top and Horne as she was transitioning into mezzo parts and was engaged to sing Lucretia Borga in Carnegie Hall. Lastly, Farrell in her thirties. All three at that time in their careers HAD IT ALL. Top to bottom with coloratura to boot. Capable of incredible lyrical singing but possessing huge voices. What do you say??? All three had voices that migrated south as they matured.


You may, and I agree with you with whole my heart .:tiphat:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Seattleoperafan said:


> Might I suggest that the three singers who I would say came closest to the Soprano Assoluta defintion were fleeting phenomena in three great careers. Ponselle in her 20's when she was still secure up top and Horne as she was transitioning into mezzo parts and was engaged to sing Lucretia Borga in Carnegie Hall. Lastly, Farrell in her thirties. All three at that time in their careers HAD IT ALL. Top to bottom with coloratura to boot. Capable of incredible lyrical singing but possessing huge voices. What do you say??? All three had voices that migrated south as they matured.


Ponselle's voice didn't really migrate south. She just lost her high C. She was still singing most of her rep in her mid-thirties, and the rest of her voice didn't change very much. She did say that had she not retired she'd have continued as a mezzo. Here's a great broadcast of "Ritorna vincitor" from 1936, when she was 39 (there's a measure missing toward the end, unfortunately):






Oh those uncanny diminuendos! But now listen to her, accompanying herself at home in "Senza mamma" in 1953. She was 55!






I don't remember Horne as a soprano. Guess I wasn't listening to her then.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Horne was in the backwaters of Germany most of her soprano career. She made no recordings that I know of. Wozzeck put her on the map in the States.. Ponselle's Senza Mamma was amazing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Woodduck: you can find anything on Youtube! Here is a concert Horne did in '61 as a soprano:



. She actually sounds a lot like Eileen Farrell here. The top was more flexible and solid, but you could tell the bottom was there if she needed it. The top was different than it was in the 67 Immolation Scene.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> There's an unidentified mezzo in the Pendatchanska clip. It's mostly a lot of loud coloratura singing anyway. I think this is more revealing:


there are recordings where she sounds more like a mezzo, but in other ones (especially earlier), the voice has zero mezzo in it.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> there are recordings where she sounds more like a mezzo, but in other ones (especially earlier), the voice has zero mezzo in it.


I meant that there really is a mezzo in that clip. There are two singers there.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Seattleoperafan said:


> Woodduck: you can find anything on Youtube! Here is a concert Horne did in '61 as a soprano:
> 
> 
> 
> . She actually sounds a lot like Eileen Farrell here. The top was more flexible and solid, but you could tell the bottom was there if she needed it. The top was different than it was in the 67 Immolation Scene.


That is one healthy Mimi! Tuberculosis? Nah.

Horne's voice always had too much steel in it for my taste - I think she was perfect for castrato parts - but as soprano or mezzo she was an extraordinary singer.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

_Maria Callas' Masterclass at Juillard_

The *complete recordings* of all these classes and working sessions; these mp3s have been posted independently of YouTube and you can download them for yourself. It is perfectly legal to download these files.

https://sites.google.com/site/operalala/CallasJuilliard

"Over two, six-week periods in 1971-72, Maria Callas taught a master class "The Lyric Tradition" for young beginning professional singers at the Juilliard School. Included in this course was a series of semiweekly 2-hour public working sessions with the variety of voices and repertoires in the class, intended to pass on her knowledge and experience to the students collectively, as well as to the public at large."

​


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

JosefinaHW said:


> _Maria Callas' Masterclass at Juillard_
> 
> The *complete recordings* of all these classes and working sessions; these mp3s have been posted independently of YouTube and you can download them for yourself. It is perfectly legal to download these files.
> 
> ...


This site is wonderful! For every piece that was performed/discussed in each class; the site has provided a quick link to the score of the piece!


----------



## BaritoneAssoluto (Jun 6, 2016)

It is my opinion and mine alone and I honestly think you can not be a serious musician if you don't have these recordings, somewhere saved in your laptop/desktop. She does so much by doing so little and every bits and pieces of information she gives out, is spot on and very intelligent. I actually think she could've been a great teacher to lower voiced males (she had an affinity for those Baritones and often complimented them and the basses for their voices and overall characterization but felt they needed more.)

If it's alright with you guys, I'd like to share a few clips of the class myself here:





















Enjoy! Hopefully by Sunday, I should have another juicy topic to discuss in this thread but until then, hopefully those videos will satiate your thirst!


----------



## BaritoneAssoluto (Jun 6, 2016)

I think her voice could have easily been cast as a spinto Soprano, instead of the pushed up (or down) Mezzo-Soprano she forced herself into being. Tebaldi never had a true B flat, Ponselle would criticize her own High notes, Callas hated her High A's (and people even said it made them seasick, yikes!) but when I listen to Horne (as a mezzo and in those early '63 excerpts,) the voice sits exactly where it should -- in the very middle-topish of her voice. Or, quite frankly she could've been cast as a Falcon as Verrett and Bumbry are known to be.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

It is amazing and exciting that we are taking voice lessons with Maria Callas and the score!!!


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> That is one healthy Mimi! Tuberculosis? Nah.
> 
> Horne's voice always had too much steel in it for my taste - I think she was perfect for castrato parts - but as soprano or mezzo she was an extraordinary singer.


^seconded. I like voices which have more roundness, opulence and some level of spin in the top reaches (not just mezzos or sopranos either. I want this from the basses and baritones I listen to as well).


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> ^seconded. *I like voices which have more roundness, opulence and some level of spin* in the top reaches (not just mezzos or sopranos either. I want this from the basses and baritones I listen to as well).


And softness and vulnerability.

Pollione could have taken her Adalgisa back to Rome and put her in the Coliseum to eat Christians.


----------



## Jermaine (Apr 23, 2016)

DarkAngel said:


> Someone forgot to tell her that...............


I think she did a phenomenal job. I don't get the higher than thou comments on Youtube and here about her performance as Norma.

I think people are just outraged that a mezzo would dare attempt a role that people have traditionally deemed to be reserved for a Soprano voice. Yet, it wasn't written for one. Frankly, I think it's either jealous, hate, or outright ignorance, or worse, all of these things combined.

Not pointing any finger.​


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Jermaine said:


> I think she did a phenomenal job. I don't get the higher than thou comments on Youtube and here about her performance as Norma.
> 
> I think people are just outraged that a mezzo would dare attempt a role that people have traditionally deemed to be reserved for a Soprano voice. Yet, it wasn't written for one. Frankly, I think it's either jealous, hate, or outright ignorance, or worse, all of these things combined.
> 
> Not pointing any finger.​




People may strongly disagree with you, for me personally, I rather have my ears pierces then ever listen to this again.​


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Jermaine said:


> I think she did a phenomenal job. I don't get the higher than thou comments on Youtube and here about her performance as Norma.
> 
> I think people are just outraged that a mezzo would dare attempt a role that people have traditionally deemed to be reserved for a Soprano voice. Yet, it wasn't written for one. Frankly, I think it's either jealous, hate, or outright ignorance, or worse, all of these things combined.
> 
> *Not pointing any finger.*​


I'm glad you're leaving it up to each of us to decide whether we are jealous, hateful, ignorant, or all three. Personally, all three might be something of a challenge, but I'll work on it. It might liven up my rhetoric.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Jermaine said:


> I think she did a phenomenal job. I don't get the higher than thou comments on Youtube and here about her performance as Norma.
> 
> I think people are just outraged that a mezzo would dare attempt a role that people have traditionally deemed to be reserved for a Soprano voice. Yet, it wasn't written for one. Frankly, I think it's either jealous, hate, or outright ignorance, or worse, all of these things combined.
> 
> Not pointing any finger.​


the problem with Bartoli's Norma is not that she is a mezzo (Verrett is among my favorite Normas, and my favorite two are Callas and Marisa Galvany, both of whom have chest voices like mezzos), it's that the voice doesn't have the _weight_ necessary to do the role justice


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> the problem with Bartoli's Norma is not that she is a mezzo (Verrett is among my favorite Normas, and my favorite two are Callas and Marisa Galvany, both of whom have chest voices like mezzos), it's that the voice doesn't have the _weight_ necessary to do the role justice


That whole production lacks weight.


----------



## BaritoneAssoluto (Jun 6, 2016)

Do anyone think Carol Vaness would fit the bill of a Soprano Assoluta?


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

BaritoneAssoluto said:


> Do anyone think Carol Vaness would fit the bill of a Soprano Assoluta?


I think more highly of her now than I did at the time. Particularly when she was younger and before she lost weight, she had a beautiful spinto that was solid from bottom to the top. She sang both verismo and Mozart really well. She did bow out of debuting as Norma here, likely realizing ti was too big a part for her. She may have undertaken it later, though.


----------



## Jermaine (Apr 23, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> That whole production lacks weight.


Says who? You?... Okay, we'll run with it...

Bartoli's Norma is currently being praised. Just reading the reviews from the recent performances at Edinburg, I'd say your comment lacks weight...​


----------



## Jermaine (Apr 23, 2016)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> the problem with Bartoli's Norma is not that she is a mezzo (Verrett is among my favorite Normas, and my favorite two are Callas and Marisa Galvany, both of whom have chest voices like mezzos), it's that the voice doesn't have the _weight_ necessary to do the role justice


I like this comment and I wholeheartedly agree with you. Bartoli's version is not as searing as other divas, but I like it for the beauty and intimacy of her rendition. It's dramatic when it needs to be and balanced at other points. I have listened to the entire opera on CD and I think she did a beautiful job. Personally, I think they all have some fault, save Cabelle (I think she has the most astute version). I have not heard Sutherland's take. I have listened to Callas and as much as I respect her, I don't like the tone of her voice in Norma. She sounds like an old woman wailing. But where Callas lacks beauty, in my opinion, she makes up for it in volume and drama.

I have not actually seen any of them live, so this is just based on CD. Anyways, I respect everyone's opinion, and I am here to learn and discuss. Most people here are pleasant, others seem to have a false sense of entitlement. At the end of the day, the objectivity is all mathematical ratios and time splices. Your perception of performer's execution is just that... Yours...​


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Jermaine said:


> Says who? You?... Okay, we'll run with it...
> 
> Bartoli's Norma is currently being praised. Just reading the reviews from the recent performances at Edinburg, *I'd say* your comment lacks weight...​


Is that indeed what you would say? It would be better to say why you think the recording featuring Bartoli does the opera justice. Who cares about some reviewer in Edinburgh?


----------



## Jermaine (Apr 23, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> Is that indeed what you would say? It would be better to say why you think the recording featuring Bartoli does the opera justice. Who cares about some reviewer in Edinburgh?


I wrote it above. I don't wish to go back and forth with you. Let's agree to disagree. ​


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Jermaine said:


> I like this comment and I wholeheartedly agree with you. Bartoli's version is not as searing as other divas, but I like it for the beauty and intimacy of her rendition. It's dramatic when it needs to be and balanced at other points. I have listened to the entire opera on CD and I think she did a beautiful job. Personally, I think they all have some fault, save Cabelle (I think she has the most astute version). I have not heard Sutherland's take. I have listened to Callas and as much as I respect her, I don't like the tone of her voice in Norma. She sounds like an old woman wailing. But where Callas lacks beauty, in my opinion, she makes up for it in volume and drama.
> 
> I have not actually seen any of them live, so this is just based on CD. Anyways, I respect everyone's opinion, and I am here to learn and discuss. *Most people here are pleasant, others seem to have a false sense of entitlement.* At the end of the day, the objectivity is all mathematical ratios and time splices. *Your perception of performer's execution is just that... Yours...*​


It's odd that in this post you assure us that you "respect everyone's opinion," when in the previous post you state, without giving any reason (except for citing some unnamed critic in Edinburgh), that my comment on Bartoli's _Norma_ recording "lacks weight." Would it surprise you that I find that somewhat insulting? Perhaps I'm one of those "people here" to whom you attribute a "false sense of entitlement," and you feel that this entitles you to be less than polite to me.

I have been here for over two years and I do not notice any contributors to the opera forum exhibiting a sense of "entitlement." Though we have disagreements I think we are generally quite civil in expressing them. Seeing that you're new here, I wonder why you already feel the need to remind current members that their opinions are theirs alone. In my experience, we rarely need to go on the defensive unless others perceive us going on the offensive first.

Welcome to the forum. Let's look forward to discussions vigorous and fruitful - and respectful.


----------



## Jermaine (Apr 23, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> It's odd that in this post you assure us that you "respect everyone's opinion," when in the previous post you state, without giving any reason (except for citing some unnamed critic in Edinburgh), that my comment on Bartoli's _Norma_ recording "lacks weight." Would it surprise you that I find that somewhat insulting? Perhaps I'm one of those "people here" to whom you attribute a "false sense of entitlement," and you feel that this entitles you to be less than polite to me.
> 
> I have been here for over two years and I do not notice any contributors to the opera forum exhibiting a sense of "entitlement." Though we have disagreements I think we are generally quite civil in expressing them. Seeing that you're new here, I wonder why you already feel the need to remind current members that their opinions are theirs alone. In my experience, we rarely need to go on the defensive unless others perceive us going on the offensive first.
> 
> Welcome to the forum. Let's look forward to discussions vigorous and fruitful - and respectful.


I apologize if I offended you. No you are not one of the posters to whom I made that reference. Actually I enjoy your posts. I find them very informative and helpful in terms of explaining technical things that I don't understand. 
I do respect everyone's opinions. I've said this several times before that I am here to learn as much as I can about opera as it has become my favorite genre in the past year. I am not here to defend or worship any particular artists; only to interact and learn from other opera and classical music fans.

I look forward to moving forward as well. ​


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Jermaine said:


> I apologize if I offended you. No you are not one of the posters to whom I made that reference. Actually I enjoy your posts. I find them very informative and helpful in terms of explaining technical things that I don't understand.
> I do respect everyone's opinions. I've said this several times before that I am here to learn as much as I can about opera as it has become my favorite genre in the past year. I am not here to defend or worship any particular artists; only to interact and learn from other opera and classical music fans.
> 
> I look forward to moving forward as well. ​


Perhaps you can use a the standard writhing from the board, read much easier?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Pugg said:


> Perhaps you can use a the standard writhing from the board, read much easier?


I have to second Pugg's suggestion. Some of us are older and our eyes don't have an easy time staring at tiny print on a screen.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

BaritoneAssoluto said:


> And this is why you have less and less dramatic voices and more for a lack of a better term "screwed" up voices, that only sound good with microphones. Cecilia Bartoli is the only light lyric coloratura Mezzo-Soprano i know that hasn't wandered off and sung inappropriate repertory because she knows her small sized voice limits here ability to do anything dramatic.
> 
> There's a wonder why Dolora Zajick made a foundation specifically created to cultivate and to further help big-sized voices or Dramatic voices to have a career. They are being pushed aside for "lyrics" or small-sized instruments and the reasons are:
> 1. They're cheaper.
> ...




1. Do you have proof that Hvorotstovsky sings with a microphone?

2. Even if he did sing with a microphone, what connection does that have to good legato singing? I can think of a number of pop singers, past and present, who have fine legato and, naturally, sing with microphones.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Bonynge was Sutherland's coach before and after they married. We must give him credit for turning the voice into the incredible instrument it became. The downside was that he later became Sutherland's conductor, and hence she didn't tend to work with the great conductors of her day. But she was obviously happy working within this mainly Bel Canto repertoire. One exception was the Mehta Turandot where she gives an astounding performance which shows how big the voice was.


I must be about the only opera lover who likes Richard Bonynge as a bel canto conductor (I wouldn't want to hear him conduct Puccini); I honestly don't understand all the "hate" for him, and I sometimes feel as though people (not so much DavidA, but others here and elsewhere) speak condescendingly of him just because they feel it's "the thing to do," or something. I feel one could criticize some of Bonynge's tempos for being too fast so that the music lacks "gravity," but other than that I fail to hear why he's not a great conductor of _bel canto_ operas. Or is the idea that one can only be a "great conductor" by venturing _outside_ bel canto opera?

And I think Bonynge did more than turn Sutherland's voice into an incredible instrument (what he did, really, was help her find and strengthen the soprano registers she didn't know she had); he also must have given her a great education in the age of bel canto and its style.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Bellinilover said:


> I must be about the only opera lover who likes Richard Bonynge as a bel canto conductor (I wouldn't want to hear him conduct Puccini); I honestly don't understand all the "hate" for him, and I sometimes feel as though people (not so much DavidA, but others here and elsewhere) speak condescendingly of him just because they feel it's "the thing to do," or something. I feel one could criticize some of Bonynge's tempos for being too fast so that the music lacks "gravity," but other than that I fail to hear why he's not a great conductor of _bel canto_ operas. Or is the idea that one can only be a "great conductor" by venturing _outside_ bel canto opera?
> 
> And I think Bonynge did more than turn Sutherland's voice into an incredible instrument (what he did, really, was help her find and strengthen the soprano registers she didn't know she had); he also must have given her a great education in the age of bel canto and its style.


I have no problem with Bonynge. He's made many fine recordings of 19th-century opera and ballet music (Adam, Delibes, Offenbach, etc.). That sort of "light classical" repertoire isn't taken seriously by some. Otherwise, I have the impression he's criticized mainly by people who blame him for what they dislike about Sutherland (the mushy diction and swoony phrasing). How much is deserved, I don't know.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

I'm fine with Mr. Bonynge conducting Belcanto operas, too.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Bellinilover said:


> I must be about the only opera lover who likes Richard Bonynge as a bel canto conductor (I wouldn't want to hear him conduct Puccini); I honestly don't understand all the "hate" for him, and I sometimes feel as though people (not so much DavidA, but others here and elsewhere) speak condescendingly of him just because they feel it's "the thing to do," or something. I feel one could criticize some of Bonynge's tempos for being too fast so that the music lacks "gravity," but other than that I fail to hear why he's not a great conductor of _bel canto_ operas. Or is the idea that one can only be a "great conductor" by venturing _outside_ bel canto opera?
> 
> And I think Bonynge did more than turn Sutherland's voice into an incredible instrument (what he did, really, was help her find and strengthen the soprano registers she didn't know she had); he also must have given her a great education in the age of bel canto and its style.


Hallelujah, finally some reconnection, not to mention his contribution to the whole Bel Canto repertoire in general.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> It's odd that in this post you assure us that you "respect everyone's opinion," when in the previous post you state, without giving any reason (except for citing some unnamed critic in Edinburgh), that my comment on Bartoli's _Norma_ recording "lacks weight." Would it surprise you that I find that somewhat insulting? Perhaps I'm one of those "people here" to whom you attribute a "false sense of entitlement," and you feel that this entitles you to be less than polite to me.
> 
> I have been here for over two years and I do not notice any contributors to the opera forum exhibiting a sense of "entitlement." Though we have disagreements I think we are generally quite civil in expressing them. Seeing that you're new here, I wonder why you already feel the need to remind current members that their opinions are theirs alone. In my experience, we rarely need to go on the defensive unless others perceive us going on the offensive first.
> 
> Welcome to the forum. Let's look forward to discussions vigorous and fruitful - and respectful.


my experience is similar, which is NOT something I can safely say about the opera groups I've joined on facebook (which have some of the craziest, most histrionic and defensive people I've ever spoken with. talking to some of them felt like trying to give a lecture on nuclear physics to a teenage couple having an argument)


----------



## BaritoneAssoluto (Jun 6, 2016)

Bellinilover said:


> [/B]
> 
> 1. Do you have proof that Hvorotstovsky sings with a microphone?
> 
> 2. Even if he did sing with a microphone, what connection does that have to good legato singing? I can think of a number of pop singers, past and present, who have fine legato and, naturally, sing with microphones.


1. Yes i have on many occasions actually. His performance in Un Ballo around 2015, at the Met. He was doing his best to hide it but it made it even more obvious and the easily noticeable things he was doing:
a. Overcompensating for his lack of dramatic intensity in his singing by pushing the voice to do things he wouldn't do if he truly was a dramatic voice.

2. I mean it's Opera! You don't need a microphone to sing and the single fact that you're questioning about good legato singing, shows that Opera in 2016 is no longer the field it was just 100 or even 50 years ago. Good legato singing is the ultimate rule for Bel Canto singing. if you lack even that connectivity to singing, I question whether or not you should be singing bel canto or even music in general.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BaritoneAssoluto said:


> Good legato singing is the ultimate rule for Bel Canto singing. if you lack even that connectivity to singing, I question whether or not you should be singing bel canto or even music in general.


If we fired every present-day singer who lacks a good legato we'd have some pretty empty stages, and we'd have to do karaoke with the naked orchestral recordings.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

BaritoneAssoluto said:


> 1. Yes i have on many occasions actually. His performance in Un Ballo around 2015, at the Met. He was doing his best to hide it but it made it even more obvious and the easily noticeable things he was doing:
> a. Overcompensating for his lack of dramatic intensity in his singing by pushing the voice to do things he wouldn't do if he truly was a dramatic voice.
> 
> 2. I mean it's Opera! You don't need a microphone to sing and the single fact that you're questioning about good legato singing, shows that Opera in 2016 is no longer the field it was just 100 or even 50 years ago. Good legato singing is the ultimate rule for Bel Canto singing. if you lack even that connectivity to singing, I question whether or not you should be singing bel canto or even music in general.


You saw Hvorostovsky's microphone, then, with your own eyes? You have actual proof that he was miked -- proof, and not just "someone told me" or your own speculation? The reason I'm so adamant about this is because if it's speculation or hearsay only, then a singer's reputation can be damaged by rumors. And I'll add that Hvorostovsky is hardly the only singer in history to have miking rumors going around about him. In the 1980's, for example, it was rumored that Kathleen Battle was miked whenever she sang at the Met. And did you know that in the 1960's, rumors circulated that Montserrat Caballe's famous pianissimi were the result, not of her own technique, but of recording-studio technicians? Not to mention the rumors in the 1950's that Mario Lanza's voice was entirely a creation of the recording studios (Licia Albanese, who sang with him, confirmed that this was absolutely false)! All I say is, I think we should all be very careful of what claims we make on internet forums -- because if they are in fact untrue, then genuine damage can be done to a singer's reputation and, ultimately, to his/her legacy.

I don't appreciate the accusatory tone in your second point. Moreover, you didn't really address my question. Your initial post seemed to make some connection between not using a microphone and the ability to sing a legato line. I pointed out that there are and have been a number of pop singers (Sinatra is only the most obvious example) noted for their legato who, of course, used microphones. I'm not objecting to the idea that _opera_ singers should not use microphones; I'm asking what being amplified or not being amplified has to do with legato singing.


----------



## BaritoneAssoluto (Jun 6, 2016)

That would speak volumes that our teachers are NOT during their jobs then. Any singer who can't sing note to note with the purest form of legato, in my estimation, shouldn't be singing Opera let alone shouldn't be singing music in general. I've seen it happen too many times in universities and even in high schools. Teachers are no longer relying on the techniques of old (that has proven to work many times) to continue that tradition of Bel Canto (which as we know is more than just beautiful singing).


----------



## BaritoneAssoluto (Jun 6, 2016)

I'm going to start in reverse here:

"Accusatory tone.."? First things first throughout my time here, I've never done anything that should be questioned really and I've always talked to you users with the utmost respect so that allegation of having a non-pleasant tone, is rather confusing to me. Your "question" really isn't a question but just be plain old common sense. You state pop singers can sing legato with a microphone but how can you tell when they have special microphones? And now with the advent of apps that can strip background music and all the extra theatrics from a singer's performance now, we can now analyze entire performances just purely hearing the singers voice and the results have all been negative. Amplifcation adds a HUGE deal to the overall sound of Opera. I ttakes away the NATURAL ability to communicate with the audience, with your God-Given talent and getting a chance to test out your voice against orchestras and the audience. Microphones hinder that simple process. There's a reason why Titta Ruffo was called the Golden lion or Maria Callas was called the biggest voiced-Sopranos of our time: they used their own voices and their own abilities to carry them through a theater, not some cheap tricks. And again one can easily look into the past and see how some, need not use any microphone in order to express conventional Bel Canto singing nor legato singing. It's ludicrous really to try to compare to different fields when one field EMPHASIZES on the need for legato singing and the other has several different styles that a singer can "indulge' in.

Now to your comment on my Hvorostovsky comment. I have NEVER made any accusations or assumptions based off of someone else's hearsay or their opinion. I form my own opinion by obviously going to see something LIVE and in person or hearing a recording of them and seeing what I can analyze myself. It was a nice trip that involved a summer opera camp giving out free tickets to see the Met's performance of "Un ballo in Maschera", 2015. We did get some nice seats (I had a chance to see Mr. Levine conduct in person and was astounded by his relationship to Verdi) and ultimately we got a chance to talk backstage (I had a chance to get Dmitri to sign my Met book!) Everyone knows I have a love-hate relationship with Dmitri's voice: On the onset, it's a very lyrical-cantabile baritone voice that combines (usually,) good legato singing with purity of tone, however, it's a voice that is so far pushed out of its limits that it's usually uncomfortable to sit and listen to him for more than 15 minutes. He's a pure lyric baritone who (like his American counterpart,) Thomas Hampson, who's attempts of the more Verdian/Dramatic baritone roles are facetious at best. He struggled throughout the entire performance that night and many of us in the camp were thinking that he was purely attempting vocal suicide with the way he was carrying on. It was a vocal lesson I'll never forget and hopefully NEVER have to go through myself.


Does that now answer your question?


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

BaritoneAssoluto said:


> I'm going to start in reverse here:
> 
> "Accusatory tone.."? First things first throughout my time here, I've never done anything that should be questioned really and I've always talked to you users with the utmost respect so that allegation of having a non-pleasant tone, is rather confusing to me. Your "question" really isn't a question but just be plain old common sense. You state pop singers can sing legato with a microphone but how can you tell when they have special microphones? And now with the advent of apps that can strip background music and all the extra theatrics from a singer's performance now, we can now analyze entire performances just purely hearing the singers voice and the results have all been negative. Amplifcation adds a HUGE deal to the overall sound of Opera. I ttakes away the NATURAL ability to communicate with the audience, with your God-Given talent and getting a chance to test out your voice against orchestras and the audience. Microphones hinder that simple process. There's a reason why Titta Ruffo was called the Golden lion or Maria Callas was called the biggest voiced-Sopranos of our time: they used their own voices and their own abilities to carry them through a theater, not some cheap tricks. And again one can easily look into the past and see how some, need not use any microphone in order to express conventional Bel Canto singing nor legato singing. It's ludicrous really to try to compare to different fields when one field EMPHASIZES on the need for legato singing and the other has several different styles that a singer can "indulge' in.
> 
> ...


Well, it doesn't, really, because your latest post is very hard to follow. For example, what are "special microphones," and how would they give the impression that a pop singer has good "line" when he does not? It seems to me that (at least) two different issues are being confused here: projection/size of voice and legato singing. In your initial post you wrote, "Hvorostovsky sings with a microphone, so he's not a good example of legato singing." If he does sing with a microphone in the opera house, then that's a vocal size/projection issue, not a "legato" issue.

Again, I have no argument with the idea that opera singers should not be using microphones other than when recording or broadcasting, so there is no need to keep reiterating that point. On the other hand, you've still provided no proof that Hvorostovsky _actually_ uses a microphone; as far as I can tell, it's _your opinion_ that he does. While I don't doubt your credentials as an experienced vocal technician, I stand by what I said above: if you have no _actual proof_ of what you say, then it is wrong to say it as though it's a fact -- because if, after all, it's _not_ a fact, then all that has been accomplished is the damaging of a singer's reputation.


----------



## BaritoneAssoluto (Jun 6, 2016)

Bellinilover said:


> Well, it doesn't, really, because your latest post is very hard to follow. For example, what are "special microphones," and how would they give the impression that a pop singer has good "line" when he does not? It seems to me that (at least) two different issues are being confused here: projection/size of voice and legato singing. In your initial post you wrote, "Hvorostovsky sings with a microphone, so he's not a good example of legato singing." If he does sing with a microphone in the opera house, then that's a vocal size/projection issue, not a "legato" issue.
> 
> Again, I have no argument with the idea that opera singers should not be using microphones other than when recording or broadcasting, so there is no need to keep reiterating that point. On the other hand, you've still provided no proof that Hvorostovsky _actually_ uses a microphone; as far as I can tell, it's _your opinion_ that he does. While I don't doubt your credentials as an experienced vocal technician, I stand by what I said above: if you have no _actual proof_ of what you say, then it is wrong to say it as though it's a fact -- because if, after all, it's _not_ a fact, then all that has been accomplished is the damaging of a singer's reputation.


I mean in response to the Microphone, Famous Operatic Mezzo-Soprano Marilyn Horne, even stated this:

"The microphones are coming. It's just a matter of time before the older generation that understands what a disaster microphones would be is safely out of the way. And when they come, that'll be the beginning of the end. Who will really learn to sing? There won't be any need to. The same thing will happen to opera that we have seen happen to Broadway. When I was young there were any number of well-produced, attractive voices in musicals. Today you have George Hearn, maybe one or two others, and that's it. There is no market for a good sound" (New York Times, March 24, 1991).﻿

Take that with whatever as you may and the thing with the Hvorostovsky... If you can't take my word on something, that's your discretion. However, if you're going to tell me that the group of people, who we all saw the exact same thing, communicated on the very exact issue, then again that is your discretion. I know what I saw and in no way am I trying to "discredit" his reputation. I gave him some of the very best reviews I've got for a current lyrical baritone but honestly that doesn't exclude him from the current incursion regarding Microphones and Opera singers. Marilyn Horne spoke about in 1991, Callas spoke about it in 1972, Joseph Shore continues to talk about it today so when I say that I'm confident that the usage of microphones is killing the Opera industry, I can back that "assumption" up.

I gain nothing... absolutely NOTHING for saying that comment (like monetary gain wise that is or any "kick" for doing it) and I stick by it 135%


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

When you say you're confident that the use of microphones is killing the opera industry, do you have some definite information about how far the practice has actually gone?


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

BaritoneAssoluto said:


> I mean in response to the Microphone, Famous Operatic Mezzo-Soprano Marilyn Horne, even stated this:
> 
> "The microphones are coming. It's just a matter of time before the older generation that understands what a disaster microphones would be is safely out of the way. And when they come, that'll be the beginning of the end. Who will really learn to sing? There won't be any need to. The same thing will happen to opera that we have seen happen to Broadway. When I was young there were any number of well-produced, attractive voices in musicals. Today you have George Hearn, maybe one or two others, and that's it. There is no market for a good sound" (New York Times, March 24, 1991).﻿
> 
> ...


What I got from your description of the BALLO IN MASCHERA experience was that Hvorostovsky sounded to be in vocal distress. So from that it necessarily follows that he was using a microphone? (And anyway, wouldn't a microphone have made him sound at least "bigger" vocally?) Maybe he was ill or having a bad day. You said the performance took place in 2015, which was the year he received his brain tumor diagnosis; maybe his vocal condition had something to do with that. Simply because several respected opera singers, from 1972 to the present, have given warnings about microphones does not necessarily mean that microphones are now common in opera, or that Hvorostovsky sings in the house with one. Further, did it ever occur to you that Marilyn Horne's prediction might have been too pessimistic, that the conclusions you and your friends came to might have been wrong, or that this or that modern teacher might have some ulterior motive for any claims they make?

I've been to the Met only one time (last March, for L'ELISIR D'AMORE starring Vittorio Grigolo), but I'll say this: I don't believe for a minute that _anyone_ during that performance was miked; the sound from the singers was way too natural and nothing at all like "miked" sound. While I can't speak about other singers at the Met, the idea that the house employs miking for anything other than broadcasting just doesn't seem credible to me.

As we've gotten a long way from sopranos, I'm going to leave this thread. I guess the only remaining question I'd have is why you were so thrilled to get Hvorostovsky's autograph if you believe he is -- basically, and despite the better qualities you mentioned -- a fake, for using a microphone.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Bellinilover said:


> Well, it doesn't, really, because your latest post is very hard to follow. For example, what are "special microphones," and how would they give the impression that a pop singer has good "line" when he does not? It seems to me that (at least) two different issues are being confused here: projection/size of voice and legato singing. In your initial post you wrote, "Hvorostovsky sings with a microphone, so he's not a good example of legato singing." If he does sing with a microphone in the opera house, then that's a vocal size/projection issue, not a "legato" issue.
> 
> Again, I have no argument with the idea that opera singers should not be using microphones other than when recording or broadcasting, so there is no need to keep reiterating that point. On the other hand, you've still provided no proof that Hvorostovsky _actually_ uses a microphone; as far as I can tell, it's _your opinion_ that he does. While I don't doubt your credentials as an experienced vocal technician, I stand by what I said above: if you have no _actual proof_ of what you say, then it is wrong to say it as though it's a fact -- because if, after all, it's _not_ a fact, then all that has been accomplished is the damaging of a singer's reputation.


:Bellinilover: I know this question falls on the edges of the OP, but the anti-microphone opinion is totally new to me. I am a great fan of the Berlin Philharmonic's Digital Concert Hall. As I'm sure you know the BP is performing an increasing number of operas, oratorios and other vocal works and almost all of these are broadcast on the DCC. What is your opinion of these vocal performances given the almost endless number of microphones? Thank you.


----------



## Barelytenor (Nov 19, 2011)

Seattleoperafan said:


> Horne was in the backwaters of Germany most of her soprano career. She made no recordings that I know of. Wozzeck put her on the map in the States.. Ponselle's Senza Mamma was amazing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Actually I have a 2-CD set, Gala GL100.568, where she sings soprano quite convincingly, including a 1959 recording of the complete Bach _Jauchzet Gott in allen Landen_, all four movements. She also sings Brünnhilde's Immolation quite well and does not sound at all like a mezzo, although it is undated ... And she sings Marie's monologue from _Wozzeck_, 1966.

Kind regards, :tiphat:

George


----------



## BaritoneAssoluto (Jun 6, 2016)

Really? How good is her monologue from Wozzeck?


----------



## sfogato assuloto 6488 (May 6, 2019)

I am not trained in any singing style but I'm fairly certain that I am a soprano sfogato (aka a soprano assoluto). I'm capable of singing very low (for a woman) as in songs such as the old spiritual, "Go Down Moses", at a middle pitch such as in Adele's "Set fire to the Rain", and I all but have the cadenza from "Phantom of the Opera" in my pocket (still working on that high E but am close to conquering it) (I don't know hardly any opera songs but I am familiar with the most famous part of Carmen as well as Flight of the Valkaries). I'm an adult now but have always wondered why I had such a range when many (one may even argue most) people don't. I thought about being in choir when I was in school but was too self conscious (I mean I knew I wasn't an alto but not just a soprano either and the other kids would have possibly seen me as a freak or else as a choir director's pet if I constantly got switched between the two when no one else would have) I can also make my voice as dark as night, as bright as the sun, as cold as winter, as warm as a fire, as soft as an angel, or as harsh as a thunderstorm. I can belt at high volume or sing softly with equal ease. If so desired I can back up my claims by posting recordings of myself. I always wondered what voice type I was and this thread helped me figure that out. I read a bit about what soprano sfogato is and what is interesting is that a soprano sfogato is often referred to as a contralto, alto, or mezzo soprano that has somehow extended her range to include the soprano range and I have had a habit of imitating singers/songs that I like (I used to imitate the lead singer of the Cranberries when I was younger) since I was in elementary school so, I think that has somehow extended my range. Again, I can post recordings if desired.


----------



## Point of No Return (May 11, 2021)

Hi! I am new to this forum! I have really enjoyed listening to the recordings 
on youtube of different singers that you have mentioned on this topic! I was wondering, what about Michele LaGrange? She has a rich, beautiful lower register. Her rendition of Fiordiligi's "Per pieta" is amazing! And, she has such ease on her high notes! Her "Casta Diva" is a wonder to behold! And, she has also sung Esclarmonde! She has had longevity, because she sings with perfect bel canto technique. I think her career started in the early 1980's, and she was still singing beautifully within the last 10 years! Not bad for someone born in the late 1940's or early 1950's!


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

deleted post*********


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

Based on the video, she sings for the microphones and sounds like she's "marking."
Same with the Fiordiligi aria (based on YouTube) below; hardly much inflection and propulsion of the voice.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

Susan Chilcott (live)






Miss Lagrange

Does anyone hear what I'm _not_ hearing from LaGrange? And I'm not even contrasting her with any of the _great _ Fiordiligis.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Lagrange seems to be walking on eggs, unwilling to let the voice out, pulling back when she should let go and expand. Maybe she's trying to be "Mozartean" or something, but it seems the sort of genteel, inhibited singing Callas inveighed against when coaching young singers in Mozart. The top isn't quite free, the vibrato slowing, and occasionally she telegraphs "here is my chest voice." A pretty voice, but an unfinished singer and artist. Chilcott is more satisfying, even if she's weak at the bottom and I couldn't pick out her voice in a lineup.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Not being familiar with either the singers or aria affords me the opportunity of not having to compare with other singers.
Something seems strange in the voice of Michele Lagrange. It sounds as though she believes someone in the room is sleeping so she's being careful not to disturb them by singing full voice, *OR* _is_ it her complete voice, which has a lovely rich tone to it but I feel is holding back.
On the other hand Susan Chilcott, another voice unfamiliar to me, has an absolutely stunning soprano sound. Whether she is truly considered a soprano assoluta or not is another question, but even sans her missing trill I definitely prefer her presentation.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

I do not think either of the singers above are _assoluto_ sopranos. I posted Chilcott's aria just to contrast with LaGrange's funky vocalism.

I don't think there are any singers in that category these days.


----------

