# Are heldentenors/ heroic tenors the same thing as dramatic tenors?



## Jordan Workman (May 9, 2016)

Are heldentenors/heroic tenors the same voice type as dramatic tenors in the sense of having similar vocal cord structure and capabilities or do heroic tenors have thicker vocal cords and darker, deeper voices than dramatic tenors do? I have heard some people argue that heroic tenors and dramatic tenors have the same voice type genetically but that one is singing German/Wagnerian repertoire and one is singing Italian/Verdian repertoire and that is the only difference--is this true or are they different?


----------



## Jordan Workman (May 9, 2016)

Anyone care to respond?


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

A quick stab: the heavy German tenor roles require primarily strength and stamina around the passaggio and just beyond, but doesn't usually require the climactic high notes that the Italian dramatic tenor repertoire requires. The heaviest role, Otello, doesn't require high C, but it requires everything else.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

You are going to get different answers on this depending on various opinions on voice types. I would say that they are essentially the same type of voice, but one is more used for German opera (Heldentenor or in English Heroic Tenor) and the other is associated with Italian opera (Tenore robusto or in English Dramatic Tenor). I don't think there is any major difference in the physical make up or anatomy of tenors that sing Verdi versus those who sing Wagner. See Kaufmann and Domingo who have sung Siegmund, Parsifal and Otello.

There will be singers whose language skills mean they are more suited to singing in German as opposed to Italian or vice versa. However, that doesn't mean that they have different voice types or instruments.

N.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I believe the word _Heldentenor _was invented specifically for Wagner's tenor roles, which have a somewhat lower tessitura than most tenor parts and require both exceptional strength in the lower midrange and the ability to keep up sustained, powerful singing around the top of the staff. A voice that can do these things comfortably might be considered a distinct type of voice. It occurred to me while listening to Siegmund's music the other day that a heldentenor has as much in common with what we call a "Verdi baritone" as with ordinary tenors, even those with dramatic capabilities, and a number of noted Wagner singers (such as Melchior and Vinay) did indeed sing baritone during some part of their careers.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> I believe the word _Heldentenor _was invented specifically for Wagner's tenor roles, which have a somewhat lower tessitura than most tenor parts and require both exceptional strength in the lower midrange and the ability to keep up sustained, powerful singing around the top of the staff. A voice that can do these things comfortably might be considered a distinct type of voice. It occurred to me while listening to Siegmund's music the other day that a heldentenor has as much in common with what we call a "Verdi baritone" as with ordinary tenors, even those with dramatic capabilities, and a number of noted Wagner singers (such as Melchior and Vinay) did indeed sing baritone during some part of their careers.


I agree and without turning this into a mere discussion about fachs (we've been there and both have the T-shirt), I would also put forward the hypothesis that all well trained singers should be able to do these things comfortably (although there are always going to be less dramatic tenors than baritones, as most men are baritones). It's clear that one of the contributing factors to the lack of good singers today is the training. (I think there are others too).

N.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The Conte said:


> I agree and without turning this into a mere discussion about fachs (we've been there and both have the T-shirt), I would also put forward the hypothesis that all well trained singers should be able to do these things comfortably (although there are always going to be less dramatic tenors than baritones, as most men are baritones). It's clear that one of the contributing factors to the lack of good singers today is the training. (I think there are others too).
> 
> N.


I'm not sure what you mean here. What parts of your range you're most comfortable and effective in isn't necessarily a question of training. Melchior didn't sing Walther in _Meistersinger_ because of its tessitura, even though there was nothing wrong with his technique; he said the role kept him too high too much of the time, and contented himself with singing excerpts in concerts and recordings. Most baritones don't sing heldentenor roles, although many undoubtedly have the necessary range, probably for similar reasons.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> I'm not sure what you mean here. What parts of your range you're most comfortable and effective in isn't necessarily a question of training. Melchior didn't sing Walther in _Meistersinger_ because of its tessitura, even though there was nothing wrong with his technique; he said the role kept him too high too much of the time, and contented himself with singing excerpts in concerts and recordings. Most baritones don't sing heldentenor roles, although many undoubtedly have the necessary range, probably for similar reasons.


Absolutely, Melchior was a dramatic tenor/heldentenor or weighty tenor (however you want to term it), Walther is a more lyric role and lies higher. That's all understandable and makes sense. (No matter how much training Melchior had there would have been tenor roles that sat too high for his voice.) The greatest cellist in the world can't play the notes beyond the range of the instrument. I'm not saying that all tenors should be able to sing all tenor roles if they train enough, but all tenors who can sing Otello should be able to sing Siegmund (and vice versa). A superb Otello may make a dismal Siegmund due to not having great German or not having affinity with Wagner's style, but that isn't a matter of technique. It's the difference between being able to sing something (i.e. having the technique to sing it) and being able to sing it well (having those other skills associated with singing).

N.

N.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

I never heard Domingo sing baritone parts. Did he still sound like a tenor?


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Seattleoperafan said:


> I never heard Domingo sing baritone parts. Did he still sound like a tenor?


In a word, yes (if you mean from 2010 onwards). He started out as a baritone originally, I believe, but I don't know if any recordings from that era of his career exist. He did record Figaro in Barber, though.

N.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Seattleoperafan said:


> I never heard Domingo sing baritone parts. Did he still sound like a tenor?


Yes. A very old one...


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The Conte said:


> Absolutely, Melchior was a dramatic tenor/heldentenor or weighty tenor (however you want to term it), Walther is a more lyric role and lies higher. That's all understandable and makes sense. (No matter how much training Melchior had there would have been tenor roles that sat too high for his voice.) The greatest cellist in the world can't play the notes beyond the range of the instrument. I'm not saying that all tenors should be able to sing all tenor roles if they train enough, but all tenors who can sing Otello should be able to sing Siegmund (and vice versa). A superb Otello may make a dismal Siegmund due to not having great German or not having affinity with Wagner's style, but that isn't a matter of technique. It's the difference between being able to sing something (i.e. having the technique to sing it) and being able to sing it well (having those other skills associated with singing).
> 
> N.
> 
> N.


Mario Del Monaco is a good example of a dramatic tenor with heldentenor capabilities who actually did a little Wagner late in his career. I find this video incredibly moving:






My suspicion is that he had the potential to be the best heldentenor of the period between Melchior and Vickers.


----------



## silentio (Nov 10, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Mario Del Monaco is a good example of a dramatic tenor with heldentenor capabilities who actually did a little Wagner late in his career. I find this video incredibly moving:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes! One of the best _Wälse_ cries. Can you imagine a Die Walkure in Italian with Del Monaco as Siegmund and Tebaldi as Sieglinde?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

silentio said:


> Yes! One of the best _Wälse_ cries. Can you imagine a Die Walkure in Italian with Del Monaco as Siegmund and Tebaldi as Sieglinde?


Great casting, but I'd rather not imagine it in Italian. Of the major operatic languages, Italian seems to me the one that fits most awkwardly with Wagner's German-based rhythms (in the _Ring,_ archaic, _Stabreim_-heavy German at that). Nothing like a direct translation is possible (such as we have with, say, Andrew Porter's English-language _Ring_), and Italian words cadence so differently that sometimes extra notes need to be squeezed in. A bunch of valkyries calling to each other like a bevy of Tuscan housewives is risible, at least to anyone whose native tongue is not Italian. Del Monaco seemed to be doing pretty well pronouncing German, and I'm sure Tebaldi could have done so acceptably as well.

I think it's a pity that the one Wagner role we have from Callas - Kundry - is in Italian. That may add to the fascination of hearing her way with the music - when I listen to that recording I feel as if I'm on a strange planet (especially with the very Russian bass Christoff singing a German opera in Italian) - but I wouldn't expect - or want - that sort of fascination from Del Monaco and Tebaldi. Of course we could also have Callas practice her German - easy for her, I'm sure - and add her Brunnhilde to the cast.

(BTW, it _is _possible to hold _Wälse_ too long... Would it be ungracious to suggest that good taste was not Mario's strong suit?)


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

Heldentenor is one type of dramatic tenor. Not every dramatic tenor is a heldentenor, but every heldentenor is a dramatic tenor.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Bonetan said:


> Heldentenor is one type of dramatic tenor. Not every dramatic tenor is a heldentenor, but every heldentenor is a dramatic tenor.


I certainly can understand that not all dramatic tenors will be right for Siegfried (in terms of instrument, I'm not talking about style, musicianship or linguistic skills), but what about the other Wagner Heldentenor roles? Siegfried seems the only one to me that has that special status as an extreme of its type.

N.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

The Conte said:


> I certainly can understand that not all dramatic tenors will be right for Siegfried (in terms of instrument, I'm not talking about style, musicianship or linguistic skills), but what about the other Wagner Heldentenor roles? Siegfried seems the only one to me that has that special status as an extreme of its type.
> 
> N.


I don't know how deep into fach Mr Workman intended to go, but in my opinion the true heldentenor roles are Siegfried, Tristan, and Tannhauser. If a singer tries on these roles and they're a size too big then that singer is not a heldentenor imo. I do not believe a singer like Kaufmann is a heldentenor. I would call a singer like him a spinto tenor who sings some German.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The Germans have a term - of course they do - for a tenor whose voice is not quite heroic enough for an ideal Siegfried or Tristan: _Jugendliche Heldentenor_ ("youthful heldentenor"). It's the sort of voice that suits Walther or Lohengrin, or a number of non-Wagner roles in the German repertoire such as Max in Der _Freischutz._ Forced to classify him, I'd be inclined to place Jonas Kaufmann in this category.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> The Germans have a term - of course they do - for a tenor whose voice is not quite heroic enough for an ideal Siegfried or Tristan: _Jugendliche Heldentenor_ ("youthful heldentenor"). It's the sort of voice that suits Walther or Lohengrin, or a number of non-Wagner roles in the German repertoire such as Max in Der _Freischutz._ Forced to classify him, I'd be inclined to place Jonas Kaufmann in this category.


Jugendliche Heldentenor suggests that the singer will mature into a Heldentenor (or at least there's a chance they may do). Since this thread is about the _genetic_ difference between a dramatic tenor and a Heldentenor, I would say there isn't much difference _genetically_ (or biologically) between the two, the Heldentenor roles are the peak of many a dramatic tenor career. (Although there are going to be a number of reasons why a dramatic tenor may not ever sing those roles.)

N.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The Conte said:


> Jugendliche Heldentenor suggests that the singer will mature into a Heldentenor (or at least there's a chance they may do).
> 
> N.


Oh, I don't know. Some of us are eternally jugendlich.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

Does a heldentenor need a high C?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

MAS said:


> Does a heldentenor need a high C?


There are two in _Gotterdammerung,_ but you can fake them and no one will care too much. Check this out:


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

I don't think _Heldentenor _and _Wagnerian Soprano_ are really separate vocal fachs. They are more like honorary titles granted to dramatic singers who have become renown for performing Siegfried and Brunnhilde to critical acclaim, and can be considered worthy as being in the same league as historical Heldentenors and Wagnerian Sopranos.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Couchie said:


> I don't think _Heldentenor _and _Wagnerian Soprano_ are really separate vocal fachs. They are more like honorary titles granted to dramatic singers who have become renown for performing Siegfried and Brunnhilde to critical acclaim, and can be considered worthy as being in the same league as historical Heldentenors and Wagnerian Sopranos.


There's something to this. But calling Wolfgang Windgassen a heldentenor...? I can't do that, despite his excellent qualities and success as Siegfried and Tristan.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> There are two in _Gotterdammerung,_ but you can fake them and no one will care too much. Check this out:


Is strange that the was Wagner sets the high notes, they don't seem to be that high, and certainly not prolonged, like I'd expect at the end of the phrase. The different way these tenors approach the note is also strange to me - some seem to be singing different music altogether.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> There's something to this. But calling Wolfgang Windgassen a heldentenor...? I can't do that, despite his excellent qualities and success as Siegfried and Tristan.


Poor Windgassen, second choice, or let's do the best we can with what we have...and humble enough to realize it (in the Solti *Ring*). Well, to those who didn't know better, like me, he was plenty good enough.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

MAS said:


> Poor Windgassen, second choice, or let's do the best we can with what we have...and humble enough to realize it (in the Solti *Ring*. Well, to those who didn't know better, like me, he was plenty good enough.


A tremendously valuable artist. We'd be lucky to have him as Siegfried and Tristan now.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

Couchie said:


> I don't think _Heldentenor _and _Wagnerian Soprano_ are really separate vocal fachs. They are more like honorary titles granted to dramatic singers who have become renown for performing Siegfried and Brunnhilde to critical acclaim, and can be considered worthy as being in the same league as historical Heldentenors and Wagnerian Sopranos.





Woodduck said:


> There's something to this. But calling Wolfgang Windgassen a heldentenor...? I can't do that, despite his excellent qualities and success as Siegfried and Tristan.


I like what Couchie has to say and I think we'd all be better off if things were this way, but Woodduck brings up an important point. Just because you sing heldentenor rep doesn't make you a heldentenor. A true heldentenor imo is the singer who finishes act 3 of Siegfried sounding fresh as if he could sing the role again from the top. I know there aren't many, but I saw Schager in the role not long ago and that was the impression he gave me. I couldn't believe how fresh he sounded throughout. Not a perfect singer by any stretch, but a true heldentenor imo. Singers like Windgassen, or more recently the likes of Jerusalem, Kollo, Heppner etc were not true heldentenors in my opinion. They put on shoes that were a size too big because there was no one else that could fit them.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Bonetan said:


> A true heldentenor imo is the singer who finishes act 3 of Siegfried sounding fresh as if he could sing the role again from the top.


I'm afraid that isn't enough for me to bestow the title. It might earn an Olympic medal, though.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> I'm afraid that isn't enough for me to bestow the title. It might earn an Olympic medal, though.


I agree there is more to it, but if one can't manage that I've already eliminated them from helden consideration.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Does this really sound like a heldentenor to you?






Three years later it's gone from poor to awful, which I would have predicted (and his wobbly Sieglinde is right down there with him):






Now here's the guy you can't stand:





 (interesting concert ending)

I wouldn't call either singer a heldentenor, and Kaufmann's faults are duly noted, but is there really any contest here? Schager may have had a moment of glory as a Wagnerian (as defined by someone), but here he's revealed as just another forced, wobbling, semi-musical also-ran. What good is being able to sound as fresh at the end of an opera as you did at the beginning, if this is what you sounded like at the beginning?


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> Does this really sound like a heldentenor to you?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


When I call him a heldentenor I'm speaking to the size and stamina of his instrument and the rep he's best suited for. If fachs are a thing it's clear what his is. I won't speak to the quality of his singing because that's obviously a mess and he's fortunate that Siegfried doesn't have anything like Wintersturme. But I heard him live as Siegfried and he was an exciting performer, for what that's worth, and if any music suits him it's Siegfried's. If he's not a heldentenor there are none currently performing. I share your opinion that historically he's garbage, but this is where we are in 2021.

For me the contest goes to Schager because I can't abide Kaufmann's technique. His singing makes me uncomfortable in the throat, like Warren's, and it's a technique that would make him unsatisfactory when competing with Siegfried's orchestration. To me these two singers are from different categories and any comparison involving Siegmund, Parsifal, Lohengrin, Walter will favor Kaufmann while Siegfried, Tristan, and Tannhauser will favor Schager. Schager's instrument is considerably bigger, and unfortunately considerably more unwieldy.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Bonetan said:


> When I call him a heldentenor I'm speaking to the size and stamina of his instrument and the rep he's best suited for. If fachs are a thing it's clear what his is. I won't speak to the quality of his singing because that's obviously a mess and he's fortunate that Siegfried doesn't have anything like Wintersturme. But I heard him live as Siegfried and he was an exciting performer, for what that's worth, and if any music suits him it's Siegfried's. *If he's not a heldentenor there are none currently performing.* I share your opinion that historically he's garbage, but this is where we are in 2021.
> 
> For me the contest goes to Schager because I can't abide Kaufmann's technique. His singing makes me uncomfortable in the throat, like Warren's, and it's a technique that would make him unsatisfactory when competing with Siegfried's orchestration. To me these two singers are from different categories and any comparison involving Siegmund, Parsifal, Lohengrin, Walter will favor Kaufmann while Siegfried, Tristan, and Tannhauser will favor Schager. Schager's instrument is considerably bigger, and unfortunately considerably more unwieldy.


I would contend that there are indeed no heldentenors at present, at least none that I'm aware of. "Heldentenor" is a category (I don't care whether it's a "fach," a classification for the convenience of opera houses making casting decisions) which came into existence to describe the sort of singer best suited to the big tenor leads in Wagner. That sort of singer ideally has a near-baritonal richness and strength in his low and middle range, as well as exceptional power and great stamina. Who was the last heldentenor, by these criteria? Vickers? If there were voices of this type now we would know about them.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> *I would contend that there are indeed no heldentenors at present*, at least none that I'm aware of. "Heldentenor" is a category (I don't care whether it's a "fach," a classification for the convenience of opera houses making casting decisions) which came into existence to describe the sort of singer best suited to the big tenor leads in Wagner. That sort of singer ideally has a near-baritonal richness and strength in his low and middle range, as well as exceptional power and great stamina. Who was the last heldentenor, by these criteria? Vickers? If there were voices of this type now we would know about them.


If there are no heldentenors to what category do we assign Schager, Gould, Vinke, and the like? Are you going to deprive them of a fach? That's rude!


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

They can be assigned to whatever ‘fach’ we choose. It still doesn’t make them true heldentenors. I believe that’s what Woodduck is saying and I concur.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

I think it worth considering what a voice type is and _isn't_ at this point. I always come back to comparisons with instruments. A violin is always a violin, just as a dramatic tenor is always a dramatic tenor. The OP put this well by talking about type in terms of 'genetically', that is biologically. I may not be a violinist, but my not being able to play doesn't mean that a violin isn't a violin in my hands! If a Heldentenor is a dramatic tenor who can sing Wagner's heavier roles well, then Heldentenor isn't a voice type (it might be a fach as in opera houses may want to characterise singers based on whether they can do justice to Siegfried or not). I would say that Siegfried and Tristan are peaks of the dramatic tenor rep with the understanding that not all dramatic tenors will be able (or necessarily want) to scale them.

N.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

Barbebleu said:


> They can be assigned to whatever 'fach' we choose. It still doesn't make them true heldentenors. I believe that's what Woodduck is saying and I concur.


We get to decide singer's fachs based on whether we like their singing or not? Doesn't the music make that determination? If you specialize in singing Siegfried, Tristan, and Tannhauser and meet all the demands of the music comfortably, what else can you be but a true heldentenor?


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Specialising in singing those rôles while lacking the ability to sing them with any sense of accuracy make make you a heldentenor on paper but that’s the extent of it. It’s a box you get put in but perhaps it’s not a box you should stay in!

Like others on this forum I have heard people like Schager and Kaufmann and Skelton in the theatre and admittedly they have stentorian voices but no real finesse and beauty when singing and it’s not altogether a pleasing experience. I’m not saying that the fifties and sixties didn’t have their share of overparted singers but there just seems to be complete dearth of good, never mind great, ‘heldentenors’ on the scene today. 

Kaufmann I like when he is not forcing his voice and I don’t mind his nasally delivery but he is not to my ears a true heldentenor. 

Schager is better suited to lighter parts and I wouldn’t rush to hear anything Skelton was in but I suppose that makes me an old reactionary dinosaur. :lol: C’est la vie!


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

The Conte said:


> If a Heldentenor is a dramatic tenor who can sing Wagner's heavier roles well, then Heldentenor isn't a voice type (it might be a fach as in opera houses may want to characterise singers based on whether they can do justice to Siegfried or not).


Even "voice type" is somewhat arbitrary. Battistini was a baritone, but was much more comfortable on the top of his range than the bottom, whereas Bastianini had those lower notes but probably couldn't produce a pianissimo high a-flat at will. Was Bastianini more of a baritone or a better baritone than Battistini? Was Battistini "lyric" because of his tessitura and range even though he could pin your ears back? Was he _really_ a dramatic tenor or a "lazy" tenor as I've sometimes heard it said? I think of fach and even voice type as essentially useful groupings according to characteristics that voices tend to cluster around (comfortability with a certain tessitura, comfortability with singing over a certain size orchestra, etc.). But they aren't much more useful than that. One of TIO's pet peeves was the proliferation of fachs meant to justify essentially any sort of inadequacy. No chest? You're a _lyric_ mezzo. So my take on the original question is that there is a generally true distinction between tenors who sound more like baritones and tend to have more difficulty with the top (Caruso, Zanelli, Barioni, etc. are some Italian examples) and tenors who have a secure top and a brighter, more laser like sound (Paoli, Lauri-Vopli, Escalais, Salvarezza, etc.). The same is generally true for dramatic sopranos as well (Cigna, Traubel, Ponselle etc. vs. Roselle, Raisa, Austral etc.). Are the former heldentenors and Wagnerian sopranos and the latter dramatic tenors and sopranos? It's all a bit arbitrary. Cigna sang Turandot and Austral was a laser-beam Brunnhilde. Take Cebotari. What on earth was she? Or Lilli Lehmann? She could sing anything. Melchior started as a baritone and had a darker more baritonal voice, but a strong top and a high c too. Was he a heldentenor or a dramatic tenor or something else? Would Lauri-Volpi had been a good Siegfried? Would that make him a heldentenor even though he is in no way baritonal? Or do heldentenors have brighter voices too like Windgassen and Suthaus and Hopf?

There's much more variation among human voices, even those of the same "type", than orchestral instruments. Voice types are only generalities. To me its best to use the categories loosely and descriptively and enjoy taking each great voice as it comes.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

Barbebleu said:


> Specialising in singing those rôles while lacking the ability to sing them with any sense of accuracy make make you a heldentenor on paper but that's the extent of it. It's a box you get put in but perhaps it's not a box you should stay in!
> 
> Like others on this forum I have heard people like Schager and Kaufmann and Skelton in the theatre and admittedly they have stentorian voices but no real finesse and beauty when singing and it's not altogether a pleasing experience. I'm not saying that the fifties and sixties didn't have their share of overparted singers but there just seems to be complete dearth of good, never mind great, 'heldentenors' on the scene today.
> 
> ...


I have performed in Siegfried, meaning I've been part of countless rehearsals, and I would not call Schager's singing senseless or inaccurate. He does indeed lack finesse and beauty and I will not argue that he's a good singer, but if he's not a heldentenor we may as well do away with fachs altogether, which I wouldn't be upset with. As far as Schager being better suited to lighter parts I disagree wholeheartedly. His voice is too wild for light rep.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I like vivalagentenuova's perspective on this "fach" business. Fachs are not real objects in nature, and there's a limit to the usefulness of arguments about what a singer should be called. On the matter of heldentenors, there are people who feel that there's been only one real one in all of history (Melchior). We're all entitled to make up as many fachs as we wish and put whoever we like into them. Frankly, the only time the word "fach" ever occurs to me is when someone else drags it up for discussion on this forum. 

My definition of a "heldentenor" has been stated twice already, and my justification for it is not complicated. It's a category that didn't exist before Wagner's operas existed, and if we're going to recognize it at all - which we don't have to do - we should simply look at what makes roles such as Siegfried and Tristan different from other tenor repertoire and apply the term to voices that best fulfill the musical and dramatic demands of those roles. In my judgment, very few voices meet those demands adequately, and I can't think of a tenor active at present I'd be willing to call a heldentenor. Your tolerance for the available voices may be greater, and your application of the term more generous.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> I like vivalagentenuova's perspective on this "fach" business. Fachs are not real objects in nature, and there's a limit to the usefulness of arguments about what a singer should be called. On the matter of heldentenors, there are people who feel that there's been only one real one in all of history (Melchior). We're all entitled to make up as many fachs as we wish and put whoever we like into them. Frankly, the only time the word "fach" ever occurs to me is when someone else drags it up for discussion on this forum.
> 
> My definition of a "heldentenor" has been stated twice already, and my justification for it is not complicated. It's a category that didn't exist before Wagner's operas existed, and if we're going to recognize it at all - which we don't have to do - we should simply look at what makes roles such as Siegfried and Tristan different from other tenor repertoire and apply the term to voices that best fulfill the musical and dramatic demands of those roles. In my judgment, very few voices meet those demands adequately, and I can't think of a tenor active at present I'd be willing to call a heldentenor. Your tolerance for the available voices may be greater, and your application of the term more generous.


I have no problem with your perspective on this, but with these standards there are also no Verdi baritones, Wagner sopranos, Verdi sopranos, or helden baritones actively performing either. The State of Modern Operatic Singing


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Bonetan said:


> I have no problem with your perspective on this, but with these standards there are also no Verdi baritones, Wagner sopranos, Verdi sopranos, or helden baritones actively performing either. The State of Modern Operatic Singing


The awful truth. I'll fall on my sword now. Farewell.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Ah well, back into my time machine to spirit me off to New York, 27th January 1951 and Das Rheingold with Hotter, Svanholm and Stiedry.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

vivalagentenuova said:


> Even "voice type" is somewhat arbitrary. Battistini was a baritone, but was much more comfortable on the top of his range than the bottom, whereas Bastianini had those lower notes but probably couldn't produce a pianissimo high a-flat at will. Was Bastianini more of a baritone or a better baritone than Battistini? Was Battistini "lyric" because of his tessitura and range even though he could pin your ears back? Was he _really_ a dramatic tenor or a "lazy" tenor as I've sometimes heard it said? I think of fach and even voice type as essentially useful groupings according to characteristics that voices tend to cluster around (comfortability with a certain tessitura, comfortability with singing over a certain size orchestra, etc.). But they aren't much more useful than that. One of TIO's pet peeves was the proliferation of fachs meant to justify essentially any sort of inadequacy. No chest? You're a _lyric_ mezzo. So my take on the original question is that there is a generally true distinction between tenors who sound more like baritones and tend to have more difficulty with the top (Caruso, Zanelli, Barioni, etc. are some Italian examples) and tenors who have a secure top and a brighter, more laser like sound (Paoli, Lauri-Vopli, Escalais, Salvarezza, etc.). The same is generally true for dramatic sopranos as well (Cigna, Traubel, Ponselle etc. vs. Roselle, Raisa, Austral etc.). Are the former heldentenors and Wagnerian sopranos and the latter dramatic tenors and sopranos? It's all a bit arbitrary. Cigna sang Turandot and Austral was a laser-beam Brunnhilde. Take Cebotari. What on earth was she? Or Lilli Lehmann? She could sing anything. Melchior started as a baritone and had a darker more baritonal voice, but a strong top and a high c too. Was he a heldentenor or a dramatic tenor or something else? Would Lauri-Volpi had been a good Siegfried? Would that make him a heldentenor even though he is in no way baritonal? Or do heldentenors have brighter voices too like Windgassen and Suthaus and Hopf?
> 
> There's much more variation among human voices, even those of the same "type", than orchestral instruments. Voice types are only generalities. To me its best to use the categories loosely and descriptively and enjoy taking each great voice as it comes.


This was the discussion that I wanted to avoid (as we have had it many times before). However, I would just note that the OP mentioned 'genetic' differences between voice types. I'm not sure that the innate qualities of different singers' voices are exactly genetic rather than biological, but do you find it useful to distinguish between that which is biological (therefore no amount of training will change) and that which is acquired and therefore can be improved or learned through study?

I very much agree with your attitude to 'fach' (and in fact I'm not a fan of the fach system). That said, my understanding is that range and how light/heavy a singer's voice is are biological realities and as you point out each singer is somewhat different from other singers in the same type, whereas there isn't as much variety between two violins. I also agree that voice types are only generalities, a starting point, a rough guide for where a singer's studies might take them. I would therefore term dramatic tenor a voice type (or category) and Heldentenor a fach. I see no use for fach (although I understand why it is used in the German opera house casting system). A dramatic tenor may one day sing Siegfried, or not depending on a number of factors, perhaps Kaufmann will sing it one day, but Florez almost certainly won't.

As to your questions about various singers, the answers depend to a certain degree on whether the characteristics of each singer were innate or due to their training. I would say that both Battistini and Bastianini were dramatic baritones and sang the correct rep. Do you think there are roles that either shouldn't have sung or that either would have sung some of their roles better with more training?

N.


----------



## Sieglinde (Oct 25, 2009)

One thing I never understood why every Heldentenor feels the need to sing Peter Grimes. I feel like he needs more vocal flexibility and good acting skills, rather than a big, tanky voice. Too often he's played as a brute when he should be a careful balance between unhinged and vulnerable.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Sieglinde said:


> One thing I never understood why every Heldentenor feels the need to sing Peter Grimes. I feel like he needs more vocal flexibility and good acting skills, rather than a big, tanky voice. Too often he's played as a brute when he should be a careful balance between unhinged and vulnerable.


Because most Heldentenors (Melchior and Vickers aside) have ugly voices, such that no one really wants to hear them sing anything other than Wagner, Grimes, and possibly Otello. I agree that Grimes benefits from a more lyric, more musical singer, but it's a role that can tolerate a fair degree of vocal ugliness.

The other reason is that Pears, for whom Britten wrote the role, had an odd voice, and was quite comfortable singing around the passaggio. So Grimes and Heldentenor roles have that in common. "Now the Great Bear and Pleiades" is brutal for most tenors.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

imo, no. how much "stamina" you have isn't a function of voice type. any voice type can have "stamina" when singing the right music with the right technique or lack it when they sing the wrong music or use bad technique.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Bonetan said:


> I like what Couchie has to say and I think we'd all be better off if things were this way, but Woodduck brings up an important point. Just because you sing heldentenor rep doesn't make you a heldentenor. A true heldentenor imo is the singer who finishes act 3 of Siegfried sounding fresh as if he could sing the role again from the top.


Kinda disagree with this. I think it was Melchior who said singers ought to perform at 90% and keep the rest in reserve. But I think certain roles, especially Tristan, call for the singer to go all-out. Tristan must sing himself to death in an ecstasy of delirium. The tank must be emptied; there should be nothing left in reserve at the end.

Max Lorenz may be the only one to do the role proper justice, a known homosexual with Jewish wife singing in Berlin in 1943, exempted from the holocaust only so that he may die in delivering to us this performance:


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

Couchie said:


> Kinda disagree with this. I think it was Melchior who said singers ought to perform at 90% and keep the rest in reserve. But I think certain roles, especially Tristan, call for the singer to go all-out. Tristan must sing himself to death in an ecstasy of delirium. The tank must be emptied; there should be nothing left in reserve at the end.
> 
> Max Lorenz may be the only one to do the role proper justice, a known homosexual with Jewish wife singing in Berlin in 1943, exempted from the holocaust only so that he may die in delivering to us this performance:


I think a singer who approaches the role in this way will have a very short career. I find the quote about singing on interest, rather than principal to be extremely important words to live by. I also remember a tidbit from Han's Hotter's book about never giving more than 85% of the voice much like your Melchior quote. A Tristan should give the impression that he's singing himself to death and emptying the tank, but he must not if he desires longevity.


----------

