# Does size matter?



## Liss (May 13, 2011)

A couple of nights ago I watched a documentary on television called 'Bella Figura' which debated the importance of a singer's appearance (specifically their weight) in the world of Opera today.

Here is the synopsis of the programme which is written on the Sky Arts 2 Website:

*"In March 2004, the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden cancelled its contract with Deborah Voigt and removed her from her role in Ariadne auf Naxos. It transpired that she had been unable to fit into one of the costmes - a black cocktail dress - demanded by the role.

The opera world was outraged. Since when can't opera singers be overweight? But since Callas, this privilege has begun to be questioned. Singers, casting directors and producers voice their opinions and prejudices, clichés, facts and fashions are explored. *

*Are overweight singers being discriminated against? *

*Can opera houses demand a certain appearance? *

*Are directors compelled to behave along lines of political correctness?*

*Is visual credibility a criterion in the world of opera today?"*

So, what do you all think?

Has the nature of the mainstream media (thriving on the modern perception of perfection) now infected the Opera world?

I can see it from both sides. I certainly believe that appearance is an important component, and that it is sometimes easier to believe in a character when they look the part. I also think that singers who are in better shape have the ability to cross physical and dramatic barriers and enter into a realm of theatrical intensity and realism which is (sometimes, but not always) unreachable for larger singers. But saying that, Opera is not just about the visual theatrical experience - When it all comes down to it, Opera is about the music, the voice.

For me, a beautiful singing voice teamed with excellent acting ability, musicality and an awareness of the character are the key aspects of a singer and are all far more important than appearance.

You have to have a certain suspension of disbelief when watching a lot of Opera anyway! There are some crazy plots, relationships and characters, and singers who are up to 40-50 years old playing teenagers. And that is something the audience just embraces.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I once attended a performance of _Carmen_ directed by Ellen Kent and I had the opportunity to speak to her during the interval. She was a wonderful character - hater of the typical press-hacks she came across, and was in demand of good whisky! - and she was telling me how she thought the state of affairs of singers' weights was often atrocious. As a way of compensation, she included a buxom flamenco dancer in the middle of the opera.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

We've discussed this in other threads but I can't remember which ones. (There are probably several!)

These days with so much opera on DVD, size does matter. The artists who join the ROH Young Artists Programme are provided with a personal trainer which shows how much importance ROH now gives to overall fitness & appearance.

An artist can't help their height or bone structure but they should try to make the most of themselves and that means keeping their weight under control.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

I was recently reading Lotfi Mansouri's memoirs where he tell an anecdote about inspecting the stage and finding the stage-hands cutting a large hole in one of the sets. Outraged, he asked them what they were doing. It transpired that Pavarotti had refused to climb the three steps to make his entrance and this was the solution. 

Thank goodness those days are over, I'm glad the new generation of singers are expected to move and act and be reasonably fit.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

If you go to Google images and click on Deborah Voigt you can see some before and after pictures.

I think this must be a pretty extreme case, don't you?


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

It's not that big an issue with me... the singers don't seem to represent real characters (as in actors of a movie or play), but rather abstractions or symbols of characters. They represent the ideas and emotions of people, rather than the physical presence.


----------



## rgz (Mar 6, 2010)

As Annie says, this has been discussed before several times, and I think the views here break down roughly 80% in favor of singers who look the part being an important factor. Opera is a visual medium, not just aural. If the image presented is of no consequence, then there's no need to even attend an opera house -- just buy the cd. It'll be cheaper and the audio will likely of higher quality, strictly speaking.
On the other hand, if one rejects that and says that the image presented *is* important, then it seems to be begging the question to say "well, the sets are important, the lighting is important, the costumes are important, but the physical appearance of the singers isn't".

I rarely watch my 2003 disc of Ariadne auf Naxos, simply because there's no way I can buy Deborah Voigt as a desirable princess, nor can I suspend my disbelief of the similarly sized Richard Margison as her fetching godly savior.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Liss said:


> A couple of nights ago I watched a documentary on television called 'Bella Figura' which debated the importance of a singer's appearance (specifically their weight) in the world of Opera today.
> 
> Here is the synopsis of the programme which is written on the Sky Arts 2 Website:
> 
> ...


We've discussed this issue a few times in old threads.
It's a divisive issue and some members clashed against each other on this (me included).
I think the reality is that modern technology has made opera singers much more visually present and more exposed to the eyes of the public. High definition blu-ray image is not kind on aging faces; modern staging in contemporary revealing clothing and the spicy subjects of many operas often demand attractive artists, and the public does react to this, given that sexuality is an integral part of the human experience.

For me, I do value a lot a singer's appearance, and I experience more pleasure when they cast singers who look the part, demanding less suspension of disbelief.

But no pretty face will climb to the top of the opera world *without* a beautiful voice and decent technique.

Still, nowadays it's the full set of artistic abilities and gifts that are valued: the ideal opera singer has excellent voice and technique but *also* has strong acting and good looks.

Given the nature of the business in these times of economic crisis, opera house managers want to fill those seats and recording companies want to sell those DVDs and blu-rays. So the market *is* more favorable to attractive singers than it used to be in the past when people only had access to vinyls and the singer's voice, not the singer's image, unless they attended opera live in the opera house.

On the other hand, there will be always a place for *exceptional* singers even when they don't look good. Jessye Norman, Joan Sutherland, Montserrat Caballé were all very unattractive women, but had such divine voices (and in the case of Norman, stage presence as well) that they made it to the top regardless of their looks.

But for someone who looks like them to make it to the top today, such a voice is required, and let's be frank, such a voice is not easy to find. It's not every day that a Montserrat Caballé is born. Then, by default, the good-looking ones climb faster.

Nostalgic fans don't like this, but like everything else in the world, opera evolves.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Depends on the role, but I tend to prefer slimmer singers on DVD, and larger singers on CD.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Well, THIS written in 2005 says Ms Voigt lost weight after gastric bypass surgery. I don't know how she looks now, but in the photo in that article, she doesn't look merely overweight, she looks obese.

I agree with the gist of what mamascarlatti says above, opera singers should be encouraged to maintain good fitness, because theirs is a physical job, not only a musical type of job. It's the same as with an actor in many ways. In terms of a vocalist who only does recitals - eg. not staged operas - their weight is not that important.

However, let's face it, being overweight and obese is like a disease, it's the modern epidemic of our times. In a way, performers are role models for the rest of society (like sportsmen & women), so it is logical to expect them to make an effort to present themselves as such in terms of being in the public spotlight. It's simply not edifying, imo, to look like (& actually be) someone who has a health problem. I don't think we should stigmatise overweight or obese people, but it's a similar thing as with smoking, it's becoming increasingly antisocial and banned in many places. I would hate it if (say) when attending a concert or opera or whatever, an audience member sitting next to me would light up a cigarette (this apparently happened in the bad old days, I know it happened in the cinemas). Same thing as with obesity, I don't want this disease in my face when looking at an opera or musical or whatever (unless it's part of the plot to be obese, etc.).

It's just not right, just as the skimpy obviously anorexic models we have prancing on stages in fashion shows and in glossy magazines are abnormal as well. These are two extremes. The middle of the spectrum is what we should aim for here. It's a wide spectrum, it doesn't mean every singer has to look like what Maria Callas did in her prime. Eg. I think that Joan Sutherland in her prime was somewhat heftier than Ms Callas, but she was still within the normal range. That's what I'm talking about, "the normal range."


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Sid James said:


> The middle of the spectrum is what we should aim for here. It's a wide spectrum, it doesn't mean every singer has to look like what Maria Callas did in her prime. Eg. I think that Joan Sutherland in her prime was somewhat heftier than Ms Callas, but she was still within the normal range. That's what I'm talking about, "the normal range."


Yes, I absolutely agree, singers don't have to be model skinny or wildly beautiful. I read somewhere that Sondra Radvanovsky was worried about looking fat in the telecast of Trovatore, and that's worrying because she is clearly in the normal range and should not be feeling pressured or concerned. (Excuse to post favourite picture of Sondra with the lovely Dima)










But when you get too fat to move, like Botha or Pavarotti, I'm not watching.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

rgz said:


> As Annie says, this has been discussed before several times, and I think the views here break down roughly 80% in favor of singers who look the part being an important factor....If the image presented is of no consequence, then there's no need to even attend an opera house -- just buy the cd. It'll be cheaper and the audio will likely of higher quality, strictly speaking....


Many, many people don't attend the opera house for the "image", but rather to fully savour the music and the singing live, which is really the best way, nothing beats the theater for that. 

About your percentage, while it may represent a fair count of the feelings in the Opera subforum of TC, rest assured it's not the case in other places, with a lot of other fans holding a quite different view.

My personal opinion is that looks were always important (that was also, incidentally, the view of Maria Callas, that as many of you will know, was clearly overweighted in her first years, and lost some twenty kilograms to a diet... perhaps, or perhaps not, affecting her voice), and an asset for any singer fortunate enough to get them. On the current climate, with DVD (and its very untheatrical way to present the action) being part of the industry, even more so.

However, the most critical thing for a singer that wants to make an operatic career is, and will remain, the voice. Of course, a new Montserrat Caballé will always be a star in the Opera world, regardless of her weight, her looks, or whatever. On the other hand, an unattractive, overweight girl with a good voice, but not of Caballé's caliber, will have a pretty rough time to really make it.


----------



## Yashin (Jul 22, 2011)

I guess one has to suspend belief a little when watching 'large' singers. But i can't help thinking that some directors don't exactly help matters. Even the most petit singers can look ridiculous in a bad wig and frumpy dress.

Its not only the women but the men who now seem to have to bare their chests to be a 'successfull' Don Giovanni with bulging biceps.

A little more sensitivity from the director, better costumes and some direction might help a little.


----------



## Liss (May 13, 2011)

I'm sorry numerous threads like this one have been posted before. 

I'm relatively new to this forum and still haven't really got the hang of it. I couldn't seem to find the older mentions of this topic anywhere so I started a new one and I don't mean to bring up a subject that caused clashing in the past.

I just thought it was an interesting topic. The mention of Voigt was from the synopsis of the programme written by Sky Arts 2 (not me, just to clarify). It was only to give a background on the programme itself (which uses Voigt's case quite loosely and connects it with other past and present singers.) I wouldn't have mentioned Voigt if she weren't in the programme because, for the record, I believe that Voigt needed to loose that weight because she was severely obese, and could have developed several health problems due to her size. So her case is an extreme one, and I believe that her weight loss was purely about her choice to change her lifestyle and become a healthier individual.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Liss said:


> I'm sorry numerous threads like this one have been posted before.
> 
> I'm relatively new to this forum and still haven't really got the hang of it. I couldn't seem to find the older mentions of this topic anywhere so I started a new one and I don't mean to bring up a subject that caused clashing in the past.
> 
> I just thought it was an interesting topic. The mention of Voigt was from the synopsis of the programme written by Sky Arts 2 (not me, just to clarify). It was only to give a background on the programme itself (which uses Voigt's case quite loosely and connects it with other past and present singers.) I wouldn't have mentioned Voigt if she weren't in the programme because, for the record, I believe that Voigt needed to loose that weight because she was severely obese, and could have developed several health problems due to her size. So her case is an extreme one, and I believe it was more about her choice to change her lifestyle and become a healthier individual.


Please don't worry about bringing up something that's ben discussed before. I think most of us here have done that ourselves at some point. (I've done it _numerous_ times) And searching through the Forum search engine is by no means an exact science.

I think you can see from the well-thought-out responses on this thread that no one resented discussing the issue again. Actually, I think what I've read here has cleared the air on the issue a lot better than the last thread on the topic did.


----------



## BalloinMaschera (Apr 4, 2011)

while physically attractive performers can sometimes help in sales, I believe and know that it is mostly a fallacy (and I'm sure perturbing to some) that audiences/ purchasers are highly influential in regard to what will be produced/seen/heard/recorded/released. In fact, it is the otherway around. The music industry's strategists, marketers and advertisers determine and shape what audience members will buy or have access to. If the music industry wants you to like a singer (attractive or not)- they will make us. Classical music audiences/buyers are no less malleable than popular music audiences. We like to think that we are; but we aren't.

$ 0.02


----------



## rgz (Mar 6, 2010)

BalloinMaschera said:


> while physically attractive performers can sometimes help in sales, I believe and know that it is mostly a fallacy (and I'm sure perturbing to some) that audiences/ purchasers are highly influential in regard to what will be produced/seen/heard/recorded/released. In fact, it is the otherway around. The music industry's strategists, marketers and advertisers determine and shape what audience members will buy or have access to. If the music industry wants you to like a singer (attractive or not)- they will make us. Classical music audiences/buyers are no less malleable than popular music audiences. We like to think that we are; but we aren't.
> 
> $ 0.02


That's an interesting tangent that I hope gets some discussion. I think it's true to a degree but that ultimately, talent (or lack thereof) tells the tale. You can get a bit of mileage with a good look and great marketing but I'm not sure if there will actually be a career there without sufficient talent. I guess I'm thinking specificially of a Russian soprano (not Ms. Netrebko, Alma! Younger and more recent than that), whose voice and technique I find appalling. But she's cute. Anyway, she regular gets ripped to shreds on Parterre Box. How representative those posters are of the opera going community in general, I'm not certain. But without significant improvement, I'll be both surprised and disappointed if the Met continues to book her in future seasons.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I'm not knowledgeable enough about opera to comment much further, but I'd be wary of saying that people "need to look the part" when the requirement for that part is "beauty". Nobody has a monopoly on the definition of beauty; and you certainly don't need to be slim to be beautiful. It doesn't even matter if the entire audience finds the singer grotesque, just so long as the acting makes you believe that those pursuing him/her _do_ find them to be beautiful.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

I would imagine that when you attend a live performance, you have a lot more to look at than just the singer. Plus, you can squint if you want to. 

On DVD, however, you have all those close-ups. To be honest, it's hard to focus for an extended period of time on someone who is really unattractive no matter how well they can sing. Just trying to be honest about it..... If I just wanted to enjoy the voice, I'd listen to a CD. The reason I'm watching it instead of just listening to it is for the visual appeal. If there is no appeal in the visual, why watch it?


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

schigolch said:


> However, the most critical thing for a singer that wants to make an operatic career is, and will remain, the voice. Of course, a new Montserrat Caballé will always be a star in the Opera world, regardless of her weight, her looks, or whatever. On the other hand, an unattractive, overweight girl with a good voice, but not of Caballé's caliber, will have a pretty rough time to really make it.


Hehehe, great minds think alike. Look at what I said above:



> On the other hand, there will be always a place for *exceptional* singers even when they don't look good. Jessye Norman, Joan Sutherland, Montserrat Caballé were all very unattractive women, but had such divine voices (and in the case of Norman, stage presence as well) that they made it to the top regardless of their looks.
> 
> But for someone who looks like them to make it to the top today, such a voice is required, and let's be frank, such a voice is not easy to find. It's not every day that a Montserrat Caballé is born. Then, by default, the good-looking ones climb faster.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Liss said:


> I'm sorry numerous threads like this one have been posted before.
> 
> I'm relatively new to this forum and still haven't really got the hang of it. I couldn't seem to find the older mentions of this topic anywhere so I started a new one and I don't mean to bring up a subject that caused clashing in the past.
> 
> I just thought it was an interesting topic. The mention of Voigt was from the synopsis of the programme written by Sky Arts 2 (not me, just to clarify). It was only to give a background on the programme itself (which uses Voigt's case quite loosely and connects it with other past and present singers.) I wouldn't have mentioned Voigt if she weren't in the programme because, for the record, I believe that Voigt needed to loose that weight because she was severely obese, and could have developed several health problems due to her size. So her case is an extreme one, and I believe that her weight loss was purely about her choice to change her lifestyle and become a healthier individual.


Oh no, that's quite fine. Sorry if I made you feel unwelcome with your thread. I just mentioned that we have exchanged some strong views on this - as an interesting piece of information, 'tis all - but it's OK to do it again (maybe even do it better like someone said, after certain strong feelings have settled).


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Vesteralen said:


> On DVD, however, you have all those close-ups. To be honest, it's hard to focus for an extended period of time on someone who is really unattractive no matter how well they can sing. Just trying to be honest about it..... If I just wanted to enjoy the voice, I'd listen to a CD. The reason I'm watching it instead of just listening to it is for the visual appeal. If there is no appeal in the visual, why watch it?


Personally, when I watch something for its visual appeal (could even be a ballet, not just opera) it's for the spectacle; the costumes; the immersion in the drama. Not because I hope to fancy one of the leads.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Polednice said:


> Personally, when I watch something for its visual appeal (could even be a ballet, not just opera) it's for the spectacle; the costumes; the immersion in the drama. Not because I hope to fancy one of the leads.


Who's talking about fancying? I'm just talking about what's easy on the eyes and what isn't.

There was a male character in the ROP Le Nozze whose makeup was so ugly I was having a hard time watching him. I ended up looking at something else on the screen every time he was singing. No question of fancying or not fancying there. Just watchable versus unwatchable.

And, I've never been able to watch a costume waslking around a stage with no body in it. Doesn't sound too interesting to me.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

BalloinMaschera said:


> Classical music audiences/buyers are *no less malleable* than popular music audiences. *We like to think that we are; but we aren't*.


Speak for yourself. While I don't claim any superior or ultra-sophisticated expertise (we've read here in my posts a number of times the statement "Oh, OK, I stand corrected, then") I do believe that I'm perfectly capable of judging a singer on the technical aspects of the voice and so are many others here, which can be thoroughly demonstrated by reading people's reviews. I'm capable of forming an opinion on the acting as well, and regarding the looks, of course it's in the eyes of the beholder, but using ethological and sociological studies, such a thing as a pattern of beauty (certain facial symmetries, certain culturally accepted standards) does exist and can be quantified although it'd be always relative and often era-specific and population-specific. But in a given population and culture, if you do a simple test of exposing, say, a thousand people to pictures depicting unattractive people and attractive people (under the prevailing standards of what passes for beauty in that population and culture), there will be a high concordance rate on which individuals are rated as beautiful.

When I review an opera DVD I'm interested in ALL aspects of it. Conductor, orchestra, scenarios, costumes, stage direction, dynamic use of space on stage, pace, theatricality, acting, singing during non-demanding vocal parts, singing during demanding vocal parts, video direction, sound engineering... AND looks of the artists who play and sing the main roles.

Even though I make a big deal of a certain part of the female anatomy, I believe it must be pretty clear to people who also read my serious posts and serious reviews that a good part of what I say is tongue-in-cheek, and such obsession with said part, while true to a certain (and rather limited) degree (but I won't deny that I'm a heterosexual man who is interested in interacting with and looking at attractive members of the opposite sex, just like most of the human population is - like I said sexuality is an integral part of the human experience), is a lot less of a defining factor than one may think if the person only reads my more humoristic posts - which 'some' find to be in bad taste and proof of low standards.

Can the industry push down my throat someone attractive but with a weak voice and I'll be malleable, behave like a teenage fanboy, and throw hundreds of dollars on tickets, DVDs, and paraphernalia? Hardly. I *will* require a decent voice, rest assured of it. You know, in all walks of life there are plenty of attractive women - in the real world, in my own household (my wife is rather attractive), in my place of work, on the streets, in the movie industry, etc., etc. I'm not as primitive as you may think and I don't love opera for the sake of ogling at attractive females. Do I like it better when a very good singer is also beautiful? You bet, and I don't think there is anything wrong with it, regardless of how people may feel about my "standards."

The crowd of operatic fans is not exactly like - say, the fandom of a Britney Spears and the such. Call me elitist if you will, but most of us do have a more discriminating taste. Only the most politically correct person would pretend the opposite. Do we *all* have more discriminating taste than Britney Spears' fans? Probably not. But as a matter of an average, I'm prepared to bet my house and my life savings that we *do* as a group have a higher incidence of people with more discriminating taste than that of Ms. Spears' fans.

We are malleable to a certain degree, but to say that we are "no less malleable" than popular music audiences in my opinion is a stretch.

This is exactly like political or marketing campaigns. The less educated the target population is, the more malleable it will be. When you get people who have a more clear world view, they'll be less likely to believe at face value in everything that a political or marketing campaign throws at them. To ignore differences in education, experience, and knowledge of - in this case, music and more specifically its operatic genre - to say that everybody is just as malleable as the next person doesn't hold water and doesn't account for different degrees of education and experience.

You say you're part of the industry, and you may be talking from experience on how you can promote certain artists and make the public demand them. Well, good for you and for your artists, but don't think for one minute that *everybody* will swallow whatever you throw at us, the public. People will like the products you throw at them to *variable* degrees, and some will see the strengths AND weaknesses of the product. It may not matter for you because an opera house has a limited capacity and as long as all seats are filled with malleable people, fine.

But from my end, not everything will convince me (nice boobs do help:devil, so don't lump me together with the next malleable fool.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

BalloinMaschera said:


> while physically attractive performers can sometimes help in sales, I believe and know that it is mostly a fallacy (and I'm sure perturbing to some) that audiences/ purchasers are highly influential in regard to what will be produced/seen/heard/recorded/released. In fact, it is the otherway around. The music industry's strategists, marketers and advertisers determine and shape what audience members will buy or have access to. If the music industry wants you to like a singer (attractive or not)- they will make us. Classical music audiences/buyers are no less malleable than popular music audiences. We like to think that we are; but we aren't.


I don't quite agree with you.

In my personal case, after more than 30 years watching and learning about Opera, I can tell you with certainty that "industry's strategists, marketers and advertisers" haven't a say on what I like, or dislike.

For instance, no amount of strategy, advertising or campaign is going to make me like this:






And, for sure, even if an operatic singer will have the looks of Ms. Spears, that is to my eyes a very attractive female (even more so than Ms. Netrebko ), but a weak voice, I wouldn't spend a dime on any product, or live performance, featuring her.

I know a lot of people that share this behaviour, so perhaps if some "industry's strategists, marketers and advertisers" think otherwise, they are just fooling themselves.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

schigolch said:


> For instance, no amount of strategy, advertising or campaign is going to make me like this:


 Buying this... now. Stratas version is not degenerate enough!


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

schigolch said:


> II know a lot of people that share this behaviour, so perhaps if some "industry's strategists, marketers and advertisers" think otherwise, they are just fooling themselves.


Yeesss!!:clap:

I'm so happy with what you said, that I'll forgive you - this time  - for being more attracted to Ms. Spears than to Ms. Netrebko. But don't push your luck!!!:scold:


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

OOPS! Your title is like a spam I often receive offering me to encrease my pen...LOL

Martin


----------



## MAuer (Feb 6, 2011)

I've always had conflicted feelings on this issue. On one hand, I feel that the quality of an individual's voice and his/her musicality/technical skill should outweigh (no pun intended) what one may consider an unattractive appearance. On the other hand, I must admit that gifted singers who also look the parts they sing are a real plus when viewing opera videos. How much of an impact appearance -- and especially size -- will impact a singer's career is apparently still open to question, to judge from comments made by Catherine Malfitano in a recent issue of _Opera N_ews:

_In today's high-def opera world, Malfitano's students will confront the sensitive issue of appearance and the possibility that a young singer's lack of telegenic features or slim body may hinder career progress. She's learned that it may not be something worth dwelling on. "You know," she says, "I tried that a few times with a few singers, and I was very truthful but kind. I said, more or less, 'You know that this is the way the business is now. I want you to realize that, in case you don't get hired for the parts that you really want to do.' Those people took it very well, and they took it to heart, but after all that - they actually did get hired! These weren't grossly overweight people, but they were very good singers, and they got hired anyway. I don't think __those are the criteria by which everyone is casting operas."_

Prejudice toward/discrimination against overweight/obese people in today's (western) society is a topic that could probably sustain an entire thread of its own. Certainly, obesity is unhealthy, and for that reason alone, I think those who are overweight should be encouraged to make lifestyle changes that will lead to weight reduction. On the other hand -- unlike use of tobacco products -- size is not always something an individual can control. Certain medications can cause weight gain, for example. A former co-worker of mine tried unsuccessfully for some time to shed weight before undergoing gastric bypass surgery. It IS a drastic solution, and anyone who thinks it's a quick fix is quite mistaken. I was amazed at the extremely restricted diet she had to maintain well over a year after her surgery -- and impressed by the iron discipline she maintained in doing so.

Again, I apologize if I wandered a little off-topic, but this issue is a complex one and doesn't have easy answers.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

I made a comment earlier about singers making the most of what they've got. My favourite bass Lukas Jakobski is not what you would call conventionally handsome but whenever I've seen him, he's looked great and always impeccably groomed. He is fabulously tall and proportionately built.

I may be odd but I love well groomed hands & nails & I noticed his straight away. Check them out in the photo in the blue shirt.

His height and athleticism are valuable assets & he looks fabulous in wig & costume. All the photos are mine except the last one of Lukas as Angelotti which is from the internet.







And I think he has a fabulous voice. But I am rather biased.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

sospiro said:


> I made a comment earlier about singers making the most of what they've got. My favourite bass Lukas Jakobski is not what you would call conventionally handsome but whenever I've seen him, he's looked great and always impeccably groomed. He is fabulously tall and proportionately built.
> 
> I may be odd but I love well groomed hands & nails & I noticed his straight away. Check them out in the photo in the blue shirt.
> 
> ...


What you're saying, Annie, is that you do value his physical appearance. You say that his face is not handsome but he is tall, athletically built and has nice hands. Those are all parts of his physical appearance. That's equivalent to when I say of a singer - "killer legs!" even though her face is not that pretty.

I find it perfectly acceptable to value physical appearance for an artist who is in the business of a theatrical art, who not only sings, but acts and places his/her body on stage under the spotlights and the cameras. The artist doesn't exist as a disembodied voice; the artist willingly went into this business of public theatrical performances and put himself/herself up there for public appreciation (or lack thereof) so it is fair game to comment on the artist's appearance, even when it is to notice the shortcomings. Is it rude? Well, it would be if I walked to the face of an artist and said "you're ugly, that's why I don't buy your DVDs." And of course I'd never do such a thing. But comments on a website? I'd say they're valid criticism. And even professional reviewers in specialized magazines will publish stuff like - say, talking about a fat and old singer who doesn't look the part: "Ms. Such-and-such looked uncomfortable in her costume and didn't have the youthfulness of some predecessors for this role." This is a fictitious example but if I go screen my collection of old issues of opera magazines I'm pretty sure I can come up with real examples.

Like I said in one of the old threads about this issue, this is common practice. Someone says of a cinema actress - "Have you seen the movie [name-of-movie]? I liked it but I think they kind of ruined it by casting [name-of-actress] since she acts well but isn't attractive enough for the role. It's a remake of [name-of-movie] but in the original the leading role had [name-of-actress] and she looks much better, so I liked that version better." Such a comment wouldn't be considered out of line at all. Now, if an opera fan says something like this, some people will cry foul and all hell will break loose. Then you may say, "but it's the singing that matters" - sure, but see, in my example above the person did say that the actress could act well... but didn't look good enough to be convincing in that role. Isn't it approximately the same thing?


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

MAuer said:


> I've always had conflicted feelings on this issue. On one hand, I feel that the quality of an individual's voice and his/her musicality/technical skill should outweigh (no pun intended) what one may consider an unattractive appearance. On the other hand, I must admit that gifted singers who also look the parts they sing are a real plus when viewing opera videos. How much of an impact appearance -- and especially size -- will impact a singer's career is apparently still open to question, to judge from comments made by Catherine Malfitano in a recent issue of _Opera N_ews:
> 
> _In today's high-def opera world, Malfitano's students will confront the sensitive issue of appearance and the possibility that a young singer's lack of telegenic features or slim body may hinder career progress. She's learned that it may not be something worth dwelling on. "You know," she says, "I tried that a few times with a few singers, and I was very truthful but kind. I said, more or less, 'You know that this is the way the business is now. I want you to realize that, in case you don't get hired for the parts that you really want to do.' Those people took it very well, and they took it to heart, but after all that - they actually did get hired! These weren't grossly overweight people, but they were very good singers, and they got hired anyway. I don't think __those are the criteria by which everyone is casting operas."_
> 
> ...


Malfitano said that, but probably she didn't really conduct a study about what kinds of roles these unattractive voice students of hers are getting and how prominent those roles are, as compared to the ones earned by more attractive singers.

I've also read the opposite on the very same magazine - a chubby young singer who said to Opera News that she's forced to spend more time in the gym with a personal trainer than in the rehearsal room with a voice coach if she wants a chance at nailing the best roles.

No, you're not off-topic, you're talking about different aspects of this issue including the health-related ones.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Almaviva said:


> I find it perfectly acceptable to value physical appearance for an artist who is in the business of a theatrical art, who not only sings, but acts and places his/her body on stage under the spotlights and the cameras.


Given that a conductor's career is _entirely_ about being seen - both to the musicians in their orchestra, and front-centre stage to an audience - would it be fair to judge their results partly on their physical attractiveness? If not, why not? I'm not being facetious; I'm generally interested in finding out why it is that people have to look good if they're _acting_.


----------



## Sieglinde (Oct 25, 2009)

No fat ACTOR ever played a heroic/romantic role unless the director felt creative. I can't see why should I tolerate fat singers. (Apart from Wagner. I'll rather have a huge Brünnhilde who has the right voice than Hildegard Behrens who ruined too many Rings to me.)


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Polednice said:


> Given that a conductor's career is _entirely_ about being seen - both to the musicians in their orchestra, and front-centre stage to an audience - would it be fair to judge their results partly on their physical attractiveness? If not, why not? I'm not being facetious; I'm generally interested in finding out why it is that people have to look good if they're _acting_.


Conductors are not being required to embody a romantic hero or heroine who can inspire their opposite part to love so strong that they will willingly die/sacrifice themselves/kill etc etc for their lover. So it doesn't matter if they look like Gergiev or Levine because once the opera has started no one is looking at them (except the orchestra, and hopefully not too often, the singers)


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

sospiro said:


> I made a comment earlier about singers making the most of what they've got. My favourite bass Lukas Jakobski is not what you would call conventionally handsome but whenever I've seen him, he's looked great and always impeccably groomed. He is fabulously tall and proportionately built.
> 
> I may be odd but I love well groomed hands & nails & I noticed his straight away. Check them out in the photo in the blue shirt.
> 
> His height and athleticism are valuable assets & he looks fabulous in wig & costume. All the photos are mine except the last one of Lukas as Angelotti which is from the internet.





Almaviva said:


> What you're saying, Annie, is that you do value his physical appearance. You say that his face is not handsome but he is tall, athletically built and has nice hands. Those are all parts of his physical appearance. That's equivalent to when I say of a singer - "killer legs!" even though her face it's not that pretty.


I think you are missing the point Annie is making there. She didn't talk about nice hands, she said well-groomed. So Lukas is making the most of whatever advantages he has, he presents himself well, presumably he keeps fit. He is certainly not beautiful.

Opera singers need to have good voices, and take some care over their presentation. They don't have to be beautiful in my view. But they do have to be fit enough to act the part on stage if they expect people to watch them, especially in modern productions which require so much more of theirsingers (vide the Ercole Amante I just watched, which was a physical marathon for everyone as far as I can see, and very entertaining it was too. It would have been deadly with stand and deliver fat singers.)


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

No, Nat, I'm not disagreeing with Annie. I'm using what she said to make a few points, and I agree with you as well (I've seen that Ercole Amante, although I didn't like it very much).

The bottom line is, voice is the most important part, but appearance in the contemporary opera world is also very important, and more important than it used to be in the past.

schingolch in my opinion has misinterpreted something you said - that 80% of TC members value physical appearance. He said it's not the same in other groups of opera fans - because he thought, I believe, that you were saying that 80% of TC opera fans think appearance is *more* important than anything else.

I think what you meant is - and I'd agree with it - that 80% of TC opera fans find that appearance is *important* and that it is OK to discuss a singer's appearance and to enjoy better the live performances and DVDs when there's an attractive cast. It doesn't mean that 80% of TC members find appearance to be *more* important than singing.

As much a boob lover as I pretend to be (part of it is true, most of it is tongue-in-cheek), I still think that singing is *more* important. But on the other hand, I acknowledge that appearance is *very* important.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Actually it was Ian who said that, but I think he DID mean that it was important but not the most important thing:



rgz said:


> As Annie says, this has been discussed before several times, and I think the views here break down roughly 80% in favor of singers who look the part being *an *important factor. Opera is a visual medium, not just aural. If the image presented is of no consequence, then there's no need to even attend an opera house -- just buy the cd. It'll be cheaper and the audio will likely of higher quality, strictly speaking.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

mamascarlatti said:


> I think you are missing the point Annie is making there. She didn't talk about nice hands, she said well-groomed. So Lukas is making the most of whatever advantages he has, he presents himself well, presumably he keeps fit. He is certainly not beautiful.


That's _exactly_ what I meant.



mamascarlatti said:


> Opera singers need to have good voices, and take some care over their presentation. They don't have to be beautiful in my view. But they do have to be fit enough to act the part on stage if they expect people to watch them, especially in modern productions which require so much more of their singers (vide the Ercole Amante I just watched, which was a physical marathon for everyone as far as I can see, and very entertaining it was too. It would have been deadly with stand and deliver fat singers.)


Imagine the reaction if Luca did a lap around the outside of the opera house in that costume!


----------



## Operafocus (Jul 17, 2011)

I'm not that fussed with size, really, but it comes a point when it just looks ridiculous. When I saw Johan Botha in Tannhauser, the resonnent nickname backstage was Johan Blotha - because he quite literally looked like a little round ball. He's, what, 5'10? It's on the verge of looking ridiculous when you're "the romantic tenor" and your actual thought is, "Am I convinced Venus *really* couldn't do without...?"








In all honesty, I'm not fattist at all. In fact, I like men who are a good size, nice naturally big chest and a bit stocky. Also, one baritone I met this year is about 6'4 and is a *big* fella - but it works for him cause he's tall as a tower and has the build for it. They can't all look like Kaufmann - and they don't all have to - but it would be good if they were able to at least move a *little* gracefully on the stage. A tenor wagging along, trying to woo someone somehow doesn't work all that well. (And in the case of Botha, that mullet *really* has to go! :lol: )

When it all boils down to it, it's all to do with how they carry their weight. And if it's healthy, then **** it, but no doc would recommend anyone to be clinically obese.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

sospiro said:


> Imagine the reaction if Luca did a lap around the outside of the opera house in that costume!


I'm not sure how attractive it is, he said the biggest challenge of the role was how sweaty he got inside it:lol:.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Well of course many of us would like to see attractive looking people doing all sorts of things, including singing in an opera. Who would want to see unattractive looking people?

Having said that, I attend and watch operas primarily for the performance, which must be captivating and that includes the staging. I would be bold enough to even suggest that I would much prefer an effective staging than attractive looking stars on stage, assuming everything else unchanged. Many of the great operas on DVD are primarily remembered for the calibre of singers and orchestra, and to some extent the staging. Attractive looking stars indeed make a "perfect finish", but perfection is not always observed that often.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Almaviva said:


> schingolch in my opinion has misinterpreted something you said - that 80% of TC members value physical appearance. He said it's not the same in other groups of opera fans - because he thought, I believe, that you were saying that 80% of TC opera fans think appearance is *more* important than anything else.
> 
> I think what you meant is - and I'd agree with it - that 80% of TC opera fans find that appearance is *important* and that it is OK to discuss a singer's appearance and to enjoy better the live performances and DVDs when there's an attractive cast. It doesn't mean that 80% of TC members find appearance to be *more* important than singing.


Not really, I interpreted this the same way you do: Appearance is important (though not necessarily the most important) for 80% (or 90%, or 60%, don't know the exact figures) of TC members. But the fact is, for some other groups of fans, this is not the case at all. Appearance is not important (or rather has a limited importance), because for them the important thing is to be a vocal artist. They don't really care a lot about staging (though they love to listen opera live, in the theater), and even less about physical acting.

I know many, many people that think this way.

Myself, even when I recognized that appearance is important in the current business climate (as always has been, but more so now, due to the image obsession of our times, DVDs and stuff), don't really care about it in performance. Of course, this is a general statement, that should be qualified for each opera: it's not the same _Norma_, than _Lulu_.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

mamascarlatti said:


> Conductors are not being required to embody a romantic hero or heroine who can inspire their opposite part to love so strong that they will willingly die/sacrifice themselves/kill etc etc for their lover. So it doesn't matter if they look like Gergiev or Levine because once the opera has started no one is looking at them (except the orchestra, and hopefully not too often, the singers)


I can understand where you're coming from, and I think it's perfectly fair for people in audience to silently judge/enjoy a singer's appearance. I'm just uncomfortable when people are willing to say X shouldn't be in this opera because they're so fat I can't imagine _anyone, ever_ finding them attractive. That sounds both like a bad joke, and self-righteously cruel (not that you are necessarily of this opinion).


----------



## Liss (May 13, 2011)

Polednice said:


> I'm not knowledgeable enough about opera to comment much further, but I'd be wary of saying that people "need to look the part" when the requirement for that part is "beauty". Nobody has a monopoly on the definition of beauty; and you certainly don't need to be slim to be beautiful. It doesn't even matter if the entire audience finds the singer grotesque, just so long as the acting makes you believe that those pursuing him/her _do_ find them to be beautiful.


When I used the phrase "look the part" I probably shouldn't have been so general. What I should have said is that there are certainly SOME parts in opera which demand a certain type of look. For instance, both Violetta and Mimi are characters who are supposed to look like they are dying of consumption. These roles have been performed by a number of singers in the past, of all shapes and sizes, and perhaps in the past they would have accepted larger singers playing those parts. But I feel like since singers (Callas being a prime example) started thinking about the realistic approach to acting, and audiences started growing hungry for acting and characterization, things started to change, and the 'stand and deliver' technique just wasn't good enough anymore. Since then, I feel, there has been a transition into realism. And singers need to look the part if the part requires a certain integral physical feature.

But that is just an example of two characters who require a certain physical appearance. Different characters require different shapes, sizes and looks.



Almaviva said:


> Oh no, that's quite fine. Sorry if I made you feel unwelcome with your thread. I just mentioned that we have exchanged some strong views on this - as an interesting piece of information, 'tis all - but it's OK to do it again (maybe even do it better like someone said, after certain strong feelings have settled).


That's quite alright  I just felt slightly awkward when I found out I dragged up a topic that might have caused issues in the past. But from what I have been reading I can see that the posts are all extremely well thought out and people are being (as they always are on this forum) respectful of each other's opinion.


----------



## Operafocus (Jul 17, 2011)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Having said that, I attend and watch operas primarily for the performance, which must be captivating and that includes the staging. I would be bold enough to even suggest that I would much prefer an effective staging than attractive looking stars on stage, assuming everything else unchanged.


I agree. When you're up with the chandelier anyway, you don't really see much of the file lines of the performers anyway. The voice, ultimately, is the important thing. Whether someone looks like a God is - on the whole - irrelevant. Sure, we'd all love to watch gorgeous people doing gorgeous things, but I go to the opera to listen. If a performer is *really* attractive and sounds like ****, the focus will be on the vocal. We're all, to a certain degree, blinded by beauty - but to me, grace is more important than the looks. Someone bigger can look a lot more attractive than someone thin who doesn't know how to carry themselves. It's when people don't know how to move gracefully that weight becomes an issue - but there are skinnies that have no idea how to move either. You gotta *own* your body and know what to do with it. Giuseppe Giacomini, for instance, has had a tendency through the years to move really awkwardly around the stage, but with him it doesn't matter that much cause the voice steals focus away from the (sometimes) non-existent acting skills. All is relative, I s'pose. :lol:


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

I doubt if anyone here is seriously suggesting that opera roles be cast on the basis of who is the most attractive. Certainly an incompetent singer has no business being given a starring role no matter how gorgeous their physical appearance might be.

And, not being used to seeing opera live, I can also accept what has been said about other factors being more important than personal appearance, especially given the distance of most of the audience from the stage. (Even there, however, ungainly is ungainly no matter how you slice it)

But, on DVD, the close-ups make everything different for me. I can not get into a story or appreciate the drama if my attention is constantly being drawn to the dichotomy between the performer's appearance and the role they are playing. It just does not work. Period. The stars don't have to be drop-dead gorgeous. They just have to look the part.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Have they?

Let's look at those two very different Salomes:











The first one, Nadja Michael, looks (more or less, that we are talking a teenager here, some suspension of disbelief is always required) the role. But the singing is really, is... well, you just need to listen.

The second one, Montserrat Caballé, definitely don't look the part.

However, to me this is a real Salome. Much more than Ms. Michael. Of course, you can try and find middle ground with, let's say, Karita Mattila or Nina Stemme, though they look also too old for the young princess (even Marie Wittich was already 37 years old, when she premiered the role).

Now, if you just can't suspend your disbelief for Ms. Caballé's singing to perform her magic trick, that's fine. It's clear that her looks can't get Narraboth madly in love, Jochanaan's celibacy is not to be challenged, and even Herodes's lust will be directed more to his wife, than to her stepdaughter.

For sure it's harder to forget about looks in DVD (that, again, it's a very untheatrical way to watch an opera), that on an Opera House. But not impossible, at all.

Ultimately, this is for every fan to find what's the best for his taste. No wrong or right here. One just needs to remember that there are different ways to appreciate the art, for different persons, or even for the same person in different stages of his life.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

That's why I said "for me". 

I'd like to look at the examples you gave, but I can't bring myself to watch that scene no matter who is singing it. Have a thing about blood, sorry..

Do you have a different example, by chance?

(And, I hope I'm not too late to add this addendum....If you are choosing, as it appears you are, a D- vocal performance to compare with an A+ vocal performance, you are not being fair in responding to what I said. It would be much more to the point of my argument to offer an A- performance from a singer who looks the part to an A+ performance from one who doesn't. That would be more of a legitimate response to I've been saying all along.)


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

No problem.

However, as blood is usually present in _Salome_, and on the other hand there is almost no one that really looks the part of a jewish seductress teenager, let's look for other examples:

At their age, they are not Mimi and Rodolfo anymore:






However, their artistry tricked us (some of us, anyway) into believing it, even if this is not even a flawless performance from a vocal point of view.

They look more the part (up to a point. Again, they are much older than the characters they are portraying, as usual in Opera when young people is involved in the drama, except for a few exceptions). And the vocal performance is decent enough, this is for sure much better singing than the one offered by Ms. Michael:






So... I will still go for the old masters from Modena. But I understand this will not work for other people when they watch the San Francisco DVD.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Thanks. Good example, I think. In fact, it gives me so much to think about, I'm going to mull it over a while.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

schigolch said:


> Of course, you can try and find middle ground with, let's say, Karita Mattila or Nina Stemme, though they look also too old for the young princess (even Marie Wittich was already 37 years old, when she premiered the role).
> 
> For sure it's harder to forget about looks in DVD (that, again, it's a very untheatrical way to watch an opera), that on an Opera House. But not impossible, at all.


Like the other user, I think Ms. Caballé is such an exception that we can't use *her* as an example, since such high quality of voice only comes about every few decades. Like you and I said, even in today's image-obsessed culture, a singer of the caliber of Ms. Caballé would still make it to the top - perhaps through a just slightly longer/harder path, but she'd make it.

Teresa Stratas did a Salome in which she sang well *and* looked the part. It would be a better example for the importance of looks, since it is a very enjoyable version.

I don't think that DVDs are are necessarily 'very untheatrical.' It depends a lot on video direction. A competent video director/editor can do well with this medium. Of course, it doesn't substitute for the live experience but I wouldn't call it *very untheatrical* either as long as it's well done (not always the case, obviously).

Even the live experience can be very untheatrical when the helm is given to an incompetent stage director.


----------



## rgz (Mar 6, 2010)

schigolch said:


> However, to me this is a real Salome. Much more than Ms. Michael. Of course, you can try and find middle ground with, let's say, Karita Mattila or Nina Stemme, though they look also too old for the young princess (even Marie Wittich was already 37 years old, when she premiered the role).


I think that, though, is just part and parcel of opera. You're not going to find a 15 year old to play Marie, nor a 19 year old to play Lucia. How many Taminos look like they're in their early 20s? How often does Pamina look the same age as her mother? :lol:
There's a minimum level of suspension of disbelief required for opera. It's probably the most artificial of all stagecraft.

It is odd, though, that I personally find it easier to suspend disbelief in some instances (race and age related, for example -- there's no chance that Susannah was meant to be African-American, but I love the Kathleen Battle Nozze. Similarly, the fact that in the 1990 Levine Walkure, Sieglinde and Siegmund are different races doesn't bother me) than others (again, mostly weight related). I'm not sure if I could quantify why my reaction is different, however.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

schigolch said:


> At their age, they are not Mimi and Rodolfo anymore:
> 
> However, their artistry tricked us (some of us, anyway) into believing it, even if this is not even a flawless performance from a vocal point of view.


I'm assuming that these two are Freni and Pavarotti? I'll be really embarrassed if they aren't. 

But, assuming this is Freni, I have to tell you an experience that made me laugh that you picked her for your example.

My grandfather died about thirty years ago at the advanced age of 92. During the last twenty years of his life he was pretty much an invalid and I spent a lot of time with him. We agreed and disagreed about a lot of things musical, both pop and classical. I remember how tired he got of me playing my Saint-Saens 3rd Symphony over and over again.

Anyway, in my one and only early attempt to listen to opera, I happened to pick a version of Carmen that had Mirella Freni singing the part of Micaela. I fell in love with that aria she sings and played it for him. He loved it too. So I went out and bought a recital LP of Freni that included that aria. My grandfather pretty much appropriated it from me. It ended up in his record collection, not mine.

So, by picking this example you really hung me out to dry. I don't know what to say. I guess nostalgia rules. (Which, may in a way, prove your point - though it isn't my last word on the subject.. )


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

By untheatrical I mean precisely that in order to provide an experience as near as possible to a live opera in an Opera House, there should not be a video director, we just need a fixed camera simulating an average vision (average good vision, of course) within the hall. No close-ups, no travellings, no change of points of view... no nothing.

This will be the closest we can get to be on the theater (without binoculars). The standard, commercial DVDs are made very different, what's fine because many of the fans buying those DVDs wanted them the way they are filmed and edited.

But it's not a theater-like experience.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

rgz said:


> It is odd, though, that I personally find it easier to suspend disbelief in some instances (race and age related, for example -- there's no chance that Susannah was meant to be African-American, but I love the Kathleen Battle Nozze. Similarly, the fact that in the 1990 Levine Walkure, Sieglinde and Siegmund are different races doesn't bother me) than others (again, mostly weight related). I'm not sure if I could quantify why my reaction is different, however.


Interesting that in that Met pairing, you've got both race *and* weight issues to consider. For that reason, I have a much easier time accepting the casting of the twins in the Bayreuth productions directed by Chereau and Kupfer, or Lepage's recent Met staging with Kaufmann and Westbroek.


----------



## rgz (Mar 6, 2010)

In that production, those singers are big but not massive ala Botha or pre-gastric surgery Voigt, which may account for my more ready acceptance. Additionally, I'm ok with bigger voices being bigger folk, for whatever reason. A coloratura much bigger than Diana Damrau or Dame Joan (who are by no means fat, just big, sturdy frames on each) wouldn't sit as well with me. I know it's an arbitrary and unfair distinction ... sorry bout that.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

schigolch said:


> By untheatrical I mean precisely that in order to provide an experience as near as possible to a live opera in an Opera House, there should not be a video director, we just need a fixed camera simulating an average vision (average good vision, of course) within the hall. No close-ups, no travellings, no change of points of view... no nothing.
> 
> This will be the closest we can get to be on the theater (without binoculars). The standard, commercial DVDs are made very different, what's fine because many of the fans buying those DVDs wanted them the way they are filmed and edited.
> 
> But it's not a theater-like experience.


I agree with you that seeing an opera live is an inherently different experience from seeing one on film. In fact, I agree with you on that point so much that I have to challenge your other point--that watching a performance from a single static camera would in any way approximate a live theatrical experience.

When we watch a live performance, our eye in effect does its own editing--"cutting" as it shifts attention from one performer to another, "panning" to follow movement across the stage, "zooming in" from the stage picture as a whole to focus on a single isolated area.

In film, the camera makes these decisions for us. Over the hundred-plus years of developing cinematic vocabulary, audiences have come to expect this highly controlled shaping of what they see.

If you take that cinematic manipulation away--present a performance in long shot through a single static camera--I would argue that you're not recreating a live experience, but creating a failed film. Most viewers, at any rate, would react to it that way, even if they weren't fully conscious of the reason.

Again, this only reinforces your main point--that live and filmed experiences are very different. So much so, in fact, that one can never truly substitute for the other.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Maybe...

But, in any case, if we get a fixed camera offering us the stage as seen by, let's say, a member of the audience sitting in the center of row 16, then nothing prevents me from, in your own words: <"cutting" as it shifts attention from one performer to another, "panning" to follow movement across the stage, "zooming in" from the stage picture as a whole to focus on a single isolated area.>, even in a reduced manner, depending on your screen size.

Of course, anyway, live and filmed experiences are very different, and, with the current technology, one can not yet substitute the other.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

schigolch said:


> Maybe...
> 
> But, in any case, if we get a fixed camera offering us the stage as seen by, let's say, a member of the audience sitting in the center of row 16, then nothing prevents me from, in your own words: <"cutting" as it shifts attention from one performer to another, "panning" to follow movement across the stage, "zooming in" from the stage picture as a whole to focus on a single isolated area.>, even in a reduced manner, depending on your screen size.
> 
> Of course, anyway, live and filmed experiences are very different, and, with the current technology, one can not yet substitute the other.


You're right, nothing actually prevents you from doing the same kind of mental "editing" while watching a film shot from a single static position as you do during a live performance. In fact, film directors have occasionally demanded this type of work from their audience--I'm thinking of several static shots in Jacques Tati's _Playtime_, where the viewer must continually redirect attention to different areas of the image in order to make sense of what's going on.

But in film those are exceptional moments, and the viewer experiences them as such--that's part of the shrewd playfulness of Tati. On the other hand, such viewer editing is the norm when attending a live theatrical experience (or in living our day-to-day lives, for that matter).

So you're right, the distinction is not absolute. All I'm arguing is that, in practice, it's pretty decisive. And again, this only reinforces a point we both agree on--the fundamental difference between live performance and film.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

schigolch said:


> By untheatrical I mean precisely that in order to provide an experience as near as possible to a live opera in an Opera House, there should not be a video director, we just need a fixed camera simulating an average vision (average good vision, of course) within the hall. No close-ups, no travellings, no change of points of view... no nothing.
> 
> This will be the closest we can get to be on the theater (without binoculars). The standard, commercial DVDs are made very different, what's fine because many of the fans buying those DVDs wanted them the way they are filmed and edited.
> 
> But it's not a theater-like experience.


Oh, now I get you. Not theater-like is not the same thing as untheatrical.
I've watched bootleg DVDs recorded like this - one fixed camera from the audience. I can't say I like it. By good video direction I mean judicious use of angles and close-ups during right (and brief) moments but *also* long shots to show the stage dynamics. It can be done. When well done, I think it actually enhances the experience. Being well done unfortunately is hardly the rule, though. There are plenty of DVDs with poor video direction and editing, and some that are completely outrageous and ruin the experience.

But schigolch, not everybody is lucky to live close to a major opera house and to be able to travel to other top houses, so, those of us who aren't as lucky need to make do with DVDs and blu-rays.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

I actually like DVDs, and use to watch them, or TV broadcasts, with gusto. 

And I also think they are a wonderful opportunity to watch opera, specially for people that, as you said, can't really enjoy shows in a house, for any reason.

Just wanted to underline that the DVD/TV experience is significantly different for the live experience in the theater. And good looks, and physical acting, and looking the part, can get more importance in that case, than for the real performance in an Opera house.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Like I anticipated above, it was enough to open the review section of the first old issue of Opera News Magazine that was on top of my pile to find a professional reviewer saying negative words about the physical appearance of an opera singer.

Fred Cohn, reviewing Karita Mattila's Sony/Met Opera DVD release of Salome (mind you, Opera News Magazine is owned by the Metropolitan Opera organization so they're speaking against one of their own), page 78 of the May 2011 issue:

"The close-in camerawork scuppers any suspension of disbelief - she is clearly no sixteen-year-old."

So, if a professional magazine of international diffusion and reputation doesn't shy away from this kind of consideration, why should we, here in Talk Classical? It's fair game, I'm telling you.

This was the very first magazine I grabbed and I opened it almost randomly and bumped into this line immediately. I've read countless such lines in other reviews.

People need to realize that opera singers are artists engaged in a theatrical art who don't float up there as a disembodied voice. They do have a body, and it *is* part of their art. It is absolutely fair game to talk about their appearance, including in a negative way.

Don't read me wrong, I love Karita Mattila and will continue to patronize her performances, recordings, and DVDs as she ages. But her first Salome with the Met was much more convincing (that one is not out on DVD) when she looked younger and sexier. That's exactly the point this professional reviewer made: that the Met released the wrong Salome with Ms. Mattila. See, it's the same singer. Voice deterioration even though it exists in between these two versions is rather minimal. It's her appearance that has changed, and this reviewer picked up on it.

Fair game, I'm telling ya.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

"Close-in camerawork".

Again, this underlines the fundamental difference between stage and DVD.

On the other hand, while it's true Karita Mattila doesn't look like a sixteen years old... Who does?. Is there any singer, below twenty years old that can really sings Salome?. Or even below twenty-five?. It's a big difference when a 37 years old soprano sings Salome, instead of a 47 years old?. Nina Stemme (born in 1963), or Angela Denoke (born in 1961) or Karitta Mattila (born in 1960), can't really sing Salome, even when they are still in full command of their voices?.

Suspension of disbelief is a personal thing. I've watched this same performance on a visual medium, and for me Mattila is a very good Salome.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

schigolch said:


> "Close-in camerawork".
> 
> Again, this underlines the fundamental difference between stage and DVD.
> 
> ...


I agree with you. I'm just saying that professional reviewers don't refrain from this kind of observation. I don't necessarily agree with what the reviewer was saying. I've seen that DVD too (and her earlier effort as well, online) and they are both nice Salomes. My point was not whether the reviewer was right or wrong. My point was that right or wrong, they don't shy away from negatively commenting upon a performer's appearance. The bottom line in this commentary, close-ins or not, teenager or not, is that the reviewer referred negatively to an artist's appearance, implying that she was not convincing as the character due to her appearance. He wasn't referring to her voice at this point of his review, which is precisely the point I'm trying to make - that singers are not disembodied voices therefore commenting upon certain characteristics of their bodies is fair game.

By the way I think that Teresa Stratas looked like a teenager here:










And regarding the fact that this underlines a difference between stage and DVD, sure. But then, this reinforces *my* argument - I've been saying that one of the reasons for more attention to singers' appearances lately is precisely because we live in an era that has these technologies. Like I said above, at the time of vinyl the singer's size and appearance mattered little. Today they matter more, because singers are more exposed to scrutiny and close-ups, thanks to visual media.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

If that's his opinion, that's fine, it's fair game and he is entitled to it... Only, some other people can have different views on the matter. To me, the vocal portrait of Salome offered by Mattila is convincing enough, and her looks or age don't distract me for a moment.

A different issue is if a dramatic soprano is the right mold for Salome, or a lighter voice, à la Gilda, would have been preferable... but this decision was taken by Strauss, more than 100 years ago.

About the 36 years old Stratas looking like a teenager... well, if it works for you, that's fine. Not for me. Just the opposite, because the vocal performance is not of Mattila's quality (Teresa Stratas's material prevents her for singing a true Salome, even in studio. On stage fighting against the Straussian orchestra ...), I can easily get distracted, and see a woman in her thirties trying to look twenty years younger... to no avail.

This is a truer Salome:


----------



## BalloinMaschera (Apr 4, 2011)

more of my $ 0.02

Opera is an exercise in disbelief suspension, anyway, and I suppose that's part of the reason we love it.

I think that while the question if looks matter (or not, or how much) can only be answered individually, this is determined by *how* important the voice *really* is to each one of us. We all seem to agree that the voice matters the most, but we differ in terms of just how much it matters. My personally feeling is that giving looks too much importance can sadly compromise the vocal delivery standard that we are offered and would like to hear. And if it *is* true that vocals matter the most- then why give looks much importance at all?

Personally I am willing to suspend my disbelief in terms of looks and how agile a singer can move on stage, but not so much in terms the vocals and its qualities. I am very willing to imagine that a given singer is slim and sexy, but I am not very willing to imagine that he/she actually has a better legato, enunciation, portamento, timbre, etc...

I suppose it's a bit like food- if the flavor and texture are superb- I don't care if it's garnished and presented attractively (or not). If the food is not good, then a pretty garnish can be a nice touch (but no more), and certainly doesn't save the meal.

My sense is that a lot of the singers who we think today are great, really are not- and we think they are because we allow their good looks to compromise what we say are our high standard of vocals. The "whole package", as it were of an achingly beautiful voice and good looks is so very rare (I can't really think of anybody around these days who truly has both), that putting good looks into the equation at more than minimal importance will, by extension, inevitably lower the quality of singing.

In that vein, with many of today's attractive singers, I would gladly trade additional pounds to their lithe figures and acrobatics on stage, for better ennunciation, more legato, better emission, better timbre, production of real overtones, more variety in color, etc...

By giving looks too much importance, we slowly but surely will (and have been) lower(ing) the quality of the singing.

On a separate but related note... if you want to see sexy, attractive people- gosh, there are many much more reliable sources for that, than opera.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

They say that size doesn't matter if you know how to use your tool.

Martin, laughing


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

BalloinMaschera said:


> (I can't really think of anybody around these days who truly has both),


I can think of some. Renee Fleming, Angela Gheorghiu, Jonas Kauffmann, Miah Persson are all very good singers with excellent looks. You may say they aren't the same as some of the greatest of the past, but who is? It was a different era and the talent pool was larger. Look at the Great Female Singers of the Present thread and you'll see that the last three posts contain samples of three good singers (posted by some of our knowledgeable members) who look great.



> By giving looks too much importance, we slowly but surely will (and have been) lower(ing) the quality of the singing.


You may be right but you're trying to fight off a historical trend. It's a losing battle. There are bigger forces at work than an individual's standards. Your $0.02 may be insufficient to fight off the several millions of dollars represented by public taste and the entertainment industry. 
Good for you if your standards work for you, but they won't prevail, because the world is changing. Change is inevitable.



> On a separate but related note... if you want to see sexy, attractive people- gosh, there are many much more reliable sources for that, than opera.


Sure. That's what I said above: "in all walks of life there are plenty of attractive women - in the real world, in my own household (my wife is rather attractive), in my place of work, on the streets, in the movie industry, etc., etc. I'm not as primitive as you may think and I don't love opera for the sake of ogling at attractive females. Do I like it better when a very good singer is also beautiful? You bet, and I don't think there is anything wrong with it, regardless of how people may feel about my "standards." "


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

BalloinMaschera said:


> more of my $ 0.02
> 
> By giving looks too much importance, we slowly but surely will (and have been) lower(ing) the quality of the singing.
> 
> On a separate but related note... if you want to see sexy, attractive people- gosh, there are many much more reliable sources for that, than opera.


Going back to the original question, I don't need singers to look handsome, sexy etc I just don't want them to be grossly overweight. I don't mean cuddly like Joseph Calleja & like Anna is now, I mean Pavarotti, Botha size.

It's detracts from their performance & shows a certain arrogance & lack of care.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Well, maybe it detracts *you* from their performance, not other people. For sure, it doesn't detracts me.

About 'arrogance & lack of care', I think you are probably meaning other thing. You just can't pretend that a particular singer share your worldview with you. There are people that are perfectly happy to be overweight, or what it will be 'grossly overweight' to you. Perhaps, they will even find other people 'grossly underweight' too.

Of course, if you don't like it, don't buy it. That's up to you, your choice. But other people made other choices ,like Botha, like Pavarotti or like many fans that love Pavarotti (even some will love Botha, if we just try hard and find them).


----------



## MAuer (Feb 6, 2011)

BalloinMaschera said:


> My sense is that a lot of the singers who we think today are great, really are not- and we think they are because we allow their good looks to compromise what we say are our high standard of vocals. The "whole package", as it were of an achingly beautiful voice and good looks is so very rare (I can't really think of anybody around these days who truly has both), that putting good looks into the equation at more than minimal importance will, by extension, inevitably lower the quality of singing


I have to defend my favorite tenor's honor! I think Jonas Kaufmann very much is the "whole package" with an uncommonly beautiful voice that is used with a high degree of technical skill and musical sensitivity, and paired with superb acting skills as well. More than one reviewer has deemed a performance of his to be the equal of any singer from opera's "golden age." And, yes, he has good looks on top of it all.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Maybe the real question is, "For whom are the producers of opera programming?" Are they really trying to go out and appeal to a new audience? Or, would they rather minister to the cognoscenti? (And, I'm being serious, not saying "cognoscenti" in a dismissive kind of way)

My guess is that they are going after a wider audience, and to do that they are going to have to put on a show that not only gives that audience something uniquely valuable aurally, but that also competes visually with other forms of entertainment. Overweight stars, sadly, are probably not going to do that. It might not be fair, but I think it's reality, or at least strong perception which can effectively be the same thing.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

I think is a lot of 'perception' involved, yes.

There are DVDs released with all type of stars. Look at Dimitra Theodossiu with two Normas. Or Edita Gruberova. Or Violeta Urmana. Or...

Yes, it will be difficult that we will get this DVD of _I Due Foscari_ released any time soon, however:






So, it's a kind of mixed thing. For sure, when someone releases an opera DVD, it will aim to get the more sales, the better. But the number of 'cognoscenti' among opera fans is inordinately high in comparison to other forms of entertainment.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

schigolch said:


> I think is a lot of 'perception' involved, yes.
> 
> There are DVDs released with all type of stars. Look at Dimitra Theodossiu with two Normas. Or Edita Gruberova. Or Violeta Urmana. Or...
> 
> ...


I think you're absolutely right about that.

By the way, for what it's worth, I don't know who the soprano is in the video clip above, but since I'm a pushover for a pretty face, I just have to say, whoever she is, I would not say she is unattractive at all.

But, I do have a question in all seriousness. I went to Google images and looked at the singers you named above. What I noticed was that in each case, there are pictures of them when they were not so heavy and pictures of them when they were quite large.

Years ago, I know it used to be accepted wisdom that opera singers deliberately put on weight because it helped their voices. I haven't heard that bandied about so much in recent years. My question is, if any of these singers seriously went on a diet to address their weight issues (and please don't say, "What weight issues?"), would it hurt their voices?

I guess what I'm asking is, is it a case of "I need to put on some weight to sound better", or is it more a case of "I don't care what I look like, I'm talented." ?


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

A singer doesn't sing only with his throat, but with all his body.

When you change dramatically this body: by gaining or losing sixty pounds, say, this could have an effect on your voice. 

In my view, the best way to handle that is just go with your body and the way this body is aging. Many people (though, of course, by no means all people) are stouter in middle age, than with young. This is a natural process. And also there are different biotypes. Operatic singing is both very difficult and very unnatural. It requires many years of training, and maintenance. Don't get it more complicated by trying to change dramatically also your body.

I don't think you "sound better" with more weight on you. You will sound better with the right weight on you. But the right weight for you, not for a much thinner or stouter person. 

Of course, if you are as talented as Pavarotti, then you can indulge yourself a lot. Including, I don't care what I look like. But this is a decision of the individual. Hey, there are people that are very keen about their aspect, and people that don't really care. And different standards of beauty, too.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

schigolch said:


> A singer doesn't sing only with his throat, but with all his body.
> 
> When you change dramatically this body: by gaining or losing sixty pounds, say, this could have an effect on your voice.
> 
> ...


Points well taken. Most of your earlier points make sense to me.

Believe me, I'm not unsympathetic to the problems of aging and weight gain. I happen to be one of those people who are in actuality about twenty to twenty-five pounds heavier than I look. For my own health, I battle weight all the time. And, since reaching age forty, I have never even gotten within ten pounds of my doctor's recommended weight, even after long periods of dieting. In one way, it's a blessing to look lighter than I am, but in another way it's a curse because it's not good for my heart.

I do think, if I may be permitted to say so, though, that in the case of what for lack of a better term I will call a "Pavarotti attitude", I think a singer should not be surprised or offended when some people decide not to overlook their girth. A lot of fans will turn a blind eye to it, but others won't. And, I believe in that case, the performer has kind of brought it on himself/herself.

And, it would seem to be not only a dangerous attitude from a health standpoint but possibly a career-killing attitude for unproven singers today to take, given what the market will bear and the competition in the field.

In the case of the singers you mentioned above, I don't know what to think. Some of the change in appearance is most likely due to the aging process as you pointed out. But, is all of it? Is it possible that some of it is the "Pavarotti attitude" at least to some degree? And, would an effort to get back into a little better shape really hurt them?


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

I don't want to keep beating a dead horse, but the thought occurred to me - if we think of these singers as _people_ and not just artists whose talents we enjoy, might it not actually be a _favor_ to them to lose a part now and then if the end result is that it motivates them to take care of their health?

I didn't want to post these images before, because I thought someone would think I was just trying to make fun. But, look at them:









and









Do you think for one minute that she doesn't look back on what she had become and is grateful that something forced her to make a change?


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Again, that depends on the individual.

I don't know how Ms. Voigt contemplates herself now, I do hope she feels right. But don't think for a minute that other person will not be perfectly happy with the former appearance of Ms. Voigt. Some will, some won't.

Of course, in the case of a singer, if some fans don't like the way he looks, and don't buy his products, or a ticket for a performance, that's fair game too. As you said, being this Opera after all, many others won't care, and will just judge him as a vocal artist. 

Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

schigolch said:


> Again, that depends on the individual.
> 
> I don't know how Ms. Voigt contemplates herself now, I do hope she feels right. But don't think for a minute that other person will not be perfectly happy with the former appearance of Ms. Voigt. Some will, some won't.
> 
> ...


The number of people who don't care *at all* for a singer's appearance may dwindle with time, with changed demographics of the set of opera fans. That is, those who were able to witness the great and "big" singers of the past will progressively be passing away of old age, and new younger fans will be more in tune with the prevailing flashy 21st century culture and more used to the new products and video medium exposure, so they'll more naturally *expect* singers to look better (and act better) in addition to sing well. Which in its turn will generate more and more market for the good-looking singers and less and less for unatractive singers. A pity for the latter, but true and inevitable, in my opinion.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

schigolch said:


> Again, that depends on the individual.
> 
> I don't know how Ms. Voigt contemplates herself now, I do hope she feels right. But don't think for a minute that other person will not be perfectly happy with the former appearance of Ms. Voigt. Some will, some won't.
> 
> ...


With all due respect, I can't agree with you. That is not even Rubensque. That is _dangerously_ overweight. If I were an existing fan of Ms Voigt at the time of that picture I would be more than willing to sacrifice an appearance or four from her to make sure that she did something to take care of herself. Fortunately for her, she did.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Dangerous or not, it's still an individual decision.

I can tell you with certainty that, for instance, Mr. Pavarotti had a cavalier attitude about his weight. And other singers, too. It's wrong to assume that our own convictions, and standards of beauty, or perceived health dangers are going to be addressed the same way by other people. It won't happen.

About "the number of people who don't care *at all* for a singer's appearance may dwindle with time", this is prophecy . Not being a prophet myself, I can't say it will happen, or it won't. My personal experience with young fans, and I know a lot of them, is that by and far, most of them genuinely don't care. Of course, also most of those young fans are already, or aspire to be soon, in the "cognoscenti" category, so their view could be very well biased.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

schigolch said:


> About "the number of people who don't care *at all* for a singer's appearance may dwindle with time", this is prophecy . Not being a prophet myself, I can't say it will happen, or it won't. My personal experience with young fans, and I know a lot of them, is that by and far, most of them genuinely don't care. Of course, also most of those young fans are already, or aspire to be soon, in the "cognoscenti" category, so their view could be very well biased.


Well I said "may" not "will" so it wasn't a prophecy but rather a consideration about a possibility. But I do consider highly unlikely that the patterns of the past will return. The Fat Lady with Breast Plates and Horns is a figure of the past. Opera artists and opera audiences have been evolving away from this pattern. It will be hard to convince me otherwise. Maybe our culture here accross the pond is shallower than yours in Spain but I clearly see a trend for slimmer and more attractive singers, mostly everywhere, including in European productions. If you look at the Salzburg festival with the 22 Mozart operas, the number of attractive young singers among the hundreds that they hired for that series of operas was uncanny - many of them with so-so voices, many with good voices, but most of them attractive. They're the new generation of singers and they know that the public now expects more acting and better looks. I feel that this trend is so clear and undeniable that I confess I'm truly stunned at the fact that you and other members here keep denying it. Just compare a few DVDs of the 70's with a few of the 2010's, pick them randomly, get say 20 of each era, and do a morphologic study of people's apparent body mass index as indirectly calculated by height and girth (it can be done) and I'm prepared to bet my house that the DVDs of the 2010's will have a lower average BMI. I think that pretending that this is not happening for me is absolutely mind boggling because in my own home collection of DVDs I can *see* it happening.

Get for instance this DVD (pictured as blu-ray but it also comes on DVD):

ALL artists are slender and attractive. The three females are all three very pretty and sexy (Miah Persson, Isabel Leonard, Patricia Petibon) and the three males are not bad either.










Could we really say the same in the past for an entire cast, except in the most extraordinary circumstances? I don't think so.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

For Cosi fan tutte?. Well, and much more attractive, pretty and sexy. Imagine Schwarzkopf and della Casa!. 

There are also DVDs with Daniela Barcellona, Dimitra Theodossiu, Mariella Devia, Violeta Urmana, Mariola Cantarero, ....

We will see about the new generation of singers. I was talking about the new generation of fans. And this generation, of which I'm talking real experience, no theoretical considerations here, my own people, that I contact every week (most of them), young guys and girls all under thirty years old, and many under twenty five, people that buy DVD and stuff... And many don't really care at all about looks. 

I'm sorry if this runs contrary to your expectations, but this is the real world, at least in Spain, and within "cognoscenti" circles.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Well, I've heard enough from you to believe what you're saying, and I trust you are truly speaking from personal experience when you say what you say.

Unfortunately, when it comes to real experience, I am very, very limited. Hardly a cognoscenti. Not even a connoisseur. (Probably not much of a dilettante, for that matter ) Just a casual listener/observer.

In my lack of sophistication, I know that when I take in a visual medium, the visual always 'matters' to me. I don't think I'm snobbish about my tastes in appearance, and I can certainly enjoy performances from people I would not personally consider beautiful to look at. But, my willingness to completely suspend belief may not be up to the level of some of the more experienced.

I do think, though, that as Almaviva said, producers of DVDs of operas in more recent times have been catering more so than in the past to the expectations of some that people should look at least vaguely the part they are playing. At least, that's been my experience.

But, though I may never agree with your viewpoint on this completely, I must say I have learned some very interesting things. So, thank you.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

schigolch said:


> For Cosi fan tutte?. Well, and much more attractive, pretty and sexy. Imagine Schwarzkopf and della Casa!.
> 
> There are also DVDs with Daniela Barcellona, Dimitra Theodossiu, Mariella Devia, Violeta Urmana, Mariola Cantarero, ....


I'm talking about the entire cast. All six singers. You're telling me about some exceptions. Try and find a DVD of Cosi from the 70's and 80's with the entire cast made of slender, sexy, attractive singers. Let me know, and I'll sure buy it. But I don't think you'll find one with ALL SIX like this. I'm talking about averages. Did we have beautiful singers in the past? Sure. For one thing I've always found Maria Callas very beautiful (some won't agree but *I* definitely think so - do remember that she used to be fat at the beginning of her career, then lost weight), but an even clearer case is Anna Mofo. And there are many others (just one look at our Lovely Soprano thread will show us many attractive singers of the past). But the *average* is trending these days to more attractive singers than in the past. That's why I said - let's get 20 random DVDs and find the *average* singer BMI for each era. I stand by what I said that I'm prepared to bet that the average BMI will be lower for the contemporary sample as opposed to the past sample.



> We will see about the new generation of singers.


We're already seeing it. Just pop a few of the M22 boxset DVDs into your player and take a look.



> I was talking about the new generation of fans. And this generation, of which I'm talking real experience, no theoretical considerations here, my own people, that I contact every week (most of them), young guys and girls all under thirty years old, and many under twenty five, people that buy DVD and stuff... And many don't really care at all about looks.
> 
> I'm sorry if this runs contrary to your expectations, but this is the real world, at least in Spain, and within "cognoscenti" circles.


It's not that I have expectations on this. What I have is observations.
What I'm saying is also real world... and also my own people.
Let me tell you about an experience as recent as yesterday.
I frequent a group of opera aficionados with 22 members. The group gathers at one of the members' homes every other Sunday to watch an opera together for the last two years (some times every Sunday - and we also go to Met in HD together and to local opera productions together).
Some members requested the Ring for our next activities. So yesterday it was _Das Rheingold_ and the version picked by the members was the Mehta/Valencia one. People really liked it and applauded at the end.
Then, we were planning for the next installment, _Die Walküre_. I was asked to provide a different version for _Die Walküre _and subsequent operas, because people did not want to watch the other three Valencia installments due to the casting, voicing complaints that Jennifer Wilson is too fat for Brünnhilde.

We have young members AND old members (some, very old, in their 80's). Not all, but many of our members are "cognoscenti," at least as much as we can get in a Southern US small metropolitan area (probably less so then their Spanish counterparts). There are members who have lived in Europe or in New York City and have attended countless operas in their lifetimes. There are also those who are young and getting to know the art form. Still, the consensus was that we should go for another version specifically due to the fat Brünnhilde. I just *can't* imagine the same comment being made 30 years ago. At the time, people would have considered that such comment would be akin to heresy. Today, people issue it with no further qualms, because they came to expect a different standard from these visual media.

schigolch, your circle is likely to be a very sophisticated one... We've exchanged info on your circle and for what you've told me, you may be looking at a biased (in the statistical sense, no judgment of value from me, of course) sample of extremely knowledgeable, long-term, faithful opera fans. So when you say real world - not that your circle is not also part of the real world - but the real real world out there may have people who are not as sophisticated. Something tells me that my circle is more _real world_ than yours - at least, real _new _world since I know that Europeans don't always take us Americans seriously regarding cultural matters. But our group does have for example a retired operatic voice teacher, a member who has a collection of 500 operas, and a couple of musicians who have played in opera orchestras so it may be as good as we can get here. Not that I wouldn't prefer *your* world, I must add; I'd love to be a member of *your* circle instead of mine if I could and if you guys were willing to take me - and I hereby acknowledge that your knowledge of opera far exceeds my own so I might be really a weak link in your circle.

But, like I said, in this circle of 22 people who have been watching opera for at least two years (there are some younger members who got in touch with opera by joining this group but most of them have been fans for a lot longer), the consensus was that they didn't want a fat Brünnhilde.

Can you imagine someone saying 30 years ago - "oh, let's not watch this and that DVD because the singer is too fat"? (I guess at the time it would be laser disc or VHS but you get my point).

Like I said, times are changing.

Besides, why do we still doubt this, when singers themselves confirm it? I've quoted here the Opera News magazine interview in which the young female singer said that in the current market she needs to spend more time in the gym than in the rehearsal room if she wants to get good roles. I could go back and find the specific quote and the issue and page if you want it - not that I feel like going through the trouble right now, but if you want it, I will.

Again, I remain very surprised with these attempts to deny what I believe to be a very obvious and undeniable trend.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

I suspect that when shigolch says "cognoscenti" he means people who know a lot about singing and singing techniques; of course these people are likely to privilege voice and vocal production.

But there are opera enthusiasts who are not vocal cognoscenti, but are perhaps more interested in the whole package - the voice and singing of course, but also the acting, production and staging. I am one of these, although I must say that since shigolch's great lessons I AM getting more critical about the vocal side of things - for instance I am even more aware of Jose Cura's lack of technique than I used to be, but I'm still happy to watch him because of the intensity of his acting and his "fit" for certain roles like Turiddu or Otello ( I also like his voice, weird hunh).

I would definitely take a great voice over great physical beauty, but I do require acting, a reasonable fit for the role, and not to be distracted from the visual experience by a singer's abnormal obesity.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Grigolo rehearsing for Faust at ROH. 'Proof of the pudding' over the next few weeks.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

mamascarlatti said:


> I suspect that when shigolch says "cognoscenti" he means people who know a lot about singing and singing techniques; of course these people are likely to privilege voice and vocal production.


I get that. I'd say that a retired operatic vocal teacher is among the cognoscenti.
My point is that even people who are very proficient in voice technique may still appreciate a singer's good looks.
Come on, folks, I continue to fail to understand why there is resistance in acknowledging this.

My assertion: there is a progressive trend for more good-looking singers in today's operatic world.

My reasons to conclude this:

1. Singers themselves confirm it.
2. DVDs and Blu-rays of contemporary productions feature singers who are slender and attractive in larger numbers than those with old productions from the 70's and 80's.
3. Today's leading singers in terms of visibility, bookings in major opera houses, public interest, and ticket sales are more often good-looking than not
4. Human beings react to beauty and sex appeal. It's natural. I find it hard to believe that a significant percentage of fans these days would grant *no* importance to looks.
5. As much as schigolch has talked about real life examples of opera enthusiasts and cognoscenti who don't care for physical appearance, I can talk about similar fans who *do* care for physical appearance and do not shy away from expressing it (unlike in the past when this would have been considered to be a big no-no).

You guys will only convince me if you refute these 5 points one by one, showing me proof that it is otherwise.

For number 1, the best you guys could come up with so far was one comment from Malfitano saying that indeed the business these days is tough for unattractive singers, that she tells her students that the ones with lesser appearance have fewer chances, but then those still get hired (which was the point the proponents of meager importance for physical appearance have highlighted, although she didn't talk about what kind of roles they're getting, and although the fact that she *did* confirm the trend seems to have been overlooked by these proponents). In any case, even if we disregard the part where she says that indeed this trend is real and only focus on the "they still get hired" part, this is countered by several other singers who have affirmed that looks in the current opera environment are important.

For number 2, I'd like to see a list of old DVDs with consistently attractive singers across the board in many roles (not just one or two attractive singers that were more the exception than the rule, unlike many contemporary DVDs where often they are the rule rather than the exception).

For number 3, please tell me how many unattractive and obese *current* singers are leading artists in the field. I mean, really leading. Then let's compare with the number of those who are attractive.

For number 4, sorry, but pretending otherwise is against all established psychological knowledge. I don't think you'll ever be able to prove that human beings do not react to beauty and do not grant importance to beauty.

For number 5, only a large, well designed, statistically valid poll would bring about an answer since everything else is anecdotal. The answer would still be incomplete because we wouldn't have the same poll done 30-40 years ago to compare results. We do have a poll done here, with people who are at the very least interested in opera, with even some cognoscenti among us. It's the only one so far. The overwhelming majority of members expressed that they believe appearance is important. If you guys want to prove otherwise then come up with a different poll, find the proof, and let me know.

I'm willing to acknowledge it if you guys can prove it to me. I'll say, "OK, I stand corrected." But then, prove it. If you do, I'll change my mind.

But if you don't, I'll continue to think that the change is pretty obvious and will remain very surprised at the way you guys either don't see it, or don't want to see it.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

> For number 4, sorry, but pretending otherwise is against all established psychological knowledge. I don't think you'll ever be able to prove that human beings do not react to beauty and do not grant importance to beauty.


It's more about the subjectivity of beauty than anything. (Although of course there are popular standards.)


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Yes, things are not the same when contemplated from different angles.

There are many singers that are not attractive, and I've mentioned several of them. All have DVD released, and, what's more important to the point at hand, all of them sing in the most notable Opera Houses. About singers from the past, just please review the "Great singers from the past"  thread, and take a count. Most of them are attractive enough, at least in the picture.

On the other hand, nobody is denying that DVD, the rest of the visual media, and the 21st century obsession with image is favouring that the importance of looks for an operatic career is growing. But with two caveats: first, the voice is still the most important for an operatic career (at least understanding by career, to be able to sing in the theater) and, second, this is just the world of today. There is no certainty at all that this will be also the case tomorrow.

And yes, for sure this "fat Brünnhilde" issue will have been resolved in a completely different way, by another group of fans. The argument will have been centered on the singing ability, and also on the quality of the productions, the orchestra,... but never about the weight of a particular singer. Never. And not 30 years ago, today.

Of course, this is because there are different sensitivities at hand. Different thresholds for being able to activate the famous 'suspension of disbelief', for instance.

And there is nothing wrong with that. As I've said before (at least a couple of times), I'm perfectly happy to recognize that looks, and looking the part, is important to a number of fans. Fine. But then, other people must also realize that for other fans, this takes a (very) secondary seat to be a vocal artist. And again, nothing wrong. I will never buy the _Salome_ DVD by Ms. Michael, and will go for Ms. Mattila's instead. Other fans will prefer Ms. Michael's or Ms. Stratas'.

And yes, perhaps there is also a cultural bias playing its part, along with the individual taste. So, opera fans in Spain or Italy are more likely in average to pay more attention to singing, and less to looking the part, while in America is just the other way around. No problem with that. And I will never "not take Americans seriously regarding cultural matters". Rather the opposite: I love America (very much), and I think you can't find any other country with so many opportunities and sophistication in the cultural arena.

Speaking about Opera, there is a fantastic bet for creating new works, and there is at least an amateur company in almost every middle sized city, along with excellent orchestras, singers, theaters,... If there will be a World Opera Championship, I think America will win the title.


----------



## BalloinMaschera (Apr 4, 2011)

I think Almaviva is correct that there is a trend toward "attractive" (and often good) singers. I think this happens because music promoters, strategesits, marketers are readily able to create hype and popularity around them. Some listeners/audience members are more willing to buy into this, than others.

However, there is also a (over the last- say, 40-50 years) noticeable decline in the vocal abilities of singers.

While there are many very good, very attractive singers, today- I don't know that there are any that are truly of historic caliber, vocally. 

I think the trend that Almaviva so vividly describes, has contributed to the decline; there is a correlation.

Since vocals are in fact the core of opera and the most important factor (we all seem to agree on this point), then we have collectively allowed ourselves to be short-changed, by buying into (not just financially, but also and in terms of attitude and expectations) the marketing prowess of the music industry. 

Effectively, while the packaging has been made to develop, the product inside has lost quality. Some are more forgiving of this, as they really like the bells and whistles of the new packaging.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Trying to find middle ground, I'd say we all agree on the following:

1.- Voice is still the most important factor for an operatic career.

I can say it's 75%, while other members think is perhaps 50%, but we are on the same page.

2.- DVD and other visual media have changed the way operatic performance is perceived, and now looks and looking the part, as well as physical acting abilites, are more important than in the past.

Again, we can differ on the degree of this change, if it's culturally biased, or if it's here to stay, or not, but there is basic agreement on this fact.

3.- For a singer that stars his career today, barring a voice of truly historical caliber, it will be much more difficult to be succesful if he is not at least average looking with an average weight, than in the 70s or 80s. On the other hand, if he is good looking and has some acting abilities, he will have a much better chance of establishing himself as an opera singer.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Very nicely summed up, shigolch


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

schigolch said:


> Trying to find middle ground, I'd say we all agree on the following:
> 
> 1.- Voice is still the most important factor for an operatic career.
> 
> ...


Exactly! Isn't it what I've been saying all along?
So why are we debating this so vividly if we're basically in agreement?


----------



## BalloinMaschera (Apr 4, 2011)

Almaviva said:


> Exactly! Isn't it what I've been saying all along?
> So why are we debating this so vividly if we're basically in agreement?


Because we are not in agreement as to if the trend adds value to the artform, or not.

Are the trade-offs for attractiveness of value- or not?

Does the artform benefit, or not ?


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

BalloinMaschera said:


> Because we are not in agreement as to if the trend adds value to the artform, or not.
> 
> Are the trade-offs for attractiveness of value- or not?
> 
> Does the artform benefit, or not ?


As far as the weight issue is concerned, the biggest benefit is probably to the singers themselves as it encourages them to improve their health, leading to, one would hope, a longer and more productive life.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

BalloinMaschera said:


> Because we are not in agreement as to if the trend adds value to the artform, or not.
> 
> Are the trade-offs for attractiveness of value- or not?
> 
> Does the artform benefit, or not ?


I don't think I ever said that the trend adds value to the artform. I guess I said I'm an observer of the trend, not a prophet, and not passing judgment.

I said that I like it when a good singer is attractive but still think that voice is more important. I said I think that appearance *is* important, though, because it *is* part of the artform which is not just music but also theatrical art where people act with their bodies.

I think we also have to differentiate the artform and the business side of it.
The attractiveness of singers adds to the business. Performances featuring attractive singers tend to sell out more easily than those featuring unattractive singers, given comparable voices (not necessarily the case for exceptional voices).

Regarding the artform, I agree that singing is probably less good than in the past at least in terms of statistical average.

I don't think the emphasis on looks is the only factor, though. It is one factor but there are others, maybe just as important of even more important.

I'd risk a hypothesis: smaller talent pool.
People who are born with the gift of a great voice and are made aware that they can make a living out of it, these days are more likely to go into a pop career than an operatic career.
At the time of the castrati, they were the pop stars of the era, and filthy rich.
Several decades ago, being an operatic singer was prestigious and the commom men on the streets knew the names of the most successful singers.
These days, we'd be lucky if we could find a handful of people picked randomly on the streets who would be able to name the main operatic singers.
What the heck, these days we'd be lucky to find people able to name a single opera - the most common answer we get is "The Phantom of the Opera.":lol: 
I know this for a fact. In my work I teach and mentor graduate students from one of the best universities in America. In addition to what I need to teach them, I always try to push some opera as well on them. I often ask the question first, to get to know about their starting point. While some in this highly educated population (they're very much the elite regarding academic accomplishments for their age group) will be able to quote an opera or two like La Boheme, Carmen, and Madama Butterfly, still the majority will say The Phantom of the Opera.
This decreases the talent pool. I mean, not the fact that my students don't know opera, but the fact that opera lost a great chunk of its social prominence that it used to enjoy, and nowadays is not as popular even among the academic elite. This decreases the likelihood that young people with gifted voices will go into opera.

I once read an interview with Sissel Kyrkjebø the Norwegian crossover soprano. The journalist asked her why she didn't go into an operatic career, when most voice coaches when she was young used to say (which we had learned earlier in the interview) that she had what it takes (the talent needed for it - which of course would have to be polished and trained). Her shameless answer: "because it's not where the money is."

Opera CD sales are pathetic when compared to pop music CD sales.
While opera in Venice at one point was the mass entertainment and the opera houses were the multiplexes of the time, nowadays competition for entertainment dollars is a lot tougher, and opera isn't exactly on the winning side. Before anybody complains, I must add that I fully understand that opera as an artform is a lot more than its mere business side. But I said above I'd be separating the two sides for the sake of this argument, and yes, from the business perspective, opera is entertainment and needs to compete with other forms of entertainment.
I'd bet that the economics of the business are a more important factor in the decline of the talent pool than emphasis on looks (which by the way *is* related to the economics).


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

BalloinMaschera said:


> Because we are not in agreement as to if the trend adds value to the artform, or not.
> 
> Are the trade-offs for attractiveness of value- or not?
> 
> Does the artform benefit, or not ?


Vocally, no, I'm sure it doesn't.

In terms of acting and staging, ie the whole package, having fitter singers means that stagings can be more dynamic and interesting than park'n'bark, so yes. I was watching La Boheme from Opera Australia and David Hobson, a tenor with a very pleasant but not stunning voice, managed to keep singing his aria very nicely while carrying the dying Mimi to a couch. The singers were within a normal weight range, with only one really good-looking one amongst them, but they were fit and full of movement, and it was a very fluid and interesting production, and vocally lovely but not first tier.

Frankly, I personally prefer that to a tenor so fat he has to sit through the performance, however stunning his voice. Keep that for CDs.

I do appreciate that other think differently from me and privilege first tier singing above everything else.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

From the point of music history, I have never read about an opera composer who consistently engaged singers because of their physical appearance. Composers and opera houses have almost always, first and foremost, engaged singers based on talent. Indeed, composers often tailored-made arias that brought out the best of the singers. Handel, Mozart, Donizetti, Verdi, Puccini; you name the greats. Arias were very often written for a particular singer in mind, and occasionally parts re-written when new singers were engaged for revivals/later performances. So, as far as composers were concerned, I think that says a lot.


----------



## CountessAdele (Aug 25, 2011)

> Vocally, no, I'm sure it doesn't.
> 
> In terms of acting and staging, ie the whole package, having fitter singers means that stagings can be more dynamic and interesting than park'n'bark, so yes. I was watching La Boheme from Opera Australia and David Hobson, a tenor with a very pleasant but not stunning voice, managed to keep singing his aria very nicely while carrying the dying Mimi to a couch. The singers were within a normal weight range, with only one really good-looking one amongst them, but they were fit and full of movement, and it was a very fluid and interesting production, and vocally lovely but not first tier.
> 
> Frankly, I personally prefer that to a tenor so fat he has to sit through the performance, however stunning his voice. Keep that for CDs.


Yes, I'm with Natalie on this one. As someone new to this genre I've found that I personally enjoy operas with energetic singers and more active staging (like the San Francisco productions of The Daughter of the Regiment) than the uh park'n'bark. But as I've said, I'm still new and so natuarlly don't have the same ear for talent that a more experienced listener would. And this is perhaps evidence in itself of what Almaviva is saying. Hopefully though by talking to more experienced opera goers the new generation of fans , including me, can learn to appreciate those singers with first tier voices who come along.

Who knows? Come for the entertainment, stay for the artistry?


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> From the point of music history, I have never read about an opera composer who consistently engaged singers because of their physical appearance. Composers and opera houses have almost always, first and foremost, engaged singers based on talent. Indeed, composers often tailored-made arias that brought out the best of the singers. Handel, Mozart, Donizetti, Verdi, Puccini; you name the greats. Arias were very often written for a particular singer in mind, and occasionally parts re-written when new singers were engaged for revivals/later performances. So, as far as composers were concerned, I think that says a lot.


But that was centuries ago. We're talking current trends.


----------



## BalloinMaschera (Apr 4, 2011)

I suppose another way of posing the question is how much one is willing to compromise vocal ability for physical attractiveness, knowing that that very compromise can have a deteriorating effect on what should be paramount in opera, namely , the experience of operatic singing. Degrees of resistance to participating in the trend, or willingness to validate it, will differ from opera enthusiast to opera enthusiast. However, collectively (and almost by design- or perhaps resignation) we seem far too comfortable with the resulting sub-trend of deterioration of vocals. 

As thread readers will have suspected by now, personally, I'd much rather see/hear a Johan Botha as Lohengrin, who despite his weight and ungainly frame manages an entirely believable hero (even in the love duet) because he has the right vocal weight for the part (and sufficient charisma on stage), as a Jonas Kaufmann, who sounds lovely and looks like a lover- but still does not quite have the right vocal weight for the part. Both convince, but to me, Botha has the edge.

Similarly, I would much rather watch and listen to Sutherland's Lucia, even if she did have to sit down more often and didn't quite look like a Scottish Highland damsel, than for example Anna Netrebko (who I saw sing the part at the MET)- because, again Netrebko- lovely as she may look and gazelle-like as she may move, still did not have the right vocal weight or vocal line/agility/variety for the part. Again, both convince, but Sutherland has the edge (by a good measure, even taking her poor diction into account).

These are just two examples of 4 singers in 2 specific roles, of how we have allowed ourselves to think performaces are great, when they really are not. If either Kaufmann or Netrebko are your favorite singers, please don't be personally offended. I have enjoyed performances by both Netrebko and Kaufmann, very much. Still, neither left me feeling that I had witnessed performances that transcend and connect as opera should and can. Neither left me feeling gratefully humbled, as great opera should and does.

I think it is most important to respect the music and the notes (including the required phrasing and coloring etc)- because if those are right, the credible drama and connectivity between the peformers, audience, and the composer (albeit in absentia) will follow, regardless of how attractive the performers are, making their attractiveness quotient negligible in importance.


----------



## MAuer (Feb 6, 2011)

BalloinMaschera said:


> These are just two examples of 4 singers in 2 specific roles, of how we have allowed ourselves to think performaces are great, when they really are not. If either Kaufmann or Netrebko are your favorite singers, please don't be personally offended. I have enjoyed performances by both Netrebko and Kaufmann, very much. Still, neither left me feeling that I had witnessed performances that transcend and connect as opera should and can. Neither left me feeling gratefully humbled, as great opera should and does.


Not personally offended, but I think what you're referring to here is a difference in personal taste rather than in vocal quality. I've witnessed performances of Kaufmann's that did, indeed, seem to "transend and connect as opera should and can." I'm not alone; there are any number of critics who have expressed similar views when reviewing his performances. And, again, I believe he DOES have the requisite vocal weight for the role of Lohengrin -- once more, a matter of personal preference.

Essentially, I don't agree with the premise that contemporary attitudes which favor singers who look the part have led in every case to a deterioration in vocal quality. Yes, the truly great voices today are scarce -- but then, I think they have been in every generation.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

MAuer said:


> Not personally offended, but I think what you're referring to here is a difference in personal taste rather than in vocal quality. I've witnessed performances of Kaufmann's that did, indeed, seem to "transend and connect as opera should and can." I'm not alone; there are any number of critics who have expressed similar views when reviewing his performances. And, again, I believe he DOES have the requisite vocal weight for the role of Lohengrin -- once more, a matter of personal preference.


I agree with Mauer. I watched a production of Aida - admitedly in the cinema not live - where Botha nearly ruined the whole thing for me (and more importantly for my 7 year old) by his inexpressiveness - and I was not moved by his singing (and it's not just a matter of size, Violeta Urmana who is also quite large DID move me).

As for Sutherland, well I personally don't like the timbre of her voice, and when we get to her Lucia on DVD as far as I'm concerned it's way too late. I only like her Lucia in the recording from 1961. I actively avoid anything recorded in the 80s - except for my terrible mistake in buying an Athalia CD where I've resorted to skipping the tracks where she sings because she sets my teeth on edge.

I'm aware that this will be regarded as astonishing heresy by many, but it just goes to show that what connects or transcends -VOCALLY- with one person doesn't necessarily with another.

And it's nothing to do with looks because Vittorio Grigolo the new pretty boy's voice also leaves me cold.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

BalloinMaschera said:


> I suppose another way of posing the question is how much one is willing to compromise vocal ability for physical attractiveness, knowing that that very compromise can have a deteriorating effect on what should be paramount in opera, namely , the experience of operatic singing. Degrees of resistance to participating in the trend, or willingness to validate it, will differ from opera enthusiast to opera enthusiast. However, collectively (and almost by design- or perhaps resignation) we seem far too comfortable with the resulting sub-trend of deterioration of vocals.
> 
> As thread readers will have suspected by now, personally, I'd much rather see/hear a Johan Botha as Lohengrin, who despite his weight and ungainly frame manages an entirely believable hero (even in the love duet) because he has the right vocal weight for the part (and sufficient charisma on stage), as a Jonas Kaufmann, who sounds lovely and looks like a lover- but still does not quite have the right vocal weight for the part. Both convince, but to me, Botha has the edge.
> 
> ...


1) You're making a direct causal relationship between the trend for more comely artists and deterioration of overall voice quality. There is no proof that the former is the cause of the latter, or at the very least, if it is a cause, it may not be the only cause, and if a factor, maybe not even the most important factor (decline in talent pool due to competition from other arts/entertainments and economic factors might be an even more important factor).

2) Your opinion about the artists and performances you're talking about are not necessarily the consensus. These are *your* opinions (as demonstrated by MAuer's and Natalie's posts). You are able to connect to some of these artists and not to others, while for other enthusiasts it may be just the other way around.

3) If the attractiveness quotient is negligible in importance for you, it is not necessarily so for other enthusiasts. In my experience, most human beings are not made of stone and for most of them attraction to comely human beings is not a *negligible* factor. In most human relations it is a *huge* factor, whether or not people are willing to acknowledge it. Human beings react to other attractive human beings, it's actually quite natural, and there is nothing negligible about it. There's been wars started because of it. By the way, it's the very topic of at least half the operas out there.

-----------

For me, opera is not just music. Well, not just for me... but also for the founders and creators of the art form. I believe that the enduring success of opera (411 years and counting - no other musical genre has survived this long) is precisely because it is not just music. It is vocal music, but also instrumental, also theatrical art, it also involves costumes, scenarios, acting AND physical appearance.

Therefore the latter is a factor, and not a negligible one. Is it the most important factor? No. Singing remains the most distinctive aspect of the operatic arts. I believe that we *all* agree on this much. But it is a component, no doubt about it.

Let's forget for a moment about orchestral conducting and playing, scenarios, costumes, acting, etc., and just think about singing versus appearance. I understand that for *you* singing is almost the absolute factor - 99%? (Since you quote appearance as negligible, I understand that you must grant to it something like 1%), and *there's nothing wrong with it, if that's what works for you.*

This equation, however, is different for others.

So a person whose hierarchic values on this are of the 99-1 kind, will definitely take Botha over Kauffmann any day. Or Sutherland over Netrebko.

If someone's equation is 80-20 though, then the person may or may not take Kaufmann over Botha or Netrebko over Sutherland. However, It wouldn't be weird if the person took Kaufmann or Netrebko in spite of the fact that the person values voice at 80%, since neither Kauffmann nor Netrebko are vocal disasters (I believe that there is enough critical consensus about this statement - certainly not perfect and not at the same level of some historically spectacular singers, but certainly not disasters).

Someone with a 55-45 equation will *definitely* take Kaufmann and Netrebko.

Now, change the singers.

Get a singer whose appearance is positively terrible - 400 pounds, all sweaty, ugly face, barely able to move on stage. Give this person a so-so voice, not a Botha or a Sutherland voice. Get as competition *extremely* attractive people, also with a so-so voice.

The 99-1 person may or may not pick the ugly one over the attractive one, depending on which so-so voice is less bad.

But now the 80-20 person will move to definitely picking the attractive artist, and of course so will the 55-45 person.

Finally, get a fabulous-looking, incredibly sexy artist of the sort that causes traffic accidents, with a weak and defective voice, and compare to a 400-pound gorilla with a spectacular voice.

Now the 99-1 and the 80-20 person will pick the gorilla, while the 55-45 person may or may not pick the gorilla.

My point - the appreciation of certain categories of artists (as defined by a certain combination of their vocal and physical gifts or lack thereof) will vary among different opera enthusiasts, because the latter will value different aspects in different proportions.

But this DOES NOT MEAN that the 99-1 person has better taste, or higher standards, or better understanding of the art form than the 55-45 person. It just means that these persons are touched and moved by different gifts, in different proportions. The 55-45 person may be perfectly able to discern vocal characteristics and matters of vocal technique, but may still *prefer* more comely artists, given for example a heightened sensitivity to sexuality or to visual arts (that is, the person may be more in tune with or grant more importance to beauty).

I think the grave mistake that these discussions often incur, is the assumption that those who are not *exclusively* into the stratospheric, rarefied high standards of the pure voice and are not oblivious to singers' bodies are somehow less discerning or less knowledgeable opera fans.

-----------

About being personally offended if someone doesn't love a singer that I love, my take is the following: no, this simple fact is not offensive at all, and much less, personally offensive. There is no accounting for taste.

Now, if someone tells *me* that my standards are lowish and my preference for this or that singer is proof of lack of erudition or lack of understanding of vocal characteristics and techniques, then yes, I get personally offended, because this *is* a personal offense. Now, the person is attacking *me,* not my opinion (which is, by the way, against the Terms of Service here).

My advice for anybody here: if you don't want someone to feel *personally* offended about something you say, then start by refraining from *personally* offending them. That should work. Express your views to your heart's content, but don't go and say that those who have different views and different preferences have low standards and lack erudition. Of course, you may be undisturbed by the notion of offending fellow members here, in which case you won't really care one way or the other, won't apologize, etc. But be aware that if this is the case, then others may question *your* standards - if not in music, at least in human relations.

[Note from the author of the post: If someone here reads the above and thinks - "what the hell is Almaviva going on about?" - be aware that like I said at the very beginning of the thread, this issue is loaded and has resulted in previous clashes here, therefore what I'm saying applies to some lingering baggage, not necessarily to just what is being said here on this thread]


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Almaviva said:


> So a person whose hierarchic values on this are of the 99-1 kind, will definitely take Botha over Kauffmann any day.


Not even that necessarily.

I've just done some youtubing ("In fernem Land" and "Morgenlich leuchtend") with eyes closed

I'd far rather LISTEN to Kaufmann than Botha. Much more interesting, thoughtful and moving VOCAL interpretations for me. It was funny because I listened to Botha's Meistersinger aria and thought, "Oh this is better, this is pretty good", and then went to Kaufmann and thought "aaaah, this really expresses love and beauty"

Don't get me wrong, Botha is OK, although I don't like his vibrato on long notes. He just bores me a little.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Almaviva said:


> About being personally offended if someone doesn't love a singer that I love, my take is the following: no, this simple fact is not offensive at all, and much less, personally offensive. There is no accounting for taste.
> 
> Now, if someone tells *me* that my standards are lowish and my preference for this or that singer is proof of lack of erudition or lack of understanding of vocal characteristics and techniques, then yes, I get personally offended, because this *is* a personal offense. Now, the person is attacking *me,* not my opinion (which is, by the way, against the Terms of Service here).
> 
> ...


Whatever might have gone on before, I think everyone is being very respectful and careful not to offend in this discussion. I'm finding it very interesting and it's encouraging me to explore my own attitudes and values.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

mamascarlatti said:


> Whatever might have gone on before, I think everyone is being very respectful and careful not to offend in this discussion.


That's why I said that my take applies to the old discussion, not to this one. Sometimes I don't let go easily.:devil:


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

mamascarlatti said:


> Not even that necessarily.
> 
> I've just done some youtubing ("In fernem Land" and "Morgenlich leuchtend") with eyes closed
> 
> ...


Yes. That's why I said:

"2) Your opinion about the artists and performances you're talking about are not necessarily the consensus. These are *your* opinions (as demonstrated by MAuer's and Natalie's posts). You are able to connect to some of these artists and not to others, while for other enthusiasts it may be just the other way around. "

But I wanted to use Ballo's own examples, to make it clearer. I'm not a big (no pun intended - oh, OK, pun intended:devil fan of Botha's.


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

actually, I'll move this post to another thread...


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

I'm firmly in the 99-1 category of fans. Vocal artistry is to me the most important thing for a singer.

Of course, singing is not everything in Opera, I'm just referring to the relative importance I allocate to singing vs. looks, for a particular singer.

Having said that, I do understand this percentage will be different for each person, and even can be different for the same person, along his life.

Even for a 99-1 fan, Mr. Kaufmann's Lohengrin can be preferred to Mr. Botha's.

However, for this kind of fan, or even for a 80-20 fan (maybe, even for a 55-45 fan), it's difficult to privilege Ms. Netrebko's Lucia over Ms. Sutherland's. And this is because there are things in singing that are mostly subjective: beauty of the timbre, the most outstanding. However, there are also other features that can be judged in a more objective way, like how coloratura is performed, and how closely follows the score.

In an opera where coloratura is so important as in _Lucia_, that's why is difficult for me to understand that a person valuing singing over "looks" (understanding here by "looks" not only physical beauty, but also stage presence and acting) could prefer Ms. Netrebko's "impetuous" showing to Ms. Sutherland's flawless execution.

In other roles, like Violetta, I perfectly understand the other aspects of Ms. Netrebko's interpretation make her a more exciting artist for some fans, even in the 80-20 bracket. But for Lucia, my feeling is only a 40-60 or higher in the "look" category fan, can really go for the russian soprano over the aussie singer.

And, hey, there is nothing wrong with being a 40-60 fan either!


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

schigolch said:


> I'm firmly in the 99-1 category of fans. Vocal artistry is to me the most important thing for a singer.
> 
> Of course, singing is not everything in Opera, I'm just referring to the relative importance I allocate to singing vs. looks, for a particular singer.
> 
> ...


While I agree with mostly everything that you said above, in Ms. Netrebko's defense it must be said that she isn't exactly a coloratura soprano therefore she struggles more in such roles. This is one occasion when emphasis on looks (physical appearance, acting ability) can be detrimental to the end result in terms of singing, because I believe that Anna is thrown into such roles that are basically not a good fit for her voice due to public demand to see her portraying these young pretty tragic figures thanks to her ability to act these roles and look the part. As Anna ages and becomes heavier in several senses of the word, she is migrating to roles with more gravitas, more of the full lyric soprano kind, which *are* a better fit for her. I'm excited about her Anna Bolena. Like Anna said herself, she's moving onto stately queens rather than sexy girls, and I believe that she can do a better vocal job for the former. Anna's voice has never been known for agility, so it is a bit unfair to her to gauge her by the standards of highly ornamented coloratura roles. I believe that a great full lyric soprano can be enjoyed as much as a great coloratura soprano. It's rather a question of role choice. The singer does have part of the blame to take for accepting such roles, but on the other hand, singers need to make a living and they often go where the demand is, sometimes to the detriment of their voices. Not all singers manage their careers as wisely as a Renee Fleming. But I believe that Anna is conscious enough of her limitations and has been making the right career moves.

I don't know how to quantify my personal equation. Of course if people read my sometimes lame attempts at humor, they might conclude that I'm a 1-99 fan. Far from this. In many of my serious posts I have negatively criticized very beautiful sopranos who can't sing. I remeber doing it, among others, for versions of Le Roi d'Ys and Le Villi that had in their cast extremely attractive sopranos who were bad singers, and I was totally unconvinced.

What happens is that I am more willing to give a pass to some sopranos I'm very fond of, for various reasons, among them, their physical appearance. Anna is certainly one such singer, and I've never made a secret of it, much the opposite. So I'm more willing to take her occasional severe vocal failures and her more frequent mild vocal failures (depending on the role) than I'd be doing for another soprano. I also acknowledge her many vocal qualities and have insisted that without a great voice she wouldn't have made it on looks alone. So let's say that as far as Anna is concerned, I'm a 50-50 guy, meaning that I love her as much for her looks and acting ability and nice bubbly personality as for her voice, which after all I rate as very good for her generation, especially given the right role.

But for other sopranos I may very well be at least a 75-25 guy, or even 80-20.

It doesn't mean I can't enjoy a formidable voice performance by a very plain-looking soprano. I react to certain sopranos such as Montserrat Caballe during her prime as a 99-1 guy (sospiro can confirm this, since I recently told her that the La Forza del Destino DVD with a young Caballe contains sublime singing in spite of a lack of looks and stage mobility). Jessye Norman is another one for whom I'm willing to discount her appearance completely. I don't even care if she doesn't look the part at all, I'm still mesmerized by her voice - *and* her stage presence.

Ms. Sutherland on the other hand does not entirely make of me a 99-1 guy; not just for looks, but also due to bad diction and lack of stage presence. Still, I very much enjoy her voice, but often the DVDs and CDs I have with her will not be my favorite version of that given opera.

So, one thing that I forgot to add to my post about these ratios, is that they can also vary when the enthusiast considers different artists.

Someone may be generally a 75-25 person and migrate to 50-50 for some artists with whom the person feels particularly taken regarding looks and acting, or 99-1 for some artists with voices that the person wildly appreciates.

And like you and I have said, there's nothing wrong with any of this.


----------



## BalloinMaschera (Apr 4, 2011)

If it is "a bit unfair to gauge" singers to standards, when they sing rep not appropriate to their voice... (for example a singer whose voice is not known for her agility, but performs a role like Lucia, for whatever reason)... then I just don't see how it is "absolutely fair game" to discuss a singers "appearance, including in a negative way.” - What if a singer was never known for being slender/attractive? Shouldn't that then make guaging his/her appearance, unfair as well?

It doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

BalloinMaschera said:


> If it is "a bit unfair to gauge" singers to standards, when they sing rep not appropriate to their voice... (for example a singer whose voice is not known for her agility, but performs a role like Lucia, for whatever reason)... then I just don't see how it is "absolutely fair game" to discuss a singers "appearance, including in a negative way." - What if a singer was never known for being slender/attractive? Shouldn't that then make guaging his/her appearance, unfair as well?
> 
> It doesn't make sense to me.


You may have a point, like I said I have never denied that I have a bias as far as Anna Netrebko is concerned, so it's not impossible that someone might catch me in contradiction, because my strong predilection for her may cloud my judgment. This said, the analogy you're using to refute my point is not perfect.

Anna *does* have great performances in roles that are more appropriate to her voice. Her recent _Anna Bolena_ is one such example; she sang it in Europe in advance of her upcoming Met run and drew wild applause from most critics.

So your analogy would make more sense if we took someone who has oscillated between poor looks and great looks. Maria Callas is such an example. If you look at her at the beginning of her career, she was plump and unattractive. Then she lost weight and became very good looking. So if someone said - "I don't understand what's the fuss about this Maria Callas' looks, just look at this picture, she is plump and unattractive." I'd then say: "It's a bit unfair to say that she is plump and unattractive by singling out one part of her career because, look at *this* picture - she can as well look gorgeous."

The unfair part is passing judgment on one's entire career based on part of it. Except if someone is using a specific picture for the purpose of humor (akin to a caricature in a newspaper underlining certain facial traits), while acknowledging that the pick was deliberate and the singer actually does look a lot better than that one unfortunate picture may indicate. So, excluding the eventual humor license, and assuming that the person making the comment indeed believes that the phase of the career that is being singled out is indeed what defines the singer, then it's a bit unfair.

To say that Anna is overall a poor singer because she can't do the proper ornamentation in Lucia given the lack of agility in her voice, is akin to ignoring what she *can* do in other roles. Voices are what they are. There are a few spinto sopranos out there who can do multiple roles, but there's always a role that is a better fit for a soprano in terms of tessitura, weight of the voice, and vocal dynamics. To have a complete and *fair* picture of someone's voice, one must listen to that singer when the singer is performing the right repertory *as well* - that is, to give the singer a fair chance at displaying her talents.

If one says "Anna is miscast here, she shouldn't be singing Lucia, her voice is not a good fit for it, *but* she can do well in full lyric roles" - this is fair.
If one says "Anna is overall a bad singer, look at her Lucia" - this is a bit unfair.

If one says "Maria Callas is overall a plump and unattractive singer - I saw some pictures of her in her earlier years and they prove my point" - this is a bit unfair.
If one says "Maria Callas had a stretch in her earlier career when she looked plump and unattractive, then she lost weight and became a great looking lady for most of her career" - this is fair, and not only fair, but also fair game, because she *was* plump and unattractive before, and exactly because, like me, Ms. Callas must have thought that for a performer of theatrical arts she should take care of her appearance otherwise she'd be criticized for it and might not achieve the same level of success, she put an effort into taking care of it, and got it!


----------



## BalloinMaschera (Apr 4, 2011)

I don't think anyone on TC has said that AN is a poor singer. For my part, I have seen/heard her perform a few times, and have various recordings of hers; she's a very good singer, in my books. 

I guess what confuses me, are double standards of convenience that are designed (consciously or not) to accomodate predilictions, in any walk of life, really- not just when qualifying and opera performer(ance). Standards shouldn't really be applied selectively; that kind of defeats their role. 

I also think that MC's voice did change with the weight loss (as did Renata Scotto's)... not necessarily for the better or for worse- the voices were somehow different, post weight loss. It probably has to do with change in resonance cavities provided by the body. The physiology of singing will change with weight gains/losses.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

BalloinMaschera said:


> I don't think anyone on TC has said that AN is a poor singer. For my part, I have seen/heard her perform a few times, and have various recordings of hers; she's a very good singer, in my books.
> 
> I guess what confuses me, are double standards of convenience that are designed (consciously or not) to accomodate predilictions, in any walk of life, really- not just when qualifying and opera performer(ance). Standards shouldn't really be applied selectively; that kind of defeats their role.
> 
> I also think that MC's voice did change with the weight loss (as did Renata Scotto's)... not necessarily for the better or for worse- the voices were somehow different, post weight loss. It probably has to do with change in resonance cavities provided by the body. The physiology of singing will change with weight gains/losses.


Oh well, that's not true. Very recently a TC member said that AN is "a joke."

Double standards happen in real life. I have acknowledged my bias. You must be familiar with the fact that people are more willing to overlook their friends' or loved ones' faults than those of their enemies.

Me, I have nothing against someone liking so much a singer for various reasons to the point that the person may overlook some of that singer's shortcomings and still enjoy the singer's performances and even prefer them over more vocally gifted singers.

Standards are not rigid. Not in real life, and not in most people's heads. They can vary according to circumstances. Yes, it would be wonderful (I mean, for some... not for me) if the world could be entirely regulated and standards were absolute and stood firm against all influences. It's just not the case.

Yes, of course weight influences the voice. DV's weight loss and her changed voice is a recent case. Still, she was willing to do it (and I commend her for it). AN after her pregnancy acquired more voice weight. Fans may be able to appreciate different phases of a singer's career for the different assets they present to the public. While someone might enjoy DV's voice before the weight loss, someone else may enjoy her much improved appearance after it. And *again*, there's nothing wrong with it.


----------



## MAuer (Feb 6, 2011)

I'm inclined to agree with Ballo on this one. If one singer is choosing roles that are not well suited to his/her voice, that can detract from a listener's enjoyment of the performance as much as another singer's less-than-appealing appearance can detract from a viewer's enjoyment of that singer's performance. Both seem to be fair subjects for comment. As an example: one of my favorite sopranos is Katia Ricciarelli; I have many of her recordings. But taking on the role of Turandot -- even in a studio recording -- with her lyric voice was probably a big mistake. Certainly, many reviewers thought so and commented upon it.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

MAuer said:


> I'm inclined to agree with Ballo on this one. If one singer is choosing roles that are not well suited to his/her voice, that can detract from a listener's enjoyment of the performance as much as another singer's less-than-appealing appearance can detract from a viewer's enjoyment of that singer's performance. Both seem to be fair subjects for comment. As an example: one of my favorite sopranos is Katia Ricciarelli; I have many of her recordings. But taking on the role of Turandot -- even in a studio recording -- with her lyric voice was probably a big mistake. Certainly, many reviewers thought so and commented upon it.


Oh dear yes, I have that Turandot, not a good idea for her. The rest of the cast is great (Domingo, the lovely Hendricks and Raimondi)


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

MAuer said:


> I'm inclined to agree with Ballo on this one. If one singer is choosing roles that are not well suited to his/her voice, that can detract from a listener's enjoyment of the performance as much as another singer's less-than-appealing appearance can detract from a viewer's enjoyment of that singer's performance. Both seem to be fair subjects for comment. As an example: one of my favorite sopranos is Katia Ricciarelli; I have many of her recordings. But taking on the role of Turandot -- even in a studio recording -- with her lyric voice was probably a big mistake. Certainly, many reviewers thought so and commented upon it.


But this is fair, like I said. What is not fair, is if someone based a judgment on the entire singing career of Katia Ricciarelli on her casting mistake in taking upon herself the task of singing Turandot.

I've seen people here (I mean, TC as a whole, not this thread) putting down Anna as globally, overall "a joke" because of her vocal failures in Lucia and La Traviata.

What I meant is that it is a bit unfair to judge her *exclusively* on this. I didn't mean that it isn't fair to comment upon the fact that she shouldn't be singing Lucia. If one says "Anna is a bad singer, look at her Lucia" - it's unfair. If one says "Anna is not a good Lucia singer" then it's fair. There is a huge difference between these two statements, because the latter is acknowledging that *while singing the role of Lucia* she is not good, which doesn't mean that she is overall a bad singer like the former statement implies.


----------



## ooopera (Jul 27, 2011)

mamascarlatti said:


> Not even that necessarily.
> 
> I've just done some youtubing ("In fernem Land" and "Morgenlich leuchtend") with eyes closed
> 
> ...


New clip on Youtube:


----------



## MAuer (Feb 6, 2011)

It may help some large singers if they'd receive a little more consideration from the costume department. I think the attached clip may be from the _Walküre_ video which some viewers found unappealing because of the large Brünnhilde (Jennifer Wilson):






Yes, Ms. Wilson is a big woman. But her appearance is certainly not helped by that horrible costume, which simply emphasizes her size. I don't understand why opera houses don't make more of an effort to provide their singers, of whatever body shape, with costumes that are flattering to them.

Sometimes, I wish the designers of these horrors could be compelled to spend a couple of hours standing in a very public place in a very large city at the height of the workday wearing one of their charming "creations."


----------



## jdavid (Oct 4, 2011)

Liss said:


> When it all comes down to it, Opera is about the music, the voice.


I have to say that if the soprano or tenor have to be hoisted onto the stage it is unfortunate, but when I buy the expensive recordings I want the best voices in the world for the roles. It does get uncomfortable though - Jane Eaglen's DVD of Tristan/Isolde with Ben Heppner is sad - she has to breathe constantly, breaking the phrases, to keep going - even Norman at her heaviest was able to sing the most incredibly long phrases in full voice - I love her 'controversial' (haha) recording of The Four Last Songs with Kurt Masur and the Gewandhausorchester-leipzig, the tempos are wonderful, and especially the last song (it's the one that's always last in the artificial 'set', has the flute trills as doves flying into the sunset) - it is magnificently slow. It's 'controversial' because of jealousy - *in my opine*  Oh, and Deborah Voight recently sang Wagner and Strauss with the New York Phil on their opening concert of the season...she has lost a lot of weight (tummy operation), looked and sounded wonderful. She sang 'Dich teure Halle' from 'Lohengrin' (?), and some of 'Salome'.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

jdavid said:


> She sang 'Dich teure Halle' from 'Lohengrin' (?)


Tannhäuser.


----------

