# Death and Transfiguration



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

"The Metropolitan Opera has announced that it will withdraw up to $30 million from its endowment, give fewer performances next season, and accelerate its embrace of contemporary works."


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

Read this interesting article from :
SlippeDisc 




https://slippedisc.com/2022/12/how-bad-are-the-mets-ticket-sales-worse-than-theyre-saying/


----------



## REP (Dec 8, 2011)

nina foresti said:


> "The Metropolitan Opera has announced that it will withdraw up to $30 million from its endowment, give fewer performances next season, *and accelerate its embrace of contemporary works*."


It used to be common knowledge that contemporary opera sold worse (and sometimes much worse) than the standard repertoire. Did something change?


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Embrace contemporary works? That's not gonna work. For the MET to operate they need to sell lots and lots of tickets and that means more Puccini, Verdi and maybe Wagner. Same as the New York Philharmonic: people want to hear safe, great music mostly from the 19th C. The demand for operas even by the "better" modern composers like John Adams or Philip Glass are not massively popular. My local opera company does at least one modern opera every season and there has been not one that I'm champing at the bit to hear again. Not one had the soaring arias of Puccini. In fact, doing too much modern opera will likely drive the remaining patrons away.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

By Javier C. Hernández
Dec. 26, 2022
Hit hard by a cash shortfall and lackluster ticket sales as it tries to lure audiences back amid the pandemic, the Metropolitan Opera said Monday that it would withdraw up to $30 million from its endowment, give fewer performances next season and accelerate its embrace of contemporary works, which, in a shift, have been outselling the classics.
The dramatic financial and artistic moves show the extent to which the pandemic and its aftermath continue to roil the Met, the premier opera company in the United States, and come as many other performing arts institutions face similar pressures.
“The challenges are greater than ever,” said Peter Gelb, the Met’s general manager. “The only path forward is reinvention.”
Nonprofit organizations try to dip into their endowments only as a last resort, since the funds are meant to grow over time while producing a steady source of investment income. The Met’s endowment, which was valued at $306 million, was already considered small for an institution of its size. This season it is turning to the endowment to cover operating expenses, to help offset weak ticket sales and a cash shortfall that emerged as some donors were reluctant to accelerate pledged gifts amid the stock market downturn. As more cash gifts materialize, the company hopes to replenish the endowment.

To further cut costs, the company, which is giving 215 performances this season, is planning to reduce the number of performances next season by close to 10 percent.
The Met’s decision to stage significantly more contemporary operas is a remarkable turnabout for the company, which largely avoided newer works for many decades because its conservative audience base seemed to prefer war horses like Puccini’s “La Bohème,” Verdi’s “Aida” and Bizet’s “Carmen.”
But as the Met staged more new work in recent years that dynamic has begun to shift, a change that has grown more pronounced since the pandemic: While attendance has been generally anemic, contemporary works including Terence Blanchard’s “Fire Shut Up in My Bones” last season and Kevin Puts’s “The Hours” this season drew sellout crowds. (Verdi’s “Don Carlo,” by contrast, ended its run this month with 40 percent attendance.)

"From now on, Mr. Gelb said, the Met will open each season with a new production of a contemporary work.'"


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

Wonderful news. Wether it will be financially beneficial is another question, but contemporary works really do need some more attention and it's not like we have voices which sound at all at home in Verdi, Wagner etc. anymore so I certainly won't complain about any missed opportunities for another mangled Forza del Destino or any of their Wagner without voices.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

In recent seasons the Met has premiered works by Nico Muhly, Terence Blanchard, Kevin Puts, and Brett Dean. I believe these works were widely anticipated and supported by the existing subscriber base. The Met has regularly staged productions of living composers John Adams, Philip Glass, and Thomas Adés, as well as Berg, Shostakovich, Stravinsky, and Britten, among other 20th century operas.

Next season there will be another new opera by Terence Blanchard, _Champion_.

I am thrilled that The Met will direct more resources to producing new operas and see it as the acknowledgement and impact of a new demographic.


----------



## BBSVK (10 mo ago)

Hm, I wonder. For the live performances, I myself choose less performed operas I do not know. So recently, it was Don Trastullo (Jommelli), Devil and Kate (Dvořák), Impresario Dotcom (Čekovská, contemporary) and I plan for Svätopluk (Suchoň). I don't know what motivates others to see contemporary opera. If it is the fact, that they haven't heard it 1000 times already, maybe a safer bet would be some forgotten classic.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Op.123 said:


> Wonderful news. Wether it will be financially beneficial is another question, but contemporary works really do need some more attention and it's not like we have voices which sound at all at home in Verdi, Wagner etc. anymore so I certainly won't complain about any missed opportunities for another mangled Forza del Destino or any of their Wagner without voices.


Agreed. I'm not sure that contemporary operas "need" attention - the small amount of attention I've given them has turned up a lot of forgettable music - but if people want to hear/see (mainly see, I suspect) them enough to pay Met ticket prices I can hardly object to the Met giving us fewer Verdi and Wagner works sung by people who can barely sing them. Those of us who believe that music and the way it's sung is still opera's primary reason to exist have our recordings to show what is - or was - possible.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Agreed. I'm not sure that contemporary operas "need" attention - the small amount of attention I've given them has turned up a lot of forgettable music - but if people want to hear/see (mainly see, I suspect) them enough to pay Met ticket prices I can hardly object to the Met giving us fewer Verdi and Wagner works sung by people who can barely sing them. Those of us who believe that music and the way it's sung is still opera's primary reason to exist have our recordings to show what is - or was - possible.


I would say that we “need” great composers, whatever that may mean these days - do they need to be “modern” in style? I have attended many contemporary operas in San Francisco and have rarely liked them or remembered any an hour later, or wanted to see them again. My first opera in San Francisco, a free ticket given to me by the Humanities Dept. at my college, was Berg’s *Lulu*, screeched by Anja Silja and a host of other singers I don’t remember. I found it confusing, ugly, unbearable. It as in German, which I don’t speak, the music largely unlovely.

Yet I like *Elektra*, though maybe “like” is a misnomer - I like Ancient Greek stories and the music fit the basic violence of the tale. I also withstood Reinman’s *Lear *because I befriended a singer that sang in it and felt I had to see every performance (seven). It was an ugly production, disturbing music, a cacophonous mix of sounds I didn’t want to hear - not a pleasant experience at all.

I think I want to be transported in the operas I want to see, to the locales in which the stories take place, to the times when they’re supposed to represent. We were stuck with a general director who had had experience in Stuttgart, who tried to bring us modern works, contemporary directors (read: Eurotrash) and it was a disaster. Händel works taking place in modern dilapidated houses, people in modern dress (is this a rehearsal?), operas I never heard of or wanted to see - even less to hear, in ugly settings. 

I am a traditionalist, I suppose, and I like the Metropolitan Opera’s “Zeffirelli Period,” because he respected the composer and usually the time period, and though he was, in his late years, excessive, it was always beautiful. That meant something to me. 

I, for one will not be attending the Met’s HD presentations of the modern or new works, any more that the old works with inadequate singers, who nevertheless receive raves - I suspect because they’ve survived it.

But I suppose I should be grateful for those who will attend, if just to keep the art form alive.


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Agreed. I'm not sure that contemporary operas "need" attention - the small amount of attention I've given them has turned up a lot of forgettable music - but if people want to hear/see (mainly see, I suspect) them enough to pay Met ticket prices I can hardly object to the Met giving us fewer Verdi and Wagner works sung by people who can barely sing them. Those of us who believe that music and the way it's sung is still opera's primary reason to exist have our recordings to show what is - or was - possible.


Contemporary operas are such a mixed bag. What's staged at the Metropolitan is very different from those staged in Europe. There are a lot of operas I've seen performed at the Met in a 'late romantic' style which seem to be heading in a more musical theatre direction but there are many other modern operas with a more diverse and interesting musical language. Whether they will be staging these or commissioning conservative works with only the year of composition as an accurate timestamp I don't know.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

In my opinion I find the Met way too conservative in its thinking to ever introduce a modern theme with naked men sitting on urinals or bees instead of humans, or static singers not moving a muscle or eye-balling one another, or simulated sex
-- that's enough, I'm getting sick.
I believe their modern offerings will be done in good taste, if not maybe the kind of music I'd be ecstatic for (but who knows?)
Listen, I was dragged to that Frank Sinatra Rat Pack Rigoletto fully expecting to sit with my eyes closed and simply listen to the gorgeous music only to find that I was one of the first to give a standing ovation to this modern version which was actually quite well done -- and the reason was because, unlike most of the others, it didn't interfere with the singers or the singing like that photographer in Lucia during the Sextette. (what an abominable disruption that was!)
I'm open. If it willl help the Met put bums into the seats I'm for it. I can accept a tasteful change, as long as the singers are good (and unlike a majority in this small website bubble), I do believe there are many voices today to rejoice about.
And the plus is, I also have my old tried n' trues to visit. Win-win situation all around.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Years ago when my sister was singing she was in demand for singing modern opera because they were often difficult to sing ( this was 50 years ago) and she could sing them well. She hated all of them but it was a job she had to do and she was under contract. In Germany they didn't have to sell tickets because opera was all state supported. People want to see Verdi and Wagner and there are so few today who are competent much less great at singing those repetoire so what are opera companies to do? I really don't envy our Seattle Opera trying to raise money as here in Seattle most of the big money is in tech and that is by and large not a crowd that gives a hoot about opera. For that you need old money.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

I think we must acknowledge a new demographic. If this move brings, for example, flocks of Afro-Americans and Latino-Americans to the Met, it gets my vote. Let's face it, Verdi, Puccini, Wagner &al don't speak to the average American these days. Opera needs to speak to contemporary Americans in a contemporary language. Well done the Met for this excellent policy decision focusing on inclusion.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

> I, for one will not be attending the Met’s HD presentations of the modern or new works, any more that the old works with inadequate singers, who nevertheless receive raves - I suspect because they’ve survived it.


This is nothing like I feel. 

I bought tickets to all of the Live at Home opera performances, and I subscribe to Opera on Demand. Unfortunately because of the cyberattack on The Met, the 12/10 performance of _The Hours_ was not broadcast and today I was refunded the cost of the ticket. That opera was the one (of the ten live broadcasts) I was most looking forward to seeing. I even bought the novel _Mrs. Dalloway_ to read prior to the performance.

Either I don't have the requisite tools to discern good singing from "bad," or my taste is such that I find the singing "good," or they really aren't that "bad." In any event, I do enjoy these productions at The Met and consider them money well spent.


----------



## PaulFranz (May 7, 2019)

SanAntone said:


> This is nothing like I feel.
> 
> I bought tickets to all of the Live at Home opera performances, and I subscribe to Opera on Demand. Unfortunately because of the cyberattack on The Met, the 12/10 performance of _The Hours_ was not broadcast and today I was refunded the cost of the ticket. That opera was the one (of the ten live broadcasts) I was most looking forward to seeing. I even bought the novel _Mrs. Dalloway_ to read prior to the performance.
> 
> Either I don't have the requisite tools to discern good singing from "bad," or my taste is such that I find the singing "good," or they really aren't that "bad." In any event, I do enjoy these productions at The Met and consider them money well spent.


The singing is bad. It's just objectively bad. Wobbles are objectively bad, inaudible low notes in women are bad, singing out of tune is bad, squeezing is bad, and having no ring is bad. The Met hasn't had a good male soloist in decades. It's really, really bad.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Regarding African Americans they have always turned out in droves to support the opera when black stars were there. The still did for Lawrence Brownlee when he was here in his amazing concert recently . The problem is that in the past some of the biggest names in opera were African American: Norman, Price, Verrett, Bumbry and Battle but there are so few black stars of the opera currently that have the type of draw that they had. We have some good black opera stars today but none that are stellar. I don't know if we can keep them coming without some big name black opera stars to draw them. Seattle has been good about having diverse casts but the Black stars that we have liked here have never caught on elsewhere such as our recent Isolde. I am from Jackson Mississippi and we had an all black opera company that put on an incredible Turandot with my sister's old roommate in the title role back 50 years ago, but support for it has dried up since then. This was during the time when there were so many big black names in opera and the community was conscious about opera but things have changed.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

PaulFranz said:


> The singing is bad. It's just objectively bad. Wobbles are objectively bad, inaudible low notes in women are bad, singing out of tune is bad, squeezing is bad, and having no ring is bad.


SanAntone isn't wrong to appreciate what he does though. Take for example, "Mozart on the modern grand"; even though it's _plain ridiculous_ in theory, the majority thinks it's "normal" (due to how they're educated and what they're used to), so it's considered "normal".


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

While I am not happy with some of the female singers singing *Medea*, *Macbeth*, *Nabucco*, *Norma, *never mind Wagner, others are ecstatic. I can’t be unhappy with them and I’m glad they can enjoy it - not everyone is as picky as I am and I have friends who are able to enjoy the performances I may decry.

Nevertheless, I went to see *Don Carlos *(yes, the French “version”) and enjoyed aspects of it, but not the Elisabeth, the Philippe, the Eboli, the production (too dark) and others. Chalk it up to a nostalgia for Verdi.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

I suppose I am grateful that I don't have a "gold standard" in my ear when I am listening to opera. I don't know what I am missing, so to speak. But, I still am able to enjoy what I am hearing. I am not musically ignorant - I am a trained musician, with over 50 years experience of professional music making.

However, I did not become an avid opera listener until the 1980s, long after my music career had developed in jazz and songwriting. So, I did not have a history of listening to the "golden age" of opera recordings, i.e. from the 1930s-1960s. 

I now have had more than 30 years of experience as an opera junky. And I have acquired some of these historical recordings and can say that the voices do seem to produce the operatic sound more effortlessly than singers today. I just wish there were more complete opera recordings, with fine audio sound from the 1930s and 1940s.

Still, I find much to enjoy in today's performances that I watch and recordings I listen to.


----------



## BBSVK (10 mo ago)

HenryPenfold said:


> I think we must acknowledge a new demographic. If this move brings, for example, flocks of Afro-Americans and Latino-Americans to the Met, it gets my vote. Let's face it, Verdi, Puccini, Wagner &al don't speak to the average American these days. Opera needs to speak to contemporary Americans in a contemporary language. Well done the Met for this excellent policy decision focusing on inclusion.


No no no, I would have to see some statistic first, to believe it. 
Inclusion of the singers of various ethnicities - fine.
But the idea, that Afro or Latino- American people will reject Verdi, and want to see Achnaten, Eurydice or Dean's Hamlet or Saariaho instead - I doubt it.


----------



## BBSVK (10 mo ago)

PaulFranz said:


> The singing is bad. It's just objectively bad. Wobbles are objectively bad, inaudible low notes in women are bad, singing out of tune is bad, squeezing is bad, and having no ring is bad. The Met hasn't had a good male soloist in decades. It's really, really bad.


I agree on inaudible low notes and singing out of tune. I'll add goat-like vibrato on the list. And voices unheard above orchestra.

However, the other things, I still don't hear, don't recognize, or barely do, still not sure what they are - wobbles, squeezing, no ring. For me it is like - I enjoy this singer a lot, but will not discuss them at talk classical, because they will criticize some squeezing and no ring that I don't hear


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

BBSVK said:


> No no no, I would have to see some statistic first, to believe it.
> Inclusion of the singers of various ethnicities - fine.
> But the idea, that Afro or Latino- American people will reject Verdi, and want to see Achnaten, Eurydice or Dean's Hamlet or Saariaho instead - I doubt it.


A sad transition I have noticed is that up till the 1950's Mexico and South America used to be really hot spots for opera and some of Callas' greatest recordings were from Mexico City but from what I can tell that market for opera has for some reason fizzled big time. Many of the great European stars took steamers to have extended runs in S America. I wonder what happened? The closest they come now are Mexican Mariachi singing which is gorgeous singing of an almost operatic sound. 
A big problem with our younger generation is they did not grow up with The Ed Sullivan Show, which a huge amount of people from different races watched back in the day. Unlike today's specialized entertainment he would have Metropolitan Opera greats performing side by side with the Beatles and Aretha Franklin. People were cross culturally exposed to opera. Now the only time opera might wink into many people's world is if some child sings O Mio Bambino Caro with a microphone on America''s Got Talent.


----------



## BBSVK (10 mo ago)

BBSVK said:


> I agree on inaudible low notes and singing out of tune. I'll add goat-like vibrato on the list. And voices unheard above orchestra.
> 
> However, the other things, I still don't hear, don't recognize, or barely do, still not sure what they are - wobbles, squeezing, no ring. For me it is like - I enjoy this singer a lot, but will not discuss them at talk classical, because they will criticize some squeezing and no ring that I don't hear


... to be fair, I usually choose somebody other than Angela Gheorghiu in the contest. That is the one contemporary singer we have regularly there. 

But I don't find her terrible, she would deliver the opera as the story well for me. As do other contemporary singers I watch on video. I went through whole lecture series on Bellini with contemporary singers and was still extatic. Only for Norma, Callas was so strongly recommended, that I did not want to avoid her.


----------



## BBSVK (10 mo ago)

BBSVK said:


> No no no, I would have to see some statistic first, to believe it.
> Inclusion of the singers of various ethnicities - fine.
> But the idea, that Afro or Latino- American people will reject Verdi, and want to see Achnaten, Eurydice or Dean's Hamlet or Saariaho instead - I doubt it.


OK, I realize, this comment was not entirely fair. There are other new contemporary operas, like Fire shut up in my bones (black composer) and the one about Malcolm X. It could motivate Afro-american audience somewhat. Still, if the music is modern as I imagine it is, I would really want to see the statistics, if they prefer this to Rigoletto.

Edit: And also, which opera they return to see for the second time. That might matter. 

Is the contemporary audience generally returning to see the stuff, or are the sales based on single visits ? Completely honest question, I have no idea...


----------



## ColdGenius (9 mo ago)

Modern operas could be curious and attract audiences. Sometimes it's seen in ticket-sales. But how long? How many performances are sold out? How many of them are staged again? 
I think that big opera companies like Salzburg Festival or the Met approach to contemporary repertoire and order new operas to make certain part of mass media like them, to establish that theaters are not museums, that they do follow a trend and, but only partially, to attract a kind of audience which has seen everything and looks for something new. 
Look at an average cinema's schedule. Are there many titles from Festival de Cannes or Berlinale or even if Sundance?


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

BBSVK said:


> No no no, I would have to see some statistic first, to believe it.
> Inclusion of the singers of various ethnicities - fine.
> But the idea, that Afro or Latino- American people will reject Verdi, and want to see Achnaten, Eurydice or Dean's Hamlet or Saariaho instead - I doubt it.


It's not about evidence, what's important is lived experience. Perhaps I should not have limited it to just race, the audience will be more inclusive of LBGT+ people if modern opera is focused on. This will have a knock-on effect as more diverse audiences gain confidence as they know they are being catered for. Take transgender people, when given a chance and they are included in a safe environment, for example in women's competitive swimming, they thrive. Opera/classical music cannot lag behind other avenues of life and culture if it is to survive into the next century.


----------



## BBSVK (10 mo ago)

HenryPenfold said:


> It's not about evidence, what's important is lived experience. Perhaps I should not have limited it to just race, the audience will be more inclusive of LBGT+ people if modern opera is focused on. This will have a knock-on effect as more diverse audiences gain confidence as they know they are being catered for. Take transgender people, when given a chance and they included in a safe environment instead, for example in women's competitive swimming, they thrive. Opera/classical music cannot lag behind other avenues of life and culture if it is to survive into the next century.



Sports are different than opera. 

Having opera with LGBT themes - in might interest this particular minority, sure. But I do not expect it to make major difference, because the reasons people go to opera are not predominantly political. Believing such topics will increase the ticket sales and save the opera houses from closing - it is so very much against my intuition, that I will require an evidence for this.

Speaking about LGBT in the existing situation, there is already now a stereotype of gay men having a special connection to opera. I have no idea why. However, I attend operatic lectures based in two different countries and both teachers are gay. Also, I became familiar with the aria "La mamma morta" through the film Philadelphia, which focuses on gay rights. Several people here on opera forum are openly gay. My most favorite facebook place to discuss opera is a wall of another gay man. So at least this minority doesn't seem to need new works with political messages to connect to opera well.


----------



## Amara (Jan 12, 2012)

The New York Times article on the topic is worth a read: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/26/arts/music/metropolitan-opera-endowment-contemporary.html

Post-pandemic, contemporary works are outselling the classics for the first time. NYT notes the average age of Met ticket buyers dropped from 57 to 52.



> While attendance has been generally anemic, contemporary works including Terence Blanchard’s “Fire Shut Up in My Bones” last season and Kevin Puts’s “The Hours” this season drew sellout crowds. (Verdi’s “Don Carlo,” by contrast, ended its run this month with 40 percent attendance.)
> 
> From now on, Mr. Gelb said, the Met will open each season with a new production of a contemporary work.
> 
> It will begin next year with the company premiere of Jake Heggie’s “Dead Man Walking” and the season will feature its first performances of Anthony Davis’s “X: The Life and Times of Malcolm X”; Daniel Catán’s “Florencia en el Amazonas” and a staged production of John Adams’s “El Niño.” And Mr. Gelb said that the Met was rearranging next season to bring back “Fire Shut Up in My Bones” and “The Hours,” with its three divas, Renée Fleming, Joyce DiDonato and Kelli O’Hara, reprising their roles.


It's nice that the Met is responding to audience demand. This is the only way to survive.

I'm in the unusual position of having become an opera fan through the Met HDs, my first of which just so happened to be a contemporary opera, Satyagraha, when I was almost 26. I'm 37 now. Before that, the only opera I had seen was Carmen at age 18 on DVD in a college course; at the time I didn't care for it and it didn't make me want to see more opera.

Satyagraha was not only an interesting musical experience, but also theatrically riveting and historically fascinating. It offered something new and enriching to me, so I kept going to the HDs, Rodelinda then Faust, which was the first opera where I started getting into the music itself and began listening to recordings on my own. So, in my own experience, I can attest that contemporary opera can be successfully used as a gateway to the artform and becoming a fan of the classics.

I go to practically all the HDs every year, but 11 years as an opera fan is more than enough time to start getting sick of seeing the same operas over and over. I am thrilled whenever the Met offers a title I've never heard before, like Medea and the upcoming Fedora.

At this point I really want to be introduced to works I haven't seen before, so the news of the Met's new commitment to modern works is exciting. Performing six contemporary operas next season has to be a Met record! (I wonder how the orchestra feels about learning four Met premieres next season.)

While contemporary opera can be a mixed bag, for every Eurydice or Marnie (which I wouldn't care to see again), there are hits like Fire Shut Up in My Bones and Akhnaten. I can be skeptical going in to modern operas, but for me they are worth giving a chance. I was fully expecting to hate The Hours, but I ended up loving it.

Of the four Met premieres, which are you most looking forward to, and have you heard any of them before?

Jake Heggie’s “Dead Man Walking”
Anthony Davis’s “X: The Life and Times of Malcolm X”
Daniel Catán’s “Florencia en el Amazonas”
John Adams’ “El Niño”
X seems most interesting to me, but I'm also excited to hear my first Spanish-language opera with Florencia. This may make for the most exciting HD season yet.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Ain't it just wonderful to be an "innocence-is-bliss" person?
I just adore opera and mainly the music even more than the singing.
Life for me is good!


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

HenryPenfold said:


> It's not about evidence, what's important is lived experience. Perhaps I should not have limited it to just race, the audience will be more inclusive of LBGT+ people if modern opera is focused on. This will have a knock-on effect as more diverse audiences gain confidence as they know they are being catered for. Take transgender people, when given a chance and they are included in a safe environment, for example in women's competitive swimming, they thrive. Opera/classical music cannot lag behind other avenues of life and culture if it is to survive into the next century.


Opera can't really be inclusive until it attracts an audience that includes people who can't sing. Perhaps that explains some of the casting decisions of recent seasons!

N.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

The Conte said:


> Opera can't really be inclusive until it attracts an audience that includes people who can't sing. Perhaps that explains some of the casting decisions of recent seasons!
> 
> N.


But 'singing ability' is narrowly and culturally defined and in opera it is symptomatic of white privilege and systemic racism. Casting decisions are notoriously discriminatory when they are purely based on 'singing ability'. How many Latino Carmens or Marias can you count? I think the recent decision by the Met, whilst not specifically designed to address inequality and systemic racism, will have a beneficial impact in that regard. If more avenues of western classical 'art' also 'took the knee' so as to speak, we may see some progress. The recent discussion concerning the removal of 'blind auditions' is a welcome's move. In this way, more inclusive and diverse casting decisions can be made.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

The Conte said:


> Opera can't really be inclusive until it attracts an audience that includes people who can't sing. Perhaps that explains some of the casting decisions of recent seasons!
> 
> N.


Im sure a lot of the Met audience can’t sing, or am I misunderstanding your point?


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

MAS said:


> Im sure a lot of the Met audience can’t sing, or am I misunderstanding your point?


People who sing badly are oppressed by traditional concepts of good singing such as intonation, musicianship and clear diction. In order to level the playing field we need more Netrebkos so that those who can't sing can identify more with those they see on stage.

N.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

The Conte said:


> People who sing badly are oppressed by traditional concepts of good singing such as intonation, musicianship and clear diction. In order to level the playing field we need more Netrebkos so that those who can't sing can identify more with those they see on stage.
> 
> N.


Agreed. It's about breaking down barriers. Culturally discriminatory barriers. Some might say the Met are just being cynical and seeking to steal a march on their commercial rivals, but I think their current management regime genuinely believe in a fairer, more egalitarian world (as I hope we all do).


----------



## PaulFranz (May 7, 2019)

EDIT: I took the bait


----------



## PaulFranz (May 7, 2019)

Seattleoperafan said:


> Regarding African Americans they have always turned out in droves to support the opera when black stars were there. The still did for Lawrence Brownlee when he was here in his amazing concert recently . The problem is that in the past some of the biggest names in opera were African American: Norman, Price, Verrett, Bumbry and Battle but there are so few black stars of the opera currently that have the type of draw that they had. We have some good black opera stars today but none that are stellar. I don't know if we can keep them coming without some big name black opera stars to draw them. Seattle has been good about having diverse casts but the Black stars that we have liked here have never caught on elsewhere such as our recent Isolde. I am from Jackson Mississippi and we had an all black opera company that put on an incredible Turandot with my sister's old roommate in the title role back 50 years ago, but support for it has dried up since then. This was during the time when there were so many big black names in opera and the community was conscious about opera but things have changed.


How do we convince Black Americans to be less racist and just appreciate music for its objective qualities?


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

The Conte said:


> Opera can't really be inclusive until it attracts an audience that includes people who can't sing. Perhaps that explains some of the casting decisions of recent seasons!
> 
> N.


That is so mean and so brilliant at the same time!!!!


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

mbhaub said:


> Embrace contemporary works? That's not gonna work. For the MET to operate they need to sell lots and lots of tickets and that means more Puccini, Verdi and maybe Wagner. Same as the New York Philharmonic: people want to hear safe, great music mostly from the 19th C. The demand for operas even by the "better" modern composers like John Adams or Philip Glass are not massively popular. My local opera company does at least one modern opera every season and there has been not one that I'm champing at the bit to hear again. Not one had the soaring arias of Puccini. In fact, doing too much modern opera will likely drive the remaining patrons away.


 Yes, whenever a major opera company such as the Met does a world premiere of an opera by a contemporary composer or a New York premiere of one that has been premiered elsewhere, it's a crap shoot . Thousands of operas written since the early 17th century have been deservedly forgotten , but more do deserve top be revived than most opera fans realize . 
I haven't seen or heard. "The Hours " buy Kevin. Puts yet , but I am certainly curious to experience it , and. while not every critic liked it , the audience response has apparently been quite favorable . "Fire Stuck Up In My Bones " , by terence Blanchard, the first opera by an African American composer done by the Met, was a genuine audience success last year , and I enjoyed the PBS telecast . I will have to har it again , too .
I think it's a terrific idea for the Met to do more to promote contemporary opera , but it can still. do the beloved staples of the repertoire by Mozart, Verdi ,. Puccini, Donizetti , Bizet et al , and there are also so many wonderful. lesser known operas. from the past the Met has and could do . I was very glad to have the Met do its first production of. Cherubini's "Medea " which opened the current Met season . For the Met to do nothing but La Boheme, Tosca, Madama Butterfly , Rigoletto, Carmen , La Traviata et al. would be. terrible . It's vital for the Met to expand its repertoire , and fortunately, this has been happening lately, and. next season and upcoming ones look very promising . We just can't allow the operatic repertoire to stagnate .


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

PaulFranz said:


> How do we convince Black Americans to be less racist and just appreciate music for its objective qualities?


How do we stop young white American and European straight(ish) guys from listening to angry urban rap music? I dated a young guy who did and I tried to play wonderful R and B from the 70's and he shrugged. He was sure cute though. We did not listen to music together... thank god. ONLY Ed Sullivan had the power to influence and he and his kind are gone with the wind.


----------



## PaulFranz (May 7, 2019)

superhorn said:


> Yes, whenever a major opera company such as the Met does a world premiere of an opera by a contemporary composer or a New York premiere of one that has been premiered elsewhere, it's a crap shoot . Thousands of operas written since the early 17th century have been deservedly forgotten , but more do deserve top be revived than most opera fans realize .
> I haven't seen or heard. "The Hours " buy Kevin. Puts yet , but I am certainly curious to experience it , and. while not every critic liked it , the audience response has apparently been quite favorable . "Fire Stuck Up In My Bones " , by terence Blanchard, the first opera by an African American composer done by the Met, was a genuine audience success last year , and I enjoyed the PBS telecast . I will have to har it again , too .
> I think it's a terrific idea for the Met to do more to promote contemporary opera , but it can still. do the beloved staples of the repertoire by Mozart, Verdi ,. Puccini, Donizetti , Bizet et al , and there are also so many wonderful. lesser known operas. from the past the Met has and could do . I was very glad to have the Met do its first production of. Cherubini's "Medea " which opened the current Met season . For the Met to do nothing but La Boheme, Tosca, Madama Butterfly , Rigoletto, Carmen , La Traviata et al. would be. terrible . It's vital for the Met to expand its repertoire , and fortunately, this has been happening lately, and. next season and upcoming ones look very promising . We just can't allow the operatic repertoire to stagnate .


It's up to modern composers to write operas with melodies and a preponderance of consonance. They don't seem to give a **** about that, so we can't stage their works and make money.


----------



## PaulFranz (May 7, 2019)

Seattleoperafan said:


> How do we stop young white American and European straight(ish) guys from listening to angry urban rap music? I dated a young guy who did and I tried to play wonderful R and B from the 70's and he shrugged. He was sure cute though. We did not listen to music together... thank god. ONLY Ed Sullivan had the power to influence and he and his kind are gone with the wind.


You were his only hope! The only way to get people to change their tastes is by having sex with them and using that power dynamic to get them to listen to our music!


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

PaulFranz said:


> You were his only hope! The only way to get people to change their tastes is by having sex with them and using that power dynamic to get them to listen to our music!


He was the one I played Callas in Armida for and he asked me to turn it off.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

PaulFranz said:


> You were his only hope! The only way to get people to change their tastes is by having sex with them and using that power dynamic to get them to listen to our music!


Is this a satirical post: Staking out an absurd extreme position and stating as if you are being serious?


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

PaulFranz said:


> It's up to modern composers to write operas with melodies and a preponderance of consonance. They don't seem to give a **** about that, so we can't stage their works and make money.


I don't think it's up to composers to write melodies and consonant music. A lot of people find that boring and outdated. I'm sure the older generations are not going to find themselves at a shortage of Verdi and Wagner any time soon, however much push there is to stage modern works. But younger generations seem to be more adventurous and enjoy modern music regardless of whether or not you can go away humming an aria all evening. My partner had little previous experience with opera and classical music and from what I've introduced him to he doesn't have any preference between works such as Die Walkure and L'Amour de Loin. The modern language of music simply isn't that radical anymore, people are used to it from film scores etc. The Rite of Spring is over 100 years old, Boulez is dead. This music is certainly being embraced more and more and given that Wagner sounds pretty absurd being sung by little voices in massive theatres I don't lament a shift away from the core repertoire of Mozart, Verdi, Wagner and Puccini. 

Opera is an artform which has lost part of its soul in recent decades. There are no longer the big, beautiful voices of the past. Little sense of legato and line essential for the long melodies of bel canto opera and diction which is all but unintelligible. Stages are 'modernised' in non-sensical ways while the music remains that of 19th century Italy. Directors ask their singers to act as though they were on screen and rarely have interest in the musical tradition of the works they are staging. This is all very unfortunate but as much as I would love to hear the voices of the past I don't see the path for this artform as one that needs to double back on itself. I am happy with my records of Callas singing Norma and Melchior as Tristan, yet we don't even have studio recordings of unqualified masterpieces such as Unsuk Chin's 'Alice in Wonderland' and Harrison Birtwistle's 'The Minotaur'. Since another Ponselle looks unlikely to pop up any time soon I'm more than happy for new music to be written and performed which suits the voices of today. Rather than try to make Tristan und Isolde a parable of drug addiction have new operas written on contemporary topics. I know there are people out there who prefer the old styles of music, and a lot of time I do too, but contemporary music needs as a big of a boost as it can get while the classical/romantic repertoire still dominates the world's stages.

I didn't mention the need for inclusiveness and the role that new music has to play in this as it really should go without saying that it is of utmost importance.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> Is this a satirical post: Staking out an absurd extreme position and stating as if you are being serious?


No! Absolutely every, single comment in this thread is 100% serious.

Including this one.

N.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

PaulFranz said:


> Wobbles are objectively bad….. The Met hasn't had a good male soloist in decades. It's really, really bad.


You say such good things and then you say such …… subjective things! Your points are closer to objectivity, your summation misses by a mile! I don’t need to respond every time someone on here regrets the state of modern singing but since I love the Met, I have a desire to respond to absurd levels of criticism. Clayton, Mattei, Calleja, Kaufman, Terfel, Hvorostovsky, Pape, Domingo ( the baritone tenor) , Beczala, Finley, Kelsey, Florez, Grigolo, Heppner, Keenlyside, Camarena, Hampson, Licitra, Alvarez…. Wobbles ARE objectively bad, and singers who accomplished what all of them accomplished ARE objectively good! What you failed to acknowledge is that for your summative remark, you switched to subjective! And one more. ………when I was young I burned a pretty deep groove in Hans Hotter’s recording of Wotan’s farewell. Through every last wobble I heard uncommon sadness and beauty.


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

ScottK said:


> You say such good things and then you say such …… subjective things! Your points are closer to objectivity, your summation misses by a mile! I don’t need to respond every time someone on here regrets the state of modern singing but since I love the Met, I have a desire to respond to absurd levels of criticism. Clayton, Mattei, Calleja, Kaufman, Terfel, Hvorostovsky, Pape, Domingo ( the baritone tenor) , Beczala, Finley, Kelsey, Florez, Grigolo, Heppner, Keenlyside, Camarena, Hampson, Licitra, Alvarez…. Wobbles ARE objectively bad, and singers who accomplished what all of them accomplished ARE objectively good! What you failed to acknowledge is that for your summative remark, you switched to subjective! And one more. ………when I was young I burned a pretty deep groove in Hans Hotter’s recording of Wotan’s farewell. Through every last wobble I heard uncommon sadness and beauty.


Those singers you mentioned mostly have poor technique for the repertoire they sing, or at least multiple notable faults. Does this make them bad? To me, yes. Some faults are less serious than others but I don't think it's subjective to call those with noticeable constriction, wobbles, overly nasal and swallowed voices bad. Certainly they are successful in their field but success does not necessarily relate to quality. Whether or not you enjoy them is subjective. But their faults aren't. I can enjoy this singing too, usually in contemporary works where composers have written music which fits these voices far better than Verdi's music for example, but I still wouldn't deny their faults or find their success indicative of objectively good singing.


----------



## PaulFranz (May 7, 2019)

ScottK said:


> You say such good things and then you say such …… subjective things! Your points are closer to objectivity, your summation misses by a mile! I don’t need to respond every time someone on here regrets the state of modern singing but since I love the Met, I have a desire to respond to absurd levels of criticism. Clayton, Mattei, Calleja, Kaufman, Terfel, Hvorostovsky, Pape, Domingo ( the baritone tenor) , Beczala, Finley, Kelsey, Florez, Grigolo, Heppner, Keenlyside, Camarena, Hampson, Licitra, Alvarez…. Wobbles ARE objectively bad, and singers who accomplished what all of them accomplished ARE objectively good! What you failed to acknowledge is that for your summative remark, you switched to subjective! And one more. ………when I was young I burned a pretty deep groove in Hans Hotter’s recording of Wotan’s farewell. Through every last wobble I heard uncommon sadness and beauty.


The only one of those I'd call (consistently) good in opera is Domingo, and he was last good decades ago. Most of my points have a subjective core: anyone is allowed to like anything, even flat singing and wobbling and spitting. I just don't feel the need to highlight the subjective nature of this discourse. So be warned: you won't like my assessments of those singers, even though I feel that these assessments are based on the qualities you have called objective.

Btw, the fact that lighter singers like Florez and Beczała have developed such nasty wobbles up high is a massive indictment on how modern singers sing. Florez was okay, but underpowered, in his prime, and Beczała was quite good in lighter stuff, again for a very short time. He declined into one of the ugliest voices I have ever heard in my entire life. Heppner was very good in his early prime too, I'd say. But even the ones who start off sounding good start sounding bad very, very soon. And most of that list never sounded particularly good, especially the low voices. Hampson had a promising start, before the wobbles and breathiness...and that, too, was many decades ago. He's nice in his Christmas album with Kiri and Roberto Alagna...I think he would've sounded nice just sticking to that rep. I have no interest in how Finley, Kelsey, Mattei, or Keenlyside sing. In fact, I have a very strong negative reaction to it. It makes me very uncomfortable. It sounds manufactured and uncomfortable to them.


----------



## PaulFranz (May 7, 2019)

SanAntone said:


> Is this a satirical post: Staking out an absurd extreme position and stating as if you are being serious?


...maybe not the ONLY way, but it's time-tested.


----------



## PaulFranz (May 7, 2019)

Op.123 said:


> I don't think it's up to composers to write melodies and consonant music. A lot of people find that boring and outdated.


Ticket and recording sales very strongly dispute this assertion.

Also, most people, even classical musicians, do not listen primarily to classical music. Most people listen to extremely consonant, melodic music day in and day out from a very early age. It's all that's on the radio. It's all that's ever been popular on the radio. It forms our fundamental tastes.

Does anyone get inspired to take up vocal training because of Lulu or L'heure espagnole? Human ears and minds have limits. Most of the film music in the films I see is less dissonant than mainstream classical music from 1890. I like some modern stuff, but it does not show off great voices, and great voices are what opera is all about. I understand that that's why you think more contemporary stuff should be staged, but I strongly disagree that modern voices are somehow suited for that music. 

I don't think modern classical singing is suited for any music at all. It violates basic precepts of singing since time immemorial. It's unclear, unsteady, and uneasy. Even if you're only saying that classical/romantic rep punishes these flaws more than contemporary rep, I still don't agree, because contemporary rep has lots of difficult intervals and dissonances that require especially good tuning and vocal focus.

I would rather they just learn how to sing instead of trying to fit a dodecahedron into a square hole.


----------



## PaulFranz (May 7, 2019)

Seattleoperafan said:


> He was the one I played Callas in Armida for and he asked me to turn it off.


Callas can be a bit much.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Op.123 said:


> Those singers you mentioned mostly have poor technique for the repertoire they sing, or at least multiple notable faults. Does this make them bad? To me, yes. Some faults are less serious than others but I don't think it's subjective to call those with noticeable constriction, wobbles, overly nasal and swallowed voices bad. Certainly they are successful in their field but success does not necessarily relate to quality. Whether or not you enjoy them is subjective. But their faults aren't. I can enjoy this singing too, usually in contemporary works where composers have written music which fits these voices far better than Verdi's music for example, but I still wouldn't deny their faults or find their success indicative of objectively good singing.


When I was younger I dismissed Bjoerling because on so many recordings I owned, the upper voice was pushed, the top hard and the emotional investment not there. Tibbet was great but Boccanegra was supposed to be one of his major successes and already the voice had fallen way off, no where near the early stuff. I grew out of all that Gigli sweet sound - much of it practically falsetto- by the time I was twenty. Caruso’s sound was all attractive but there were so many different sounds as he ascended the register… not my idea of an integrated voice. Callas, I couldn’t listen to. Siepi was unfocused, Christoff and London had hard sounds,Schipa was an unusual sound and an artist but certainly not a great operatic voice, certainly on the nasal side of things. fischer-dieskaus voice was coming apart at forte, Caballe wobbled at forte, Gobbi was memorable and artistic but the sound was so thin. Martinelli so compressed and tight, Crooks nasal, Domingo always the same, Melchior was cool . I genuinely had every response I mentioned. I heard them. So objectively, I guess, they’re all not good singers. I responded because of…,..” Not a good male singer at the Met in decades”. AFTER the word “objective “ had been invoked repeatedly. Having detected a fault, is “good singer”. still attainable? Is the one with the best technique, the best singer?


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

PaulFranz said:


> The only one of those I'd call (consistently) good in opera is Domingo, and he was last good decades ago. Most of my points have a subjective core: anyone is allowed to like anything, even flat singing and wobbling and spitting. I just don't feel the need to highlight the subjective nature of this discourse. So be warned: you won't like my assessments of those singers, even though I feel that these assessments are based on the qualities you have called objective.
> 
> Btw, the fact that lighter singers like Florez and Beczała have developed such nasty wobbles up high is a massive indictment on how modern singers sing. Florez was okay, but underpowered, in his prime, and Beczała was quite good in lighter stuff, again for a very short time. He declined into one of the ugliest voices I have ever heard in my entire life. Heppner was very good in his early prime too, I'd say. But even the ones who start off sounding good start sounding bad very, very soon. And most of that list never sounded particularly good, especially the low voices. Hampson had a promising start, before the wobbles and breathiness...and that, too, was many decades ago. He's nice in his Christmas album with Kiri and Roberto Alagna...I think he would've sounded nice just sticking to that rep. I have no interest in how Finley, Kelsey, Mattei, or Keenlyside sing. In fact, I have a very strong negative reaction to it. It makes me very uncomfortable. It sounds manufactured and uncomfortable to them.


I truly believe you guys make way too much out of the vocal faults. Everyone’s got them everyone everyone. Fixing vocal faults is important but it is not the most reliable way to move people! I believe Auden completely… We remember that which moves us! Artistry moves me, and I think it’s what moves most people. Alan Clayton blew me out of the water with his Grimes and his singing was not too shabby either! I saw, but remember little of Hampsons Count when he was young, but his Iago, 5 to 10 years ago was phenomenal! You heard Bezcala wobble OK? I certainly believe you, but I heard him sing the Duke live last year . Did he sound like Pavarotti? No. Were tones tight? Yes. but he had nothing to apologize for! He was a good duke. And my big, “taking exception” is to the idea that there are no “good” singers. I’m not interested in the discussion of how far up the ladder Beczala is placed, but in my book he’s certainly a good opera singer and I am definitely planning to see his Lohengrin.., if the Mets still open!


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

PaulFranz said:


> Ticket and recording sales very strongly dispute this assertion.
> 
> Also, most people, even classical musicians, do not listen primarily to classical music. Most people listen to extremely consonant, melodic music day in and day out from a very early age. It's all that's on the radio. It's all that's ever been popular on the radio. It forms our fundamental tastes.
> 
> ...


This seems a very narrow concept of what music should be. People don't always listen to classical music for the same reasons they listen to popular music and there is already plenty of tonal classical music out there. We should not encourage conservatism in classical music and there's no reason to not compose modern music because other genres are tonal and melodic. Rap, RnB and Pop all manage to be relevant and modern within tonal boundaries but this is partly to do with the lyrics and partly to do with the fact they give far more prominence to the sound profiles etc. of the songs than the musical processes. The audience for classical music is undoubtedly a good proportion older white people but I don't think it's at all a bad thing to look to attract younger, more diverse, audiences and for my experience people of my generation are far more open to this music than you seem to think. Of course there are some extreme works which are challenging for even those experienced with contemporary classical music. But works such as Saariaho's L'Amour de Loin and Chin's Alice in Wonderland are very accessible and can be completely captivating. And it's not as if every culture on earth has always created tonal, melody centered music. A quick glance at the history of world music will show you that, for instance, Japanese Gagaku sounds a world away from consonant European classical music. It's fine to enjoy tonal music and to dislike modern works written outside of tonal boundaries but it's another thing to dismiss it entirely. There's certainly a conservative culture to classical music and venues will want to cater to that audience as not to lose their financial contributions but I'm defintiely one of those who wants to see the back of that conservatism.

As for modern voices not being suited to modern works. I agree the flaws in the voices do not suddenly become irrelevant but composers can write music which shows those voices in the best light possible and make a much more enjoyable experience than a new performance of an opera such as Il Trovatore. Listen to Hans Abrahamsen's 'Let me tell you' with Barbara Hannigan for instance. An extremely beautiful and moving work sung by a voice that I definitely wouldn't want to hear in Verdi but sounds quite lovely in this music. 

And while many singers may be inspired by hearing Verdi or Mozart I found that those students at the conservatoire most interested in music making were those with a keen interest in contemporary music and getting involved with what was happening in the current culture.


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

ScottK said:


> When I was younger I dismissed Bjoerling because on so many recordings I owned, the upper voice was pushed, the top hard and the emotional investment not there. Tibbet was great but Boccanegra was supposed to be one of his major successes and already the voice had fallen way off, no where near the early stuff. I grew out of all that Gigli sweet sound - much of it practically falsetto- by the time I was twenty. Caruso’s sound was all attractive but there were so many different sounds as he ascended the register… not my idea of an integrated voice. Callas, I couldn’t listen to. Siepi was unfocused, Christoff and London had hard sounds,Schipa was an unusual sound and an artist but certainly not a great operatic voice, certainly on the nasal side of things. fischer-dieskaus voice was coming apart at forte, Caballe wobbled at forte, Gobbi was memorable and artistic but the sound was so thin. Martinelli so compressed and tight, Crooks nasal, Domingo always the same, Melchior was cool . I genuinely had every response I mentioned. I heard them. So objectively, I guess, they’re all not good singers. I responded because of…,..” Not a good male singer at the Met in decades”. AFTER the word “objective “ had been invoked repeatedly. Having detected a fault, is “good singer”. still attainable? Is the one with the best technique, the best singer?


Objectively means that you are talking about facts rather than opinions. Of the faults you have mentioned some are genuine, others are just opinion which is subjective. You not responding to Gigli's used of head voice does not objectively make him bad. Martinelli did have a tightness but the voice was big and ringing, still a lot better than current 'dramatic tenors'. An imperfect singer, yes. A bad singer, no, certainly not in his prime. Callas was extraordinary in her prime, but by the end of her career she was not a good singer, still infused with artistry but not good. But even then she knew not to cover her troubles with artificial sound. DFD was not a great singer at all. Gobbi's sound was lean but not thin, he had plenty of resonance, he just was not gifted with a great instrument like Tibbetts. To find Tibbett's Boccanegra difficult to listen to and Caruso too unintergrated but praise some of those you mentioned above is a sign that maybe there is not so much I can say here that is going to explain vocal technique accessibly. I will just say that it is difficult to get a proper impression of a singers sound from recordings unless you have a good understanding of acoustics and how the human ear experiences the harmonic makeup of different voices. To an untrained ear Florez and Schipa might sound similar at first listen but once you are able to distinguish the different aspects of a singers voice they suddenly sound a world apart.


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

ScottK said:


> I truly believe you guys make way too much out of the vocal faults. Everyone’s got them everyone everyone. Fixing vocal faults is important but it is not the most reliable way to move people! I believe Auden completely… We remember that which moves us! Artistry moves me, and I think it’s what moves most people. Alan Clayton blew me out of the water with his Grimes and his singing was not too shabby either! I saw, but remember little of Hampsons Count when he was young, but his Iago, 5 to 10 years ago was phenomenal! You heard Bezcala wobble OK? I certainly believe you, but I heard him sing the Duke live last year . Did he sound like Pavarotti? No. Were tones tight? Yes. but he had nothing to apologize for! He was a good duke. And my big, “taking exception” is to the idea that there are no “good” singers. I’m not interested in the discussion of how far up the ladder Beczala is placed, but in my book he’s certainly a good opera singer and I am definitely planning to see his Lohengrin.., if the Mets still open!


If you want to see these singers that's good, and don't feel bad about enjoying them. But there's a reason opera now gets characterised as screechy, wobbly and unpleasant to an extent it never was 100 years ago, and that's to do with the quality of the voices and the quality of the voices alone.


----------



## PaulFranz (May 7, 2019)

ScottK said:


> When I was younger I dismissed Bjoerling because on so many recordings I owned, the upper voice was pushed, the top hard and the emotional investment not there. Tibbet was great but Boccanegra was supposed to be one of his major successes and already the voice had fallen way off, no where near the early stuff. I grew out of all that Gigli sweet sound - much of it practically falsetto- by the time I was twenty. Caruso’s sound was all attractive but there were so many different sounds as he ascended the register… not my idea of an integrated voice. Callas, I couldn’t listen to. Siepi was unfocused, Christoff and London had hard sounds,Schipa was an unusual sound and an artist but certainly not a great operatic voice, certainly on the nasal side of things. fischer-dieskaus voice was coming apart at forte, Caballe wobbled at forte, Gobbi was memorable and artistic but the sound was so thin. Martinelli so compressed and tight, Crooks nasal, Domingo always the same, Melchior was cool . I genuinely had every response I mentioned. I heard them. So objectively, I guess, they’re all not good singers. I responded because of…,..” Not a good male singer at the Met in decades”. AFTER the word “objective “ had been invoked repeatedly. Having detected a fault, is “good singer”. still attainable? Is the one with the best technique, the best singer?


Boccanegra was in 1935, well within Tibbett's prime.

That said, I agree with almost all of your assessments. I refuse to listen to many of those singers precisely because of those reasons. However, at least some of them could still be "good" singers because of other things they bring to their art that balance out their flaws. I do not hear those redeeming qualities in the recent male singers we were discussing. And some flaws are, of course, worse than others.

For what it's worth, I hear many, many flaws in Jussi, but I still regard him as the single best singer on record. Classical singing has room for lots and lots of flaws (which I believe is your point), but you still need to make up for it where it counts. 

Personally, I am particularly sensitive to wobbles, so that's probably the worst flaw to me. Yet I still love Fleta, Pirogov, and old McCormack...so even that one can be worked around with the right craftsmanship, apparently. By contrast, only the worst caprini are dealbreakers for me now: Franci, Bonci, etc.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Op.123 said:


> If you want to see these singers that's good, and don't feel bad about enjoying them. But there's a reason opera now gets characterised as screechy, wobbly and unpleasant to an extent it never was 100 years ago, and that's to do with the quality of the voices and the quality of the voices alone.


I can only speak from 60 years ago, and I can tell you the operatic sound, either in the quickest caricatures, or in discussion about musical tastes has always been characterized by overly deep overly vibratoed sound by people who do not like opera. My cousin is a retired member of foreigner, and he says the vibrato is the thing he could never get past and he went to the Berkelee school of music in the 70s. None of those things you mentioned are new. Not in the least!


----------



## PaulFranz (May 7, 2019)

ScottK said:


> I’m not interested in the discussion of how far up the ladder Beczala is placed, but in my book he’s certainly a good opera singer and I am definitely planning to see his Lohengrin.., if the Mets still open!


Incomprehensible. His high notes are unbelievably sharp, squeezed, and with a monster-truck of a wobble. I mean, at some point we need some standards.


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

ScottK said:


> I can only speak from 60 years ago, and I can tell you the operatic sound, either in the quickest caricatures, or in discussion about musical tastes has always been characterized by overly deep overly vibratoed sound by people who do not like opera. My cousin is a retired member of foreigner, and he says the vibrato is the thing he could never get past and he went to the Berkelee school of music in the 70s. None of those things you mentioned are new. Not in the least!


Even by the 70s the standard was in sharp decline. During the early 20th century, around 1910 opera was the most popular artform in the western world. This wouldn't be the case if it were characterised as wobbly, screechy etc. that is something that has seemingly become increasingly common WWII and is now pretty much the standard perception.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

The Boccanegra duet recording passed along to me, I assume was later, but if it was around 35, it makes the case only more strongly. He sounded bad. Your assessment of “my point” is pretty much accurate with the added detail that flawed voices can “sound” phenomenal ! The word “ good” in your post -back a few- was the operative word. However your concessions about the early careers of Hampson Domingo Beczala make me feel that yours and my individual ways of expressing ourselves may account for some differences. I’m led to one non-rhetorical and non- sarcastic question. I mention that last because it almost sounds sarcastic to me! Do you listen to much live? Andddd….. are your circumstances such - proximity- that you would go to more if the singers excited you more?


----------



## PaulFranz (May 7, 2019)

Op.123 said:


> This seems a very narrow concept of what music should be. People don't always listen to classical music for the same reasons they listen to popular music and there is already plenty of tonal classical music out there. We should not encourage conservatism in classical music and there's no reason to not compose modern music because other genres are tonal and melodic. Rap, RnB and Pop all manage to be relevant and modern within tonal boundaries but this is partly to do with the lyrics and partly to do with the fact they give far more prominence to the sound profiles etc. of the songs than the musical processes. The audience for classical music is undoubtedly a good proportion older white people but I don't think it's at all a bad thing to look to attract younger, more diverse, audiences and for my experience people of my generation are far more open to this music than you seem to think. Of course there are some extreme works which are challenging for even those experienced with contemporary classical music. But works such as Saariaho's L'Amour de Loin and Chin's Alice in Wonderland are very accessible and can be completely captivating. And it's not as if every culture on earth has always created tonal, melody centered music. A quick glance at the history of world music will show you that, for instance, Japanese Gagaku sounds a world away from consonant European classical music. It's fine to enjoy tonal music and to dislike modern works written outside of tonal boundaries but it's another thing to dismiss it entirely. There's certainly a conservative culture to classical music and venues will want to cater to that audience as not to lose their financial contributions but I'm defintiely one of those who wants to see the back of that conservatism.
> 
> As for modern voices not being suited to modern works. I agree the flaws in the voices do not suddenly become irrelevant but composers can write music which shows those voices in the best light possible and make a much more enjoyable experience than a new performance of an opera such as Il Trovatore. Listen to Hans Abrahamsen's 'Let me tell you' with Barbara Hannigan for instance. An extremely beautiful and moving work sung by a voice that I definitely wouldn't want to hear in Verdi but sounds quite lovely in this music.
> 
> And while many singers may be inspired by hearing Verdi or Mozart I found that those students at the conservatoire most interested in music making were those with a keen interest in contemporary music and getting involved with what was happening in the current culture.


"This seems a very narrow concept of what music should be" *if you want to sell tickets.

I don't know what world this is that you live in where young, diverse audiences are clamoring for contemporary opera, but it isn't one I've ever seen. Diverse always means less White, and you mentioned tonality a lot, so you're saying that non-Whites are more into atonal music than Whites? Are we talking about something besides experimental jazz musicians? I have no idea who these invented people are, but in my experience in the United States, the largest non-White groups, the Black and Hispanic populations, listen overwhelmingly to rap, R&B, and rap-pop. 

The bridge from prog-rock and metal (White-dominated genres) to modern classical is much simpler than the bridge from Beyoncé, Usher, John Legend, etc.


----------



## PaulFranz (May 7, 2019)

ScottK said:


> The Boccanegra duet recording passed along to me, I assume was later, but if it was around 35, it makes the case only more strongly. He sounded bad. Your assessment of “my point” is pretty much accurate with the added detail that flawed voices can “sound” phenomenal ! The word “ good” in your post -back a few- was the operative word. However your concessions about the early careers of Hampson Domingo Beczala make me feel that yours and my individual ways of expressing ourselves may account for some differences. I’m led to one non-rhetorical and non- sarcastic question. I mention that last because it almost sounds sarcastic to me! Do you listen to much live? Andddd….. are your circumstances such - proximity- that you would go to more if the singers excited you more?


Maybe we're thinking of different recordings--I saw one from 1939 just now.

I meant this one:






Tibbett was still mostly fine in 1939 though...I haven't heard that Boccanegra, but his Rigoletto from that year is still excellent, if not at the 35 standards.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Domingo far outclassed him and he couldn’t sing the notes!!!!!! Just barely Got away with the end of the aria and cracked the offstage note. In trovatore splatted the high B. Go ahead Mr standards …. Who’s the better tenor?? If your going to count mistakes - which sounds like your idea of “standards” - I’m sorry but you sound like you’re sitting there spinning records going “aha.. good….I found another mistake!”


----------



## PaulFranz (May 7, 2019)

ScottK said:


> Do you listen to much live? Andddd….. are your circumstances such - proximity- that you would go to more if the singers excited you more?


I only hear modern singers live now when I sing with them. I will not pay (anymore) to hear music I hate. I would go regularly if the singers excited me, yes.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

PaulFranz said:


> Incomprehensible. His high notes are unbelievably sharp, squeezed, and with a monster-truck of a wobble. I mean, at some point we need some standards.


Domingo far outclassed him and he couldn’t sing the notes!!!!!! Just barely Got away with the end of the aria and cracked the offstage note. In trovatore splatted the high B. Who’s the better tenor?? You hear a sound, and you say it’s to an unacceptable degree, but someone else will have a different response. This stuff is not absolute.


----------



## PaulFranz (May 7, 2019)

ScottK said:


> Domingo far outclassed him and he couldn’t sing the notes!!!!!! Just barely Got away with the end of the aria and cracked the offstage note. In trovatore splatted the high B. Go ahead Mr standards …. Who’s the better tenor?? If your going to count mistakes - which sounds like your idea of “standards” - I’m sorry but you sound like you’re sitting there spinning records going “aha.. good….I found another mistake!”


Domingo is the better tenor. By a country mile. He never ever had the wobble or tuning issues Piotr had. He was pleasant to listen to. He had a difficult top, sometimes, in the second half of his career. I've watched many live (recorded) operas with him, with lots of very accurate Bbs.

High notes aren't everything. McCormack didn't have 'em, and he was better, too. Caruso didn't have a reliable C. Nor did Del Monaco. Or Paul Franz. I'm okay with it.

!!!!!!!!


----------



## PaulFranz (May 7, 2019)

ScottK said:


> I can only speak from 60 years ago, and I can tell you the operatic sound, either in the quickest caricatures, or in discussion about musical tastes has always been characterized by overly deep overly vibratoed sound by people who do not like opera. My cousin is a retired member of foreigner, and he says the vibrato is the thing he could never get past and he went to the Berkelee school of music in the 70s. None of those things you mentioned are new. Not in the least!


We agree there. This problem has been around since the post-war era. Before that, everyone was good. Then, in the 50s and 60s, the stars were great, and the comprimari were bad. Then, around the 70s, stars started becoming thin on the ground. I doubt the people you're discussing were mocking Corelli, Del Monaco, and Pavarotti.


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

PaulFranz said:


> "This seems a very narrow concept of what music should be" *if you want to sell tickets.
> 
> I don't know what world this is that you live in where young, diverse audiences are clamoring for contemporary opera, but it isn't one I've ever seen. Diverse always means less White, and you mentioned tonality a lot, so you're saying that non-Whites are more into atonal music than Whites? Are we talking about something besides experimental jazz musicians? I have no idea who these invented people are, but in my experience in the United States, the largest non-White groups, the Black and Hispanic populations, listen overwhelmingly to rap, R&B, and rap-pop.
> 
> The bridge from prog-rock and metal (White-dominated genres) to modern classical is much simpler than the bridge from Beyoncé, Usher, John Legend, etc.


No thats not what I'm saying. The younger generation isn't clamouring to hear opera full-stop, contemporary or traditional. Non-white communities are generally less interested in opera since its pretty much exclusively the work of dead white men. More modern works means more works by women, more works by Black and Asian compsers and so on. These composers are likely not going to be writing tonal traditional European style music.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Op.123 said:


> Op.123 said:
> 
> 
> > Objectively means that you are talking about facts rather than opinions. Of the faults you have mentioned some are genuine, others are just opinion which is subjective. You not responding to Gigli's used of head voice does not objectively make him bad. Martinelli did have a tightness but the voice was big and ringing, still a lot better than current 'dramatic tenors'. An imperfect singer, yes. A bad singer, no, certainly not in his prime. Callas was extraordinary in her prime, but by the end of her career she was not a good singer, still infused with artistry but not good. But even then she knew not to cover her troubles with artificial sound. DFD was not a great singer at all. Gobbi's sound was lean but not thin, he had plenty of resonance, he just was not gifted with a great instrument like Tibbetts. To find Tibbett's Boccanegra difficult to listen to and Caruso too unintergrated but praise some of those you mentioned above is a sign that maybe there is not so much I can say here that is going to explain vocal technique accessibly. I will just say that it is difficult to get a proper impression of a singers sound from recordings unless you have a good understanding of acoustics and how the human ear experiences the harmonic makeup of different voices. To an untrained ear Florez and Schipa might sound similar at first listen but once you are able to distinguish the different aspects of a singers voice they suddenly sound a world apart.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

No....you and I lost each other here. Those were my opinions when young. I adore every singer I mentioned. For gosh sakes I found fault with Caruso!!!!! Put the blame on me😉! As for explaining vocal technique, I studied voice for years and without making any presumptious statements about something as mystifying as how the voice works, I feel quite confident in my basic know how. When I inquire, as I did recently of Paul Franz, it's usually because someone has demonstrated awareness of some special point - in that case, his knowledge of the specific muscle groups involved in the singing process. And thanks for explaining objectivity but........ I was again, referring to his words about singers, in which he used the word "objectively". I'm pretty good on that definition, thanks! Now as for YOU and objectivity Martinelli... a bad singer no, certainly not n his prime DFD was not a great singer at all.......... I'm simply assuming that YOU recognize that those are NOT facts! That your statements are - and this is GREAT it just has to be acknowledged - completely SUBjective!!! As I mentioned at the beginning, you and I lost each other a good bit in conversation. I'm sure you are aware.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

PaulFranz said:


> Maybe we're thinking of different recordings--I saw one from 1939 just now.
> 
> I meant this one:
> 
> ...


Just listened to 35 and 39 and it was 39 for sure. I'm send to it now and you're right it's fine but I remember being flabbergasted at how the sound had deteriorated from the recordings I knew However, my point was that I refused to be pleased with anyone back then because I had gotten good enough to find their faults


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

PaulFranz said:


> Maybe we're thinking of different recordings--I saw one from 1939 just now.
> 
> I meant this one:
> 
> ...


Sheesh! This was almost like listening to the Maplesons


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

What do y'all think of the opera by Roger Waters? 

*Ça Ira.*






*Michael Nyman - The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat*






*Mark Anthony Turnage - Anna Nicole*






*Rufus Wainwright - Prima Donna*


----------



## BBSVK (10 mo ago)

Op.123 said:


> I don't think it's up to composers to write melodies and consonant music. A lot of people find that boring and outdated. I'm sure the older generations are not going to find themselves at a shortage of Verdi and Wagner any time soon, however much push there is to stage modern works. But younger generations seem to be more adventurous and enjoy modern music regardless of whether or not you can go away humming an aria all evening. My partner had little previous experience with opera and classical music and from what I've introduced him to he doesn't have any preference between works such as Die Walkure and L'Amour de Loin. The modern language of music simply isn't that radical anymore, people are used to it from film scores etc. The Rite of Spring is over 100 years old, Boulez is dead.


I don't think you are right. Maybe your friends have more adventurous musical taste. Somebody in the Classical music discussion forum commented, that mainstream pop music "remained at the stage of Schubert", while the classical music is "evolving".

I see, you admit something like this in your later comment.


----------



## ColdGenius (9 mo ago)

Seattleoperafan said:


> He was the one I played Callas in Armida for and he asked me to turn it off.


We shouldn't sleep with people who dislike certain things, especially oeuvres of art.


----------



## BBSVK (10 mo ago)

ColdGenius said:


> We shouldn't sleep with people who dislike certain things, especially oeuvres of art.


Well... Too late for me to make this decision. After the two kids...


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Seattleoperafan said:


> He was the one I played Callas in Armida for and he asked me to turn it off.


If anyone tried to play Rossini for me during a romantic assignation I'd make the same request.


----------



## ColdGenius (9 mo ago)

Woodduck said:


> If anyone tried to play Rossini for me during a romantic assignation I'd make the same request.


What about Wagner?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

ColdGenius said:


> What about Wagner?


Depends. That might be either dangerous or quite effective.


----------



## ewilkros (8 mo ago)

PaulFranz said:


> Maybe we're thinking of different recordings--I saw one from 1939 just now.
> 
> I meant this one:
> 
> ...


For the, erm, record--there are 3 Boccanegra recordings possible:
Met broadcast, 16 Feb 1935, from airchecks Tibbett had made, and for which the discs for the Prologue were damaged and barely playable
Met broadcast, 21 Jan 1939, much better sound, possibly from NBC linechecks, and with Tibbett doing just fine, thanks
RCA 78 of the Maria-Boccanegra duet with Rose Bampton instead of Elsabeth Rethberg as in the broadcast, backed with "Plebi, patrizi", 3 May 1939 and in the same boxed-in sound as the RCA album of Otello highlights with Martinelli


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

BBSVK said:


> I don't think you are right. Maybe your friends have more adventurous musical taste. Somebody in the Classical music discussion forum commented, that mainstream pop music "remained at the stage of Schubert", while the classical music is "evolving".
> 
> I see, you admit something like this in your later comment.


Mainstream pop music remains at the level of Schubert if all we are interested in is harmony and melody but then again look at someone like Playboi Carti whose music, characterised by odd vocalisations is a world away from a four chord pop song by Taylor Swift. Regardless, classical music does not need to be driven by other genres. I'm not one to recommend music is only written in a strictly serialist style the same as I won't recommend fully tonal works; both are outdated now. But operas such as Henze's 'Das Veeratene Meer', Saariaho's 'L'amour de Loin', Ades's 'The Tempest' and Chin's 'Alice in Wonderland' are a great deal more accessible than Webern's Symphony for instance.


----------



## BBSVK (10 mo ago)

Op.123 said:


> Mainstream pop music remains at the level of Schubert if all we are interested in is harmony and melody but then again look at someone like Playboi Carti whose music, characterised by odd vocalisations is a world away from a four chord pop song by Taylor Swift. Regardless, classical music does not need to be driven by other genres. I'm not one to recommend music is only written in a strictly serialist style the same as I won't recommend fully tonal works; both are outdated now. But operas such as Henze's 'Das Veeratene Meer', Saariaho's 'L'amour de Loin', Ades's 'The Tempest' and Chin's 'Alice in Wonderland' are a great deal more accessible than Webern's Symphony for instance.


Saariaho mildly interests me, I have plans to look at her operas when I am in the mood.

Classical music doesn't need to be driven by other genres. However, it should be driven by the wallets of regular people more than it is now. If the decision by MET is actually driven by wallets, it is a good news, maybe they know how to identify accessible operas or stage them in accessible way.

(But it is weird, because I am a regular on the facebook page of MET fans, and a lot of them described e.g. the Hamlet by Brett Dean as theatrically effective,but music not memorable.)

What I hate is the picture I have in my mind, of musical critics driving the development of the classical music and leading it further and further away from what most people enjoy. It is not about the conventional scale system, I wouldn't hear that, with my pitch processing impairment. Rather, it is as if the music is actively trying to make me suffer. (As the exceptions, there is some beauty in Saariaho and Philip Glass.)


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

BBSVK said:


> Saariaho mildly interests me, I have plans to look at her operas when I am in the mood.
> 
> Classical music doesn't need to be driven by other genres. However, it should be driven by the wallets of regular people more than it is now. If the decision by MET is actually driven by wallets, it is a good news, maybe they know how to identify accessible operas or stage them in accessible way.
> 
> ...


I agree to an extent but there should be as much a focus on bringing in new audiences as satisfying the old ones. Little music is actively trying to make anyone suffer it just depends on how you listen. I certainly don't find the sounds of much modern music difficult or inherently painful to listen to and when it is that's usually the point just as its the point with certain violent outbursts in Elektra. And Netrebko singing 'pace, pace mio dio' is far more radical in it's combination of tonal and microtonal elements than a lot of modern music and the met audience seems to be okay with that.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

BBSVK said:


> Somebody in the Classical music discussion forum commented, that mainstream pop music "remained at the stage of Schubert", while the classical music is "evolving".


I'm not sure what you mean by "mainstream pop music", but,
Prometheus in Music Representations of the Myth in the Romantic Era · Paul Bertagnolli · 2017 · Page 124:
_"Reichardt's chromaticism, bold enough in the context of pre-Schubertian lieder, pales before Schubert's extravagant use of altered chords and several essentially atonal passages. And unlike Reichardt, Schubert avoided long-range linear procedures associated with Schenkerian theory. In these latter respects, Schubert has more in common with Wolf, who developed a unique method of emphasizing individual words without resorting to "word painting," cultivated extreme chromaticism, and usuaully disdained Schenkerian techniques."_

Except I think the judgement "Reichardt's chromaticism pales before Schubert's" is not fair; I think Reichardt creates atmospheres unique from Schubert with his Classical sensibilities. Arias with a similar dramatic intensity to this?


----------



## BBSVK (10 mo ago)

hammeredklavier said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by "mainstream pop music", but,
> Prometheus in Music Representations of the Myth in the Romantic Era · Paul Bertagnolli · 2017 · Page 124:
> _"Reichardt's chromaticism, bold enough in the context of pre-Schubertian lieder, pales before Schubert's extravagant use of altered chords and several essentially atonal passages. And unlike Reichardt, Schubert avoided long-range linear procedures associated with Schenkerian theory. In these latter respects, Schubert has more in common with Wolf, who developed a unique method of emphasizing individual words without resorting to "word painting," cultivated extreme chromaticism, and usuaully disdained Schenkerian techniques."_
> 
> Except I think the judgement "Reichardt's chromaticism pales before Schubert's" is not fair; I think Reichardt creates atmospheres unique from Schubert with his Classical sensibilities. Arias with a similar dramatic intensity to this?


Yes, well, as I have already written to Op.123 , I have a pitch processing impairment and my complaint is not exactly about that, whether conventional scales are used. Even some folk songs from the region of Morava (in Czech republic, but bordering my coutry, Slovakia) are hard to write down in the European notation. It is not quarter tones I have a problem with. Just the general ugliness of the majority of contemporary classical music, when I decide to explore it at random.

OK, but good reminder, I will finally listen to your Reichhard now, while sorting my laundry ;-)


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

PaulFranz said:


> Callas can be a bit much.


Opera can be a bit much.

N.


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

Tonal music is better suited to narrative drama than atonal music. Atonal music is well suited to atmospheric effects, which is why tonal works can have atonal passages and still be effective. But atonal music, imo, simply cannot tell stories musically in the same way that tonal music can. The atonal operas I've attempted strike me as three hours of atmosphere and no drama. Atonal music is almost all tension, and a story that is all tension ceases to have shape and becomes a fragmentary mass of moments, some of which may be thrilling, beautiful, or impressive on their own, but which do not cohere and cannot form the developmental arc which gives tonal opera the sense of being true to life. That is, it simply isn't drama, which requires not only release of tension, but its absence and directional development. I must say that my overwhelming experience of these works is discomfort -- not productive, creative, vital tension, but static, lifeless torpor. It's like a thousand low voltage shocks -- the aesthetic equivalent of neuropathy. I get the sense the composer intends this feeling, and I, ashamedly, feel some involuntary hatred for someone who wants me to feel that way. I respect that there are those who like it, but I cannot.

Furthermore, what I have heard of the vocal music in these works is undistinguished. This is partly because the instruments they are writing for are not as fully equipped as those Puccini, Verdi, and Wagner were writing for. But take Thomas Ades, whose work was certainly not accessible to me, a longtime, avid, reasonably well educated opera lover. Ariel's music, routinely written well above the proper range of an operatic voice, can only really be sung by a voice based on wrong technique. In my opinion, it is a classic case of a modern composer using sounds to shock an unsettle at the expense of dramatic truth and musicality. Unsettling, eerie, tense, high pitched passages exist in opera, and they have been done well. The originality, the advance over what has come before is not in the idea, but in the lack of taste in implementing it.

As for vocal standards, they are objective. Everyone agrees on them in theory. What is subjective is which faults we are willing to tolerate.


----------



## BBSVK (10 mo ago)

I am pretty sure, the scene of Wagner music during the ... tryst you call it ? Well, it's been done, in the movie A fish called Wanda.
(for the information of @Woodduck and @ColdGenius )


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Op.123 said:


> Netrebko singing 'pace, pace mio dio' is far more radical in it's combination of tonal and microtonal elements than a lot of modern music and the met audience seems to be okay with that.


Applause and laughter.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The Conte said:


> Opera can be a bit much.
> 
> N.


Which is why it's loved and hated.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BBSVK said:


> I am pretty sure, the scene of Wagner music during the ... tryst you call it ? Well, it's been done, in the movie A fish called Wanda.
> (for the information of @Woodduck and @ColdGenius )


Really? I should pay more attention to popular culture.



No I shouldn't.


----------



## ColdGenius (9 mo ago)

Wedding chorus from Lohengrin is a commonplace for every Hollywood movie bride. But it's unlikely a music for a date, or, speaking directly, sex.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

ColdGenius said:


> Wedding chorus from Lohengrin is a commonplace for every Hollywood movie bride. But it's unlikely a music for a date, or, speaking directly, sex.


_Lohengrin_ is the least sexual of all Wagner's operas. It may have a bridal chamber scene, but poor Lohengrin can't even get to first base.


----------

