# Chest voices



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)




----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

A sad commentary on what we're missing in singing nowadays. Fully developed, freely produced dramatic voices are an endangered (extinct?) species. Compare Eva Turner with Nina Stemme, the Met's most recent Turandot:


----------



## ldiat (Jan 27, 2016)

this is the same youtube poster that stated Joan Sutherland sounded not good. and knocked Dinia Dimura for her queen of the night. i follow this poster on face book. i posted this poster over in the Opera Thread about Joan.


----------



## ldiat (Jan 27, 2016)

here is a new one by the "This is Opera"


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

^^^ Ruffo was awe-inspiring.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

All the people calling this account a "charlatan" simply don't know what they're talking about. He gives good information and clearly illustrates his points with examples of great singers. Many people comment on his videos about how his suggestions have improved their technique, and no one who was truly a charlatan would have such a vast knowledge of the kinds of hidden gem singers he brings up regularly. 

Like....yeah, I think he's kind of a jerk some of the time, and I certainly don't agree with 100% of what he says, but even then, he manages some quite relevant criticisms even of singers I adore like Joan Sutherland and Elisabeth Schwarzkopf. In addition, he's far more balanced than his less-than-modest tone would have one believe, and is plenty capable of pointing out good things he likes about singers he dislikes, and bad things about singers he greatly admires and respects. 

Personally, I hope his channel succeeds in breathing new life into opera and recreating some of the excitement of the Golden Age for a new audience.


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> All the people calling this account a "charlatan" simply don't know what they're talking about. He gives good information and clearly illustrates his points with examples of great singers. Many people comment on his videos about how his suggestions have improved their technique, and no one who was truly a charlatan would have such a vast knowledge of the kinds of hidden gem singers he brings up regularly.
> 
> Like....yeah, I think he's kind of a jerk some of the time, and I certainly don't agree with 100% of what he says, but even then, he manages some quite relevant criticisms even of singers I adore like Joan Sutherland and Elisabeth Schwarzkopf. In addition, he's far more balanced than his less-than-modest tone would have one believe, and is plenty capable of pointing out good things he likes about singers he dislikes, and bad things about singers he greatly admires and respects.
> 
> Personally, I hope his channel succeeds in breathing new life into opera and recreating some of the excitement of the Golden Age for a new audience.


Thank you for saying that. I'm also glad that this channel is kind of buzzing these days and so many people are now talking about it and sharing it and it's changing their perspective. I'm sure if more people did what he's doing the public's standards would start to gradually rise. I was so surprised when I saw the comment section of the video below, so I guess the change is slowly happening.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Tuoksu said:


> Thank you for saying that. I'm also glad that this channel is kind of buzzing these days and so many people are now talking about it and sharing it and it's changing their perspective. I'm sure if more people did what he's doing the public's standards would start to gradually rise. I was so surprised when I saw the comment section of the video below, so I guess the change is slowly happening.


Absolutely stunning and magnificently rendered with plenty of chest voice. Those naysayers have to get some ears.


----------



## JoeSaunders (Jan 29, 2015)

I haven't watched too much of this channel's back-catalogue because, frankly, these sorts of lecture-style videos bemoaning modernity are very annoying and I definitely do not have the time. But I do err on the side that the guy(s) is/are charlatans/a charlatan.

Good points:
- Draws attention to great singers of the past. Lovely, and they usually find good examples.
- I also find many popular opera singers of today unsatisfactory for a number of reasons.
- Hurray chest voice, it sounds nice sometimes.

Bad points:
- From what I've seen, and correct me if I'm wrong, their argumentative methodology mostly consists of:

"Here's a **** modern singer: boo! [here's why boo [citation needed]] Now look at all these older recordings: Yay! [here's why yay [citation needed]] Therefore, modern singing technique/teaching is awful and we're right"

I know there's more commentary added, some of it insightful, but the basic argument is something like that. And I find that to be bad and incomplete argumentation! The selection bias involved in looking through the best of a centuries worth of old recordings whilst ignoring the presumably huge amount of average-quality singers from that same time is obvious. Not factoring in the difference in older recording quality is also daft. And ignoring the areas in opera where it's often supposed that the state of singing is generally quite good, like baroque or Rossini singing, is, again, daft.

There's a real trend from the clips I've seen on this channel of drawing very strong conclusions when a minimal one will suit much better. One video claimed that modern singing teaching was quackery. But the entire thing consisted of Joyce DiDonato making masterclass students dance around and move while singing, while the captions made snarky comments. Surely a better conclusion, from the evidence presented, is that it's just Joyce being a bit weird? The whole thing reeks of clickbait garbage.

And, importantly, I say it's 'incomplete' because any substantive arguments like the ones they're making need to be supplemented with an explanation of what, _systemically_, is causing these changes. Simply saying "singers teach you the wrong way now!" tells us NOTHING about WHY this change has happened. Have the latest generations of teachers (many of whom are/were the very same great opera singers they love to go on about) all miraculously got teaching wrong at the same time? How so? Or is it the institutions? Well if so, how did these bad habits spread, and why now? If someone could link to any of video of theirs where they _seriously _try to explain the causes of the prevalence of bad opera singing I'd be very grateful. Otherwise it's clear they're just another ranty youtuber who think they've got it all sussed out.

- I have no idea of this group's singing/teaching credentials. Since the channel is pretty much offering recommendations on how one should sing opera, _some _sort of credential ought to be the bare minimum! Simply saying that they're 'a group of musicians' should do nothing to reassure anyone that anybody here knows anything.

- Adding to that, having a _youtube channel_ dedicated to proper singing technique is simply the wrong way of going about things (EDIT: particularly when the commentary on technique mostly revolves around comparing great singers, who are a rare enough bunch to begin with). Singing technique is a very personalised thing, and you need an actual real-life teacher to hit upon the right way of doing things for one's own voice. I wouldn't be surprised if younger singers develop a lot of bad habits because they're trying to be the next Mario Del Monaco or Tebaldi because a youtuber said authoritatively that they like chest voice.

- A bizarre amount of genuinely good singing is caught in the channel's net as examples of bad singing. This tells me they have no idea what really matters in opera.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I give "likes" to both BalalaikaBoy and JoeSaunders because my opinion of "This Is Opera" comes down somewhere between them.

This, on the other hand, does not get a "like":



Tuoksu said:


> .


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> This, on the other hand, does not get a "like":


A quick visit to your ENT might be of some help to you.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

nina foresti said:


> A quick visit to your ENT might be of some help to you.


I would suggest that for Her Nebs.


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

Do you need a 10 minute video to explain that Zajick isn't as good as Barbieri?


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

howlingfantods said:


> Do you need a 10 minute video to explain that Zajick isn't as good as Barbieri?


given how few people realize this obvious truth....yes :/


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Except for what he said about La Stupenda ( couldn't watch) I find a lot of his arguments compelling. Those chest voices in the past were so amazing and singing that way never damaged the voice of the singers like you always hear from other singers so often who won't use chest voice.


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

Seattleoperafan said:


> Except for what he said about La Stupenda ( couldn't watch) I find a lot of his arguments compelling. Those chest voices in the past were so amazing and singing that way never damaged the voice of the singers like you always hear from other singers so often who won't use chest voice.


I dunno, I've skipped through a couple of these videos and found them incredibly dumb. They just cherry pick mediocre singers from "now" (apparently meaning anytime between 1980s to now) and compare them to great singers of "the past" (apparently meaning any time in recorded history, as long as it's at least a decade before Exhibit A). Evidently the existence of great singers from the recent past or the existence of terrible singers in the more distant past must be ignored or expunged from our awareness.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

howlingfantods said:


> I dunno, I've skipped through a couple of these videos and found them incredibly dumb. They just cherry pick mediocre singers from "now" (apparently meaning anytime between 1980s to now) and compare them to great singers of "the past" (apparently meaning any time in recorded history, as long as it's at least a decade before Exhibit A). Evidently the existence of great singers from the recent past or the existence of terrible singers in the more distant past must be ignored or expunged from our awareness.


but almost no modern singers sing the way his past examples do (even if there are many I still like).


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

howlingfantods said:


> I dunno, I've skipped through a couple of these videos and found them incredibly dumb. They just cherry pick mediocre singers from "now" (apparently meaning anytime between 1980s to now) and compare them to great singers of "the past" (apparently meaning any time in recorded history, as long as it's at least a decade before Exhibit A). Evidently the existence of great singers from the recent past or the existence of terrible singers in the more distant past must be ignored or expunged from our awareness.


I don't think they are picking obscure mediocre singers from "now". The examples are mostly the superstars of today vs the "superstars" of the past. While the former only have the popstar-like thing going for them, the latter's singing is still unmatched today. Actually the channel is comparing what's considered the best singing on earth today (Riccardo Muti went as far as saying that much about Rashvishvili) to some relative nobodies (I had never even heard of Petrella or Thomas LoMonaco before that channel).
They are simply comparing what's prevalent, what's popular and acceptable by the public standard these days vs 100 years ago. Singers like today wouldn't be even singing comprimario roles back in the day. That doesn't mean mediocre singing didn't exist back then. But the public's standards today dictate than Anna Netrebko, who is very inferior to even second-tier singers of the past, is the greatest soprano alive. Are there some talented singers out there who sound like Ponselle and Caruso from whom we've never heard? Possible, but whatever reason is keeping them from the spotlight it is what's wrong with Opera today and what the channel is trying to bring people's attention to.


----------



## JoeSaunders (Jan 29, 2015)

I think one of the basic points they like to make, the one about certain kinds of chest voice not existing today, is actually fairly plausible. I think the modern/old comparisons are great at bringing out certain desirable aspects of opera singing. The problem is their treatment and diagnosis of the issue amounts to sloppy click-bait ranting about the current generation of singers and their technique.

I think there are many possibly unexplained gaps in the current state of singing that we might reasonably lament, like the comparative lack of solid dramatic voices, for example, but if anyone seriously wants to find out the causes of this they'd do much better by avoiding the channel at all costs. Defaulting to 'it's modern singing technique!' on the basis of a few clips, without _actually _knowing how any of the involved singers' voices would react to the channel-maker's recommendations, nor any other singers, is plop.

If the channel were simply a showcase of old versus new without any commentary they'd be fine by me, but the entire channel, as it stands, is an argument they're putting forward about why singing isn't like it used to be. _This_ is opera! Not _That_! And it's this thesis which isn't treated with any degree of seriousness or rigour.


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

The channel makes its points in a strident manner to generate attention, but many of them are worth considering. I think the thesis is that singing declined because over time subjective imagery such as "singing in the mask" and the aforementioned antics of DiDonato won out over the old method of the teacher listening for the correct sound and developing it, in combination with the elimination of training the chest register (now considered dangerous by many) and a change in the way that people are trained from a kind of apprenticeship model to a degree model. If one doesn't insist that every word they say is gospel, it's a reasonable intepretation of what to me is a very clear decline in the standard of singing across the board. There was a study published on Princeton's website, I don't know where the authors work, that found that this decline has been noted by opera "conoisseurs" almost universally, especially with respect to Wagner, Verdi, and Puccini singing. The study makes an attempt to correct for nostalgia and other biases. Their study does partially clash with This Is Opera in that the latter thinks baroque and classical era singing has declined rather than improved. Still, I think it's evident that there is simply nobody who can sing, for example, Wagner at the level that pre-war audiences were used to. They had singers like Kirsten Flagstad, Helen Traubel, Melchior, and people not as well known today, like Florence Easton, who was the first Lauretta in _Gianni Schicchi_ but also recorded parts _Siegfried_ with Melchior, who were far beyond the level of anyone singing that music today. (Try recording _Siegfried_ with today's Laurettas.) Who could sing Minnie like Eleanor Steber or Dorothy Kirsten, _lyric_ sopranos from 50s? 
Of course, it's possibly that This Is Opera just reinforces my biases in taste, since many of the singers they don't like (Sutherland, Kaufmann, Netrebko, Horne) were voices that I never liked. On the other hand, I didn't care much for del Monaco until I was encouraged by the channel to give him a proper listen. Now I admire his singing greatly. They still haven't converted me to liking Callas's timbre, however much I grant that she was an artist who moved many.
The other thing I really like about the channel is their focus on singers in the early days of the recording industry. They have exposed me to a number of singers I'd never heard of, such as Dusolina Giannini, Fernand Ansseau, Galliano Masini, and others. These singers were extraordinary, and the opera world today would be set on fire by a singer near their calibre.


----------



## JoeSaunders (Jan 29, 2015)

^Good that you mention the Princeton study, I'd urge others to read through it. Although research in this area is probably limited, and in any case, it's an area where results are very hard to quantify, the paper's treament of the issue is quite good and certainly relevant to the topic at hand. I feel like you understate the degree to which their thesis clashes with this youtuber's, however! Pages 95-96 are quite damning I thought. But even ignoring their views on pedagological change (which admitedly are more of a supplement to their main point), the central idea that modern-day potential spintos/heldens are fighting a more difficult uphill battle before their voices mature properly is very interesting.

As a counterpoint the author lists a "summary and critique of [his] argument by one of Germany's leading opera experts" on his website, which sounds very cool, but it's in german and the text is baked into the PDF so I can't run it through a translator! If anyone here knows German, enjoy!

https://www.princeton.edu/~amoravcs/library/Jurgen Kesting Summary in OPERNWELT JAHRBUCH 2016 2.pdf


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

JoeSaunders said:


> I think one of the basic points they like to make, the one about certain kinds of chest voice not existing today, is actually fairly plausible. I think the modern/old comparisons are great at bringing out certain desirable aspects of opera singing. The problem is their treatment and diagnosis of the issue amounts to sloppy click-bait ranting about the current generation of singers and their technique.
> 
> I think there are many possibly unexplained gaps in the current state of singing that we might reasonably lament, like the comparative lack of solid dramatic voices, for example, but if anyone seriously wants to find out the causes of this they'd do much better by avoiding the channel at all costs. Defaulting to 'it's modern singing technique!' on the basis of a few clips, without _actually _knowing how any of the involved singers' voices would react to the channel-maker's recommendations, nor any other singers, is plop.
> 
> If the channel were simply a showcase of old versus new without any commentary they'd be fine by me, but the entire channel, as it stands, is an argument they're putting forward about why singing isn't like it used to be. _This_ is opera! Not _That_! And it's this thesis which isn't treated with any degree of seriousness or rigour.


some of his videos are quite thorough in their descriptions though. just because he's kind of snarky doesn't mean all of his videos lack the ability to explain things.


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

JoeSaunders said:


> ^Good that you mention the Princeton study, I'd urge others to read through it. Although research in this area is probably limited, and in any case, it's an area where results are very hard to quantify, the paper's treament of the issue is quite good and certainly relevant to the topic at hand. I feel like you understate the degree to which their thesis clashes with this youtuber's, however! Pages 95-96 are quite damning I thought. But even ignoring their views on pedagological change (which admitedly are more of a supplement to their main point), the central idea that modern-day potential spintos/heldens are fighting a more difficult uphill battle before their voices mature properly is very interesting.


I suppose their rejection of the idea that vocal pedagogy has changed struck me as unsatisfying. For example, wrt/ decline of teaching they cite an argument that teachers now lack real world experience, but do not deal with the claims of This Is Opera about the content being taught. The idea that there has been a significant shift away from the development of chest voice and that has caused a large amount of the decline in vocal standards is not specifically addressed. Furthermore, if you reject the claims of the experts that Baroque/Classical singing has improved (as my ears tell me to do), then one need not worry about explaining the divergence of quality of singing for different eras. As for the idea that singing has improved overall, I find that ridiculous. Also, the idea that producing a large number of singers is somehow an example of the quality of pedagogy strikes me as very strange. I think the main usefulness of the paper is documenting the decline of Spinto and Dramatic voices.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Decided to start a new thread: The Met's Music Director, Vocal "Expert"


----------



## MarthaAnne (Dec 16, 2019)

She's embarrassing.


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

This channel makes a lot of good points. Especially in regards to how the Italian repertoire is sung. The problem modern opera faces is the cinematization of drama, it is not just music, it is drama and "big" stage drama, not focused closeups like we are so used to nowadays in popular entertainment. When you try and dial the voice back, trying to make it as 'artistic' as possible, you fail on the expressive front with opera. There are modern singers I occasionally like, such as Rene Fleming in Thais, but I feel like a lot of the time any sense of theatrical drama is missing. https://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/feb/26/is-opera-the-most-misogynistic-art-form "...opera is the form par excellence, not of argument like theatre, not of story like film, not of character like TV, but of emotion. Deep, unspeakable, ravenous emotion: the kind of emotion that can carry a character's breaking out into song. Opera is not vanilla, opera is not beige, it is blood red and boiling. Opera is the artform of human catastrophe, the inheritor of the mantle of the darkest aspects of Greek tragedy." The current vocal school seems too worried about offending people's ears and dials it down to make it supposedly comfortable listening. This is not the point of opera and makes it into a rather ridiculous affair. And where the current trend of mushy voices with wide, slow vibrato, or little high voices that only sound suited to playing young girls comes from I have no idea. Even singers without those traits are usually lacking in some other capacities to successfully perform the operas of the past. I'm sure that some could be very successful in contemporary compositions if written with a specific singer and their capabilities in mind, and many modern operas are very effective, but when it comes to full-blooded romantic works these singers are often completely ineffective. I also happen to very much agree with his criticisms of Sutherland, no doubt very skilled, but as an operatic performer I rarely get a sense of anything more than her being mildly inconvenienced by the tragedies in the libretto.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Op.123 said:


> mildly inconvenienced by the tragedies in the libretto.


Heh heh.

:tiphat:


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Op.123 said:


> This channel makes a lot of good points. Especially in regards to how the Italian repertoire is sung. The problem modern opera faces is the cinematization of drama, it is not just music, it is drama and "big" stage drama, not focused closeups like we are so used to nowadays in popular entertainment. When you try and dial the voice back, trying to make it as 'artistic' as possible, you fail on the expressive front with opera. There are modern singers I occasionally like, such as Rene Fleming in Thais, but I feel like a lot of the time any sense of theatrical drama is missing. https://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/feb/26/is-opera-the-most-misogynistic-art-form "...opera is the form par excellence, not of argument like theatre, not of story like film, not of character like TV, but of emotion. Deep, unspeakable, ravenous emotion: the kind of emotion that can carry a character's breaking out into song. Opera is not vanilla, opera is not beige, it is blood red and boiling. Opera is the artform of human catastrophe, the inheritor of the mantle of the darkest aspects of Greek tragedy." The current vocal school seems too worried about offending people's ears and dials it down to make it supposedly comfortable listening. This is not the point of opera and makes it into a rather ridiculous affair. And where the current trend of mushy voices with wide, slow vibrato, or little high voices that only sound suited to playing young girls comes from I have no idea. Even singers without those traits are usually lacking in some other capacities to successfully perform the operas of the past. I'm sure that some could be very successful in contemporary compositions if written with a specific singer and their capabilities in mind, and many modern operas are very effective, but when it comes to full-blooded romantic works these singers are often completely ineffective. I also happen to very much agree with his criticisms of Sutherland, no doubt very skilled, but as an operatic performer I rarely get a sense of anything more than her being mildly inconvenienced by the tragedies in the libretto.


I agree in part about Sutherland, but she could be dramatic (try her second studio Norma).

As for the rest of your comment, yes, YES and hell YES!

N.


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

Op.123 said:


> This channel makes a lot of good points. Especially in regards to how the Italian repertoire is sung. The problem modern opera faces is the cinematization of drama, it is not just music, it is drama and "big" stage drama, not focused closeups like we are so used to nowadays in popular entertainment. When you try and dial the voice back, trying to make it as 'artistic' as possible, you fail on the expressive front with opera. There are modern singers I occasionally like, such as Rene Fleming in Thais, but I feel like a lot of the time any sense of theatrical drama is missing. https://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/feb/26/is-opera-the-most-misogynistic-art-form "...opera is the form par excellence, not of argument like theatre, not of story like film, not of character like TV, but of emotion. Deep, unspeakable, ravenous emotion: the kind of emotion that can carry a character's breaking out into song. Opera is not vanilla, opera is not beige, it is blood red and boiling. Opera is the artform of human catastrophe, the inheritor of the mantle of the darkest aspects of Greek tragedy." The current vocal school seems too worried about offending people's ears and dials it down to make it supposedly comfortable listening. This is not the point of opera and makes it into a rather ridiculous affair. And where the current trend of mushy voices with wide, slow vibrato, or little high voices that only sound suited to playing young girls comes from I have no idea. Even singers without those traits are usually lacking in some other capacities to successfully perform the operas of the past. I'm sure that some could be very successful in contemporary compositions if written with a specific singer and their capabilities in mind, and many modern operas are very effective, but when it comes to full-blooded romantic works these singers are often completely ineffective. I also happen to very much agree with his criticisms of Sutherland, no doubt very skilled, but as an operatic performer I rarely get a sense of anything more than her being mildly inconvenienced by the tragedies in the libretto.


THANK YOU !!:tiphat:


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

MarthaAnne said:


> She's embarrassing.


A fern statement if ever I saw one.


----------



## erki (Feb 17, 2020)

I know nothing about singing techniques so my opinion is purely of consumer.
I listen opera on recorded media mostly. It seems that recording has developed different qualities for the singer to sound good. While the stage needs chest voice to be heard in the hall full of people the (specially studio)recording with microphone placement and post-mastering sound much better and natural without it. 
I have experienced that it is difficult to hear singers in the theatre and in the same time the recording of he's/her's is very enjoyable. That may explain why I do not like old live opera recordings too much(with few exeptions - Callas, Schwarzkopf). I have been putting this to the physical quality of the equipment of the past and media but it may be the singing technique all together.
Specially if you listen opera through headphones the modulation of volume on low notes sounds much better and natural. Or "small" voice can be rather nice(or even better) on recording.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

But what about all those takes and re-takes until the singer is satisfied with the final product? Sound perfection over a singer's true and natural sound? Not for me!
Give me the real McCoy with sound glitches, missed highs, less-than-the best showing of a voice, lack of fine sound equipment -- but real, on-the-spot live delivery of a magnificent voice in all its beauty.
What could be more exciting than attempting to decipher the Maplesons with the best of the best in the 20's and '30's?
That's OPERA!


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

nina foresti said:


> But what about all those takes and re-takes until the singer is satisfied with the final product? Sound perfection over a singer's true and natural sound? Not for me!
> Give me the real McCoy with sound glitches, missed highs, less-than-the best showing of a voice, lack of fine sound equipment -- but real, on-the-spot live delivery of a magnificent voice in all its beauty.
> What could be more exciting than attempting to decipher the Maplesons with the best of the best in the 20's and '30's?
> That's OPERA!


I agree! However, studio recordings have their place too and it's only relatively recently that live recordings could be made in decent sound.

The 20th century has given us a superb legacy of recorded opera. 100 years to celebrate (and there is some good work that has been captured before and since).

N.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

The Conte said:


> I agree! However, studio recordings have their place too and it's only relatively recently that live recordings could be made in decent sound.
> 
> The 20th century has given us a superb legacy of recorded opera. 100 years to celebrate (and there is some good work that has been captured before and since).
> 
> N.


I think that in the past, singers got recording contracts because of their success on stage, as true of the age of 78s as it was of the LP age, both mono and early stereo. Recording producers had to do what they could to make those voices sound as good as they did on stage. In the case of Nilsson, those who heard her live will tell you that none of her recordings do her justice. Today, I think a singer is more likely to get a contract based on their looks and the ease of recording their voices. If we seem to have more Handel operas and recitals than ever these days, might it not be partly because of the fact that smaller voices are much easier to record?


----------



## VitellioScarpia (Aug 27, 2017)

Tsaraslondon said:


> I think that in the past, singers got recording contracts because of their success on stage, as true of the age of 78s as it was of the LP age, both mono and early stereo. Recording producers had to do what they could to make those voices sound as good as they did on stage. In the case of Nilsson, those who heard her live will tell you that none of her recordings do her justice. Today, I think a singer is more likely to get a contract based on their looks and the ease of recording their voices. If we seem to have more Handel operas and recitals than ever these days, might it not be partly because of the fact that smaller voices are much easier to record?


Unfortunately, it appears that it is the case... Garifullina singing Casta Diva? Grigorian's Salome or Sour Angelica? Both of them are beautiful women but one is a _zeffiro_ of a Norma (lighter than Sills), and the second is also small with out of reach _acuti_ painful to listen and to see.

That's why Lise Davidson is a nice break in the current tradition of beautiful _zeffiretti_ who are all painted glamour for pop-opera performances. Give me disturbing ones full of chest, guts and music as Eileen (and Lenny) could conjure in Suicidio 



, or Callas' unparalleled 1952 one 



.


----------

