# TIO - When will the confusion end!?



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

Alright, there are smart people on this forum, and I really need a second opinion on my suspicions about the YouTube channel This is Opera. I remember posting about them before but this is driving me crazy, and I can't figure it out.

First of all, what do you think of this:






I've generally heard that Leontyne Price was great as Aida. But they say she's not. Better hurry and watch it before they might take their videos down again. :lol:

Are they right or just nitpicking?

I have more questions and suspicions about them that I want to discuss, but that will take more typing, and I'm too tired to type anymore right at this moment, so I'll post later.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

adriesba said:


> Alright, there are smart people on this forum, and I really need a second opinion on my suspicions about the YouTube channel This is Opera. I remember posting about them before but this is driving me crazy, and I can't figure it out.
> 
> First of all, what do you think of this:
> 
> ...


Let's face it, these guys Don't tend to like anything which is less than 100 years old and is not on a crackling 78

It was said of Price: "Leontyne Price had a gift for fusing voice, words and meaning, and was even able to adapt her vocal colours to her conductor. . . "She had the voice of velvet, used it with wisdom and artistry for 50 years, and set vocal and theatrical standards in Verdi"


----------



## Sieglinde (Oct 25, 2009)

Price is absolutely fantastic. TIO is a bunch of pretentious, well, the forum would just *** out what I think.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

Sieglinde said:


> Price is absolutely fantastic. TIO is a bunch of pretentious, well, the forum would just *** out what I think.


I agree, they just bash for the bashing.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

I couldn't disagree more with TIO on this one. I can give them that most of the time Tebaldi had better diction than Price. However I don't agree with the rest of the video. Firstly 'dramatic soprano' is one of those phrases (like grand opera) that means different things to different people and in different contexts so I think it slightly pointless to discuss whether Price was one or not and in any case most people refer to Price as a spinto. I did a double take when I heard Sills describe her as a dramatic soprano. (Tebaldi is usually termed a spinto rather than a dramatic, should she have avoided Aida as well?) Sills may have wanted to differentiate between her own vocal category and Price's voice, who knows. However, the whole premise of the video is a canard.

We all know that Nilsson had a bigger voice than Price. From what people who heard her live say she had a bigger voice than any other soprano singing in the same period. That isn't really news. Furthermore audiences at the Met in the 60s preferred Price's Aida to Nilsson's. I wonder which recordings TIO used to make the comparisons in this video. I don't think Price's high notes were thin. (The two videos they choose to show thin high notes are from towards the end of her career - again soprano at end of career has to 'cheat' to reach high notes isn't news.)

I also don't agree that the examples chosen show flaws in Price's technique, yes Nilsson had a bigger voice and Tebaldi's diction was better. I still prefer Price's Leonora compared with Tebaldi's in the excerpts presented. Was Price a 'dramatic soprano'? It's not a term I (or in fact most opera fans) would use. Did she have the right voice for Aida? Only a moron would even ask the question!

N.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

John Steane named Price the greatest Verdi soprano of her time in his bible of 20th-century singers, The Grand Tradition.
When Karajan was on tour with the Berlin Philharmonic in New York in 1955, Price auditioned by singing the Verdi aria, ‘Pace Pace’, so convincingly that their relationship was cemented. Karajan waved away the accompanist and played for her himself saying, "You are an artist of the future."
He subsequently engaged her in Vienna in spite of the prejudice in the city against black singers. They recorded Carmen, Tosca and Il trovatore. 
The final ovation for Price and Franco Corelli at the Met in 1961 lasted 35 minutes, though Corelli was so incensed at all of the attention lavished on Price that he threatened never to work with her  again. He later became one of her most frequent co-stars. 

So it seems to me if these guys in TIO are right, then an awful lot of other people are wrong!


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

I dislike TIO and think their videos are uniformly trash, even when I agree with their conclusions as here. I much prefer Tebaldi over L Price too, although I don't think I care that much about the diction. For me Tebaldi is just a much more interesting musician, who shapes her musical phrases much more interestingly than Price does, and who has a much more musical and organic pulse to her singing. But I think Price's voice qua voice is her strongest asset and TIO argues the opposite of course.


----------



## erki (Feb 17, 2020)

I just came to realise the the problem with some opera singers I have had for ages is the voice techniques. I went through some of the videos This Is Opera channel on youtube explaining what is wrong with Agnes Baltsa and understood why I like Baltsa and not the ones who were presented as the right way of singing. Go figure!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

These people in TIO (imo) make complete fools of themselves criticising one of the greatest Verdian singers of the recent past. In his review of her Met debut as Aida, New York Times critic Harold C. Schonberg wrote that Price's "voice, warm and luscious, has enough volume to fill the house with ease, and she has a good technique to back up the voice itself. She even took the trills as written, and nothing in the part as Verdi wrote it gave her the least bit of trouble. She moves well and is a competent actress. But no soprano makes a career of acting. Voice is what counts, and voice is what Miss Price has."
Now someone makes a video that says exactly the opposite of what everyone else - including Karajan and Schonberg - appear to have thought. I wouldn't have the nerve myself!


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

DavidA said:


> These people in TIO (imo) make complete fools of themselves criticising one of the greatest Verdian singers of the recent past. In his review of her Met debut as Aida, New York Times critic Harold C. Schonberg wrote that Price's "voice, warm and luscious, has enough volume to fill the house with ease, and she has a good technique to back up the voice itself. She even took the trills as written, and nothing in the part as Verdi wrote it gave her the least bit of trouble. She moves well and is a competent actress. But no soprano makes a career of acting. Voice is what counts, and voice is what Miss Price has."
> Now someone makes a video that says exactly the opposite of what everyone else - including Karajan and Schonberg - appear to have thought. I wouldn't have the nerve myself!


I agree! I like a lot of TIO's material and I think their general ideas about technique are sound. However, I wonder if they have fallen into the trap of thinking that good technique = making a particular sound, rather than it being about making your own natural sound. That is why Price and other singers with good technique mostly have a distinctive sound, because they are singing naturally with their own voice and not putting on a fake "this is the way to sing" sound.

N.


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

DavidA said:


> Now someone makes a video that says exactly the opposite of what everyone else - including Karajan and Schonberg - appear to have thought. I wouldn't have the nerve myself!


Sure you would.


DavidA said:


> One thing I did wince at was Patti's 'Voi che sapete' - was this warbling an example of how it should be sung? Bring on Freddie von Stade is what I say and have some decent singing!





https://books.google.com/books?id=klEIAQAAMAAJ said:


> Jenny Lind's tribute to Adelina Patti, "There is only one Niagara; and there is only one Patti," is perhaps the most memorable of artists' tributes to the operatic diva Adelina Patti. She was a favorite among royalty and composers alike, especially Rossini, Auber, Meyerbeer, Berlioz, and Verdi, who declared her "an artist by nature, so perfect that perhaps there has never been her equal." Adelina Patti (1843-1919) was a vocal phenomenon, a glamorous celebrity, and a formidable legend renowned for both a nonpareil professional career and a deliciously intriguing private life. At the height of her career she was the world's singer of singers and the toast of three continents; to this day she remains, relatively speaking, one of the highest-paid performers in music history.


As far as I'm concerned, it's totally fine, even admirable to have your own opinions and not just parrot what other people think because they're considered experts. I only ask that we apply our standards equally to TIO. I don't think TIO is right just because the singers they like were the favorites of Puccini, Verdi, Wagner, Rossini, Mascagni, Leoncavallo, or were trained by the favorite singers of Bellini, Donizetti etc.. I think they're right (often, certainly not always) because I've listened carefully to their arguments and the arguments against them and made up my mind.

Now, as for the content of the video, let's be clear about what the point is. It's not to bash Price, to say she's a terrible singer, to be pedantic about fachs, or diction or whatever. As with all their videos, it's to talk about how training particular _kinds_ of sounds trains particular functions in the voice, and how that affects the voice overall. So the point of bringing up diction is that clear vowels (not articulated consonants, btw) not only make the text comprehensible, but, if developed, actually allow the voice to project and cut through the orchestra better. And, to many of us, it's more beautiful.

Look at a singer like Dorothy Kirsten. She could sing roles Price could (Tosca, Butterfly) and ones she couldn't (Minnie), as well as many lyric roles, and sang well into her 60s with little decline. Some of that may have had to do with her own health, but I think a lot of it had to do with her technique. She could cut over an orchestra like few sopranos of her voice type... well, except the lyrics and coloraturas who used to sing Aida, like Tetrazzini, Melba, Patti, Rethberg, etc.. (What do we think would happen if we asked today's coloraturas, Yende, Sierra, Dessay to sing Aida?)

As for technique, I think they do think that technique means making certain sounds. And I think they're right. Singers do indeed use their voices once they have them in their own ways, but the operatic voice is an instrument. Like violins, there are certain sounds they need to be able to produce. You will get there using a variety of techniques, some of which will not be needed for some singers whereas others will depend on them, just as a violin maker responds to the character of each individual piece of wood, but still produces a violin with a recognizable "violin" sound. Price's voice would have sounded more like Tebaldi if she had a teacher who was able to show her how to coordinate in the way old singers did. I interpreted the video as saying Price was super talented but just didn't develop her voice to the level of previous singers. Far from bashing, I think that's pretty fair.


----------



## Caesura (Apr 5, 2020)

I was going to bring up a video of them critiquing Franco Fagioli, but it wasn't there anymore. Guess it got taken down like many other videos they had. Do any of you remember seeing it?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

vivalagentenuova said:


> Sure you would.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, *it's totally fine, even admirable to have your own opinions and not just parrot what other people think because they're considered experts. *


Absolutely! We do!


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

DavidA said:


> Absolutely! We do! Whatever Lind said I know what I heard!


And whatever Karajan and Schonberg said TIO know what they heard?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

vivalagentenuova said:


> And whatever Karajan and Schonberg said TIO know what they heard?


Yes I just wonder whose word to take for it. I mean who are these people in TIO? What are their qualifications? When I talk with a guy I know who is vocal coach I know his qualifications. What are these peoples qualifications? I mean anyone can put a video on line. I know that Karajan sold 200 million records many of which were operas and ran quite a few opera houses and that Schoenberg was a music historian and critic. But who are TIO that I should trust them?


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

vivalagentenuova said:


> Now, as for the content of the video, let's be clear about what the point is. It's not to bash Price, to say she's a terrible singer, to be pedantic about fachs, or diction or whatever. As with all their videos, it's to talk about how training particular _kinds_ of sounds trains particular functions in the voice, and how that affects the voice overall. So the point of bringing up diction is that clear vowels (not articulated consonants, btw) not only make the text comprehensible, but, if developed, actually allow the voice to project and cut through the orchestra better. And, to many of us, it's more beautiful.


I agree that the point of the video is not to bash Price, but I don't think it's to make the generic point you claim, that could be made better by presenting various singers who excelled when it comes to diction. (I don't agree with your point, by the way. Both Nilsson and Sutherland were able to cut through a large orchestra and yet neither had great diction.) The point of the video is quite clear, it's that Price didn't have the right voice to sing Aida and since they claim to have a high level of knowledge when it comes to operatic singing, if they mean Price would have made a great Aida had she had better technique, then they should have said that.



vivalagentenuova said:


> As for technique, I think they do think that technique means making certain sounds. And I think they're right. Singers do indeed use their voices once they have them in their own ways, but the operatic voice is an instrument. Like violins, there are certain sounds they need to be able to produce. You will get there using a variety of techniques, some of which will not be needed for some singers whereas others will depend on them, just as a violin maker responds to the character of each individual piece of wood, but still produces a violin with a recognizable "violin" sound. Price's voice would have sounded more like Tebaldi if she had a teacher who was able to show her how to coordinate in the way old singers did. I interpreted the video as saying Price was super talented but just didn't develop her voice to the level of previous singers. Far from bashing, I think that's pretty fair.


The comparison between violins (a man made instrument to defined prescriptions) and sopranos (where no two singers are in any way alike physically to the extent that two violins made by the same maker are). No two singers are even as alike as two violins made by two different makers under different conditions. Violinists therefore can search to make a 'violin' sound which is the most agreeable on the ear as the art of violin making has worked out what produces the most beautiful and efficient instrument.

However, it's different for singers, a large part of singing is discovering our natural sound, whether it is beautiful or not. Had Price tried to imitate the Tebaldi sound rather than staying true to herself she either wouldn't have got very far or would have ruined her voice. That doesn't mean that anything goes (otherwise why would vocal training be needed?) I agree that good diction (or pure vowels as some have put it) is the most common sign that a person's natural voice is being employed, however I don't think Price's diction was bad, it just wasn't as good as Tebaldi's in those excerpts.

N.


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

I feel like since they deleted and re-uploaded their videos the person or group running the channel has changed. I certainly preferred the points they were making beforehand - recently they have been a little too critical. I can see what they mean with most of their points, and on the whole I agree with them, but a singer can be a great singer without being perfect. For example they could make a whole video on basically anyone doing "bad" things with their voice but that wouldn't necessarily mean they were bad singers. I think what they are saying is generally fine but they also need to understand that differences in technique do happen even with the greatest of singers. I don't like Price past her early recordings but I think in her early days she was brilliant despite some defects. I preferred the more general videos showing how many of today's opera singers have a poor basic concept of vocal development compared to how they now seem to be nit-picking smaller and smaller issues. If they want to make these points I think they should at least acknowledge that singers with these more specific faults can still be great singers.


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

Thank you all for sharing your opinions! I'm not very familiar with Leontyne Price as she mostly sang in operas that I haven't explored yet. I was surprised by what TIO said though. Right now I feel like they are simply nitpicking. Sure Price probably had some faults, but it seems like they might be making too big a deal of them. I'd have to listen to her more to know for sure what I think though.

I have more questions and am gathering my thoughts to make another post here.


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

> The comparison between violins (a man made instrument to defined prescriptions) and sopranos (where no two singers are in any way alike physically to the extent that two violins made by the same maker are). No two singers are even as alike as two violins made by two different makers under different conditions. Violinists therefore can search to make a 'violin' sound which is the most agreeable on the ear as the art of violin making has worked out what produces the most beautiful and efficient instrument.


I can't agree that human anatomy varies enough from person to person for there to substantially different techniques for different people. The same muscles are involved, the same processes are at work. They do videos all the time where they show how even between tenors and sopranos the voices sound very similar where they overlap in range. Gigli's high notes and Ponselle's low notes etc.. Now, different singers might need different exercises because they do different things naturally, but that doesn't mean they have different technique. They just start out with different parts of the same technique in place by nature. So someone might have big chest voice in place when they start lessons, whereas it might take another singer a lot of work to develop the chest voice. That doesn't mean that the second singer doesn't have one, doesn't need one, or just has a different technique they need to use for themselves.

Also, while Melba and Kurz, for example, have recognizably distinct voices to a greater extent than the average difference between two violins, they still make the same kinds of sounds. The falsetto participation that they talk about has a very distinct sound and you can hear how it affects the voice. For example, they played Antonietta Stella in the 50s vs. her in the 60s, and in the latter recording it didn't even really sound like the same singer because the falsetto participation was gone.



> However, it's different for singers, a large part of singing is discovering our natural sound, whether it is beautiful or not. Had Price tried to imitate the Tebaldi sound rather than staying true to herself she either wouldn't have got very far or would have ruined her voice. That doesn't mean that anything goes (otherwise why would vocal training be needed?) I agree that good diction (or pure vowels as some have put it) is the most common sign that a person's natural voice is being employed, however I don't think Price's diction was bad, it just wasn't as good as Tebaldi's in those excerpts.


Price's vowels, especially earlier in her career, were not nearly as bad as say Guleghina's, who sang the lines from Suicidio as "free lee teeneebree" because she couldn't even make an ah sound down there. But they weren't clear. She should have imitated Tebaldi. Far from ruining her voice, she would have improved it. I mean singing was taught by imitation. That's the point: you imitate your teacher because they know how to do it. And that must be responsible for the success of teachers like Lilli Lehmann. I mean, tons of people since have used her book and how many of them have produced a Geraldine Farrar? But Lehmann did. Why? Well, TIO's answer, which strikes me as very plausible, is that she could produce the right sound for Farrar to imitate, and could tell when Farrar was not doing it right.



vivalagentenuova said:


> As with all their videos, it's to talk about how training particular kinds of sounds trains particular functions in the voice, and how that affects the voice overall.





The Conte said:


> The point of the video is quite clear, it's that Price didn't have the right voice to sing Aida and since they claim to have a high level of knowledge when it comes to operatic singing, if they mean Price would have made a great Aida had she had better technique, then they should have said that.


They use Price as an example of someone who had divided registers. But the point isn't just to say "Price is bad!" but to teach people what they think are the problems with her sound and how to avoid them. Many other singers have the same problems as Price, and it's a common problem for sopranos today. So they use an example of what not to imitate and what to imitate.



The Conte said:


> Both Nilsson and Sutherland were able to cut through a large orchestra and yet neither had great diction.)


Nilsson had much clearer vowels. In _Turandot_, for example, Nilsson is clearly saying "In questa reggia" whereas Sutherland is saying, "Un qustuh ruhgiuh". She's singing everything through "oo", but without clarity. But Sutherland didn't always do this: in very early recordings her diction is much better and her middle especially just pops:




The difference hear isn't just young vs. old. It's the kinds of sounds she is making.
Now, in the Price video they did say exactly what we find with Sutherland: the biggest, best sounding part of her range is the top above C5, whereas the middle is muddy and the bottom notes are very veiled. Sutherland was trained well at first and so had some development, which plausibly accounts for her big voice, even though she started to change her technique when she switched to Bel Canto roles. Also, I'm not saying that clarity is the _only_ thing that makes people able to cut across an orchestra. How do you explain Price, with by all accounts the darker, bigger, spinto voice type, not being able to make it as Minnie where Kirsten can?



DavidA said:


> Yes I just wonder whose word to take for it.


We just agreed five seconds ago that we don't have to take experts' word for it:


DavidA said:


> Absolutely! We do! Whatever Lind said I know what I heard!


So which is it? Do we come to our own conclusions with our own ears, or do we ask for credentials and decide based on who has them? Or are Verdi and Rossini and Lind not experts? Why is it that when you don't like Patti it's great to be independent minded, but when TIO doesn't like a singer you like they are embarrassing themselves because they disagree with experts? You can't have it both ways.


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

This video is kind of amazing, because you can hear in one place, from the same singer, with the same recording equipment etc. the different between falsetto with no core (what they are faulting Price et al with, though not to the same degree) and (not great, but at least existant) chest voice. The vowels go from pure mush to pure and back in seconds: 2:10-2:25. FRA LE TENEBRE, free lee teneebree. It's like a different singer with a much bigger voice stepped in. What they are saying about vowel clarity is that singers should carry that clarity up into the head voice, even as they bring in falsetto.





Here Farrell stays in head voice on that phrase (2:19-2:45) but everything is clear and the sound is strong. You can hear how much bigger and stronger Farrell's "FRA LE TENEBRE" sounds than Guleghina's in collapsed head voice.


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

OK, this is going to be a long one, so hold on! :lol:

So my suspicions about TIO started when I thought about one of the comments they posted on one of their videos. This was before they took their videos down the first time. Plus, they have disabled comments, so I can't show you the comment. But anyway, someone asked if there was a teacher who could teach proper technique, and TIO responded with something that basically said - yes! there is one! - they then posted a link to this site: https://www.thesilversingingmethod.com/

At that point I became suspicious about them. Really, there's only _one _good teacher? And it's this guy with a rather spam-like looking blog? This made TIO look like some operatic quack advertiser to me. I also noticed that their descriptions of proper vibrato were the same as the ones on this Silver Singing site.

I wasn't the only one who was suspicious about them. This guy Philippe Castagner (random, but I guess he's a singer from this Naxos album: https://www.prestomusic.com/classical/products/7978567--ravel-l-enfant-et-les-sortileges) has a blog in which he tries to figure who is behind TIO: https://newschoolsinger.com/author/pcastagner/

He also has a YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/pcastagner

Now to be clear, I don't agree with his opinions about singing. He criticizes TIO for supposedly teaching people how to sing without showing them their credentials. He doesn't seem to like how they hide themselves. He also came up with this "Mister Opera Challenge" saying that TIO or others should post a video of themselves demonstrating their technique. He seems to think that TIO can't be taken seriously unless they demonstrate their techniques themselves. He came up with this analogy that what TIO is doing is like people who don't paint trying to teach people to paint.

I see two problems:

1. TIO is not teaching people how to sing. They are simply pointing out differences or apparent differences between what they consider to be bad and good singers. They explain what the singers are doing, but they are not really teaching how to sing. If you want to try to practice what they are talking about, you can't unless you have already been trained in some of these concepts. They don't actually say anything like, "This is what chest voice is. If you want to have better chest voice do this and this and this." They tell you what the techniques are, not how to perform them. Their videos are comparisons, not singing lessons. You can't use them to teach yourself to sing.

2. He seems to subscribe to this "go do it yourself" fallacy. I've seen this more than once on YouTube when people try to defend bad modern singers. Basically someone points out bad singing, and someone responds saying something like, "If you want to criticize them, then why don't you show us how good of a singer you are?" I see this more and more, and this terrible logic really, really gets on my nerves! This seems to be Philippe Castagner's method of arguing.

That being said, I do understand his suspicions about TIO. I encourage you to please read though the first five or so pages that show up when you click the link to his blog and tell us what you think if you have a few minutes.

There are some things that I'd like to point out from the blog.

First, he makes seems to make a connection between TIO and Jeremiah Silver of Silver Singing. He points out a post (on Facebook I think) where Silver apparenty says that TIO is made up of his students.

Another thing he points out is that there is another YouTube channel called "This is opera" (the TIO we are familiar with is "This is opera!" with the exclamation point) which is supposedly a group of people who left the original TIO. (See their channel page: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjL7vtMGKt4IezDDkIkdleA/featured and the comments on this video: 



). This new channel could be a hoax for all I know, but it is suspicious. Op.123 says that it feels like the channel is being run by someone else. Perhaps this explains it?

Another thing is that Castagner seems to think that Silver is . . . a person with a bad record I guess you could say. He thinks this is why TIO took their videos down (and maybe why they disabled comments? I can't remember if he said that specifically about disabling comments, but it follows).

Overall, I don't know what to believe since this is all on the internet on blogs, so who knows what is true or not. I feel somewhat guilty as if I am gossiping, but I'm starting to get bad vibes so to say. The way Castagner has dug into trying to find out who TIO is seems to turn up information that makes TIO look a lot like a quack.

I'm wondering who this Silver guy is. Do you guys know anything about him? Is he a legit voice teacher? Maybe he knows a thing or two about singing but can't actually teach or sing himself? Maybe Castagner is making things up and spreading rumors??? After all, I feel like he is motivated by some sort of insecurity or something. I think he has videos on his YouTube channel of him singing, and if I remember correctly, he didn't sound too great. But supposedly Silver isn't even a good singer.

I'm very confused. TIO has been giving me bad vibes and confusing me for so long, it's starting to bother me. I encourage you all to look at the things I linked. Let me know what you think. You all bring good ideas to the table.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

vivalagentenuova said:


> I can't agree that human anatomy varies enough from person to person for there to substantially different techniques for different people.


Nobody is asking you to. I didn't say that different singers should use different techniques, but that when the correct technique of building a voice is used (the how to of making an instrument) then the exact tone and colour of a voice should be different as each singer is a different instrument with their own distinctive timbre (or at least they should be), just as different people have different (and recognizable) speaking voices. Then the same technique is used to 'play' the instrument. I think we agree here.



vivalagentenuova said:


> Also, while Melba and Kurz, for example, have recognizably distinct voices to a greater extent than the average difference between two violins, they still make the same kinds of sounds. The falsetto participation that they talk about has a very distinct sound and you can hear how it affects the voice. For example, they played Antonietta Stella in the 50s vs. her in the 60s, and in the latter recording it didn't even really sound like the same singer because the falsetto participation was gone.
> 
> Price's vowels, especially earlier in her career, were not nearly as bad as say Guleghina's, who sang the lines from Suicidio as "free lee teeneebree" because she couldn't even make an ah sound down there. But they weren't clear. She should have imitated Tebaldi. Far from ruining her voice, she would have improved it. I mean singing was taught by imitation. That's the point: you imitate your teacher because they know how to do it. And that must be responsible for the success of teachers like Lilli Lehmann. I mean, tons of people since have used her book and how many of them have produced a Geraldine Farrar? But Lehmann did. Why? Well, TIO's answer, which strikes me as very plausible, is that she could produce the right sound for Farrar to imitate, and could tell when Farrar was not doing it right.


Do we know that Lehmann taught in that way? Most teachers I have worked with will explain first in words the type of sounds they are after and then will demonstrate what they mean by an exaggerated vocal example. I've never heard of someone teaching by saying that students should imitate the exact sounds that their teacher is making. I was told by a couple of teachers to imitate this or that Baritone and I spent years trying to produce a particular sound that those teachers wanted, but the feedback I got in auditions was that I was putting on a fake voice. Quelle surprise!

One of the teachers that helped me the most was a tenor who worked a lot on diction and kept telling me that I was faking an unnaturally dark sound, he helped me find my true voice by focusing on the vowel sounds I was making and training me to use the same vowels I use when speaking and hey presto, out came my natural voice! I also learnt a lot by putting Cornelius L Reid's books into practice.



vivalagentenuova said:


> They use Price as an example of someone who had divided registers. But the point isn't just to say "Price is bad!" but to teach people what they think are the problems with her sound and how to avoid them. Many other singers have the same problems as Price, and it's a common problem for sopranos today. So they use an example of what not to imitate and what to imitate.


I disagree with the method here. I don't think that singers should 'imitate' others per se. Instead I would suggest working out _why_ something works (or doesn't) technically for other singers and then using that technique with ones own instrument and timbre. So for your example about falsetto participation rather than imitating Tebaldi (as a baritone I wouldn't know how to begin with that one anyway!) I would use exercises to work on falsetto and then bring it into the mix throughout my entire range. This is exactly the method I use and what Reid refers to as a functional method. So instead of trying to make certain sounds, I use exercises that automatically result in the desirable sounds.

N.


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

Yes, it's a bit of a mess. But my position has always been that I don't care who is running This is Opera! The only thing that matters to me is, Does what they say make sense and do they offer convincing evidence that it's true? I think it often does, and they often do. Certainly not always. When I apply their method of criticism to other records beyond the examples they give, it seems to hold true. I know that my own appreciation of many singers has increased a hundredfold since watching their videos. Not because they told me they were good, but because suddenly I could hear things I hadn't before. So, who cares who they are? As for Silver, while it certainly doesn't look very good, I have no idea what's true there and someone's personal character has nothing to do with the validity of what they say. I can say that I find the way that he interacts online to be distasteful and sometimes offensive, as some of the earliest TIO videos were.

TIO have been pretty clear for a while that at least some of them were students of Silver at some point. So the fact that they said he was a good teacher isn't suspicious at all. Furthermore, they said the reason that they only recommended him was that he was the only one they were personally familiar, with not that other good teachers don't exist. The didn't want to recommend anyone they hadn't personally worked with. Again, actually a very reasonable statement.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Excellent thread Adriesba and interesting comments. When it comes to TIO I find their videos thought provoking and I have found in the past that their general conception of technique is sound. I also find the videos interesting. That said, whoever they are, they occasionally take a recording of a singer in rehearsal or at the end of the career and comment on their lack of technique as if the clip they have shown is representative of the singer overall.

The present video is titled "Why she didn't had a voice for Aida" (perhaps I should start a YouTube channel 'This is grammar!') and ends with the comment Voice for Aida? No. This person (or persons) isn't saying there were flaws in her technique but she wasn't a bad artist, they are saying that one of the greatest voices of the 20th century wasn't right for their signature role! (I'm not quite sure what they mean here anyway as the outer segments of the video pose the idea that she was singing the wrong rep, whilst the middle section focuses on a general flaw in her singing (but uses some of her less flattering recorded performances to do it)).

I'm not that bothered who TIO is or what their credentials are, just watch/listen to their videos and listen for yourself which excerpts are 'better'. (I for one shall not be getting rid of my two Price Trovatores and investing in the Tebaldi recording!)

N.


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

@The Conte
I think it's the word "imitation" that's causing the problem here. If by imitation you mean, just trying to sound like a singer generally, then I can't see how it would help. I mean, you can't even hear yourself. But if by imitation you mean really analyzing a sound and trying to find the pure falsetto, etc., then it seems a great way to teach. You can't get the right thing out of an exercise if the person who is hearing you can't tell whether or not you're making the sound you're supposed to be.

We don't know how Lehmann taught for sure, although I don't think it's much of a stretch to think she used at least some of the ideas in her book. But if those ideas (like visualizing where the tone is at each pitch etc.) were enough to make great singers, we'd have a lot more than we do. So there must be something else. TIO offers a reasonable, albeit unprovable, hypothesis, namely that she was able hear and/or demonstrate proper and improper sound.

What I mean by imitation is what Danise is doing in this video with Valdengo. Take at 32:05 where Valdengo sings an overly dark, unclear "Luh temp-" before Danise cuts him off with an overly bright, clear "LAAAAAAAAAA" Now Danise didn't want Valdengo to make that exact sound, but he wanted more of the bright, clear quality, and Valdengo was able to correct by trying to match it. So the idea is that the teacher demonstrates sounds that train functions. Danise is demonstrating different qualities depending on the specific problem, and Valdengo by imitating the quality of the sound, at least in part, can resolve the issue. What I mean by saying Price should imitate Tebaldi is not that she should listen to Tebaldi and just do the same thing (what would that mean?) but that she should listen closely to her and analyze why she has clear middle, etc.. "Ah, here she sings with clear vowels but also with falsetto", etc..


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

vivalagentenuova said:


> Yes, it's a bit of a mess. But my position has always been that I don't care who is running This is Opera! The only thing that matters to me is, Does what they say make sense and do they offer convincing evidence that it's true? I think it often does, and they often do. Certainly not always. When I apply their method of criticism to other records beyond the examples they give, it seems to hold true. I know that my own appreciation of many singers has increased a hundredfold since watching their videos. Not because they told me they were good, but because suddenly I could hear things I hadn't before. So, who cares who they are? As for Silver, while it certainly doesn't look very good, I have no idea what's true there and someone's personal character has nothing to do with the validity of what they say. I can say that I find the way that he interacts online to be distasteful and sometimes offensive, as some of the earliest TIO videos were.
> 
> TIO have been pretty clear for a while that at least some of them were students of Silver at some point. So the fact that they said he was a good teacher isn't suspicious at all. Furthermore, they said the reason that they only recommended him was that he was the only one they were personally familiar, with not that other good teachers don't exist. The didn't want to recommend anyone they hadn't personally worked with. Again, actually a very reasonable statement.


Good thoughts.

I want to be clear though, I'm not saying that a person's life choices or personality or whatever determine whether or not they are a good artist or teacher or whatnot. I just felt suspicious about TIO. Some of the details I have mentioned are things that could say, "Warning! Potential scammer, fake, quack, etc." If were a vocal student and was given an advertisement for Silver Singing and looked him up without knowing about anything in TIO's videos, I would think, "This is sketchy, sounds fake."

Since I am not experienced with singing professionally, I don't have a level of understanding to really delve into these issues as much as I would like. So naturally, as one does when a person selling a product looks suspicious, I questioned not only the person, but also the product. Thus, I asked for a different perspective which you have given me.

But I don't think whether or not a person is a decent person necessarily determines that their art or product is bad or good. I separate the art from the artist. Otherwise I'd have to get rid of a lot of my CDs! :lol:


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

adriesba said:


> OK, this is going to be a long one, so hold on! :lol:
> 
> So my suspicions about TIO started when I thought about one of the comments they posted on one of their videos. This was before they took their videos down the first time. Plus, they have disabled comments, so I can't show you the comment. But anyway, someone asked if there was a teacher who could teach proper technique, and TIO responded with something that basically said - yes! there is one! - they then posted a link to this site: https://www.thesilversingingmethod.com/
> 
> ...


I agree with everything you said, I even commented under a ridiculous video that Philippe guy made which consisted of voicing-over a video made by TIO in a crass way, which doesn't really make any point in proving that TIO is wrong about anything in that video. And he replies simply by calling me ignorant or that TIO is messing with EQ in the juxtaposed old vs modern clips which is not true. The clips sound the same as elsewhere on youtube, and it's not like the quality of the singing is volume-contingent anyway.

His only argument is "who can't do can't teach" (not that he sounds great himself) and when I said that there was nothing in TIO videos indicating that they were selling lessons (I was referring solely to the content of the videos themselves, I'm not really familiar with anything peripheral like the link to Jeremy's blog in the comments etc), he again said I was either a liar or ignorant.

My two cents: whoever is behind TIO is of absolutely no interest to me. I appreciate the content and the effort they try to make, and they do make a lot of sense more often than not. They go into great detail and they're really passionate about what they're doing. You can tell there is a huge amount of research behind it, and there is a very minute attention to details I haven't seen in similar channels like GeneralRadames or AfroPoli etc who basically talk about the same things but aren't under as much fire, because many times, TIO takes it a bit too far that it's either confusing or makes you think "who cares? I mean not all singers should be pure perfection on every single note!"

The Mister Opera thing is just dedicating the channel to attacking TIO with sleazy remarks, very poor content, crude ridicule (just listen to some of their videos, you'll hear more flatulence sounds than you'd like) and above all desperate clickbait titles and thumbnails such as "what happened to This is Opera?" and "he almost raped me!" which is in my opinion very cheap and low.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

vivalagentenuova said:


> @The Conte
> I think it's the word "imitation" that's causing the problem here. If by imitation you mean, just trying to sound like a singer generally, then I can't see how it would help. I mean, you can't even hear yourself. But if by imitation you mean really analyzing a sound and trying to find the pure falsetto, etc., then it seems a great way to teach. You can't get the right thing out of an exercise if the person who is hearing you can't tell whether or not you're making the sound you're supposed to be.


We are mostly in agreement here. When it comes to functional exercises you need to understand how the voice works (which you can get partially from a teacher, partially from listening to the comparisons in TIO's videos and partially from good singing books - Garcia is good, I'm not familiar with Lehmann's or Marchesi's, but Reid's are the best). I think we agree there.

The components of any exercise are the vowel, the pitch and the volume, the functional approach uses different combinations of those three to produce the desired result rather than trying to produce a particular sound. In your Guleghina example above I hear too little use of the chest register and not coordinated with the falsetto/head register in the lower range. I would work on the a and e vowels in the range E above middle C down to as far as the voice will go sung fff and then work on the top of the voice with i and u mf alternating with the same vowels in the middle of the voice sung f. (However there's a lot of work that would need to be done there IMO.) In terms of knowing whether the sound is 'right' or not, the vowels should be kept pure at all times and be akin to Guleghina's natural speaking tones. (Perhaps that's what you mean by vowel clarity?)

N.


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

The Conte said:


> Excellent thread Adriesba and interesting comments. When it comes to TIO I find their videos thought provoking and I have found in the past that their general conception of technique is sound. I also find the videos interesting. That said, whoever they are, they occasionally take a recording of a singer in rehearsal or at the end of the career and comment on their lack of technique as if the clip they have shown is representative of the singer overall.
> 
> The present video is titled "Why she didn't had a voice for Aida" (perhaps I should start a YouTube channel 'This is grammar!') and ends with the comment Voice for Aida? No. This person (or persons) isn't saying there were flaws in her technique but she wasn't a bad artist, they are saying that one of the greatest voices of the 20th century wasn't right for their signature role! (I'm not quite sure what they mean here anyway as the outer segments of the video pose the idea that she was singing the wrong rep, whilst the middle section focuses on a general flaw in her singing (but uses some of her less flattering recorded performances to do it)).
> 
> ...


Made me chuckle :lol:


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

Listen to these examples of Price sing this passage from _Forza_ just two years apart. In the first, 1980, she is very clear on "In mezzo a tanto, a tanto duol" (3:36):





The high note isn't my favorite of all time, but it's fairly clear and has a nice, strong quality.

Just two years later, 1982, (3:33):





"In mezzuh tuhnto a tuhnto tuhnto duol" What happened to her "ah"? It's no longer clear. The high note is thin and rather shrill with a little but of unsteadiness.

Anyway, her whole voice seems different in the two examples. In the latter, it has a dark quality that is lacking substance, whereas in the former it's much brighter and clearer. (Not too much though, which is a whole separate issue.)

Intent especially can be subject to many different interpretations, but I took their intent to be to show that Price was not as good and didn't have as developed a voice as singers of the past, and to show why so that we could learn from that about how to get back to that earlier vocal technique (that being part of their stated mission as a channel). While I would hear Price over Netrebko or really anyone at the Met right now in a second, I would also hear Ponselle or Destinn over Price.

Also, bear in mind the criticize singers they are generally positive of all the time: Caballe, Obraztsova, Tebaldi, Callas, Barbieri, etc.. I take their videos as being ways of trying to understand operatic voice and it's sounds, and I really only care about that aspect of them. Perhaps that blinds me to why they frustrate people.


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

The Conte said:


> Excellent thread Adriesba and interesting comments. When it comes to TIO I find their videos thought provoking and I have found in the past that their general conception of technique is sound. I also find the videos interesting. That said, whoever they are, they occasionally take a recording of a singer in rehearsal or at the end of the career and comment on their lack of technique as if the clip they have shown is representative of the singer overall.
> 
> The present video is titled "Why she didn't had a voice for Aida" (perhaps I should start a YouTube channel 'This is grammar!') and ends with the comment Voice for Aida? No. This person (or persons) isn't saying there were flaws in her technique but she wasn't a bad artist, they are saying that one of the greatest voices of the 20th century wasn't right for their signature role! (I'm not quite sure what they mean here anyway as the outer segments of the video pose the idea that she was singing the wrong rep, whilst the middle section focuses on a general flaw in her singing (but uses some of her less flattering recorded performances to do it)).
> 
> ...


Yes, I had watched their videos and what they said generally seemed reasonable to me. I saw that I definitely preferred older singers to the newer singers. Some say TIO cherrypicks, and sometimes they do. But there are too many recordings, including ones with excellent sound, that show that opera singing has declined.

It was just that finding all these rumors naturally made me suspect that TIO might be some sort of fraud. In general, if a person advertising something seems like a questionable person, it makes sense to question what they are advertising. Scammers often give us warning signs that they are not selling something worthwhile or authentic. I was worried that maybe they are just clever at manipulating people into thinking what they say is true.

Since I don't have adequate knowledge about singing to thoroughly confirm or disprove what they say, I thought that I really need to get opinions from somewhere else. A lot of stuff they said in their videos certainly made sense to me though, and I wasn't about to "throw out the baby with the bathwater" so to say. As you have pointed out, what they say can be true even if they are sketchy people.

So thanks for sharing your thoughts on the matter. 
.
.
.
Anyway... moving back to Price, are you saying that she had a problem with uncoordinated registers or that this sound was a part of her natural voice? I'm not totally sure what coordinated registers means, so sorry if this is a silly question.


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

Sorry, got confused with too many tabs open. Instead of the 1982 video, I meant this 1984 performance. So 4 years apart.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

adriesba said:


> Anyway... moving back to Price, are you saying that she had a problem with uncoordinated registers or that this sound was a part of her natural voice? I'm not totally sure what coordinated registers means, so sorry if this is a silly question.


I'm not saying anything about Price other than she wasn't as good technically as Tebaldi (but that's not to say that she was bad or had bad technique). Her diction isn't as clear as Tebaldi's and her voice not as even from top to bottom. However, there are singers with a lot worse technique.

N.


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

Tuoksu said:


> I agree with everything you said, I even commented under a ridiculous video that Philippe guy made which consisted of voicing-over a video made by TIO in a crass way, which doesn't really make any point in proving that TIO is wrong about anything in that video. And he replies simply by calling me ignorant or that TIO is messing with EQ in the juxtaposed old vs modern clips which is not true. The clips sound the same as elsewhere on youtube, and it's not like the quality of the singing is volume-contingent anyway.
> 
> His only argument is "who can't do can't teach" (not that he sounds great himself) and when I said that there was nothing in TIO videos indicating that they were selling lessons (I was referring solely to the content of the videos themselves, I'm not really familiar with anything peripheral like the link to Jeremy's blog in the comments etc), he again said I was either a liar or ignorant.
> 
> ...


I saw that video and your comments. I understand your frustration! For one thing, TIO's videos are not meant to teach people how to sing. They are simply comparisons between singers with explanations about their technique. They are certainly not vocal excersises! If I wanted to learn how to sing opera, I couldn't based solely on TIO's videos since they don't give you exercises. Another thing, I was initially thinking that TIO was a way to advertise Silver Singing, but I'm starting to think this is incorrect. If they are advertising Silver, they are doing a bad job at it. Castagner had to really dig to make the connection between Silver and TIO. TIO does sometimes seem fishy, but their videos don't come across as advertisements. How is the average viewer supposed to figure out that they are connected to Silver? They don't explicitly state this, so it's not clear who they are unless you scour the internet and connect the dots. That's not really how advertisement works.

Castagner also uses bad logic like I said. He argues based on the "go do it yourself" fallacy. I see this on YouTube all the time when people try to defend singers like Netrebko. Ugh... that bad logic absolutely infuriates me! To make an analogy of my own, I might not know how to make a pie, but that doesn't mean I can't tell if the pie I'm eating tastes bad! Or to use his painting analogy, even though I don't know how to paint well, I can tell when a Michelangelo painting is better than one of those medieval paintings with dis-proportioned characters or than a cave painting! :lol:

Plus, can I really take an argument seriously when it seems to mostly consists of _ad hominems_?

I do think TIO would do well to recognize problems with using poor quality audio to make their comparisons. This problem doesn't need to exist though! There are plenty of recordings in good sound (live and studio) of these good singers of the past! Even into the digital era there were some good singers. You can compare good singers of the past and today's bad singers without getting stuck on this sound quality problem.


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

The Conte said:


> I'm not saying anything about Price other than she wasn't as good technically as Tebaldi (but that's not to say that she was bad or had bad technique). Her diction isn't as clear as Tebaldi's and her voice not as even from top to bottom. However, there are singers with a lot worse technique.
> 
> N.


OK, I see thanks.

By the way, could you tell me the titles of the books you recommend? If I can get a copy sometime I'd like to read up a bit on vocal technique.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Here's one of the classic singing texts:

http://petrucci.mus.auth.gr/imglnks...lections_on_the_Figurative_Art_of_Singing.pdf

And here's Garcia's (he wrote other books about singing, but this is the better of his works IMO):

https://archive.org/details/hintsonsinging00garc/page/n2/mode/2up

Then for a more recent book that is easier to read, Cornelius L Reid's The Free Voice was reissued in 2018. You should be able to find it online fairly easily.

Warning! These books aren't necessarily a riveting read and are designed for singers and singing teachers, they aren't necessarily presenting vocal technique for the uninitiated. If something easier and more layman friendly is better for you Jerome Hines' Great Singers on Great Singing may be more up your street.

N.


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

Never read Reid's work, but I've heard good things. Apparently he was a student of Stanley, whom TIO references a lot. They also quote Garcia a lot, and who seems to have produced a whole school of great singing. Thanks for the links.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Without getting into arguments about who was better, Price or Tebaldi, I woud just say I'd rather listen to either of them than anyone singing that repertoire today.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

vivalagentenuova said:


> Never read Reid's work, but I've heard good things. Apparently he was a student of Stanley, whom TIO references a lot. They also quote Garcia a lot, and who seems to have produced a whole school of great singing. Thanks for the links.


Reid's story is a good one, he failed to learn how to sing despite studying with a number of the great teachers in New York back in his day. In the end he taught himself by reading old singing texts from the 18th and 19th centuries and hence his technique. He then passed it on to his students. Completely heretical, of course, to learn from books, but I have had a similar experience myself. There are five key texts that Reid recommended and I have read all of them.

Opinioni de' cantori antichi e moderni - _Pier Francesco Tosi_ (1723)
Practical reflections on the figurative art of singing - _Giambattista Mancini_ (1777)
The Art of Singing - _F Lamperti_ (1836)
Hints on Singing - _Manuel Garcia_ (1840/1894)
The Technics of Bel Canto - _G B Lamperti_ (1905)

Only for the vocal geeks! You should be able to find them all online.

N.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Tsaraslondon said:


> Without getting into arguments about who was better, Price or Tebaldi, I woud just say I'd rather listen to either of them than anyone singing that repertoire today.


Why not just enjoy both !


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

DavidA said:


> Why not just enjoy both !


What? Both 1) Price and Tebaldi AND 2) today's sopranos having a go at Aida, and the Leonoras?

Because one only has a limited time on this planet and therefore I prefer to choose a certain quality of aural experience over others that don't make the grade. What's wrong with people having a preference? You've said many times that you don't like Callas' Carmen and prefer Price. Why not just enjoy both?

N.


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

Wanna hear Netrebko sing Aida? 






TIO used this next video once. Listen to how much better her voice sounds without all that fake darkening sound:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I heard Netrebko's Aida from the Met live. I must confess I enjoyed it. What a disgrace! :lol:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The Conte said:


> What? Both 1) Price and Tebaldi AND 2) today's sopranos having a go at Aida, and the Leonoras?
> 
> Because one only has a limited time on this planet and therefore I prefer to choose a certain quality of aural experience over others that don't make the grade. What's wrong with people having a preference? You've said many times that you don't like Callas' Carmen and prefer Price. Why not just enjoy both?
> 
> N.


I have Callas' Carmen on disc but the only problem is I have about 6 other recordings of the opera which I prefer and as you say time is limited. I was actually meaning why choose between Price and Tebaldi. Please read my carefully worded script!


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> I have Callas' Carmen on disc but the only problem is I have about 6 other recordings of the opera which I prefer and as you say time is limited. I was actually meaning why choose between Price and Tebaldi. Please read my carefully worded script!


Perhaps you should read other people's scripts. Nowhere in my post did I indicate it was necessary to make a choice between Tebaldi and Price.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Tsaraslondon said:


> Perhaps you should read other people's scripts. Nowhere in my post did I indicate it was necessary to make a choice between Tebaldi and Price.


And neither did I so I'm glad we agree! :tiphat:


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> And neither did I so I'm glad we agree! :tiphat:


But you appear to be suggesting that Le Conte is saying that, which he isn't.


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

adriesba said:


> TIO used this next video once. Listen to how much better her voice sounds without all that fake darkening sound:


I don't really buy this "fake darkening" thing that TIO is always on about. Her voice is darker in the Aida clip than the Mussorgsky because she was 25 in the Mussorgsky and 45 in the Aida, and it's natural for voices to darken as singers age.


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

howlingfantods said:


> I don't really buy this "fake darkening" thing that TIO is always on about. Her voice is darker in the Aida clip than the Mussorgsky because she was 25 in the Mussorgsky and 45 in the Aida, and it's natural for voices to darken as singers age.


But does that "darkness" sound right and elegant to you? It's a muffled, swallowed sound. Not to mention that that kind of sound has no grace nor beauty, and it doesn't carry. When she gasps for air it's far louder than her singing.

Voices can change slightly with age of course, but any major change is mostly due to a change of technique (including Callas' case which is the opposite: artificially lightening the voice for stylistic reasons which obviously ended badly) 
You shouldn't see a major difference in timbre between your mid 20s and mid 40s unless you have a severe case of premature aging or are undergoing some gender-changing hormone therapy.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

howlingfantods said:


> I don't really buy this "fake darkening" thing that TIO is always on about. Her voice is darker in the Aida clip than the Mussorgsky because she was 25 in the Mussorgsky and 45 in the Aida, and it's natural for voices to darken as singers age.


Tebaldi had sung Maddalena in *Andrea Chénier* and Desdemona by the time she was 24 and Aida just a few years later at 28. Listening to Netrebko at 25, you wouldn't for a minute suspect she would go on to sing heavy Verdi roles. Surely that's the point.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Tsaraslondon said:


> Perhaps you should read other people's scripts. Nowhere in my post did I indicate it was necessary to make a choice between Tebaldi and Price.


Exactly! And the 'carefully worded script' aka "Why can't you enjoy both?" obviously wasn't carefully worded enough.

But maybe one person is allowed to have preferences, but the rest of us mere mortals aren't allowed to compare or make comments about different singers.

N.


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

Tsaraslondon said:


> Tebaldi had sung Maddalena in *Andrea Chénier* and Desdemona by the time she was 24 and Aida just a few years later at 28. Listening to Netrebko at 25, you wouldn't for a minute suspect she would go on to sing heavy Verdi roles. Surely that's the point.


Very good point. Ponselle made her debut in Forza when she was just 21, Callas had already sung Gioconda, Norma, Aida, Macbeth, Nabucco, Medea and even Wagner (Walkure, Isolde..) by the time she was 29. Even as a teenager while she was still training in Athens, her first teacher ( the one before De Hidalgo) told her mother that she was not a contralto but a Dramatic Soprano!

Not to mention that all of these sounded more dramatic in their 20s than Netrebko ever will.


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

Many great lyrics of the past sang heavy Verdi and even Wagner roles without darkening at all. Kirsten's Minnie is nothing like Netrebko's Leonora. Rethberg's Senta isn't veiled and ugly. It's the same voice, just at a consistently higher volume.

Furthermore, lyric voices shouldn't turn into dark dramatic instruments as they age. It's perfectly possible to maintain a beautiful, chiaroscuro, lyric voice in old age:










Finally, Netrebko's sound, as Tuoksu points out, is not a good dramatic sound. She doesn't sound like Flagstad, or Traubel, or Fuchs, or Leider, or Ponselle. She sounds like an old lady. Even Netrebko's early singing wasn't as good as Rina Gigli there at 70, so I don't think people are being too harsh.


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

Tuoksu said:


> But does that "darkness" sound right and elegant to you? It's a muffled, swallowed sound. Not to mention that that kind of sound has no grace nor beauty, and it doesn't carry. When she gasps for air it's far louder than her singing.


It's an odd sound but I think it's still has a lot of beauty. Her top is thin and wobbly--she should probably only pick roles where her top is less exposed. I think her voice has always had a muffled swallowed quality to it, but that didn't prevent the instrument from being a beautiful one.

Less so now, of course, but I don't think that has to do with her trying for a particular sound, that's mental. She sells out the house whatever role she takes, if she was still capable of Violetto or Donna Anna, she'd be doing those roles still and still be just as big a star. She's doing the roles she's doing now because she believes those are the ones that she can do best given what's happening with her voice.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

I can only agree with the comments by others about Netrebko and I agree that her overly darkened voice doesn't sound right. However, some voices can darken naturally with age (Olivero is the first singer that comes to mind, but also Freni and Schwarzkopf lost some brightness as they got older). There is a difference between that gradual, natural darkening with age and putting on a fake dark colour because you don't like the roles your voice is suited to, though.

N.


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

Tuoksu said:


> Very good point. Ponselle made her debut in Forza when she was just 21, Callas had already sung Gioconda, Norma, Aida, Macbeth, Nabucco, Medea and even Wagner (Walkure, Isolde..) by the time she was 29. Even as a teenager while she was still training in Athens, her first teacher ( the one before De Hidalgo) told her mother that she was not a contralto but a Dramatic Soprano!
> 
> Not to mention that all of these sounded more dramatic in their 20s than Netrebko ever will.


I would never have pictured Freni as an Aida or Elisabeth when she was 25 either.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

howlingfantods said:


> It's an odd sound but I think it's still has a lot of beauty. Her top is thin and wobbly--she should probably only pick roles where her top is less exposed. I think her voice has always had a muffled swallowed quality to it, but that didn't prevent the instrument from being a beautiful one.
> 
> Less so now, of course, but I don't think that has to do with her trying for a particular sound, that's mental. She sells out the house whatever role she takes, if she was still capable of Violetto or Donna Anna, she'd be doing those roles still and still be just as big a star. She's doing the roles she's doing now because she believes those are the ones that she can do best given what's happening with her voice.


Why is her top thin and wobbly, could it be because her technique isn't as good as it could be, or perhaps it's because she's faking an unnatural tone in the centre and bottom of her range?

She herself has said that she chooses roles that have characters that interest her, in other words it's not the roles she suits best vocally, but the ones where she likes their part in the libretto.

N.


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

The Conte said:


> Why is her top thin and wobbly, could it be because her technique isn't as good as it could be, or perhaps it's because she's faking an unnatural tone in the centre and bottom of her range?
> 
> She herself has said that she chooses roles that have characters that interest her, in other words it's not the roles she suits best vocally, but the ones where she likes their part in the libretto.
> 
> N.


I think her top is thin and wobbly because she's in her late 40s. How many sopranos enter their 50s with their high notes and vibratos sounding like they sounded in their 20s?


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

howlingfantods said:


> I think her top is thin and wobbly because she's in her late 40s. How many sopranos enter their 50s with their high notes and vibratos sounding like they sounded in their 20s?


They may not have sounded as they did in their 20s, but Olivero, Ponselle and others known for their superb technique didn't have thin and wobbly tops until much later. As for Freni singing Aida and Elisabetta in Don Carlo, she only did those later on and never sang Turandot, Leonora in Trovatore or Tosca (except in the recording studio) exactly because she didn't feel right for them.

N.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

The Conte said:


> They may not have sounded as they did in their 20s, but Olivero, Ponselle and others known for their superb technique didn't have thin and wobbly tops until much later. As for Freni singing Aida and Elisabetta in Don Carlo, she only did those later on and never sang Turandot, Leonora in Trovatore or Tosca (except in the recording studio) exactly because she didn't feel right for them.
> 
> N.


She didn't even sing Butterfly on stage. Feni was very canny about what was right for her and what wasn't. No doubt that's why she had such a long career.


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

The Conte said:


> They may not have sounded as they did in their 20s, but Olivero, Ponselle and others known for their superb technique didn't have thin and wobbly tops until much later. As for Freni singing Aida and Elisabetta in Don Carlo, she only did those later on and never sang Turandot, Leonora in Trovatore or Tosca (except in the recording studio) exactly because she didn't feel right for them.
> 
> N.


This strikes me as a distinction without a difference. Are you saying that if Netrebko delivered identical performances of late Verdi as she's delivered on stage, but solely on CDs, that would materially change your opinion on Netrebko's suitability to those roles?


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

Netrebko's dark sound is not a natural sound for a lyric to develop into. If it were, wouldn't we hear that sound in the later recordings of people like Rethberg, Kirsten, Easton, Muzio, Vallin, Norena, Gluck, Schumann, Lehmann, Alda, etc.. They may not sound as fresh as their early years in their late 50s and 60s, but it still sounds like the same singer. Netrebko sounds like she's been replaced by someone else. I have no idea what kind of sound she's intending to produce. All I know is that it isn't a good sound (I find it almost uniformly ugly) and it isn't a sound that great singers of the past produced even in their later careers.


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

And Freni had a similar pattern of decline. I wouldn't hold her up as a good example. Her sound becomes very old-ladyish and ugly to my ears by the late 70s.


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

vivalagentenuova said:


> And Freni had a similar pattern of decline. I wouldn't hold her up as a good example. Her sound becomes very old-ladyish and ugly to my ears by the late 70s.


This is ugly and old-ladyish to you?


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

howlingfantods said:


> It's an odd sound but I think it's still has a lot of beauty. Her top is thin and wobbly--she should probably only pick roles where her top is less exposed. I think her voice has always had a muffled swallowed quality to it, but that didn't prevent the instrument from being a beautiful one.
> 
> Less so now, of course, but I don't think that has to do with her trying for a particular sound, that's mental. She sells out the house whatever role she takes, if she was still capable of Violetto or Donna Anna, she'd be doing those roles still and still be just as big a star. She's doing the roles she's doing now because she believes those are the ones that she can do best given what's happening with her voice.


Netrebko's choice of roles is probably dictated by the demands of productions all over the world. She's a huge star because of her charisma and stunning looks, so they try to cast her in every possible role to sell tickets. Hell, even I would buy a ticket to see her (and I mean *see*, as opposed to hear) and that's how she slowly moved from more suitable small lyric roles (Russian repertoire is the best thing for her! this is the best I've ever heard Anna sing; 



 ) in which she sounded bright and youthtful, to bel canto in which she was very poor and sloppy, to dramatic roles when she was older and no longer skinny. She will no longer make a charming-looking Violetta like in 2005 but that doesn't mean she's a decent Lady Macbeth. 
Just look at her over-the-top lip movements and vulgar grimacing: 



You don't need to make faces like this when you're singing correctly. There is a huge wobble (Ritorna VincitOoOoOooOoO~~~~~~R) and she's making a huge effort and it's physically visible in order to create that "dark" sound. Try singing while pretending to be gargling and you'll see you're on your way to making the best Netrebko/Kaufmann impressions depending on your gender :lol: 
She doesn't sound effortlessly big, dark and elegant like the sound was just pouring out of her like Tebaldi, Callas, Cerquetti, Ponselle or even Tetrazzini (A coloratura who had more genuine darkness!)

Tebaldi said she only recorded trovatore because it's a role that called for a real Dramatic soprano and she didn't think she was one. 
And Netrebko is not in the league of the likes of Freni. It's a completely different voice and level of development. Netrebko's basic sound (20 years ago) is what you hear now in Garifullina, Sierra, Pretty Yende etc... If someone told me these will be singing Macbeth, Turandot and Aida in 20 or even 40 years I would definitely be concerned about the state of Opera.


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

Tuoksu said:


> Try singing while pretending to be gargling and you'll see you're on your way to making the best Netrebko/Kaufmann impressions depending on your gender :lol:


Are you contending that Kaufmann, similar to Netrebko, is artificially darkening his voice?


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

howlingfantods said:


> Are you contending that Kaufmann, similar to Netrebko, is artificially darkening his voice?


Kaufmann is a textbook example of voce ingolata


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

The problem with modern vocal teaching is it doesn't care about developing a voice properly. Netrebko and Kaufmann are trying to create an "operatic" sound without really knowing how to resulting in what would have been considered a caricature 80 years ago.


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

LOL ok. If we're taking the trip to "kaufmann is a bad opera singer"-land, i'm jumping off this train.


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

I think it becomes quite obvious that Kaufmann is fairly sub-standard if you compare these two performances. Imagine then comparing him to Corelli...


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

I like Corelli very much and I have him on something like 30 recordings. But he has never sung anything on any of those 30 recordings I've listened to as beautifully as this:


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

howlingfantods said:


> I like Corelli very much and I have him on something like 30 recordings. But he has never sung anything on any of those 30 recordings I've listened to as beautifully as this:


I think it's fine in it's interpretation, and can see why some people might find it beautiful in that way, but the sound of the voice is just covered and uncomfortable to listen to. I think it's become a fairly standard sound nowadays and a lot of people are used to it but I have never enjoyed modern operatic recordings, not so much because of the interpretations, but because of the quality of the instruments. It could be easy to look at TIO and accuse them of being misguided by some golden-age-fallacy but that really isn't the case, personally almost the only opera recordings I can listen to were made before 1970, whereas with any other genre of instrumental music I enjoy both the old and new equally.


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

howlingfantods said:


> I like Corelli very much and I have him on something like 30 recordings. But he has never sung anything on any of those 30 recordings I've listened to as beautifully as this:


In all honesty, he sounds like he's being choked while singing.

This is what I'd call a supremely-beautiful tenor sound:


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

Tuoksu said:


> In all honesty, he sounds like he's being choked while singing.
> 
> This is what I'd call a supremely-beautiful tenor sound:


Ok, so now the standard is that you have to sing better than Caruso to be considered a good singer. Seems reasonable.


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

howlingfantods said:


> Ok, so now the standard is that you have to sing better than Caruso to be considered a good singer. Seems reasonable.


I don't think that's at all what Tuoksu meant, it's just showing the stark contrast between a brilliant tenor voice and... Kaufmann... People are entitled to like what they like but it doesn't negate the facts. I mean I like sweets, but I still acknowledge the fact that they're unhealthy and have basically no nutritional value. I'm not saying you shouldn't listen to Kaufmann if you like him, of course you should, but denying his obvious faults doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

I have never heard Kaufmann live, which I think is most important, but I'm also of the opinion that his sound is manufactured. On recordings, it's not a beautiful voice to my ears. Of modern tenors in similar rep I think someone like Botha (rest in peace) is much better vocally.


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

Op.123 said:


> I don't think that's at all what Tuoksu meant, it's just showing the stark contrast between a brilliant tenor voice and... Kaufmann... People are entitled to like what they like but it doesn't negate the facts. I mean I like sweets, but I still acknowledge the fact that they're unhealthy and have basically no nutritional value. I'm not saying you shouldn't listen to Kaufmann if you like him, of course you should, but denying his obvious faults doesn't make sense to me.


Indeed. My point was to illustrate the vast chasm between our different beauty standards. The whole point of criticizing AN, JK or any other modern singer isn't to belittle them or take from their efforts and talent. But it's a struggle to raise the public standard of what is an *accepted level of singing*. These people make millions of dollars a year out of mediocre-to-embarrassing performances. Juxtaposing Caruso and Kaufmann is merely to show to decline of that standard.


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

Bonetan said:


> I have never heard Kaufmann live, which I think is most important, but I'm also of the opinion that his sound is manufactured. On recordings, it's not a beautiful voice to my ears. Of modern tenors in similar rep I think someone like Botha (rest in peace) is much better vocally.


I think there is a considerable distance between "i'm not a fan" and "he's bad". I wouldn't really consider myself a Kaufmann fan either, but I think he's been very good on enough occasions so I think it's ludicrous to say he's a bad opera singer.


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

Tuoksu said:


> Indeed. My point was to illustrate the vast chasm between our different beauty standards. The whole point of criticizing AN, JK or any other modern singer isn't to belittle them or take from their efforts and talent. But it's a struggle to raise the public standard of what is an *accepted level of singing*. These people make millions of dollars a year out of mediocre-to-embarrassing performances. Juxtaposing Caruso and Kaufmann is merely to show to decline of that standard.


It's an absurd comparison, though. You could just as easily juxtapose Caruso with one of his contemporaries, or someone from the 1950s, or from the 1970s or whenever to "prove" the same point--basically everyone will come up wanting in such a comparison.


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

howlingfantods said:


> It's an absurd comparison, though. You could just as easily juxtapose Caruso with one of his contemporaries, or someone from the 1950s, or from the 1970s or whenever to "prove" the same point--basically everyone will come up wanting in such a comparison.


True, because I picked caruso off the top of my head totally oblivious to the fact that he's pretty much unrivaled. But I could easily name 100 other tenors whose voices I consider far more pleasant and impressive than Kaufmann.


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

howlingfantods said:


> It's an absurd comparison, though. You could just as easily juxtapose Caruso with one of his contemporaries, or someone from the 1950s, or from the 1970s or whenever to "prove" the same point--basically everyone will come up wanting in such a comparison.


That's a good point. Comparing the two doesn't tell us much. To figure out where Kaufmann stands, we need to compare him to other star tenors of the past. How about we take a look at other tenors between the time of Caruso and the time of Kaufmann. He is a start at least:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The Conte said:


> Exactly! *And the 'carefully worded script' *aka "Why can't you enjoy both?" obviously wasn't carefully worded enough.
> 
> But maybe one person is allowed to have preferences, but the rest of us mere mortals aren't allowed to compare or make comments about different singers.
> 
> N.


Just to explain that I was joking in case you didn't get it when I spoke of a 'carefully worded script':lol:!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

howlingfantods said:


> It's an odd sound but I think it's still has a lot of beauty. Her top is thin and wobbly--she should probably only pick roles where her top is less exposed. I think her voice has always had a muffled swallowed quality to it, but that didn't prevent the instrument from being a beautiful one.
> 
> Less so now, of course, but I don't think that has to do with her trying for a particular sound, that's mental. *She sells out the house whatever role she takes*, if she was still capable of Violetto or Donna Anna, she'd be doing those roles still and still be just as big a star. She's doing the roles she's doing now because she believes those are the ones that she can do best given what's happening with her voice.


This is, of course, a consideration!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

vivalagentenuova said:


> And Freni had a similar pattern of decline. I wouldn't hold her up as a good example. Her sound becomes very old-ladyish and ugly to my ears by the late 70s.


Is it your ears that are the problem?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Op.123 said:


> The problem with modern vocal teaching is it doesn't care about developing a voice properly. Netrebko and Kaufmann are trying to create an "operatic" sound without really knowing how to resulting in what would have been considered a caricature 80 years ago.


I am assuming you are a qualified voice coach?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Tuoksu said:


> True, because I picked caruso off the top of my head totally oblivious to the fact that he's pretty much unrivaled. *But I could easily name 100 other tenors whose voices I consider far more pleasant and impressive than Kaufmann*.


Funny I certainly couldn't when Kaufmann is singing at his best. He is a pretty remarkable tenor. It always amuses me that over the years of reading about singers people never value what we have but rather must always criticise and try and pull down. Happens every generation. Sad really.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

DavidA said:


> I am assuming you are a qualified voice coach?


I don't think one needs to be a qualified vocal coach to hear that Nebs and Jonas don't sing with the freest of sounds. Them being at the absolute top of the profession qualifies as a problem in modern vocal teaching in my opinion.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> I don't think one needs to be a qualified vocal coach to hear that Nebs and Jonas don't sing with the freest of sounds. Them being at the absolute top of the profession qualifies as a problem in modern vocal teaching in my opinion.


Yeah but some of the opinions that are given by people here, it would be interesting to know their expertise. You can say that Callas didn't sing with the freest of sounds - I was listening to her last night. And some of these old 78 people swear by the singers sound as though they are warbling all over the place. So I'm just wondering where the expertise comes in. I'm not trying to be critical but I'm just wondering what expertise people have that allows them to make these judgements. Are they vocal coaches? Have they sung themselves? Not trying to break confidentiality but these are just on honest questions I have.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

Tuoksu said:


> True, because I picked caruso off the top of my head totally oblivious to the fact that he's pretty much unrivaled. But I could easily name 100 other tenors whose voices I consider far more pleasant and impressive than Kaufmann.


100 others, really


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

Rogerx said:


> 100 others, really


I think maybe Tuoksu might be being hyperbolic. That's a lot of singers! :lol:


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

DavidA said:


> I am assuming you are a qualified voice coach?


Since it seems most vocal coaches have little idea of how to teach vocal development nowadays I don't think me being one would much help.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Op.123 said:


> Since it seems most vocal coaches have little idea of how to teach vocal development nowadays I don't think me being one would much help.


So what qualifies you to say that?


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Funny I certainly couldn't when Kaufmann is singing at his best. He is a pretty remarkable tenor. It always amuses me that over the years of reading about singers people never value what we have but rather must always criticise and try and pull down. Happens every generation. Sad really.


Not at all, I can recognise the greatness we have elsewhere in musical performance but the operatic voices around nowadays are for the most part blatantly not up to the job. Maybe you see the less developed voices of Kaufmann and Netrebko as a more modern technique. Fair enough. But this does not mean they are cut out for singing unamplified romantic opera. To effectively sing those pieces you need the kind of technique of the singers they were written for and reading texts about the voice from that time and listening to examples of that kind of technique into the recorded era shows a vast difference. I have a great deal more tolerance with less developed voices in modern operas (interesting how again, I don't feel like the best operas are ones that are 200 years old), because these are often written in a way that much more suits the singers singing them. But since operatic performance does not revolve around modern opera nowadays we need more singers who can do justice to the roles of romantic and classical composers.


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

DavidA said:


> So what qualifies you to say that?


This seems like a totally throwaway comment to me, you do not need qualifications to listen. The difference between the vocal development of singers of the past and of today is very obvious. I don't pretend to be able to teach people how to develop their voices, I certainly would need a level of further understanding of the technological/physiological aspects of vocalisation to do that but ascertaining that there is a difference is not anything that requires 'qualifications'.


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

DavidA said:


> So what qualifies you to say that?


I just explained a similar sort of thing when I was talking about Castagner. 

You don't need to know how to cook to know that the pie you're eating tastes bad.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

adriesba said:


> I just explained a similar sort of thing when I was talking about Castagner.
> 
> You don't need to know how to cook to know that the pie you're eating tastes bad.


Yes I know. You don't have to be a boot maker to know your boots don't fit. But with all the talk that's going on about vocal technique or the lack it I think it is a pertinent question to ask what experience people have of singing or vocal coaching themselves. I like to know these things. A bit like if we were talking about football I could ask how many had actually played and at what level. The problem is people get defensive and there is no need.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Op.123 said:


> This seems like a totally throwaway comment to me, you do not need qualifications to listen. The difference between the vocal development of singers of the past and of today is very obvious. I don't pretend to be able to teach people how to develop their voices, I certainly would need a level of further understanding of the technological/physiological aspects of vocalisation to do that but ascertaining that there is a difference is not anything that requires 'qualifications'.


Fine. There is certainly no need of qualifications to talk about what we hear but I would have thought when we talk about the technicalities of singing the is where some expertise comes in. Else how is one qualfied to speak?


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

DavidA said:


> Fine. There is certainly no need of qualifications to talk about what we hear but I would have thought when we talk about the technicalities of singing the is where some expertise comes in. Else how is one qualfied to speak?


I suppose it depends on how technical you get. Any person can tell when he is sick, but a doctor with years of experience is better able to tell what the problem is more precisely. The thing is I'm not sure where I personally can draw the line between that which is obvious and easy to understand and that which requires the expert to diagnose. So to an extent I always have to rely on others. That's why I'd like to read up a bit on vocal technique. I hate feeling helpless about this.


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Fine. There is certainly no need of qualifications to talk about what we hear but I would have thought when we talk about the technicalities of singing the is where some expertise comes in. Else how is one qualfied to speak?


Well, I am a music student, sing a little, and have done plenty of research about the voice, I may not be professionally qualified but I'm not ill-informed. I am not in a place to say how one should go about developing their voice but I can certainly tell the difference between a developed and undeveloped voice qualifications or no qualifications.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

adriesba said:


> I suppose it depends on how technical you get. Any person can tell when he is sick, but a doctor with years of experience is better able to tell what the problem is more precisely. The thing is I'm not sure where I personally can draw the line between that which is obvious and easy to understand and that which requires the expert to diagnose. So to an extent I always have to rely on others. That's why I'd like to read up a bit on vocal technique. I hate feeling helpless about this.


Actually why I ask the question as to who is actually qualified with the expertise to provide the diagnosis. I'm genuinely interested.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Op.123 said:


> Well, I am a music student, sing a little, and have done plenty of research about the voice, I may not be professionally qualified but I'm not ill-informed. I am not in a place to say how one should go about developing their voice but I can certainly tell the difference between a developed and undeveloped voice qualifications or no qualifications.


Thanks. It is the technique for developing the voice and also sustaining it over a long period of use.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

howlingfantods said:


> This strikes me as a distinction without a difference. Are you saying that if Netrebko delivered identical performances of late Verdi as she's delivered on stage, but solely on CDs, that would materially change your opinion on Netrebko's suitability to those roles?


Most singers record roles they have sung on stage when they go into a recording studio, with an occasional few that may be too heavy for them to sing in an opera house (Freni's Tosca comes to mind). Freni is a great example as she choose roles carefully and mostly sang roles that suited her. (She completely avoided Turandot despite Karajan offering to sing it in the studio.) However, most of Freni's recorded output reflect roles that she sang on stage.

The overwhelming majority of Netrebko's roles whether on stage or in the studio (has she made many studio recordings?) she isn't quite right for. This can produce good results (she really threw herself into the drama as Lady Macbeth) and she isn't a singer I would avoid in the opera house. However, it can't be denied that she missed out half the notes as she doesn't have the technique to sing powerfully AND with flexibility.

In other words Don Carlo and Aida weren't central to Freni's career, whereas Anna started off singing Italian coloratura roles that were too light for her and has now gone off on the other extreme.

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Op.123 said:


> The problem with modern vocal teaching is it doesn't care about developing a voice properly. Netrebko and Kaufmann are trying to create an "operatic" sound without really knowing how to resulting in what would have been considered a caricature 80 years ago.


BINGO! Hence my comments upthread about the dangers of imitating or trying to produce a particular sound, rather than building the voice and seeing what tone colour it has naturally (whether it be aesthetically pleasing or not).

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

DavidA said:


> Just to explain that I was joking in case you didn't get it when I spoke of a 'carefully worded script':lol:!


The Trump defense?

Just when you think you've seen it all...

N.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The Conte said:


> The Trump defense?
> 
> Just when you think you've seen it all...
> 
> N.


You've seen nothing I can assure you!

Come on, for goodness sake learn to take a joke. :lol:


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

DavidA said:


> So what qualifies you to say that?


This question wasn't addressed to me, but its a question that has always bothered me.

I'm a professional opera singer. Does that make me more qualified to speak on voice than others? Not necessarily in my opinion. A knowledgeable person is a knowledgeable person no matter how they gained that knowledge. Whether they learned performing, reading, in school, attending opera, or listening at home makes no difference to me. I've heard qualified people spew nonsense and "unqualified" people speak brilliantly, as I'm sure we all have. And I'll be the first to say that there are many posters here that I will always defer to when it comes to voice. We all know who these posters are.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

This has just come up in my FB feed!

Enjoy! :lol:






N.


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

The Conte said:


> This has just come up in my FB feed!
> 
> Enjoy! :lol:
> 
> ...


Oh dear, in all honesty Mister Opera is a fairly petty channel and the videos mostly remind me of a child having a tantrum. I feel like some people suffer from a reverse "golden-age-fallacy". As in "opera is still performed, there are more people on the planet, these singers must be as good as those of the past". This mindset works fine when talking about something more subjective like interpretation. Of course interpretations nowadays may be different but that doesn't mean worse. What this mindset is not helpful with is looking at something more objective and as complex as vocal development. If modern teaching does not focus on developing a proper operatic instrument, maybe due to lack of understanding, the prominence of recording and it's financial insentives, amplification, a faster-paced less-patient society, or any other combination of reasons, singers will not be able to do justice to their interpretations and the roles they sing.


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

howlingfantods said:


> This is ugly and old-ladyish to you?


Yes. It's not nearly as bad as her records in the 90s, but it's not nearly as good as her records from the 1960s. The voice is hollowed out in comparison with her earlier singing, which is bright and clear (but not overly bright) like great lyrics of the past.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Op.123 said:


> Oh dear, in all honesty Mister Opera is a fairly petty channel. He seems to suffer from a reverse "golden-age-fallacy". As in "opera is still performed, there are more people on the planet, these singers must be as good as those of the past". This mindset works fine when talking about something subjective like interpretation. Of course interpretations nowadays may be different but that doesn't mean worse. What this mindset is not helpful with is looking at something as complex as vocal development. If modern teaching does not focus on developing a proper operatic instrument, maybe due to lack of understanding, the prominence of recording and it's financial insentives, amplification, a faster-paced less-patient society, or any other combination of reasons, singers will not be able to do justice to their interpretations and the roles they sing.


This video is my only encounter with Mister Opera and I think it is an excellent parody of the Price video. I agree with your points, but just as I judge TIO's videos on a case by case basis, I do the same with Mister Opera.

N.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> This question wasn't addressed to me, but its a question that has always bothered me.
> 
> I'm a professional opera singer. Does that make me more qualified to speak on voice than others? Not necessarily in my opinion. A knowledgeable person is a knowledgeable person no matter how they gained that knowledge. Whether they learned performing, reading, in school, attending opera, or listening at home makes no difference to me. I've heard qualified people spew nonsense and "unqualified" people speak brilliantly, as I'm sure we all have. And I'll be the first to say that there are many posters here that I will always defer to when it comes to voice. We all know who these posters are.


I think it does make a deal of difference frankly. In every other professional we trust someone's professional expertise. I mean, would you take advice off doctor who has never practiced? Perhaps singing is after all one of those things where you do not have to actually perform to be an expert? When someone has actually 'been there / done that' I am more likely to take notice of them than some theorist who has read a book or listened to recordings. But maybe that's just me. When you say 'a knowledgeable person is a knowledgeable person no matter how they gained that knowledge' that is true of the knowledge but it is not necessarily true of the practical application of it. To me someone who puts a video on YouTube arguing that a certain Miss Price should not have sung Aida when her Aida has been acclaimed all over the world is falling down in practical application somewhere.


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

First off, voice training is an _art_, not a quiz. Having a good grade from an institution doesn't mean you produce good students. We are talking about _results_. So, let's look at the results of the technique This is Opera! is relying on. I've done this a few times, but every time TIO comes up they seem to miraculously become random internet people about whom nothing is known once again.

Okay. So, who does TIO rely on, even in the Price video, for their information? Well, one major source is Douglas Stanley. Stanley was an important vocal researcher in the earl 20th century, and worked with, among others, Corenlius Reid who is a widely respected author on technique. So. Did Stanley produce students? Yes, he did. Let's listen to them.

1. Nelson Eddy





2. Jerome Lo Monaco





3. Thomas Lo Monaco





Thomas Lo Monaco in turn taught, among others:
1. Jerry Hadley 





2. Craig Sirianni





It is on the technique of Lo Monaco, as adapted from Stanley, that TIO bases much of their criticism. Now, that doesn't mean they are right about everything. It doesn't mean they didn't misunderstand. But the fact of the matter is that people teaching the things they advocate have produced some pretty darn impressive singers.

The other person they rely heavily on is Manuel Garcia. Garcia's students were like a roster of the greatest singers of the 19th century, including Jenny Lind.

They routinely quote from Stanley, Garcia, and Silver (also worked with Lo Monaco but didn't become a signer). We know where they get their info. So the only question is, are they right? Again, I think they often are.

As for Kaufmann, yes, his voice is overly darkened and it produces some weird things: odd vowels, little "chiaro", only "scuro". That's not to say everything he does is awful, but his instrument is fundamentally flawed, if we are taking the great singers of the past, as well as the _composers_ themselves, as our standard of taste. If we choose to follow no authority, I guess it's up to us. In that case, I still find Kaufmann's voice ugly. Renato Zanelli is an example of how to sing dark without being throaty or "ingolato".

Dio, mi potevi scagliar
Kaufmann:





Zanelli:





Esultate
Kaufmann





Italo Righi-Briani





Si pel ciel
Kaufmann/Vratogna (interesting they whisper much of it. How could anyone hear that w/o a mic?)





Listen also to, "Ah mille vite" at 2:00. It's, "Uh, mille vUHITe" as Kaufmann sings it. This is a classic, albeit egregious example, of how he "artificially" or in preferred term "badly" darkens his vowels to produce a throaty sound. It's considered "big and dramatic" but really it's just hollow and overly dark.

Rosvaenge/Reinmar




Rosvaenge's singing different vowels because of the translation, but they're clear and bright/dark, not just dark.

For an example in italian, see Del Monaco and Capecchi:





Vowels clear and ringing incredibly.


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

DavidA said:


> I think it does make a deal of difference frankly. In every other professional we trust someone's professional expertise. I mean, would you take advice off doctor who has never practiced? Perhaps singing is after all one of those things where you do not have to actually perform to be an expert? When someone has actually 'been there / done that' I am more likely to take notice of them than some theorist who has read a book or listened to recordings. But maybe that's just me. When you say 'a knowledgeable person is a knowledgeable person no matter how they gained that knowledge' that is true of the knowledge but it is not necessarily true of the practical application of it. To me someone who puts a video on YouTube arguing that a certain Miss Price should not have sung Aida when her Aida has been acclaimed all over the world is falling down in practical application somewhere.


You trust them based on their results. If a doctor has an M.D. and PhD but kills many of their patients, I'd trust the lay person telling me he's a quack. If their patients have good outcomes, you'd be more inclined to trust them. Although good doctors still make mistakes. I know someone who had a dialysis shunt in their arm, and I can't tell you how many times nurses have tried to take blood pressure on that arm, which you should not do. Do their qualifications make them right? No. You think for yourself, and tell them no. If your doctor told you to inhale ammonia and bleach fumes would you do it because, hey, they're the expert and you don't have the credentials to overrule them? What do you know about medicine?

Moreover, experts often disagree amongst themselves. Should you wear a mask? Is coronavirus significantly worse than the seasonal flu? Is it airborne or spread by surfaces? Should we close schools to fight it? I can find you very prestigious experts on both sides. So what do you do? You look at the evidence, the arguments, and you decide for yourself. You agree with this when it comes to Patti. She was acclaimed all over the world by the greatest experts there could possibly be and you say she was a warbler! Yet you refuse to admit this when other people want to make similar deviations from received opinion.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

DavidA said:


> I think it does make a deal of difference frankly. In every other professional we trust someone's professional expertise. I mean, would you take advice off doctor who has never practiced? Perhaps singing is after all one of those things where you do not have to actually perform to be an expert? When someone has actually 'been there / done that' I am more likely to take notice of them than some theorist who has read a book or listened to recordings. But maybe that's just me. When you say 'a knowledgeable person is a knowledgeable person no matter how they gained that knowledge' that is true of the knowledge but it is not necessarily true of the practical application of it. To me someone who puts a video on YouTube arguing that a certain Miss Price should not have sung Aida when her Aida has been acclaimed all over the world is falling down in practical application somewhere.


It does make a difference! I can't disagree. I will always listen to the opinion of someone who has reached the highest level in their field. But does that mean someone who never reached that level, or perhaps never sang professionally at all, isn't knowledgeable? It does not in my opinion. I'm more interested in the validity of what a person has to say than their credentials...I don't think anyone here is claiming to be able to teach voice, so I think the practical application is a separate matter. I can't speak for TIO however...


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

vivalagentenuova said:


> First off, voice training is an _art_, not a quiz. Having a good grade from an institution doesn't mean you produce good students. We are talking about _results_. So, let's look at the results of the technique This is Opera! is relying on. I've done this a few times, but every time TIO comes up they seem to miraculously become random internet people about whom nothing is known once again.
> 
> Okay. So, who does TIO rely on, even in the Price video, for their information? Well, one major source is Douglas Stanley. Stanley was an important vocal researcher in the earl 20th century, and worked with, among others, Corenlius Reid who is a widely respected author on technique. So. Did Stanley produce students? Yes, he did. Let's listen to them.
> 
> ...


OK you quote people who this guy has produced. Nelson Eddy was a crossover singer, or at least he was in the movies I saw. The only one I've heard of is Hadley who was a good but not major artist. The rest - who were they?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

vivalagentenuova said:


> You trust them based on their results. If a doctor has an M.D. and PhD but kills many of their patients, I'd trust the lay person telling me he's a quack. If their patients have good outcomes, you'd be more inclined to trust them. Although good doctors still make mistakes. I know someone who had a dialysis shunt in their arm, and I can't tell you how many times nurses have tried to take blood pressure on that arm, which you should not do. Do their qualifications make them right? No. You think for yourself, and tell them no. If your doctor told you to inhale ammonia and bleach fumes would you do it because, hey, they're the expert and you don't have the credentials to overrule them? What do you know about medicine?
> 
> Moreover, experts often disagree amongst themselves. Should you wear a mask? Is coronavirus significantly worse than the seasonal flu? Is it airborne or spread by surfaces? Should we close schools to fight it? I can find you very prestigious experts on both sides. So what do you do? You look at the evidence, the arguments, and you decide for yourself. You agree with this when it comes to Patti. She was acclaimed all over the world by the greatest experts there could possibly be and *you say she was a warbler! *Yet you refuse to admit this when other people want to make similar deviations from received opinion.


The point is if a doctor kills patients he is struck off the list! I mentioned a doctor because qualifications have come through rigorous practical experience not just out of books. The argument for seasonal flu does not apply to singers as we are dealing with a scientific argument not a subjective assessment.
As to Patti, yes, she did sound like a warbler on the recording I heard. Now of course one has to take into account it may have been the primitive recording distorting her voice. But was this the sound people praised? One has to use quite a bit of imagination!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> It does make a difference! I can't disagree. I will always listen to the opinion of someone who has reached the highest level in their field. But does that mean someone who never reached that level, or perhaps never sang professionally at all, isn't knowledgeable? It does not in my opinion. I'm more interested in the validity of what a person has to say than their credentials...*I don't think anyone here is claiming to be able to teach voice*, so I think the practical application is a separate matter. I can't speak for TIO however...


But from what some are saying, they are claiming to know better than vocal coaches which is why I am asking the question.


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

DavidA said:


> OK you quote people who this guy has produced. Nelson Eddy was a crossover singer, or at least he was in the movies I saw. The only one I've heard of is Hadley who was a good but not major artist. The rest - who were they?


You don't need to have heard of someone for them to be good. This is something I never understand why people think popularity equals good. That's simply not the case.


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

adriesba said:


> That's a good point. Comparing the two doesn't tell us much. To figure out where Kaufmann stands, we need to compare him to other star tenors of the past. How about we take a look at other tenors between the time of Caruso and the time of Kaufmann. He is a start at least:


I think Kaufmann's Cavaradossi is better than all of these singers you posted.

I'd been familiar with and had these tenors in recordings for years and always considered Tosca a soprano/baritone show and didn't much care about the Cavaradossi parts. In fact, I used to almost always only listen from Scarpia's first act entrance to the end of Act 2 whenever I was in a Tosca mood.

Kaufmann's performance completely changed my opinion of the music, and made me appreciate Puccini's music in Act 1 and Act 3 in a way I hadn't before. To me, I think the greatest and most important ability of any musician is the ability to sell you on the composition, and Kaufmann did that for me with this piece that none of these other very famous tenors had been able to do.

This is not to say that Kaufmann is my favorite of these singers--I like his Cavaradossi more, but I like several of these singers quite a lot more in other rep. But Di Stefano I consider a great voice but iffy singer and I can only sometimes appreciate Del Monaco with his incessant shouting.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

DavidA said:


> But from what some are saying, they are claiming to know better than vocal coaches which is why I am asking the question.


Well at least they aren't claiming to know more about singing than Patti herself!

She had never heard her own voice, and when the little trumpet gave forth the beautiful tones, she went into ecstasies! She threw kisses into the trumpet and kept on saying, "Ah! mon Dieu! maintenant je comprends pourquoi je suis Patti! Oh, oui! Quelle voix! Quelle artiste! Je comprends tout!"

Landon Ronald, Variations on a Personal Theme, 1922

So by your measure since Patti sang professionally all around the world and you haven't, we should trust her professional expertise over yours.

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Op.123 said:


> You don't need to have heard of someone for them to be good. This is something I never understand why people think popularity equals good. That's simply not the case.


I think we've got to the nub of it here. For DavidA famous and popular does equal good. (See his comment about Anna Netrebko selling out houses.)

Except when it comes to Patti... Or Callas' Carmen... Oh, wait, that can't be right, it doesn't make sense!

N.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

DavidA said:


> But from what some are saying, they are claiming to know better than vocal coaches which is why I am asking the question.


And they might! There are people here on TC who speak more knowledgeably about voice than high level vocal coaches I've worked with. And given the state of modern singing, I find it even more likely.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

howlingfantods said:


> I think Kaufmann's Cavaradossi is better than all of these singers you posted.
> 
> I'd been familiar with and had these tenors in recordings for years and always considered Tosca a soprano/baritone show and didn't much care about the Cavaradossi parts. In fact, I used to almost always only listen from Scarpia's first act entrance to the end of Act 2 whenever I was in a Tosca mood.
> 
> ...


I agree with what you say to a certain degree. However, we need to be clear that we are talking about technique. Kaufmann sings well despite sub standard technique. We aren't talking about musicianship, interpretation or even how beautiful the natural sound of the voice is. Kaufmann has a very beautiful voice and all he needs to do is put more falsetto into the mix and not lower the larynx so much and he would have a much smoother legato line.

I much prefer Corelli over Kaufmann and certainly when it comes to technique. However, Kaufmann has more taste than old Franco.

N.


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

The Conte said:


> I agree with what you say to a certain degree. However, we need to be clear that we are talking about technique. Kaufmann sings well despite sub standard technique. We aren't talking about musicianship, interpretation or even how beautiful the natural sound of the voice is. Kaufmann has a very beautiful voice and all he needs to do is put more falsetto into the mix and not lower the larynx so much and he would have a much smoother legato line.
> 
> I much prefer Corelli over Kaufmann and certainly when it comes to technique. However, Kaufmann has more taste than old Franco.
> 
> N.


I certainly wouldn't say Kaufmann has more taste although of course this is subjective. Corelli just delivers the music more dramatically, but this being opera I don't find that distasteful in the slightest. As for comments about del Monaco shouting, an operatic voice needs to have an element of "shout" to it, it is that quality that makes the sound so theatrical. I wouldn't want to listen to him singing lieder but for dramatic operatic roles he was brilliant.

Also I don't mean to be pedantic or anything but Kaufmann would need a great deal more training and re-training to produce a proper sound than just adding some falsetto participation and not lowering the larynx as much.


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

The Conte said:


> I agree with what you say to a certain degree. However, we need to be clear that we are talking about technique. Kaufmann sings well despite sub standard technique. We aren't talking about musicianship, interpretation or even how beautiful the natural sound of the voice is. Kaufmann has a very beautiful voice and all he needs to do is put more falsetto into the mix and not lower the larynx so much and he would have a much smoother legato line.
> 
> I much prefer Corelli over Kaufmann and certainly when it comes to technique. However, Kaufmann has more taste than old Franco.
> 
> N.


Kaufmann has said that he had to adjust his voice to relieve pain when he sang with a more open voice. "Technique" is the tools that are used to unlock the individual singer's physique in order to permit them to do things like sing in large halls at max volume without disastrously shortening their careers. Since Jonas has made it to 50 still singing big Wagnerian roles with little degradation in his sound, I think from this perspective, he's demonstrated phenomenal technique despite having the vocal physical shortcomings that prevent him from singing with a more open voice without pain.


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

howlingfantods said:


> Kaufmann has said that he had to adjust his voice to relieve pain when he sang with a more open voice. "Technique" is the tools that are used to unlock the individual singer's physique in order to permit them to do things like sing in large halls at max volume without disastrously shortening their careers. Since Jonas has made it to 50 still singing big Wagnerian roles with little degradation in his sound, I think from this perspective, he's demonstrated phenomenal technique despite having the vocal physical shortcomings that prevent him from singing with a more open voice without pain.


The fact that it hurt him to sing openly seems like he had a flawed technique to begin with. I have never heard any recordings of his voice that sound like an operatic voice should so I wouldn't call his technique phenomenal because vocal development IS part of technique.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Op.123 said:


> You don't need to have heard of someone for them to be good. This is something I never understand why people think popularity equals good. That's simply not the case.


Yes but it is an indication. No-one would say that Hadley was a great tenor. Good but not great surely


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The Conte said:


> Well at least they aren't claiming to know more about singing than Patti herself!
> 
> She had never heard her own voice, and when the little trumpet gave forth the beautiful tones, she went into ecstasies! She threw kisses into the trumpet and kept on saying, "Ah! mon Dieu! maintenant je comprends pourquoi je suis Patti! Oh, oui! Quelle voix! Quelle artiste! Je comprends tout!"
> 
> ...


But going just by that recording that was posted would you say that about her not knowing who it was? You say the problem is the reputation of the singer influences us. I'm just saying what we hear on that recording


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The Conte said:


> I think we've got to the nub of it here. For DavidA famous and popular does equal good. (See his comment about Anna Netrebko selling out houses.)
> 
> Except when it comes to Patti... Or Callas' Carmen... Oh, wait, that can't be right, it doesn't make sense!
> 
> N.


Well there you have it. Callas sold-out opera houses so she cannot be any good according to your reckoning! :lol:


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Yes but it is an indication. No-one would say that Hadley was a great tenor. Good but not great surely


I think he was certainly very good, not on the level of Caruso, Corelli, del Monaco or, in his prime, di Stefano, but for me far preferable to any tenor we have today and also to well renowned tenors such as Domingo who's popularity I have never and will never understand. Popularity is an indication but not always a good indication.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> And they might! There are people here on TC who speak more knowledgeably about voice than high level vocal coaches I've worked with. And given the state of modern singing, I find it even more likely.


Can I just ask you and the people concerned and why are they not vocal coaches? Surely they will be in huge demand if they are so good and knowledgeable. I know if I was them I would be in vocal coaching not banging keys on TC


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Op.123 said:


> I certainly wouldn't say Kaufmann has more taste although of course this is subjective. Corelli just delivers the music more dramatically, but this being opera I don't find that distasteful in the slightest. As for comments about del Monaco shouting, an operatic voice needs to have an element of "shout" to it, it is that quality that makes the sound so theatrical. I wouldn't want to listen to him singing lieder but for dramatic operatic roles he was brilliant.
> 
> Also I don't mean to be pedantic or anything but Kaufmann would need a great deal more training and re-training to produce a proper sound than just adding some falsetto participation and not lowering the larynx as much.


I can only say that the recording I have of Kauffman singing Cavaradossi is outstanding.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Op.123 said:


> I think he was certainly very good, not on the level of Caruso, Corelli, del Monaco or, in his prime, di Stefano, but for me far preferable to any tenor we have today and also to well renowned tenors such as Domingo who's popularity I have never and will never understand. Popularity is an indication but not always a good indication.


Sorry but Domingo was a very great tenor indeed at his best


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Well there you have it. Callas sold-out opera houses so she cannot be any good according to your reckoning! :lol:


It seems pointless to twist people's words when having a civil discussion. Obviously The Conte, based on other posts, is hugely respectful of Callas and other 'popular' singers. But not all singers that are popular are good and not all that are unpopular are bad. This way of thinking props up again and again even in critical reviews. I am often puzzled to see the cast of Callas's live recording of Macbeth at La Scala criticised seemingly simply because the names are not so recognisable today. The cast includes Enzo Mascherini, Italo Tajo and Gino Penno, all very fine singers. Not the absolute best but I do think a lot of the criticism here is unfounded and there are plenty of other similar cases.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

DavidA said:


> Can I just ask you and the people concerned and why are they not vocal coaches? Surely they will be in huge demand if they are so good and knowledgeable. I know if I was them I would be in vocal coaching not banging keys on TC


I can't speak for anyone else, but no matter how good a singer I become teaching is not for me. They could feel similarly.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Op.123 said:


> It seems pointless to twist people's words when having a civil discussion. Obviously The Conte, based on other posts, is hugely respectful of Callas and other 'popular' singers. But not all singers that are popular are good and not all that are unpopular are bad. This way of thinking props up again and again even in critical reviews. I am often puzzled to see the cast of Callas's live recording of Macbeth at La Scala criticised seemingly simply because the names are not so recognisable today. The cast includes Enzo Mascherini, Italo Tajo and Gino Penno, all very fine singers. Not the absolute best but I do think a lot of the criticism here is unfounded and there are plenty of other similar cases.


I'm sorry but when I have my own words twisted it makes me want to do the same. Please if we are going to discuss in a civilised fashion, let it be an even playing field!


----------



## Opera For Life (Apr 13, 2020)

Tuoksu said:


> I agree with everything you said, I even commented under a ridiculous video that Philippe guy made which consisted of voicing-over a video made by TIO in a crass way, which doesn't really make any point in proving that TIO is wrong about anything in that video. And he replies simply by calling me ignorant or that TIO is messing with EQ in the juxtaposed old vs modern clips which is not true. The clips sound the same as elsewhere on youtube, and it's not like the quality of the singing is volume-contingent anyway.
> 
> His only argument is "who can't do can't teach" (not that he sounds great himself) and when I said that there was nothing in TIO videos indicating that they were selling lessons (I was referring solely to the content of the videos themselves, I'm not really familiar with anything peripheral like the link to Jeremy's blog in the comments etc), he again said I was either a liar or ignorant.
> 
> ...


Thank you, I find myself agreeing with literally EVERYTHING you said here 

TIO is definitely going about it too agressively/personally, though they seem to be less rude in their videos now, and Castagner's vendetta is in very poor taste.

I can only say what the effect of the TIO videos has been on me, I'm a baritone/low tenor (don't know yet, some days I almost have high C, others I struggle with the A below it) who has been mistaught for over 10 years, and now, thanks to their videos changing my ear and showing me what to listen for, and how to try producing it, I'm finally able to find freedom in my voice and sing the right vowels in a volume that's more than twice as high as ANYTHING that I had been able to produce before! It's not very pretty yet, but I'm slowly getting there and it's thanks, in no small way to TIO, so whatever the underlying negative stuff is, I thank them for helping me, and I think, many other singers out there like me..


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

If judging singing is subjective, why are you talking about experts? Nobody else can be an expert in someone else's subjective experience. Interesting that singing is just subjective enough that your opinion of Patti is valid, but just objective enough that our opinions of Price or Kaufmann are not because we aren't experts.

Your description of Eddy is misleading. Eddy crossed over _from_ opera to pop. He was trained as an opera singer. And show me the baritone that can sing O du mein holder abendstern like that on the Met roster today.

I find it interesting that you put so much emphasis on what you heard in the Patti recording, but when confronted with recordings of singers like Jerome Lo Monaco you ask how famous they were. Just listen to the recording and answer: is he good? Does he make a good operatic sound?


----------



## Opera For Life (Apr 13, 2020)

adriesba said:


> I saw that video and your comments. I understand your frustration! For one thing, TIO's videos are not meant to teach people how to sing. They are simply comparisons between singers with explanations about their technique. They are certainly not vocal excersises! If I wanted to learn how to sing opera, I couldn't based solely on TIO's videos since they don't give you exercises. Another thing, I was initially thinking that TIO was a way to advertise Silver Singing, but I'm starting to think this is incorrect. If they are advertising Silver, they are doing a bad job at it. Castagner had to really dig to make the connection between Silver and TIO. TIO does sometimes seem fishy, but their videos don't come across as advertisements. How is the average viewer supposed to figure out that they are connected to Silver? They don't explicitly state this, so it's not clear who they are unless you scour the internet and connect the dots. That's not really how advertisement works.
> 
> Castagner also uses bad logic like I said. He argues based on the "go do it yourself" fallacy. I see this on YouTube all the time when people try to defend singers like Netrebko. Ugh... that bad logic absolutely infuriates me! To make an analogy of my own, I might not know how to make a pie, but that doesn't mean I can't tell if the pie I'm eating tastes bad! Or to use his painting analogy, even though I don't know how to paint well, I can tell when a Michelangelo painting is better than one of those medieval paintings with dis-proportioned characters or than a cave painting! :lol:
> 
> ...


They are meant to reeducate people as to what sounds can be produced by the human voice, and I have to agree, that I instinctively never liked some singers, like Florez or Te Kanawa, and now I know why..

It doesn't mean what they're saying is gospel, just that the way of singing they advocate is the best one for the repertoire they generally use as examples..

Like you, the "go do it yourself" argument annoyed me too, it's so childish, for the reasons you said, I mean, following his logic we should all be savages simply because we're not moral pilosophers or theologians who are experts on morality. YOu don't have to be an expert to have a valid opinion, your opinion just becomes more credible when you are, but TIO's theories bare scrutiny I find, so no further qualifications are needed, if something is true, it's true.

And the ad hominem's I was grateful for, it showed me that he had lost the argument, rationally.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

vivalagentenuova said:


> If judging singing is subjective, why are you talking about experts? Nobody else can be an expert in someone else's subjective experience. Interesting that singing is just subjective enough that your opinion of Patti is valid, but just objective enough that our opinions of Price or Kaufmann are not because we aren't experts.
> 
> Your description of Eddy is misleading. Eddy crossed over _from_ opera to pop. He was trained as an opera singer. And show me the baritone that can sing O du mein holder abendstern like that on the Met roster today.
> 
> I find it interesting that you put so much emphasis on what you heard in the Patti recording, but when confronted with recordings of singers like Jerome Lo Monaco you ask how famous they were. Just listen to the recording and answer: is he good? Does he make a good operatic sound?


I just wonder if he was that good why he wasn't a household name. And we are honest if you've just heard that disc of Patti not knowing who it was would you go and buy it? And if Eddy was that good why did he cross over to pop? Isn't it funny though when we talk about other peoples opinions they are subjective but ours are objective. You're just the same. Look at what you have just written


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Opera For Life said:


> They are meant to reeducate people as to what sounds can be produced by the human voice, and I have to agree, that I instinctively never liked some singers, like Florez or Te Kanawa, and now I know why..
> 
> It doesn't mean what they're saying is gospel, just that the way of singing they advocate is the best one for the repertoire they generally use as examples..
> 
> ...


The argument is not for us on TC but for the experts on T I O. Funny that I disagree with most of their opinions. In fact anyone who says that Price shouldn't be singing Aida I find myself holding up to ridicule! For goodness sake if we just were theoreticians like these guys on TIO we would be savages as we wouldn't have produced anything . Just sitting in a caves debating. We also wouldn't have any opera houses btw! Progress is only made through people who do things. 
I'm thankful I like both Kaufman and Flores. Isn't it wonderful to be so easily pleased and not to nitpick all the time. 
As for reeducation, I don't usually go to YouTube for it unless I want to find out how to fix something


----------



## Opera For Life (Apr 13, 2020)

The Conte said:


> Here's one of the classic singing texts:
> 
> http://petrucci.mus.auth.gr/imglnks...lections_on_the_Figurative_Art_of_Singing.pdf
> 
> ...


Thankyouthankyou for the links!

I do have to say that I have the Hines book and.. it's only as good as the certain singer he's interviewing I find, Hines harps on about "the mask" the whole time, even with Corelli, who didn't bring it up himself and clearly felt pushed in using the term in the interview. 
So, yes, it's interesting, but you have to be careful, Marilyn Horne is in there xD


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

I guess I've learned from this thread that the correct opinion is that it's not about the singing, it's just about the voice. Interesting.


----------



## Opera For Life (Apr 13, 2020)

DavidA said:


> The argument is not for us on TC but for the experts on T I O. Funny that I disagree with most of their opinions. In fact anyone who says that Price shouldn't be singing Aida I find myself holding up to ridicule! For goodness sake if we just were theoreticians like these guys on TIO we would be savages as we wouldn't have produced anything . We also wouldn't have any opera houses btw! I'm thankful I like both Kaufman and Flores. Isn't it wonderful to be so easily pleased and not to nitpick all the time.


Where did I say it was wrong to like Florez and Kaufmann, or that Price shouldn't have sung Aida? I still enjoy her Aida, it's just not my favourite.
I just said I didn't like Florez, that should be ok to say no?
And I'm sure it's wonderful not to nitpick, but I don't think that's what they're doing, at least, that's not what their videos are to me, but if that's how you see it, you don't have to watch them, just ignore them and put on some nice opera, whatever the recording. 

And since you edited, I will edit as well and say that fixing something is exactly why I watch their videos, funnily enough, they help with fixing my voice.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Op.123 said:


> It seems pointless to twist people's words when having a civil discussion. Obviously The Conte, based on other posts, is hugely respectful of Callas and other 'popular' singers. But not all singers that are popular are good and not all that are unpopular are bad. This way of thinking props up again and again even in critical reviews.


Thank you. That is, of course, exactly what I was getting at.

N.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> I can't speak for anyone else, but no matter how good a singer I become teaching is not for me. They could feel similarly.


I don't blame you. Certainly not for everyone.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Opera For Life said:


> Where did I say it was wrong to like Florez and Kaufmann, or that Price shouldn't have sung Aida? I still enjoy her Aida, it's just not my favourite.
> I just said I didn't like Florez, that should be ok to say no?
> And I'm sure it's wonderful not to nitpick, but I don't think that's what they're doing, at least, that's not what their videos are to me, but if that's how you see it, you don't have to watch them, just ignore them and put on some nice opera, whatever the recording.


I am just saying what TIO said about Price. And what I'm saying about Kaufman and Florez. No I don't actually watch them as I don't like the negative presentation as it spoils things for me. After all, who raised a monument to a critic?


----------



## Opera For Life (Apr 13, 2020)

DavidA said:


> I am just saying what TIO said about Price. And what I'm saying about Kaufman and Florez. No I don't actually watch them as I don't like the negative presentation as it spoils things for me. After all, who raised a monument to a critic?


I sometimes feel the same way when I listen to many of my opera recordings now, and hear things I don't like which I never noticed before, but I'd still rather know than not know.
and.. ehh.. I don't want to be too contradictory, but, sometimes they do xD

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/apr/25/roger-ebert-film-critic-statue-ebertfest


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

It’s interesting when reading the research on where have all the big Verdi voices gone, the research reveals that teaching is not a factor in the decline of the spinto. The four factors he mentions are:

1. Use of microphones which inhibits the use of really singing out

2. The time taken for the Spinto to come to maturity - Simionato quoted

3. The fact that stage settings want looks as well as voice - As Marilyn Horne said there is a lot behind a big voice

4. Stage settings tend to be open rather than boxy adding less natural amplification to the voice


----------



## Opera For Life (Apr 13, 2020)

DavidA said:


> I am just saying what TIO said about Price. And what I'm saying about Kaufman and Florez. No I don't actually watch them as I don't like the negative presentation as it spoils things for me. After all, who raised a monument to a critic?


sorry, misunderstood your comment a bit..


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

The Conte said:


> This has just come up in my FB feed!
> 
> Enjoy! :lol:
> 
> ...


TBh he comes off as desperate and as I explained earlier in this thread, he doesn't really make any serious points. Making a silly voice-over isn't an argument. 
His videos are pretty crass. The only reason I took a look at his channel is because he keeps trying to follow me on instagram :lol:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Opera For Life said:


> sorry, misunderstood your comment a bit..


No problem! .....


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

DavidA said:


> But from what some are saying, they are claiming to know better than vocal coaches which is why I am asking the question.


The only occasion on which you need to be a vocal coach is when you're selling singing classes on superprof or via skype etc. None of us is (and neither is TIO for all I know, and if they do, they're doing a terrible job at advertising LOL)

To critique, however, all you need is ears, a decent amount of knowledge about singing history, the various styles, and years of listening to opera. Otherwise we can fire all the movies and music critics for not being world-class directors or singers.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

DavidA said:


> But going just by that recording that was posted would you say that about her not knowing who it was? You say the problem is the reputation of the singer influences us. I'm just saying what we hear on that recording


Which recording? Some of Patti's are better than others. I only listen to the Ward Marston transfers on The Complete Patti and Maurel 2 disc set. This is the CD release with the best sound (very good for 1905/06!!) and more importantly the discs are at the correct pitch (as far as is possible).

It's true that it's an old fashioned voice recorded in primitive conditions without an electrical process. There are some technically issues here and there with the singing (some high notes are quite flat), however, once one gets used to the sound I find her recorded legacy extraordinary. Her vocal delivery demonstrates her near faultless legato and her musicianship make these a joy to listen to. The cleaness of her trill in the aria from Faust! Her tone may be old fashioned, but her cheeky way with the appoggiaturas in Home Sweet Home wouldn't be out of place in a contemporary pop song. However, that pales for me when listening to her personality shining through the recording horn. Her Home Sweet Home almost brings a tear to my eye and no less moving are some of the other traditional songs she sang. I have been listening to a lot of Russian opera recordings from the 40s and 50s and what has impressed me is the _soul_ in so much of the singing. And that's what Patti had, SOUL.

N.


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

Bonetan said:


> And they might! There are people here on TC who speak more knowledgeably about voice than high level vocal coaches I've worked with. And given the state of modern singing, *I find it even more likely*.


YOu only need to watch some "masterclasses" to know how true this is :lol:


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

DavidA said:


> It's interesting when reading the research on where have all the big Verdi voices gone, the research reveals that teaching is not a factor in the decline of the spinto. The four factors he mentions are:
> 
> 1. Use of microphones which inhibits the use of really singing out
> 
> ...


Yes the use of microphones and recordings have certainly had an impact, but still there are definitelt shortfalls in teaching. I witness first-hand how singing is taught these days and there needs to be much more focus on developing a voice. And looks as well as a voice seems silly to me, there have always been plenty of beautiful opera singers who have had wonderful voices for example Callas, Tebaldi, Kirsten, Stevens, Corelli, del Monaco, Siepi the list goes on. The looks of a singer should be taken as an added bonus not a pre-requisite


----------



## Opera For Life (Apr 13, 2020)

Op.123 said:


> I think he was certainly very good, not on the level of Caruso, Corelli, del Monaco or, in his prime, di Stefano, but for me far preferable to any tenor we have today and also to well renowned tenors such as Domingo who's popularity I have never and will never understand. Popularity is an indication but not always a good indication.


I agree, Look at the popular music industry and you will find maaany examples of that fact 

I always thought that Hadley was just a bit.. boring, sorry if that offends anyone.. I think it's why he's good as Candide, that is basically a non-character, thrown about by fate.


----------



## Opera For Life (Apr 13, 2020)

Op.123 said:


> Yes the use of microphones and recordings have certainly had an impact, but still there are definitelt shortfalls in teaching. I witness first-hand how singing is taught these days and there needs to be much more focus on developing a voice. And looks as well as a voice seems silly to me, there have always been plenty of beautiful opera singers who have had wonderful voices for example Callas, Tebaldi, Kirsten, Stevens, Corelli, del Monaco, Siepi the list goes on. The looks of a singer should be taken as an added bonus not a pre-requisite


Agree again, I've had 5 teachers in my life already, none of whom knew what they were doing, they almost ruined my voice, and these teachers taught at conservatories, they weren't small fry.


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

DavidA said:


> Well there you have it. Callas sold-out opera houses so she cannot be any good according to your reckoning! :lol:


Callas is a great singer because her singing says so. She's be the same great singer if she didn't go to US then Italy and meet a rich husband, and just stayed as a nobody teaching voice in Athens.

Greatness is not equaled with fame. Otherwise we'd say Boccelli is the greatest tenor and Sarah Brightman is the greatest soprano. 
Your logic is if somebody didn't break through as a big star then they must not be a good/great singer which is total nonsense. 
Breaking through as a huge star takes a lot of luck, connections, being in the right place at the right time and being heard by the right people (sometimes maybe even more than heard, who knows, given all the sexual harassment news headlines :lol 
There are insanely talented artists in every field who are relatively unknown and are content making youtube videos at best. But Kim Kardashian is super famous.


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

I don't like Hadley nearly as much as the Lo Monaco brothers. I find his voice a bit "white". Still, he's a decent singer.

David, you could point out specifically where I contradicted myself. Please quote.

Finally, if you look at the actual Princeton paper, it concludes that training has not declined in quality for a very specific reason: the people who they asked about the quality of spinto and dramatic voices think that the quality of early music and Baroque singing has gone up. The author concludes that since _some_ singers have gotten better by his metric, the quality of voice training can't have declined.

This all depends on the notion that Baroque and Mozart singing is actually better now than it used to be. That in turn depends on the widespread belief that we now know what performance practice for early music is, which, though a popular idea, is highly controversial among academics. Furthermore, I reject it outright on the grounds that I think the quality of this singing has _not_ in fact improved. Instead, they have invented a new kind of singing and called it early music technique.

If a new technique that is widely liked by critics (or at least considered good) has in fact sprung up around early music, then that says _nothing_ at all about the quality of instruction in traditional technique.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

DavidA said:


> I just wonder if he was that good why he wasn't a household name.


I think it important to clarify what TIO's videos are about and what they aren't. They are primarily interested in technique, that's how you build a voice and once you have an instrument, how you 'play' it (or sing with the greatest efficiency). That is at least the scope that I have understood applies to this discussion. There's more to singing of course. Musicianship, style and interpretation and expression.

Another factor is the nature of the voice once it has been built. Each voice is different, some are more naturally beautiful than others (it's quite possible to have two singers with equally good technique, but one has a far more beautiful/interesting voice than the other). It's also possible to find someone with great natural gifts in terms of the nature of the voice, but mediocre technique and therefore being popular.

That should explain why some of these singers that are shown as examples of very good technique weren't more famous. Technique isn't the be all and end all of singing.

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

So I've moved from Patti to Lehmann. Mozart's Figaro in German? Normally it would bother me, but not here. She could sing the telephone directory in Esperanto and it would get to me!

N.


----------



## Opera For Life (Apr 13, 2020)

The Conte said:


> I think it important to clarify what TIO's videos are about and what they aren't. They are primarily interested in technique, that's how you build a voice and once you have an instrument, how you 'play' it (or sing with the greatest efficiency). That is at least the scope that I have understood applies to this discussion. There's more to singing of course. Musicianship, style and interpretation and expression.
> 
> Another factor is the nature of the voice once it has been built. Each voice is different, some are more naturally beautiful than others (it's quite possible to have two singers with equally good technique, but one has a far more beautiful/interesting voice than the other). It's also possible to find someone with great natural gifts in terms of the nature of the voice, but mediocre technique and therefore being popular.
> 
> ...


I like this point, it's very well-made, and the videos are indeed mainly about singing technique.

I think they once said in one of their videos that people nowadays think too much about the meaning of opera and I would disagree with them most heartily about that point, it's one of the only positive developments in modern operatic practice, in my view, the fact that the emotinal messages and complexities in the score and the libretto are taken more seriously, it's one of the gifts Callas, among a few other singers, left us.

I only wish we could have more singers now that unite excellent technique with great acting ability, like her..

Btw, have you guys seen this video by Afropoli? which performance did you ike the most?


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Tuoksu said:


> TBh he comes off as desperate and as I explained earlier in this thread, he doesn't really make any serious points. Making a silly voice-over isn't an argument.
> His videos are pretty crass. The only reason I took a look at his channel is because he keeps trying to follow me on instagram :lol:


I agree that if I want serious YouTube content about singers and technique TIO is a good resource, whereas Mister Opera! is not really offering anything in that line. However, TIO sometimes exaggerates (as is shown by their Price no voice for Aida video). Mister Opera has a vendetta against TIO and it's a shame he can't ignore some of TIO's excesses and perhaps offer us his insights on technique (as you point out, what is his 'argument'?) That said I enjoy the video I posted as an excellent parody. One can love Wagner's Ring whilst still enjoying Anna Russel's musical lectures. As can one find TIO's videos instructional AND enjoy a laugh at Mister Opera's fun joke!

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Opera For Life said:


> I like this point, it's very well-made, and the videos are indeed mainly about singing technique.
> 
> I think they once said in one of their videos that people nowadays think too much about the meaning of opera and I would disagree with them most heartily about that point, it's one of the only positive developments in modern operatic practice, in my view, the fact that the emotinal messages and complexities in the score and the libretto are taken more seriously, it's one of the gifts Callas, among a few other singers, left us.
> 
> ...


I like Jennifer Wilson and Nenci the best. I didn't like the way Nenci ended the third act aria, but it's a fine voice with good technique. Wilson was superb even if she didn't do the trills. Behle and Camarena are both fairly well known now, so that's good.

N.


----------



## Opera For Life (Apr 13, 2020)

The Conte said:


> I like Jennifer Wilson and Nenci the best. I didn't like the way Nenci ended the third act aria, but it's a fine voice with good technique. Wilson was superb even if she didn't do the trills. Behle and Camarena are both fairly well known now, so that's good.
> 
> N.


She is amazing, even with that ridiculous stage contraption xD
And Nenci was one of my favourites too his voice is enormous!
Behle moved me most, but I wonder how far that wonderful tone carries, it's very "headvoice-y", I like how he's better in tune than the instruments of the orchestra at the end though, it makes for a nice change


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

TIO actually has two parts to that Price video. Here's the other:


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

adriesba said:


> TIO actually has two parts to that Price video. Here's the other:


Great new piece of red meat in the arena.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Tuoksu said:


> Callas is a great singer because her singing says so. She's be the same great singer if she didn't go to US then Italy and meet a rich husband, and just stayed as a nobody teaching voice in Athens.
> 
> Greatness is not equaled with fame. Otherwise we'd say Boccelli is the greatest tenor and Sarah Brightman is the greatest soprano.
> Your logic is if somebody didn't break through as a big star then they must not be a good/great singer which is total nonsense.
> ...


Note that Ididn't say fame was the only criteria. But for a tenor if they are really good they will be well known. Read Schonberg on The Tenors. With the rarity of the great tenor voice it is quite obvious surely. There Three tenors had their break through commercially to the general public but they were all great singers before Carreras' illness. If someone is a tenor they will break through, Brightman and Bocelli are crossover artists so you might just as well compare them with Adele. They did not make their names singing opera although Bocelli tries.
If Callas has stayed a teacher she wouldn't have been a great singer because a great singer needs to sing in great opera houses. That is the definition in opera!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Opera For Life said:


> Agree again, I've had 5 teachers in my life already, none of whom knew what they were doing, they almost ruined my voice, and these teachers taught at conservatories, they weren't small fry.


You are in good company. Many golden age singers - including Corelli and Nilsson - Said they had teachers who they reckoned were incompetent or downright harmful


----------



## Opera For Life (Apr 13, 2020)

DavidA said:


> You are in good company. Many golden age singers - including Corelli and Nilsson - Said they had teachers who they reckoned were incompetent or downright harmful


Haha, thanks, now "all" I have to do is become as good as Corelli


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Friday May 1 you'll be able to see Price's Aida in the broadcast from the Met


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

DavidA said:


> Note that Ididn't say fame was the only criteria. *But for a tenor if they are really good they will be well known.* Read Schonberg on The Tenors. With the rarity of the great tenor voice it is quite obvious surely. There Three tenors had their break through commercially to the general public but they were all great singers before Carreras' illness. *If someone is a tenor they will break through*, Brightman and Bocelli are crossover artists so you might just as well compare them with Adele. They did not make their names singing opera although Bocelli tries.
> If Callas has stayed a teacher she wouldn't have been a great singer because a great singer needs to sing in great opera houses. That is the definition in opera!


I understand what you're getting at here, but I don't believe it to be true. There are many circumstances that prevent really good tenors from breaking through.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> I understand what you're getting at here, but I don't believe it to be true. *There are many circumstances that prevent really good tenors from breaking through*.


So if a tenor gets as far as making recordings what circumstances would stop them being recognised?


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

DavidA said:


> So if a tenor gets as far as making recordings what circumstances would stop them being recognised?


Just a theory but there are so many factors that can affect that, especially if the singer is not famous already. I think many good or at least decent singers are neglected, also on recordings, when the rest of the cast is bad and that seems to happen quite frequently, both now and in the past.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

DavidA said:


> So if a tenor gets as far as making recordings what circumstances would stop them being recognised?


Things like illness, temperament, politics, stage fright, physical appearance, personal problems etc could keep a good tenor from breaking through. I'm sure there are a lot of outstanding tenor voices that we never got to hear just as there are great athletes we never got to see.


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

DavidA said:


> Friday May 1 you'll be able to see Price's Aida in the broadcast from the Met


Worth seeing if you haven't already. For Cossotto.


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

DavidA said:


> So if a tenor gets as far as making recordings what circumstances would stop them being recognised?


Not being heard by the right people or rousing enough interest in them as a whole package and not just as a voice. 
Throughout history there has been a great deal of AMAZING singers overshadowed by the famous ones. Cerquetti wouldn't be quite as famous today if she didn't step in for Norma. Hadn't Callas walked out that night, the outcome would have been very different for Anita. 
Today, we have a singer like Saioa Hernandez who is a much better singer than Netrebko. I hadn't heard of her before TIO. 
She is singing all over Europe and there are plenty of videos of her out there though, but she's not quite the star.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> Things like illness, temperament, politics, stage fright, physical appearance, personal problems etc could keep a good tenor from breaking through. I'm sure there are a lot of outstanding tenor voices that we never got to hear just as there are great athletes we never got to see.


It might of been so in the past but I don't think it would happen today. Of course Ernst Kozub was cheated by illness then premature death of becoming a leading Wagnerian tenor but the tenor voice is so rare that I think it would be very unusual if a singer did not get recognition. I think it was said in the article What is far more likely today is that the career does not even get started at least in opera. As he said he cannot imagine many young men taking the same route as Caruso or Pavarotti today. I am pretty sure that there must be the voices out there but I think they're just not happening in opera.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Tuoksu said:


> Not being heard by the right people or rousing enough interest in them as a whole package and not just as a voice.
> Throughout history there has been a great deal of AMAZING singers overshadowed by the famous ones. Cerquetti wouldn't be quite as famous today if she didn't step in for Norma. Hadn't Callas walked out that night, the outcome would have been very different for Anita.
> Today, we have a singer like Saioa Hernandez who is a much better singer than Netrebko. I hadn't heard of her before TIO.
> She is singing all over Europe and there are plenty of videos of her out there though, but she's not quite the star.


You say a great deal of amazing singers but then you only can quote a couple but you say one is singing all over Europe so she's not exactly unrecognised. We have to face it that some performers have that certain style quality which marks them out as Callas did. You don't know quite what it is but they have it. They appeal to an audience. Unless we recognise that opera is an entertainment and the singers who appeal are likely to be more popular then we will be puzzled as to why some make it as stars and some don't. It may not appeal to our puritan artistic sensibilities but it is a fact of life


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

DavidA said:


> You say a great deal of amazing singers but then you only can quote a couple


Well I didn't know that I needed to provide an exhaustive list to make a point.



> but you say one is singing all over Europe so she's not exactly unrecognised.


Well the singers you deemed "not famous" also had careers all over the world, so what's your point?



> We have to face it that some performers have that certain style quality which marks them out as Callas did. You don't know quite what it is but they have it. They appeal to an audience. Unless we recognise that opera is an entertainment and the singers who appeal are likely to be more popular then we will be puzzled as to why some make it as stars and some don't. It may not appeal to our puritan artistic sensibilities but it is a fact of life


Well, your premise was that these singers didn't make it as superstars because they weren't that *great at singing*, but now you admit there's another side to that. 
In Callas' case, she had a fiery temperament and there were some scandals that contributed to her fame, as well as mingling with the right people and having a rich husband at her back. Of course this doesn't take from the fact that her singing and artistry deserve the level of fame she's achieved.

To be honest I thought it was fairly obvious that a lot more than talent and hardwork and actual competence go into fame/status otherwise we wouldn't have the Kardashians, so we didn't really need all this discussion.
Again, it takes a lot of luck and favorable circumstances for someone to make their breakthrough, not just in opera, but anywhere in life. And in modern times, what is mainstream and popular is often an indication of what's bad and in poor taste rather than what's good anyway.
Monica Bellucci is a sub-par actress, but she's where is now because she was a very hot model and Ford Coppola stumbled upon a picture of her so he put her in Dracula. 
Anna Netrebko's singing doesn't match her #1 Mega Star status, but she happened to be at the Marinsky at the right time for Mr Gergiev to notice the beauty mopping the floors, so he picked in her the next audition...

But for all we know, somewhere in Venezia there might be a gondolier who sounds exactly like Caruso but never had the means to study and never met the right people to appreciate and polish his talent.


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

OK, maybe I'm missing something, but I was not under the impression that tenors are rare. Is there some way to quantify this? I'm confused. When I think rare voice types, I think basses and contraltos.


----------



## zxxyxxz (Apr 14, 2020)

I do think that the main issue for the lack of good modern singers is most certainly that they never discover opera and opera singing. 

Secondary issues I think are an obessesion with looks rather than sounds. (Which I do blame on the rise of film)

That some audience members seem to have forgotten how to suspend disbelief hence the need for looks. It irks me on the occasion I read people on this forum using someone's looks as a judgement for character portrayal.

My final secondary is I do believe that many of those attending performances in opera houses must lack an awareness of good singing and performances or are too polite to complain. Which leads to the paying public accepting bad singing.

On a minor note I do think most of the modern performances I have heard are pretty bland, they all sound very simillar. This could be down to the recording process but I find there is less drive and fire in the performances.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

zxxyxxz said:


> I do think that the main issue for the lack of good modern singers is most certainly that they never discover opera and opera singing.
> 
> *Secondary issues I think are an obessesion with looks rather than sounds. (Which I do blame on the rise of film)
> 
> ...


I absolutely agree that the singing is by far more important than the looks, but to say that the looks should be neglected isn't in my opinion right either. An appearance that fits the role only enhances the power of the character, makes it more distinctive. We must remember that opera isn't pure music, it's also theatre and drama. Many great Wagner heldentenors and bass-baritones from the past had towering powerful figures *and* a great voice - I can only imagine the experience of seeing Hotter or Vinay sing. I enjoy watching Callas sing because her beautiful looks fit the roles she is singing. On the other hand there are many singers who didn't have the looks of a Hollywood star that Corelli and Jess Thomas had but are still extremely highly appreciated. I wouldn't say that we focus on the looks now more than in the past, in some cases it feels the other way around.


----------



## zxxyxxz (Apr 14, 2020)

I think some can be helped by the right costume, make up and how you hold yourself. 

However on the point of looks I think we shall have to agree to disagree. Even on the few times I have attended live opera (just the english touring opera) I focus on the singing not the staging.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

zxxyxxz said:


> I think some can be helped by the right costume, make up and how you hold yourself.
> 
> However on the point of looks I think we shall have to agree to disagree. Even on the few times I have attended live opera (just the english touring opera) I focus on the singing not the staging.


I actually agree with you :lol:. My point is that good looks can enhance the effect of great singing but most certainly not substitute it.


----------



## zxxyxxz (Apr 14, 2020)

annaw said:


> I actually agree with you :lol:. My point is that good looks can enhance the effect of great singing but most certainly not substitute it.


My mistake! And yes I agree looks and skill would be perfection.


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

Talented people not going into opera and becoming singers is certainly an issue. But we know there are talented people who go into opera. Netrebko, Kaufmann, DiDonato, etc. are all very talented.

Furthermore, if that were the main reason, wouldn't we expect that the second-string singers of the past would sound like today's stars? After all, if the problem is that were missing out on the big talent and only getting the second rate talent being trained to the same level as the past, that is what we'd have. Except we don't. Find me the spinto tenor that sounds like Daniele Barioni or Angelo Lo Forese, or Flaviano Labo. Find me baritone than can even approximate the sounds of Umberto Urbano or Hans Reinmar or Domenico Viglione Borghese. Sopranos like Maria Reining, Marta Fuchs, Anita Cerquetti, Antonietta Stella, Gigliola Frazzoni. Etc.


----------



## zxxyxxz (Apr 14, 2020)

So by that logic then modern singing teaching is flawed. A topic I know nothing on. 

Is it a matter of good singers not retiring into teaching?


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

vivalagentenuova said:


> Talented people not going into opera and becoming singers is certainly an issue. But we know there are talented people who go into opera. Netrebko, Kaufmann, DiDonato, etc. are all very talented.
> 
> Furthermore, if that were the main reason, wouldn't we expect that the second-string singers of the past would sound like today's stars? After all, if the problem is that were missing out on the big talent and only getting the second rate talent being trained to the same level as the past, that is what we'd have. Except we don't. Find me the spinto tenor that sounds like Daniele Barioni or Angelo Lo Forese, or Flaviano Labo. Find me baritone than can even approximate the sounds of Umberto Urbano or Hans Reinmar or Domenico Viglione Borghese. Sopranos like Maria Reining, Marta Fuchs, Anita Cerquetti, Antonietta Stella, Gigliola Frazzoni. Etc.


Another point is that most of today's 'good' singers all sing the lighter rep. You can easily see a well sung, enjoyable Handel, Mozart or Rossini opera, but when was the last time your saw a superlative cast in a Verdi opera?

If it's just a case of it being a smaller pool to choose from why are those choosing to sing opera not the voice types suitable for Verdi or Wagner?

N.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

The Conte said:


> Another point is that most of today's 'good' singers all sing the lighter rep. You can easily see a well sung, enjoyable Handel, Mozart or Rossini opera, but when was the last time your saw a superlative cast in a Verdi opera?
> 
> If it's just a case of it being a smaller pool to choose from why are those choosing to sing opera not the voice types suitable for Verdi or Wagner?
> 
> N.


That's a good point. I guess that's where the differences in musical training and training tradition come in...


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

adriesba said:


> OK, maybe I'm missing something, but I was not under the impression that tenors are rare. Is there some way to quantify this? I'm confused. When I think rare voice types, I think basses and contraltos.


ReadHaroldC Sconberg. Tenors a la Corelli are the rarest of birds. Why do you thinkCorelli could roe withhisvaritones and get them fired?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Tuoksu said:


> Well I didn't know that I needed to provide an exhaustive list to make a point.
> 
> Well the singers you deemed "not famous" also had careers all over the world, so what's your point?
> 
> ...


In all fairness you're not naming them any potentially great singers who have not made it.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The Conte said:


> Another point is that most of today's 'good' singers all sing the lighter rep. You can easily see a well sung, enjoyable Handel, Mozart or Rossini opera, but when was the last time your saw a superlative cast in a Verdi opera?
> 
> If it's just a case of it being a smaller pool to choose from why are those choosing to sing opera not the voice types suitable for Verdi or Wagner?
> 
> N.


This is a point take up in the paper 'Where have the big Verdi voices gone' which I posted.

https://www.princeton.edu/~amoravcs/library/VerdiVoices

. In fact the singing standard in these lighter roles is probably as good if not higher than it used to be. It isth3 spinto roles that we are short of.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

annaw said:


> That's a good point. I guess that's where the differences in musical training and training tradition come in...


The answer apparently does not like in training. It lies in the fact that the voices are not coming forward. It lies in the fact that there is not the basic material there


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

DavidA said:


> The answer apparently does not like in training. It lies in the fact that the voices are not coming forward. It lies in the fact that there is not the basic material there


Is this the same 'small pool' argument? I cannot grasp the logic - why should the so called 'pool' be smaller now than 50 years ago? It still comes down to mainly singing tradition and its popularity. Nevertheless I suspect that the training also plays its part here - if the contemporary training tradition ruins more great voices then they don't even have a chance to come forward. This is a mere hypothesis though and I have no qualification to support it in any possible way, except the vague understanding that opera training used to be better than it is at the moment.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

DavidA said:


> The answer apparently does not like in training. It lies in the fact that the voices are not coming forward. It lies in the fact that there is not the basic material there


The answer is definitely a combination of both rather than an either/or situation. I can speak first hand to the training traditions, and the allure of a career in opera is just not what it once was.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

annaw said:


> Is this the same 'small pool' argument? I cannot grasp the logic - *why should the so called 'pool' be smaller now than 50 years ago*? It still comes down to mainly singing tradition and its popularity. Nevertheless I suspect that the training also plays its part here - if the contemporary training tradition ruins more great voices then they don't even have a chance to come forward. This is a mere hypothesis though and I have no qualification to support it in any possible way, except the vague understanding that opera training used to be better than it is at the moment.


Andrew Moracsic gives some answers in his paper as to why the big voices are just not coming forward


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

And his logic is flawed.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

vivalagentenuova said:


> And his logic is flawed.


Why is his logic flawed ?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> The answer is definitely a combination of both rather than an either/or situation. I can speak first hand to the training traditions, and *the allure of a career in opera is just not what it once was.*


Why do you sat that?


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

DavidA said:


> Why do you sat that?


Because once upon a time opera singers were like rock stars. Now I'm surprised when I meet someone under 40 who can even name an opera, let alone a singer lol


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> Because once upon a time opera singers were like rock stars. Now I'm surprised when I meet someone under 40 who can even name an opera, let alone a singer lol


Yes you are probably right. Mind you the pay of opera singers at the top is not to be sneezed at!


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

DavidA said:


> Why is his logic flawed ?


I already said above, but in short: he ignores the possibility, which seems to be the reality, that perceptions of what correct sounds in opera singing are have changed. This is particularly true in early opera, which he cites as being the repertoire for which critical opinion has increased. He concludes from that increase that singing instruction in general has not declined. But if there has been a change in what is considered good singing, then he can't draw that conclusion. Instead, we would conclude that there are two singing traditions, one going at least from the late 19th century, which is when we have records, roughly into the 60s, and gradually being replaced by a second tradition starting in the 50s and continuing to the present day.

As for Wagner, Verdi, and Puccini, it's slightly different. People listen to old recordings of Mozart and Gluck and say it's bad singing because it's too heavy, too Romantic, etc.. So they think that singing has gotten better. Meanwhile, they think that the average quality of Wagner singing has stayed roughly the same, or even increased, but they know that they have trouble finding people who can sing it. So they say the number of singers has declined, but not the quality. In fact, the number of singers and the quality have declined because a different technique has been introduced. We know this because today's singers make different kinds of sounds from singers of the past, regardless of which you like better.

That's the last thing that he misses. He relies on "expert opinion" of recordings, instead of listening to the recordings themselves. He's taking what people are saying about what's good and bad, and not listening to the sounds they are judging. A critic today vs. 100 years ago can both think the Wagner singing of their day is good but not great. But what can't be denied is that Wagner singing of 100 years ago and today sound very different. Until he reckons with that fact, his study won't really be looking at the right thing.


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

That didn't really end up being "in short". Oh well.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

DavidA said:


> The answer apparently does not like in training. It lies in the fact that the voices are not coming forward. It lies in the fact that there is not the basic material there


Why, though? Why are all these supposed great spintos deciding that opera isn't for them, but loads of lyrics are? I think 'the pool is smaller' argument has some merit, but it doesn't explain why the pool is there for smaller voices, but not for bigger ones.

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

vivalagentenuova said:


> That didn't really end up being "in short". Oh well.


Better to be long and insightful, than short and moronic!

N.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Regarding the 'pool' argument, I understand that for one reason or another the pool can be smaller. But certainly not because of biological or genetic reasons, e.g. less great singers are born. I think the reason why the pool is smaller is connected with multiple different factors, many of them mentioned above. The smaller pool is not the reason itself but a mere result of those facotrs that will eventually lead to the final result - we have less great singers.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

vivalagentenuova said:


> I already said above, but in short: he ignores the possibility, which seems to be the reality, that perceptions of what correct sounds in opera singing are have changed. This is particularly true in early opera, which he cites as being the repertoire for which critical opinion has increased. He concludes from that increase that singing instruction in general has not declined. But if there has been a change in what is considered good singing, then he can't draw that conclusion. Instead, we would conclude that there are two singing traditions, one going at least from the late 19th century, which is when we have records, roughly into the 60s, and gradually being replaced by a second tradition starting in the 50s and continuing to the present day.
> 
> As for Wagner, Verdi, and Puccini, it's slightly different. People listen to old recordings of Mozart and Gluck and say it's bad singing because it's too heavy, too Romantic, etc.. So they think that singing has gotten better. Meanwhile, they think that the average quality of Wagner singing has stayed roughly the same, or even increased, but they know that they have trouble finding people who can sing it. So they say the number of singers has declined, but not the quality. In fact, the number of singers and the quality have declined because a different technique has been introduced. We know this because today's singers make different kinds of sounds from singers of the past, regardless of which you like better.
> 
> That's the last thing that he misses. He relies on "expert opinion" of recordings, instead of listening to the recordings themselves. He's taking what people are saying about what's good and bad, and not listening to the sounds they are judging. A critic today vs. 100 years ago can both think the Wagner singing of their day is good but not great. But what can't be denied is that Wagner singing of 100 years ago and today sound very different. Until he reckons with that fact, his study won't really be looking at the right thing.


He was actually going by what people in the singing industry said. I think it's these people who should have a good idea of what is going on! I don't think there has been a change in what is considered good singing but there has been a change in what has been considered acceptable appearance, which means that has ruled out some singers. Actually Rita Hunter was one who suffered from this during her career as directors even then were reluctant to cast her in certain parts because of her size. 
I think this business of finding people to sing Wagner has been there ever since I started collecting records over 50 years ago. Culshaw in 'Ring Resounding' said that the 'casting of Siegfried was the bane of opera houses worldwide because there was only one Siegfried - Wolfgang Windgassen'. That was around 1960! I do think, however, that your posting about Wagner singing rather misses the point as the article was about 'Where have all the big VERDI voices gone'. He was researching Verdi pintos not Wagner and his remarks on Wagner were just an aside. So I reckon in saying that you are missing the point of his research.
From his research he reckons that the standard of singing instruction has not declined. Corelli and Nisson both testify to teachers who were downright dangerous in the 'good old days'. There have always been good teachers and bad teachers. Fact of history!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

annaw said:


> Regarding the 'pool' argument, I understand that for one reason or another the pool can be smaller. But certainly not because of biological or genetic reasons, e.g. less great singers are born. I think the reason why the pool is smaller is connected with multiple different factors, many of them mentioned above. The smaller pool is not the reason itself but a mere result of those facotrs that will eventually lead to the final result - we have less great singers.


This is perfectly in line with what the research finds. Also with what Bonetan said. For example, years ago microphones in churches were very rare so anyone singing (or preaching) had to have a voice that projected against a piano or organ, especially in a large church. With the advent of amplification, we find that most churches now (or the sort L Price grew up in) have a group with guitars, keyboard, etc., and the singers are miked. Now there is no right or wrong in this - just a change in styles - but it does mean, as the article suggests, that projection of the voice is not the priority it used to be.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

DavidA said:


> This is perfectly in line with what the research finds. Also with what Bonetan said. For example, years ago microphones in churches were very rare so anyone singing (or preaching) had to have a voice that projected against a piano or organ, especially in a large church. With the advent of amplification, we find that most churches now (or the sort L Price grew up in) have a group with guitars, keyboard, etc., and the singers are miked. Now there is no right or wrong in this - just a change in styles - but it does mean, as the article suggests, that projection of the voice is not the priority it used to be.


And thus this isn't a counterargument to what I said . What I mainly stated was that the smaller 'pool' is not a biological but a cultural phenomena. The initial 'pool' of people who could potentially become great singers hasn't probably declined so significantly in 50 years (what would even be the biological reason for that?). The 'pool' becomes smaller and smaller throughout the years when the people, who might have an amazing voice, decide to start singing pop music or just choose a different career path because, as you said, their talent is not even found or recognised - this is a purely cultural phenomena. The initial number of potentially great singers should logically be the same as it was in the past but our current society is just less likely to find them.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

annaw said:


> And thus this isn't a counterargument to what I said . What I mainly stated was that the smaller 'pool' is not a biological but a cultural phenomena. The initial 'pool' of people who could potentially become great singers hasn't probably declined so significantly in 50 years (what would even be the biological reason for that?). The 'pool' becomes smaller and smaller throughout the years when the people, who might have an amazing voice, decide to start singing pop music or just choose a different career path because, as you said, their talent is not even found or recognised - this is a purely cultural phenomena. The initial number of potentially great singers should logically be the same as it was in the past but our current society is just less likely to find them.


Yes agreed. Of course, another point is the way music is taught (or not taught) in schools. The emphasis has now moved from classical music to different kinds of music - rightly or wrongly - so kids are less likely to have encountered things like opera.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

DavidA said:


> Yes agreed. Of course, another point is the way music is taught (or not taught) in schools. The emphasis has now moved from classical music to different kinds of music - rightly or wrongly - so kids are less likely to have encountered things like opera.


Yes, exactly, that's the kind of cultural thing that I had in mind.


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

> I don't think there has been a change in what is considered good singing but there has been a change in what has been considered acceptable appearance, which means that has ruled out some singers.


There certainly has been a change in what is considered good singing in early music, to the extent that early music was sung in the early 20th century. That much is indisputable. But whether or not you think the standard of good singing has changed for later music, it's a possibility that he doesn't account for in his paper. I think it's true, and I and TIO and many others have given our evidence many times over.



> I think this business of finding people to sing Wagner has been there ever since I started collecting records over 50 years ago. Culshaw in 'Ring Resounding' said that the 'casting of Siegfried was the bane of opera houses worldwide because there was only one Siegfried - Wolfgang Windgassen'. That was around 1960!


Doesn't that supports our point of view? How many Siegfrieds were there back in the day? Let's see, we had Schubert, Ritter, Gruning, Urlus, Franz, Burian, Pistor, Menzinsky, Laubenthal, and many more all singing around the same time. A couple decades later we had Melchior, Lorenz, Treptow, etc., though none except Melchior and maybe Volker were on the lever of the previous generation. The fact that we went from many famous Siegfried to, One tenor in all the world with the strength and skill to battle the tessitura, the dragon, and the forces of Bayreuth: he is the Siegfried. Doesn't that suggest something negative happened? The pool shrinking would certainly affect the number available, but the Conte's point comes in: why did we experience a glut of lyrics and leggeros?



> I do think, however, that your posting about Wagner singing rather misses the point as the article was about 'Where have all the big VERDI voices gone'. He was researching Verdi pintos not Wagner and his remarks on Wagner were just an aside. So I reckon in saying that you are missing the point of his research.


I mean, everything I said about Wagner is even truer for Verdi. But you are missing the point of my comment. My point was not specifically about Wagner singing, but that a critic of any kind of singing is using the standards of their own time period. Unless we know that "good" means the same sound to a critic of the past as it does to a critic of the present, we can't interpret their judgments relative to each other. That's just as true of Verdi singing as it is of Wagner singing or any other singing.


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

zxxyxxz said:


> I do think that the main issue for the lack of good modern singers is most certainly that they never discover opera and opera singing.
> 
> Secondary issues I think are an obessesion with looks rather than sounds. (Which I do blame on the rise of film)
> 
> ...


Couldn't agree more. 
Regarding the highlighted part, While watching recent DVDs and live broadcasts, for instance the Netrebko & Hubby Trovatore from Verona, during closeups on the audience before the show, I noticed that most of them honestly looked it they were there for the selfies or to feel chic/classy because they went to an Opera. I feel bad for judging these people based on their appearance, but there is more to it. It was their body language and their behavior too. Their main concern didn't seem to be whether Verdi was about to be done justice or not.


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

> From his research he reckons that the standard of singing instruction has not declined.


And his research is flawed in that he draws that conclusion from bad premises.



> Corelli and Nisson both testify to teachers who were downright dangerous in the 'good old days'. There have always been good teachers and bad teachers. Fact of history!


Irrelevant fact of history. Nobody is claiming that there weren't bad teachers, or even bad singers, in the past. I can give you a long list of singers that I think are really bad from the early 1900s. I'm claiming that the average level of singing has declined, and that in addition there are _no_ great singers today while there were many great singers in the early 1900s.

Also, Corelli didn't only have bad teachers. He got voice lessons second hand from Del Monaco, who passed along what he learned during his lessons with Melocchi. He also studied with Lauri-Volpi. So he had good teachers.


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

annaw said:


> Is this the same 'small pool' argument? I cannot grasp the logic - why should the so called 'pool' be smaller now than 50 years ago? It still comes down to mainly singing tradition and its popularity. Nevertheless I suspect that the training also plays its part here - if the contemporary training tradition ruins more great voices then they don't even have a chance to come forward. This is a mere hypothesis though and I have no qualification to support it in any possible way, except the vague understanding that opera training used to be better than it is at the moment.


I think it's a combination of both. What's increasingly popular and successful in Opera today is much closer to crossover and popular music. I call it Popera. This led to a style of singing that's a lot more "comfortable" for your fellow "normie" who never really was an Opera connaisseur. 
This new style calls for two things:


Youth and great looks à la Garifullina, Sierra, etc so you look great in your concert gowns. 
Small pretty voices that are flattered by close microphones. The big and clumsy voices needed for the real deal (Verdi, Versimo, Bel Canto, Wagner) are definitely anything but small and pretty and microphone friendly. 

Hence, knowing what really sells, these pretty small lyric voices which work only for small lyric roles like Baroque and _some_ Mozart are given more priority and even voices which don't fit in that category are trained into it. You watch these masterclasses with Renée Fleming, Didonato, Yannick Nezet-Seguin etc, and they're literally telling singers to sing *smaller*.
Of course a young person browsing youtube for opera is far more likely to stumble upon the HD attractive videos of glamorous Garifullina than a screechy recording with a photo of Rosa Ponselle, (which they'd ignore anyway.) If they have the type of voice Garifullina has and identify with it, they will come forward and seriously consider a career in Opera. Bigger voices will not, because they will not really identify with anything that's popular or sold as Opera today unless they do some digging.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

I was so lucky to have been mentored by a couple of older very knowledgeable opera aficionados who grew up in the golden age of the 40's to the 70s!!!! This was 30 years ago and in the gay community this is harder today because so many great opera fans died in the plague. just my opinion. I am so grateful for all the great mentors that still exist on this forum!


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

DavidA said:


> Yes you are probably right. *Mind you the pay of opera singers at the top is not to be sneezed at!*


True! But if opera was regarded today as it was in the days of Caruso and Ruffo, modern day opera stars would be making Beyonce money!!


----------



## VitellioScarpia (Aug 27, 2017)

Tuoksu said:


> I think it's a combination of both. What's increasingly popular and successful in Opera today is much closer to crossover and popular music. I call it Popera. This led to a style of singing that's a lot more "comfortable" for your fellow "normie" who never really was an Opera connaisseur.
> This new style calls for two things:
> 
> 
> ...


The current scene is quite depressing: did anyone watch the 07-Dec-19 Tosca opening from La Scala with Netrebko, Meli and Salsi under Chailly? I could not believe my ears for so much ugly singing and rudimentary acting. So, it was neither the visual nor the singing that provided any satisfaction. It did not meet a provincial performance of even 25 years ago... The points that you make about the perception of glamour and fame are quite on.

Garifullina singing Casta Diva? Give me a break...


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

VitellioScarpia said:


> The current scene is quite depressing: did anyone watch the 07-Dec-19 Tosca opening from La Scala with Netrebko, Meli and Salsi under Chailly? I could not believe my ears for so much ugly singing and rudimentary acting. So, it was neither the visual nor the singing that provided any satisfaction. It did not meet a provincial performance of even 25 years ago... The points that you make about the perception of glamour and fame are quite on.
> 
> Garifullina singing Casta Diva? Give me a break...


You mean this?






I know what you mean. The acting is rather ridiculous. And don't get me started about the production itself! I have no idea what all the people above the stage are or the person in the background, but they add nothing to the drama. And oh my word, Tosca doesn't place the candles and crucifix!!! This ruins Tosca's character! What do we have instead? She stands there. Oh, and there's a ghost image of her in the background... What? Stop it directors! Just let the story unfold the way it was meant to without making all these silly changes. Opera directors try to make all these goofy productions to be profound or whatever, but actually do the opposite and make it more shallow. Why can't they just stand in awe of these master works without all the tinkering?

It's like this, someone goes to see the _Mona Lisa _and brings paint with him. He proceeds to throw various colors of paint on the painting at random. Then when he is done he says, "Look at what I made. This represents the old way making way for the new way. The past was about order, and this represents disorder. It's a beautiful paradox of contrasting themes." Then the museum director looks at it and praises it as being original and profound. He then proceeds to ask that the painter do that to all the other paintings. Then, other museum directors ask for the same.

That's what Regietheater is. Instead of providing their service to the masterpieces, they see the work as a canvas for their own idea. It's incredibly selfish really. And it's ridiculous to say that it makes it more profound or whatever. Regietheater productions make the operas less profound because, instead of simply presenting the work to the audience and letting each person find their own interpretation, *the only interpretation avavailable is the director's*. This is not more profound but quite the opposite. The audience has no room to think, and their brains become idle. It's not profound, intelligent, inspirational, or anything of the sort. It's intellectual laziness. It's dumbing it down. It lacks subtlety and is overly black-and-white.

Oh, and the signing's not great either.

I surely hope I didn't divert the thread into discussing staging. I can't handle thinking about the staging.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

vivalagentenuova said:


> There certainly has been a change in what is considered good singing in early music, to the extent that early music was sung in the early 20th century. That much is indisputable. But whether or not you think the standard of good singing has changed for later music, it's a possibility that he doesn't account for in his paper. I think it's true, and I and TIO and many others have given our evidence many times over.
> 
> Doesn't that supports our point of view? How many Siegfrieds were there back in the day? Let's see, we had Schubert, Ritter, Gruning, Urlus, Franz, Burian, Pistor, Menzinsky, Laubenthal, and many more all singing around the same time. A couple decades later we had Melchior, Lorenz, Treptow, etc., though none except Melchior and maybe Volker were on the lever of the previous generation. The fact that we went from many famous Siegfried to, One tenor in all the world with the strength and skill to battle the tessitura, the dragon, and the forces of Bayreuth: he is the Siegfried. Doesn't that suggest something negative happened? The pool shrinking would certainly affect the number available, but the Conte's point comes in: why did we experience a glut of lyrics and leggeros?
> 
> I mean, everything I said about Wagner is even truer for Verdi. But you are missing the point of my comment. My point was not specifically about Wagner singing, but that a critic of any kind of singing is using the standards of their own time period. Unless we know that "good" means the same sound to a critic of the past as it does to a critic of the present, we can't interpret their judgments relative to each other. That's just as true of Verdi singing as it is of Wagner singing or any other singing.


The fact is that the singing of early music is better than it's ever been. That is an undisputed fact unless you are one who likes it done with anachronistic heavy voices.

Your point about the secret is quite amusing because we are talking about 60-70 years ago with Windgassen a time when Nilsson, Varna & co were at their peak. Culshaw could or record Tristan with Nilsson because only Windgassen could sing it abs eventually they had to settle for Uhl and a very second best choice. He actually learnt the role especially for the recording for Decca. So the pool was empty then. Of the previous generation you've only mentioned Melchior, Lorenz, Treptow of note. Interesting the fact is that since Windgassen we have had people record Siegfried and Tristan - in fact in Vickers one of the greatest ever Tristans. 
But of course I am totally with the point that that the singing of Verdi is lacking the true spinto as in the past. What we are trying to point out and what the research is trying to point out is the problem and people like you appear to think it's just in the vocal training whereas there are far more factors like culture and amplification which are coming into play


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

vivalagentenuova said:


> And his research is flawed in that he draws that conclusion from bad premises.
> 
> Irrelevant fact of history. Nobody is claiming that there weren't bad teachers, or even bad singers, in the past. I can give you a long list of singers that I think are really bad from the early 1900s. I'm claiming that the average level of singing has declined, and that in addition there are _no_ great singers today while there were many great singers in the early 1900s.
> 
> Also, Corelli didn't only have bad teachers. He got voice lessons second hand from Del Monaco, who passed along what he learned during his lessons with Melocchi. He also studied with Lauri-Volpi. So he had good teachers.


For goodness sake how can anyone get voice lessons secondhand from somebody else. In any case who was Del Monaco to teach anybody anything? He had a problem with his own technique in singing softly


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Tuoksu said:


> Couldn't agree more.
> Regarding the highlighted part, While watching recent DVDs and live broadcasts, for instance the Netrebko & Hubby Trovatore from Verona, during closeups on the audience before the show, I noticed that most of them honestly looked it they were there for the selfies or to feel chic/classy because they went to an Opera. I feel bad for judging these people based on their appearance, but there is more to it. It was their body language and their behavior too. Their main concern didn't seem to be whether Verdi was about to be done justice or not.


So now we're judging the audience. I must confess when I go and see opera I'm in a T-shirt and jeans. The great unwashed! :lol:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

VitellioScarpia said:


> The current scene is quite depressing: did anyone watch the 07-Dec-19 Tosca opening from La Scala with Netrebko, Meli and Salsi under Chailly? I could not believe my ears for so much ugly singing and rudimentary acting. So, it was neither the visual nor the singing that provided any satisfaction. It did not meet a provincial performance of even 25 years ago... The points that you make about the perception of glamour and fame are quite on.
> 
> Garifullina singing Casta Diva? Give me a break...


One answer - don't watch it if it gives you so much pain!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Tuoksu said:


> I think it's a combination of both. What's increasingly popular and successful in Opera today is much closer to crossover and popular music. I call it Popera. This led to a style of singing that's a lot more "comfortable" for your fellow "normie" who never really was an Opera connaisseur.
> This new style calls for two things:
> 
> 
> ...


I don't know whether you know any young people but of course they are far more likely to be attracted to an HD video of a glamorous singer than a screechy old recording. So am I frankly and I'm over 70. I just can't bear the scratchy old 78 we don't give any idea of what the singer was like anyway but appear to be prized by aficionados. Of course decent recordings of people like Tebaldi and Price are different. But you've got to realise that the world is different like it or not and it's no good lamenting some past age. Of course singers like Fleming and DiDonato encourage singers to sing in a certain way because they were more into a bel canto repertoire. You wouldn't expect DiDonato to sing Brunnhilde would you? As the research says it's not a case of the opera is not being popular which require bigger voices it's a case of finding the bigger voices. Have you any ideas?


----------



## zxxyxxz (Apr 14, 2020)

DavidA said:


> I don't know whether you know any young people but of course they are far more likely to be attracted to an HD video of a glamorous singer than a screechy old recording. So am I frankly and I'm over 70. I just can't bear the scratchy old 78 we don't give any idea of what the singer was like anyway but appear to be prized by aficionados. Of course decent recordings of people like Tebaldi and Price are different. But you've got to realise that the world is different like it or not and it's no good lamenting some past age. Of course singers like Fleming and DiDonato encourage singers to sing in a certain way because they were more into a bel canto repertoire. You wouldn't expect DiDonato to sing Brunnhilde would you? As the research says it's not a case of the opera is not being popular which require bigger voices it's a case of finding the bigger voices. Have you any ideas?


I think you largely hit the nail on the head when it comes to the smaller pool. If we can't get children and teens into opera then they won't want to be opera singers.

Responding to another thread on getting into opera if it wasn't for some chance channel hopping and being bored while music shopping I would never have discovered opera. The only person in my family who loved opera was dead before I was born.

And I don't think modern stagings are the answer, if people are not already interested they will not ever consider buying tickets.

I'm 29 by the way. In the name of honesty so not really a young person anymore.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

zxxyxxz said:


> I think you largely hit the nail on the head when it comes to the smaller pool. If we can't get children and teens into opera then they won't want to be opera singers.
> 
> Responding to another thread on getting into opera if it wasn't for some chance channel hopping and being bored while music shopping I would never have discovered opera. The only person in my family who loved opera was dead before I was born.
> 
> ...


I too am the only person in my family into opera. My wife is a (retired) professional musician and a trained singer but opera was never her thing. My kids (grown up) both love and perform music but very different from me. So somewhat frustrating having to go to the opera on my own. So I sympathise.
I certainly don't think Regietheatre is the answer as no-one appears to enjoy it apart from the demented producers who appears to think the more people they turnoff opera the better!


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Tuoksu said:


> Couldn't agree more.
> Regarding the highlighted part, While watching recent DVDs and live broadcasts, for instance the Netrebko & Hubby Trovatore from Verona, during closeups on the audience before the show, I noticed that most of them honestly looked it they were there for the selfies or to feel chic/classy because they went to an Opera. I feel bad for judging these people based on their appearance, but there is more to it. It was their body language and their behavior too. Their main concern didn't seem to be whether Verdi was about to be done justice or not.


Quite possibly, but it was Verona!

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

adriesba said:


> You mean this?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The rise of directors' opera is another important factor in this. Maybe the decline of singing technique (and that's what it is - there are still great singers around today, but not really singers with great technique) has resulted in increased focus on the staging of opera or perhaps the reverse is true. In any case there is too much focus on opera production. For example this comment spends more time talking about the production than the singing.

N.


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

The Conte said:


> The rise of directors' opera is another important factor in this. Maybe the decline of singing technique (and that's what it is - there are still great singers around today, but not really singers with great technique) has resulted in increased focus on the staging of opera or perhaps the reverse is true. In any case there is too much focus on opera production. For example this comment spends more time talking about the production than the singing.
> 
> N.


Well we've been talking about the singing. And staging certainly is certainly an important part of opera (i.e., Gesamtkunstwerk).


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

DavidA said:


> The fact is that the singing of early music is better than it's ever been. That is an undisputed fact unless you are one who likes it done with anachronistic heavy voices.
> 
> Your point about the secret is quite amusing because we are talking about 60-70 years ago with Windgassen a time when Nilsson, Varna & co were at their peak. Culshaw could or record Tristan with Nilsson because only Windgassen could sing it abs eventually they had to settle for Uhl and a very second best choice. He actually learnt the role especially for the recording for Decca. So the pool was empty then. Of the previous generation you've only mentioned Melchior, Lorenz, Treptow of note. Interesting the fact is that since Windgassen we have had people record Siegfried and Tristan - in fact in Vickers one of the greatest ever Tristans.
> But of course I am totally with the point that that the singing of Verdi is lacking the true spinto as in the past. What we are trying to point out and what the research is trying to point out is the problem *and people like you appear to think it's just in the vocal training whereas there are far more factors like culture and amplification which are coming into play*


This is exactly my point. It's not just the vocal training, there are cultural and other factors too. However, it isn't ONLY cultural as Mister Opera! and others have asserted (including the person who wrote the research paper on why there aren't Verdi voices anymore).

N.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The Conte said:


> This is exactly my point. It's not just the vocal training, there are cultural and other factors too. However, it isn't ONLY cultural as Mister Opera! and others have asserted (*including the person who wrote the research paper on why there aren't Verdi voices anymore*).
> 
> N.


he didn't assert it is only cultural - there are a mix of reasons in his paper


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

The Conte said:


> This is exactly my point. It's not just the vocal training, there are cultural and other factors too. However, it isn't ONLY cultural as Mister Opera! and others have asserted (including the person who wrote the research paper on why there aren't Verdi voices anymore).
> 
> N.


Btw, when I talked about "culture" in my previous comments, I've meant culture in a very broad sense - basically everything non-biological. Meaning that when I talk about "culture", I consider vocal training and technical factors to be part of "culture". Wikipedia has a nice broad definition: _Culture is an umbrella term which encompasses the social behavior and norms found in human societies, as well as the knowledge, beliefs, arts, laws, customs, capabilities, and habits of the individuals in these groups._

So, I talk about "culture" as everything acquired throughout life excluding biological and ecological factors (e.g. talent) that the person is born with or that are characteristic to society just on the basis of mere population genetics. (Getting kind of biological, but I had to exclude the possibility of misinterpreting my earlier posts.)


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

So David, you think the standard of what is considered good singing in early music has changed between 1900 and today?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

vivalagentenuova said:


> So David, you think the standard of what is considered good singing in early music has changed between 1900 and today?


I don't know as I wasn't around in 1900. But the standard of singing of early music is better than it ever was in quantity, quality and style. Let's face it when I was a boy the Monteverdi Vespers were hardly ever sung and only then in anachronistic performances. So it is an arguable that the standard of early music singing is far higher than it ever was


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

DavidA said:


> I don't know whether you know any young people


I am a young person...



> but of course they are far more likely to be attracted to an HD video of a glamorous singer than a screechy old recording. So am I frankly and I'm over 70. I just can't bear the scratchy old 78 we don't give any idea of what the singer was like anyway but appear to be prized by aficionados. Of course decent recordings of people like Tebaldi and Price are different.


...and I absolutely love the screechy older recordings, and find the modern recordings for all their highly polished and engineered finish in most cases unlistenable.

Not liking the less-than-comfortable quality is something, but you're telling me you can't make out great legato, great phrasing, a great trill, ease of emission, breath control, consistency of tone, developed registers, prowess at fioriture etc through the recording quality?

If anything, the primitive technology puts these singers at a huge disadvantage. Just listen to this clip where Nilsson is recorded in that way:






Notice how Nilsson's voice is cut down in half both in terms of power and brilliance.

The voices are stripped down to their absolute core without hardly any overtones and it makes them sound shriller and whiter (the higher the worse) and a great deal of their beauty and warmth is severely lost in the process but they still sound divine. I mean, give me ONE modern recording at this level of beauty, elegance and mastery:






I'll let you imagine how much greater these singers would have actually sounded with decent recording technology, or better yet, in person in the house. It's like comparing a woman who has her hair and makeup done and is dressed to the nines but still looks ugly, to a woman who is gorgeous without any makeup whatsoever and in rags.



> But you've got to realise that the world is different like it or not and it's no good lamenting some past age.


This is the worse argument by far. If I happen to like this very fine brand of handmade high quality chocolate and over time the shop I used to go to starts selling some manufactured junk then I have no reason to complain? And if I'm lucky to have a decent stash of the old goods then I might as well enjoy it and steer clear of the new manufactured stuff.



> Of course singers like Fleming and DiDonato encourage singers to sing in a certain way because they were more into a bel canto repertoire. *You wouldn't expect DiDonato to sing Brunnhilde would you?*


You missed my point. First of all, Didonato and Fleming aren't bel canto singers. The last decent "bel canto specialist" was probably June Anderson. And then, I wasn't referring to their style of singing, you don't have to be a baritone or a dramatic mezzo to teach a baritone or a dramatic mezzo. This is about teaching correct vocal production (which works for all fachs btw, even lyrics should be singing bigger because even with microphones on their bodies they're still very dull and barely audible.)



> As the research says it's not a case of the opera is not being popular which require bigger voices it's a case of finding the bigger voices. Have you any ideas?


I've clearly expressed my thoughts about this in my last post (to which you're replying) but I'll paraphrase: I said that these bigger voices aren't coming forward because there isn't much they can identify with in what they hear and see. If you have a teenage girl that potentially sounds like Nilsson she will not recognize her own talent because she will be only exposed to Netrebko and Garifullina and she would think "I don't have a voice like them [ie. Small, pretty, lyric..]" and she will never consider studying or singing and that's a dramatic soprano that will never see the light.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Tuoksu said:


> I am a young person...
> 
> ...and* I absolutely love the screechy older recordings,* and find the modern recordings for all their highly polished and engineered finish in most cases unlistenable.
> 
> ...


Fine if you love screechy old recordings. Just people like me who find them generally unlistenable, especially when we have singers from the 50s and 60s who were at least as good and are recorded in decent sound. I do know that it is an article of faith among some singing enthusiasts that - while the standard of instrumental playing has generally increased - the standard of singing has deteriorated. What we have to uphold this is of course the memoirs of those who heard these singers and these croaking 78s which suggest (to heretics like me anyway) that everyone then sang out of tune. What they would have sounded like with modern technology one can only imagine but what we are left with sadly is what they sound like on the 78s and the dreadful sounding cylinders. Now if you folks think they are wonderful to listen to that is fine but frankly I find myself soon losing patience with them. I have shelves full of opera in decent sound sung by great singers that I enjoy. But if folk enjoy listening to singers of the distant past and imagining how they sounded as a hobby that is fine.

Your point about chocolate is not really on the point. To say Tebaldi's or Price's recordings of Aida are 'manufactured junk' because they happen to be recorded in decent quality sound which at least allows you to hear the singers to their best advantage seems somewhat ludicrous to me. It appears that you think that poor sound and scratchy backgrounds are an advantage. Perhaps they are as it masks the deficiencies of the singers concerned and allows you to think they are better than they are? There are still plenty of shops making decent quality hand made chocolate I can assure you
So Di Donato is not a Bel Canto singer? Funny because she was singing bel canto the last time I heard her live. And this guy appears to think she is

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/20/...s-bel-canto-and-emotion-at-carnegie-hall.html

And this guy

https://www.classicstoday.com/review/di-donato-sings-neapolitan-bel-canto-gloriously/

And this guy

https://bachtrack.com/review-stella-didonato-brownlee-philadelphia-carnegie-march-2015

And this guy

https://seenandheard-international.com/2014/08/joyce-didonato-bel-canto-in-buenos-aires/

And this guy

http://www.classicalsource.com/db_control/db_cd_review.php?id=12264

He says: 'The tone itself, rock-solid and clear of any hint of unsteadiness, is a thing of beauty, capable of great expressiveness and adaptable to the emotional requirements of the music to hand. Consider her technical mastery of scales, trills, runs, legato phrasing, piano singing and the unusually wide range with which she has been endowed and it is no surprise that she has risen to the top.'
Interesting your remarks then. They are obviously not shared by these folks reviewing.

So we know 'bigger voices are not coming forward'. That is said in the research if you read it for a number of reasons. What do you propose we do about it? If you are in the singing business yourself you might have some ideas?


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Tuoksu said:


> I've clearly expressed my thoughts about this in my last post (to which you're replying) but I'll paraphrase: *I said that these bigger voices aren't coming forward because there isn't much they can identify with in what they hear and see.* If you have a teenage girl that potentially sounds like Nilsson she will not recognize her own talent because she will be only exposed to Netrebko and Garifullina and she would think "I don't have a voice like them [ie. Small, pretty, lyric..]" and she will never consider studying or singing and that's a dramatic soprano that will never see the light.


Another young person here and I agree with you, I also really like historical recordings although it was difficult to get used to them in the beginning. Now I really love them!

I also agree that the inability to identify oneself with contemporary opera singers probably plays its role but I think it's of secondary importance compared to the general decline in popularity. I'm honestly a young person but without any professional musical training. Nevertheless, when I started liking opera, I liked it enough to find out who are the greatest recorded singers, what are the best recordings etc (maybe I'm just fanatical, I don't know).

If now a young person with a voice potentially like Nilsson's should consider an operatic career, she should be interested enough to google a bit more and get better informed. If I had an amazing dramatic voice and I stumbled upon a recording by Netrebko but I wasn't interested enough to google a bit more, I probably wouldn't have considered an operatic career even if the first recording I heard was Nilsson's. Opera is still opera and I must admit that when I first listened to DFD's Wotan, I didn't understand that there was anything wanting at all, because I didn't know how London or Schorr sound. In short, the person with a great voice should, above all, be interested in opera. This is just less likely to happen in our current society where most young people only hear pop music their whole childhood. I remember how only a few years ago, I couldn't even imagine sitting through an opera, it felt such an absurd thing to do because you aren't used to that kind of music. Luckily this has changed drastically.

Of course I'm not too knowledgeable when it comes to vocal training but I suspect that when the person hasn't considered operatic career so far, she is also not aware that she might even have a huge dramatic voice like Nilsson's because you haven't ever even tried to sing over a whole Wagnerian orchestra. Such voice develops throughout the years and no one really jumps just straight into heavy Wagner, _Elektra_ or late Verdi.

I'm sometimes a bit sad when I see the the declining popularity of opera. But it's encouraging to see that there're still many young people, who are interested in opera!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

annaw said:


> Another young person here and I agree with you, I also really like historical recordings although it was difficult to get used to them in the beginning. Now I really love with them!
> 
> I also agree that the inability to identify oneself with contemporary opera singers probably plays its role but I think it's of secondary importance compared to the general decline in popularity. I'm honestly a young person but without any professional musical training. Nevertheless, when I started liking opera, I liked it enough to find out who are the greatest recorded singers, what are the best recordings etc (maybe I'm just fanatical, I don't know).
> 
> ...


Glad to see you guys enjoying opera. Actually there are vastly more opportunities of enjoying it now than when I was a teen, with cinema broadcasts relatively cheap and DVD. I can remember calling into the ROH London when passing through and even to get a restricted view ticket was prohibitive for me as a working class lad. Now so much is available. What is changing however is society and opera needs to work to get voices of the right quality interested. Really not helpful when people insist that all the great singers were in the past and there's nothing we can do about it!


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

I recalled a great interview with Jess Thomas where he also touches the topic of declining number of great voices, vocal training etc. etc. He brings out some great points especially when talking about _helden_ voices. (There's s longer interview with Thomas available on youtube as well - certainly worth a listen!)


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

annaw said:


> I recalled a great interview with Jess Thomas where he also touches the topic of declining number of great voices, vocal training etc. etc. He brings out some great points especially when talking about _helden_ voices. (There's s longer interview with Thomas available on youtube as well - certainly worth a listen!)


Interesting he didn't begin his singing career till he was 30. Good interview


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

DavidA said:


> Glad to see you guys enjoying opera. Actually there are vastly more opportunities of enjoying it now than when I was a teen, with cinema broadcasts relatively cheap and DVD. I can remember calling into the ROH London when passing through and even to get a restricted view ticket was prohibitive for me as a working class lad. Now so much is available. What is changing however is society and opera needs to work to get voices of the right quality interested. Really not helpful when people insist that all the great singers were in the past and there's nothing we can do about it!


This is a classic strawman. I don't think anyone here is saying that there is nothing we can do about it. I think that most people are saying that there has been a decline in vocal technique and that the solution would be to have teachers who really understand voice and start teaching based on older methods.

Whilst I agree with much that Vivalagentenuova and Tuoksu have said, I don't agree that today's singers can't be tolerated. Whilst I acknowledge the decline in technique, I don't think there has been a decline in interpretation or expression and so I can enjoy performances by the likes of Kaufmann, Didonato and Oropesa.

N.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The Conte said:


> This is a classic strawman. I don't think anyone here is saying that there is nothing we can do about it. I think that most people are saying that there has been a decline in vocal technique and that the solution would be to have teachers who really understand voice and start teaching based on older methods.
> 
> Whilst I agree with much that Vivalagentenuova and Tuoksu have said, I don't agree that today's singers can't be tolerated. Whilst I acknowledge the decline in technique, I don't think there has been a decline in interpretation or expression and so I can enjoy performances by the likes of Kaufmann, Didonato and Oropesa.
> 
> N.


Not a straw man at all. If you actually read the bloke who has been doing the research instead of hanging on to fixed attitudes then you see th3 matter is far more complex. If the voices are not there in the first place then there's not much anyone can do about it. I could have the best singing teachers in the world but people would still run for cover when I start using my vocal chords. I myself think the constant going on about decline in vocal technique is of itself a straw man. After all there must be somebody out there who is teaching the correct way unless these guys who actually aren't involved in singing are the only ones who know how to teach. It is extraordinary perhaps that people who are not involved in either teaching and/ or singing themselves as the TIO guys appear to be, are the only ones who know how to do it. Like the only people who know how to manage your football team are the only people who don't actually play and stand on the terraces criticising


----------



## VitellioScarpia (Aug 27, 2017)

DavidA said:


> One answer - don't watch it if it gives you so much pain!


That's a truism but there is a limit to it. Where can one go these days for reliably good performances? The live performance is a completely different experience than listening to recordings or watching videos. So, your argument is incomplete. Additionally, it would negate the purpose of exchanging ideas...


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

DavidA said:


> Not a straw man at all. If you actually read the bloke who has been doing the research instead of hanging on to fixed attitudes then you see th3 matter is far more complex. If the voices are not there in the first place then there's not much anyone can do about it. I could have the best singing teachers in the world but people would still run for cover when I start using my vocal chords. *I myself think the constant going on about decline in vocal technique is of itself a straw man.* After all there must be somebody out there who is teaching the correct way unless these guys who actually aren't involved in singing are the only ones who know how to teach. It is extraordinary perhaps that people who are not involved in either teaching and/ or singing themselves as the TIO guys appear to be, are the only ones who know how to do it. Like the only people who know how to manage your football team are the only people who don't actually play and stand on the terraces criticising


How could the part in bold be a straw man argument?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

N.


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

DavidA said:


> For goodness sake how can anyone get voice lessons secondhand from somebody else. In any case who was Del Monaco to teach anybody anything? He had a problem with his own technique in singing softly


Well, Melocchi would show Del Monaco something, and then Del Monaco would meet up with Corelli and show Corelli. It's quite straightforward, really.

Del Monaco could singing softly. He was _wary_ of singing softly too much because people had ruined his voice by trying to force him to be a lyric. So he did it sparingly. But he could do it.



> The fact is that the singing of early music is better than it's ever been. That is an undisputed fact unless you are one who likes it done with anachronistic heavy voices.


Suffice to say, it is extremely disputable that many of the so-called early music performance practices have anything to do with early music performance as it actually was. If we want to get into the evidence about what old texts really say about vocal technique, it turns out they rather support my and This is Opera!'s point of view. For example, that text that The Conte had posted by Mancini was written in 1774. If we want to know what an early music voice teacher, one whose text is considered a classic in the genre by very credentialed scholars, let's have a look:


Giovanni Battista Mancini said:


> It remains for me now to speak of those voices, "thin and weak" in the entire register, which in my opinion are of almost no value because every voice ought to have good volume (as far as possible). Ordinarily, we find this type of voice very weak in the chest tones without low tones at all, but possessing rich high tones or head tones. If one can successfully enlarge and strengthen the chest register of such weak and thin voices, they will become good, pleasing and
> very acceptable. In my opinion, the only way to achieve this undertaking is to have the pupil sing in the chest tones only for a certain period of time. Practicing must be accomplished with a solfeggio quiet and even; and in order to further acquire
> sonority and extension, add to it deep, low tones. In addition to this, it is imperative for the pupil to realize that it is not only necessary to produce these low tones sonorously, purely and purged of all defects, but that it is also necessary to vocalize them with a very round pronunciation, and in a manner of repose both majestic and dignified. The point in all this is to eliminate the immature pronunciation that is generally characteristic of such thin voices


Interesting. It turns out that this early voice teacher wanted voices to be _loud_ (though developed at all volumes) and clear, with developed chest register and excellent diction. Furthermore, he says that there are some voices that can't be loud and clear because the chest register is underdeveloped. Where have I heard that before? Oh wait, This is Opera! says that all the time about modern singers. Because it's true. Mancini recommends training the chest register for a while to improve the volume and diction of these voices.



Giovanni Battista Mancini said:


> Once that this great difficulty is overcome, the next step for the teacher is to dictate a solfeggio mingled with tones of the second register (head), and as we find in these cases that such tones are already good,
> and that the pupil possesses the facility to draw them, the matter of blending the registers will be easily accomplished.


Sounds like pretty much exactly what TIO says: develop each register separately, then coordinate.

Now of course there are disagreements between TIO and Mancini too. But the point is that early music is _not_ for tiny voices, and that many things they say about technique have a lot of backing in historical sources. I can give you many more sources of records of early singers discussing how loud and powerful their voices were, how their teachers said they should always have trained chest registers, including castrati etc.. I won't for now because I assume you will ignore evidence and reflexively demur to what you think is expert opinion. But I'm happy to if asked.

As an aside, while we're talking about HIP, does anyone else think it's hilarious that we have to play Mozart on period instruments because we have respect for him and wouldn't want to subvert his intentions but we can set Cosi fan tutte in the 50s?



DavidA said:


> So now we're judging the audience. I must confess when I go and see opera I'm in a T-shirt and jeans. The great unwashed!


I actually think it's far more elitist to hold that normal people can't use their own ears and minds and come to their own conclusions about things and should demur to expert opinion and that anyone who questions experts or elites is a failure, as you told me in another thread. You'll probably scoff at that, but you're the one essentially saying that truth is a function of prestige.



DavidA said:


> Your point about the secret is quite amusing because we are talking about 60-70 years ago with Windgassen a time when Nilsson, Varna & co were at their peak. Culshaw could or record Tristan with Nilsson because only Windgassen could sing it abs eventually they had to settle for Uhl and a very second best choice. He actually learnt the role especially for the recording for Decca. So the pool was empty then. Of the previous generation you've only mentioned Melchior, Lorenz, Treptow of note. Interesting the fact is that since Windgassen we have had people record Siegfried and Tristan - in fact in Vickers one of the greatest ever Tristans.


I honestly have no idea what you're talking about or what secret I mentioned. Not sure why Tristan is relevant as we're talking about Siegfried. And just because you don't know the singers I mentioned doesn't mean they aren't of note. They had major international careers singing the part. How many tenors now can say that? I'll bet it's less than the number I mentioned. Varnay and Nilsson were good, but in the 60s there were how many truly great Isoldes? In the 30s we had Flagstad, Traubel, Leider, Fuchs, Lubin, Austral, Larsen-Todsen, Ljungberg, Braun, Baumer etc., plus several Italian sopranos who could have sung it. Again, a glut of big voices.

Nobody is denying that there are a range of factors. You are the one denying that technique is one of them because the study (which, by the way is _one_ small study, which even if it scientific would mean squat, as hydroxychloroquine has just demonstrated) says it's not based on a bad argument.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The Conte said:


> How could the part in bold be a straw man argument?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
> 
> N.


Just the same as your straw man


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

VitellioScarpia said:


> That's a truism but there is a limit to it. Where can one go these days for reliably good performances? The live performance is a completely different experience than listening to recordings or watching videos. So, your argument is incomplete. Additionally, it would negate the purpose of exchanging ideas...


In all fairness, your argument is incomplete too as you don't give any idea where to go for 'reliably good performances'. I do listen to live performances btw. Just that to travel to New York costs rather more than going to our local cinema!


----------



## VitellioScarpia (Aug 27, 2017)

vivalagentenuova said:


> Del Monaco could singing softly. He was _wary_ of singing softly too much because people had ruined his voice by trying to force him to be a lyric. So he did it sparingly. But he could do it.


The problem was one of scale with him: his _mezza voce_ was probably louder than other's _fortes_. MdM rarely achieved this in his studio records as I believe he had a bet with himself to be the loudest tenor ever with one exception: the Gioconda with Cerquetti, Bastianini, Simionato. In this recording, he's very well behaved and his second act starting from _Cielo e mar_ through the love duet with Simionato (in particular) he is actually a sensitive singer... I know, it is incredible but for all to hear.


----------



## VitellioScarpia (Aug 27, 2017)

DavidA said:


> In all fairness, your argument is incomplete too as you don't give any idea where to go for 'reliably good performances'. I do listen to live performances btw. Just that to travel to New York costs rather more than going to our local cinema!


I used to rely on the Met as I can get to NYC with relative ease but between the costs and the inconsistency in the castings I have given up even there with some exceptions. I am going to probably be unpopular but to give you some examples -- and it is _my opinion, my taste_ and I can respect anyone else's tastes: Netrebko as the biggest star? For all the accolades she received as Lady Macbeth, I thought there's too much wobble, too much pushing, too much hamming. Is Beczala the Bergonzi of the day?

I have tried -- because I _love_ to discover great performers as opposed to dislike them. I remember the excitement when I "discovered" Richard Leech a summer Sunday afternoon at a Bohème at the NYC Opera.

Is everything lost? Nope, the Norma with Radvanosky, Di Donato and Calleja which was golden age singing whatever its faults. Unfortunately for us, the nights when you could cast a Forza with Milanov or Tebaldi in the 50's and later Price or Arroyo -- and that only at the Met!-- are gone, and I left out a bunch of others that although not superstars gave great performances.

I contend that if Mary Curtis-Verna or Flaviano Labò were around they would wipe the floor of many so called stars of today... I wish it were different.

BTW, David, we do not have to agree and I am not looking for an argument...


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

vivalagentenuova said:


> Well, Melocchi would show Del Monaco something, and then Del Monaco would meet up with Corelli and show Corelli. It's quite straightforward, really.
> 
> Del Monaco could singing softly. He was _wary_ of singing softly too much because people had ruined his voice by trying to force him to be a lyric. So he did it sparingly. But he could do it.
> 
> ...


Del Monaco sing quietly? Why then did Rodolfo Celletti, in spite of his praise for Del Monaco's "odd electrifying bit of phrasing", define the characteristics of his voice:
"no runs or messa di voce; inability to sing legato and to bring the tone down to piano and pianissimo; high notes either throaty or lacking in ring or strident or shouted; in these circumstances the interpretation was bound to be what in fact it was - lacking in observance of the expression marks written in by the composer [...]. Instead, all that was to be heard was bawling, mostly vulgar or hysterical, and singing permanently at a level of forte, or at best at mezzoforte (and that only in the middle of the voice). No ability, obviously, to express the idyllic or pathetic; no elegance; execution of Donizetti and Verdi recitatives and arias with nothing in the eloquence and the tone to differentiate one episode from the next."
Might be a bit OTT but it is a general point people made about del Monaco's singing in that it was electrifying but unremittingly loud. Funny del Monaco's French in Carmen makes Corelli look like a Francophile by comparison! No great voice but little in the way of soft style. Your problem is that your 'one fits all argument' just isn't applicable.
I must say I find your clinging to an elderly tradition touching but in the case of early music surely something written in 1774 is not actually going to help us much in the way people perceive how spintos should sing Verdi which is what the argument is all about. In any case words like 'loud' are relative. A singer might be 'loud' when singing Mozart but not when singing Wagner. You're not saying la Nilsson should have been singing Rossini because of her nice loud sound? Your problem is the 'one size fits all' argument is just not applicable as words like 'loud' and 'full' are relative to the music one is singing. A singer who can turn in a great Aida will not necessarily (and probably not) turn in a great Cenerentola. Or a great Tristan will not turn in a great Ramiro. The whole thing just can't be compared. Like in boxing comparing a heavyweight to a lightweight. Add to which in early music we have the factor of the voice - the castrato - that is not around any more and things get really complicated. How do you factor in the castrato factor in your operatic strata? Or the fact that Bach used boy trebles in his performances? 
I have actually not heard anyone in early music claim they are reproducing what the composer heard. Gardiner himself says that is a ridiculous claim to make as we don't know. But we do know about certain performance practices. I have no problem with original instruments as they do add a tang and I have no problem with using a modern orchestra but I think we are now past the stage of using a full symphony orchestra for a Mozart opera. 
I don't know what you mean by 'elitist' but as a working class lad I am not elitist. I am saying 'truth is a function of prestige' - funny as I don't remember saying that and I don't even know what it means! I don't know what your qualifications are as a musicians but I have made it clear that I am just a mere mortal music lover.
As to your point about Siegfried you have completely missed the point again. I was not talking about the 30s but the 60s. We are talking 70 years ago! How long do you guys want to go back? 
I am not the one denying that technique is not a factor as my wife is a professional musician and a trained singer and I know all about the difference a technique can bring. I am questioning the 'one size fits all' argument you are propagating. This his a stimulating discussion though. All the best!


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

DavidA said:


> The answer apparently does not like in training. It lies in the fact that the voices are not coming forward. It lies in the fact that there is not the basic material there


I'm still of the belief that training is the biggest culprit. Modern teachers don't know what to do with young dramatic voices. Dolora Zajick has a lot to say on the topic and runs an institute designed specifically to remedy this problem. Skip to 8 or 9 minutes. The beginning is more about Dolora's path:


----------



## VitellioScarpia (Aug 27, 2017)

DavidA said:


> Del Monaco sing quietly?


Yes David. Read up my post #250 on my comments about his recording of Gioconda from 1957. It was the recording that made me reconsider MdM. BTW, Rodolfo Celletti was very perceptive but he was not God... :devil: He could be unfair sometimes to singers.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

VitellioScarpia said:


> I used to rely on the Met as I can get to NYC with relative ease but between the costs and the inconsistency in the castings I have given up even there with some exceptions. I am going to probably be unpopular but to give you some examples -- and it is _my opinion, my taste_ and I can respect anyone else's tastes: Netrebko as the biggest star? For all the accolades she received as Lady Macbeth, I thought there's too much wobble, too much pushing, too much hamming. Is Beczala the Bergonzi of the day?
> 
> I have tried -- because I _love_ to discover great performers as opposed to dislike them. I remember the excitement when I "discovered" Richard Leech a summer Sunday afternoon at a Bohème at the NYC Opera.
> 
> ...


Yep I saw the Norma too. It was good although I don't particularly care for the opera. Not one of my favourites. I do agree having just seen Price and Cossotto in Aida that the casting is well below that although the Mezzo for the last Aida was good. Nebs had a good shot at the title role and of course she looks good on stage but is no Price. I did like her Lady M though more than you. 
I saw a pretty decent Handel Agrippina recently from the Met which was highly enjoyable. 
Please - no argument - just discussion. Wouldn't it be a dull world if we agreed on everything!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

VitellioScarpia said:


> Yes David. Read up my post #250 on my comments about* his recording of Gioconda from 1957*. It was the recording that made me reconsider MdM. BTW, Rodolfo Celletti was very perceptive but he was not God... :devil: He could be unfair sometimes to singers.


I have this somewhere so I'll have a listen. I probably can't get over his ruination of the Schippers' Carmen where he bawls his way through everything. The Michaela duet seems as though he's going to have a fight with her any minute! The tragedy is that Culshaw wanted di Stefano for the part but Del Monaco pushed his way in and ruined the whole thing with his excruciating French and incessant bawling. Pity as the rest of the performance is very promising. He was a tremendously exciting singer on stage but you needed to be in the back row of the balcony! :lol:


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

DavidA said:


> Fine if you love screechy old recordings. Just people like me who find them generally unlistenable, especially when we have singers from the 50s and 60s who were at least as good and are recorded in decent sound. I do know that it is an article of faith among some singing enthusiasts that - while the standard of instrumental playing has generally increased - the standard of singing has deteriorated. What we have to uphold this is of course the memoirs of those who heard these singers and these croaking 78s which suggest (to heretics like me anyway) that everyone then sang out of tune. What they would have sounded like with modern technology one can only imagine but what we are left with sadly is what they sound like on the 78s and the dreadful sounding cylinders. Now if you folks think they are wonderful to listen to that is fine but frankly I find myself soon losing patience with them. I have shelves full of opera in decent sound sung by great singers that I enjoy. But if folk enjoy listening to singers of the distant past and imagining how they sounded as a hobby that is fine.
> *
> Your point about chocolate is not really on the point. To say Tebaldi's or Price's recordings of Aida are 'manufactured junk' because they happen to be recorded in decent quality sound which at least allows you to hear the singers to their best advantage seems somewhat ludicrous to me*. It appears that you think that poor sound and scratchy backgrounds are an advantage. Perhaps they are as it masks the deficiencies of the singers concerned and allows you to think they are better than they are? There are still plenty of shops making decent quality hand made chocolate I can assure you
> So Di Donato is not a Bel Canto singer? Funny because she was singing bel canto the last time I heard her live. And this guy appears to think she is
> ...


Now when did I say that? You completely missed the point here. The chocolate analogy was to illustrate the decline of quality.

You said it is no good lamenting the old stuff (which to me means all great singers from the past regardless of recording quality and that obviously encompasses singers who had decent recordings like Callas, Tebaldi, Caballé etc ! ) and I said if I have something of quality from the past I wouldn't care for the lower quality stuff of today and I have a right to complain about the decline of quality. That was clearly my point.

Otherwise I don't really care what some "critics" say. There is an article saying Netrebko's trovatore is better than Callas'!! Bel Canto was sung by Malibran and Pasta and then Callas and Sutherland (women who had the voice for huge dramatic roles). Didonato is basically Cecilia Bartoli but singing the wrong repertoire.


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

annaw said:


> Another young person here and I agree with you, I also really like historical recordings although it was difficult to get used to them in the beginning. Now I really love them!
> 
> I also agree that the inability to identify oneself with contemporary opera singers probably plays its role but I think it's of secondary importance compared to the general decline in popularity. I'm honestly a young person but without any professional musical training. Nevertheless, when I started liking opera, I liked it enough to find out who are the greatest recorded singers, what are the best recordings etc (maybe I'm just fanatical, I don't know).
> 
> ...


I agree with you, except I was trying to explain why* among those who do chose a career in opera*, there are far more small lyric voices than bigger voices, which I put down to the former being given more priority and exposure and they fit the new glamorous image of (P)Opera.

And if you have the voice for Verdi/Wagner, you can really tell right away. You'd basically think you have an ugly voice. :lol:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Tuoksu said:


> Now when did I say that? You completely missed the point here. The chocolate analogy was to illustrate the decline of quality.
> 
> You said it is no good lamenting the old stuff (which to me means all great singers from the past regardless of recording quality and that obviously encompasses singers who had decent recordings like Callas, Tebaldi, Caballé etc ! ) and I said if I have something of quality from the past I wouldn't care for the lower quality stuff of today and I have a right to complain about the decline of quality. That was clearly my point.
> 
> Otherwise I don't really care what some "critics" say. There is an article saying Netrebko's trovatore is better than Callas'!! Bel Canto was sung by Malibran and Pasta and then Callas and Sutherland (women who had the voice for huge dramatic roles). Didonato is basically Cecilia Bartoli but singing the wrong repertoire.


No sorry you missed the point. You chocolate analogy was irrelevant. Sorry!

I didn't say 'lamenting the old stuff' at all. I don't know where you got that from.

I don't care particularly what critics say but I do take notice about what knowledgable people say as they might know more than me! Funny but when I hear DiDonato she seems to be singing exactly the right repertoire. So did the Guardian in the review of Agrippina

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2019/sep/24/agrippina-review-didonato-royal-opera-house-london

Oh and The Stage

https://www.thestage.co.uk/reviews/...yal-opera-house-london--joyce-didonato-shines

She singing the wrong repertoire? But as one of the guys from TIO said that Price shouldn't have been singing Aida I won't let their opinion worry me too much! As for me - I'll just continue to enjoy her singing. Perhaps I'm easily pleased!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> I'm still of the belief that training is the biggest culprit. Modern teachers don't know what to do with young dramatic voices. Dolora Zajick has a lot to say on the topic and runs an institute designed specifically to remedy this problem. Skip to 8 or 9 minutes. The beginning is more about Dolora's path:


Interesting interview. I think she really confirms the points we've all been making. She said at the beginning 'you've either got it [ie a big voice] or you haven't.' She also treads over the points the research made quite accurately in her experience. She does say important to get 'the right teacher for you' implying that there are different ways not the 'one size fits all'. 
One would wish her the best. Just to emphasise I do realise the importance of voice coaching as my wife is a professional musician and a trained singer! I know what a huge difference the right training made other voice. She was fortunate to get a highly talented teacher at the beginning of the teacher's career!


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

VitellioScarpia said:


> The problem was one of scale with him: his _mezza voce_ was probably louder than other's _fortes_. MdM rarely achieved this in his studio records as I believe he had a bet with himself to be the loudest tenor ever with one exception: the Gioconda with Cerquetti, Bastianini, Simionato. In this recording, he's very well behaved and his second act starting from _Cielo e mar_ through the love duet with Simionato (in particular) he is actually a sensitive singer... I know, it is incredible but for all to hear.


He can't help being stentorian and it's a phenomenon that I can only admire.


----------



## VitellioScarpia (Aug 27, 2017)

DavidA said:


> ... But as one of the guys from TIO said that Price shouldn't have been singing Aida I won't let their opinion worry me too much! As for me - I'll just continue to enjoy her singing. Perhaps I'm easily pleased!


If Price had been trained by the TIO crowd, she would have been kept as light lyric soprano only. For a glimpse of what she would have sounded as a pure lyric take her Louise's _Depuis le jour_. It is a miracle. Thankfully, Price defined herself as a "juicy" lyric, and she went onto Aida, both Leonoras, Amelia, etc.. to show some that juice!

I agree that JDD is a wonderful singer and she has had a fantastic career on merit and making smart choices for herself. Not so much Bartoli who is a real puzzle to me. I am happy for her but I do not find her particularly interesting and I cannot stand her "flutteratura". JDD is in my opinion much richer as a performer...


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

VitellioScarpia said:


> If Price had been trained by the TIO crowd, she would have been kept as light lyric soprano only. For a glimpse of what she would have sounded as a pure lyric take her Louise's _Depuis le jour_. It is a miracle. Thankfully, Price defined herself as a "juicy" lyric, and she went onto Aida, both Leonoras, Amelia, etc.. to show some that juice!
> 
> I agree that JDD is a wonderful singer and she has had a fantastic career on merit and making smart choices for herself. Not so much Bartoli who is a real puzzle to me. I am happy for her but I do not find her particularly interesting and I cannot stand her "flutteratura". JDD is in my opinion much richer as a performer...


Yeah the juice even in her late 50s was formidable. When she sang for Karajan in 1955 he insisted on accompanying her himself. Love the image!

With Bartoli the voice itself is amazing but the way she manages the coloratura unorthodox to say the least. I'm reserving my opinion atm.


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

I don't like to read reviews and such from news outlets or places like The Guardian or from critics or really any published source. They seem to have an agenda or just don't seem to have much good insight, at least in my experience. I usually come away infuriated from such articles. Maybe I only see the bad ones.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

DavidA said:


> Just the same as your straw man


This makes no sense. Glad you are enjoying your (presumably ample) lockdown gin and Dubonet!

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Tuoksu said:


> Now when did I say that? You completely missed the point here.


Say what you like about decline of singing through the ages. The quality of DavidA's comments and logic have remained the same for as long as I can remember!

N.


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

VitellioScarpia said:


> The problem was one of scale with him: his _mezza voce_ was probably louder than other's _fortes_. MdM rarely achieved this in his studio records as I believe he had a bet with himself to be the loudest tenor ever with one exception: the Gioconda with Cerquetti, Bastianini, Simionato. In this recording, he's very well behaved and his second act starting from _Cielo e mar_ through the love duet with Simionato (in particular) he is actually a sensitive singer... I know, it is incredible but for all to hear.


You're right: there are a few examples in the studio including
















I notice he was a considerate vocal partner for Victoria de Los Angeles in _Otello_ especially given he was used to singing with Tebaldi


----------



## VitellioScarpia (Aug 27, 2017)

Revitalized Classics said:


>


I had quite forgotten the recording of Federico's lament. It is very telling on how he could actually modulate and how hopeless he makes Federico sound which is perfectly in character. In addition, it is remarkable that a so-called bellower he actually eschews the interpolated B flat that many other tenors throw into it including and surprisingly Björling. Bravo.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The Conte said:


> This makes no sense. Glad you are enjoying your (presumably ample) lockdown gin and Dubonet!
> 
> N.


No that appears to be your department not mine! :lol:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The Conte said:


> Say what you like about decline of singing through the ages. The quality of DavidA's comments and logic have remained the same for as long as I can remember!
> 
> N.


As have yours actually!

'O wad some Power the giftie gie us 
To see oursels as ithers see us!'
(Burns) :lol:


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

Like every singer, Del Monaco made good records and bad records. In the 1960s he did his worst work. His voice became white and dry, and I don't like to listen to most of his 60s recordings. But he was certainly capable of many fine moments, and was often very sensitive. Listen to the phrase beginning at 13:58. Mezza voce, soft singing, beautiful phrasing. 





Sensitive singing throughout:





1:56:30 and following:





Opening phrase very soft and sensitive:





Del Monaco could do it. He didn't always do it. Maybe he didn't do it enough. But he could sing very softly. Some critic saying stupid stuff about him doesn't negate the evidence of the actual recordings in which he sings softly.



VitellioScarpia said:


> If Price had been trained by the TIO crowd, she would have been kept as light lyric soprano only. For a glimpse of what she would have sounded as a pure lyric take her Louise's Depuis le jour. It is a miracle. Thankfully, Price defined herself as a "juicy" lyric, and she went onto Aida, both Leonoras, Amelia, etc.. to show some that juice!


She was a lyric. Her voice wasn't juicy, it was collapsed. She could have sung Aida perfectly well as a lyric. Elisabeth Rethberg, Nellie Melba, Luisa Tetrazzini, Adelina Patti all sang Aida on stage, some of them many times, and had lyric or coloratura voices. The issue isn't "big dark" voice or "tiny light" voice. It's clear or unclear, collapsed or with core.


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

DavidA said:


> In any case words like 'loud' are relative. A singer might be 'loud' when singing Mozart but not when singing Wagner. You're not saying la Nilsson should have been singing Rossini because of her nice loud sound? Your problem is the 'one size fits all' argument is just not applicable as words like 'loud' and 'full' are relative to the music one is singing. A singer who can turn in a great Aida will not necessarily (and probably not) turn in a great Cenerentola. Or a great Tristan will not turn in a great Ramiro. The whole thing just can't be compared. Like in boxing comparing a heavyweight to a lightweight. Add to which in early music we have the factor of the voice - the castrato - that is not around any more and things get really complicated. How do you factor in the castrato factor in your operatic strata? Or the fact that Bach used boy trebles in his performances?


Yes, words like loud are relative. But chest voice is not. That Mancini says that all voices that are weak should be improved and strengthened by training the chest register tells us that they wanted core. It's certainly possible that they did not develop voices to the size of Nilsson's, at least not on a regular basis. That's not my claim. My claim is that we know they trained the chest register and that training the chest register and coordinating it with the head voice as Mancini advises adds squillo to the voice. I'm not asking for Nilsson singing Monteverdi. I'm asking for voices with proper core and falsetto to sing early music. Kirkby has neither. She makes a decently pretty sound, but it's a lot closer to pop than anything from the classical tradition.



DavidA said:


> I have actually not heard anyone in early music claim they are reproducing what the composer heard. Gardiner himself says that is a ridiculous claim to make as we don't know. But we do know about certain performance practices. I have no problem with original instruments as they do add a tang and I have no problem with using a modern orchestra but I think we are now past the stage of using a full symphony orchestra for a Mozart opera.


I'm not saying early 20th century singers sound exactly like 18th century ones. I'm saying that they are their descendants. They are part of a living tradition, and are only a few generations removed. In some cases, only 2 or 3. Modern Baroque technique is _not_ part of that tradition. It is an invented tradition, which often overlooks evidence like historical recordings, and the technical manuals that say chest voice is indispensable and audience reports of very loud singing. Emma Kirkby is pretty clear about the fact that she invented a singing style that she thought fit early instruments. "Authentic" Baroque singing should have chest voice.

I don't know where you got the impression that I specifically want the biggest voices or only want singers like Nilsson. I'm a huge fan of voices of all sizes, provided they make make the sounds of the operatic tradition. We know what that is. If you want to use lyrics and coloraturas in Baroque opera, fine. I'm open to hearing larger and smaller voices. But they should be lyrics and coloraturas who make sounds in the tradition of classical singing, not practitioners of an invented technique.

Good examples of early music voices:

























These are very light voices. But they have clarity, squillo, and chest voice, just as Mancini calls for. Style is up to the performers, and some might choose to do it differently. I love the way these artists sing the music, though I'm open to other syles. But the voice must be there.



DavidA said:


> I don't know what you mean by 'elitist' but as a working class lad I am not elitist. I am saying 'truth is a function of prestige' - funny as I don't remember saying that and I don't even know what it means! I don't know what your qualifications are as a musicians but I have made it clear that I am just a mere mortal music lover.


You continually assert that only claims made by people with credentials are to be believed. Therefore, argumentation and evidence are not sufficient to make true claims. People without credentials cannot access the truth except through the dictates of those with credentials. That's elitist. You can be a working class elitist just as there are women who think women are inferior to men. And to be clear: I'm not saying you're an elitist in other parts of your life. I don't know you! But the statement that expertise is required before someone's arguments can be accepted is elitist.



DavidA said:


> As to your point about Siegfried you have completely missed the point again. I was not talking about the 30s but the 60s. We are talking 70 years ago! How long do you guys want to go back?


To review: you said that even in the 60s only Windgassen could sing Siegfried. I said that's true, and that that shows that technique has been declining. In, in the 10s, 20s, and 30s, there were dozens of possible Siegfrieds but by the 60s there was only one person who could sing the role, that means that there was a loss of dramatic voices.



DavidA said:


> I am not the one denying that technique is not a factor as my wife is a professional musician and a trained singer and I know all about the difference a technique can bring. I am questioning the 'one size fits all' argument you are propagating. This his a stimulating discussion though. All the best!


But you have been denying that training is the issue:


DavidA said:


> The answer apparently does not like in training. It lies in the fact that the voices are not coming forward. It lies in the fact that there is not the basic material there


You may have changed your mind, but for a while you were arguing that there has been no decline in technique.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

vivalagentenuova said:


> She was a lyric. Her voice wasn't juicy, it was collapsed. She could have sung Aida perfectly well as a lyric. Elisabeth Rethberg, Nellie Melba, Luisa Tetrazzini, Adelina Patti all sang Aida on stage, some of them many times, and had lyric or coloratura voices. The issue isn't "big dark" voice or "tiny light" voice. It's clear or unclear, collapsed or with core.


So you think if Ms Price should have taken your advice she'd have had a more successful career?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

vivalagentenuova said:


> Yes, words like loud are relative. But chest voice is not. That Mancini says that all voices that are weak should be improved and strengthened by training the chest register tells us that they wanted core. It's certainly possible that they did not develop voices to the size of Nilsson's, at least not on a regular basis. That's not my claim. My claim is that we know they trained the chest register and that training the chest register and coordinating it with the head voice as Mancini advises adds squillo to the voice. I'm not asking for Nilsson singing Monteverdi. I'm asking for voices with proper core and falsetto to sing early music. Kirkby has neither. She makes a decently pretty sound, but it's a lot closer to pop than anything from the classical tradition.
> 
> I'm not saying early 20th century singers sound exactly like 18th century ones. I'm saying that they are their descendants. They are part of a living tradition, and are only a few generations removed. In some cases, only 2 or 3. Modern Baroque technique is _not_ part of that tradition. It is an invented tradition, which often overlooks evidence like historical recordings, and the technical manuals that say chest voice is indispensable and audience reports of very loud singing. Emma Kirkby is pretty clear about the fact that she invented a singing style that she thought fit early instruments. "Authentic" Baroque singing should have chest voice.
> 
> ...


Well when I go to a doctor I want to make sure he's got the right credentials and when I want to go to a car mechanic I want to make sure he is qualified to service my car and if I went to someone for advice about singing at once and let them to know what they were talking about. So it's quite reasonable as you're claiming to be some expert on the singing and know better than people like Price or DiDonato and their teachers that you talk a bit about what qualifies you. I mean if you were criticising a professional footballer I would want to know whether you played yourself. To me that is quite reasonable. What qualifies you to make these claims?
I can't see for the life of me how expecting someone to be qualified is elitist. When I sent my kids to school I wanted them to be trained by qualified people. When I sent them to music lessons I wanted them to be trained by qualified people. What is wrong when I hear someone talking in great detail about singers and the way everything is wrong with singing and putting videos on YouTube to ask what experience that person has? That's not elitist at all it's just common sense. When I hear various people making certain pronouncements I want to know what qualifications they have for making those pronouncements. There are certain people going round making pronouncements about this virus on the Internet so do you think they should just be believed or do you think we should check up whether they are qualified to make these pronouncements? Frankly this is not elitist it's just common sense. 
And frankly I would sooner listen to someone who is actually engaged in professional singing as I do beLieve (contrary to what you say) that training is important. So can I ask you where you trained as a singer and what training experience you have? Or if you're just a music lover giving your opinion then that is fine. You have every right to do so. 
I have tried to explain to you that the role of Siegfried was barren during the 60s apart from Windgassen. Since then actually it has been performed more often by more singers


----------



## Opera For Life (Apr 13, 2020)

vivalagentenuova said:


> Yes, words like loud are relative. But chest voice is not. That Mancini says that all voices that are weak should be improved and strengthened by training the chest register tells us that they wanted core. It's certainly possible that they did not develop voices to the size of Nilsson's, at least not on a regular basis. That's not my claim. My claim is that we know they trained the chest register and that training the chest register and coordinating it with the head voice as Mancini advises adds squillo to the voice. I'm not asking for Nilsson singing Monteverdi. I'm asking for voices with proper core and falsetto to sing early music. Kirkby has neither. She makes a decently pretty sound, but it's a lot closer to pop than anything from the classical tradition.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I like the points that you make, I don't particularly want to hear singers use a technique like Nilsson or Corelli in Renaissance or Bargoque music, so an alternative sound has to be sought, but there is no reason it shouldn't have squillo or chest voice, you're right.

Joyce DiDonato, (putting aside any faults she might have in Belcanto technique), uses chest voice sparingly (too sparingly) in her baroque recordings, and it sounds perfectly appropriate to my ears.

Also thanks for your examples, The Care Selva was pure bliss


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

DavidA said:


> Well when I go to a doctor I want to make sure he's got the right credentials and when I want to go to a car mechanic I want to make sure he is qualified to service my car and if I went to someone for advice about singing at once and let them to know what they were talking about. So it's quite reasonable as you're claiming to be some expert on the singing and know better than people like Price or DiDonato and their teachers that you talk a bit about what qualifies you. I mean if you were criticising a professional footballer I would want to know whether you played yourself. To me that is quite reasonable. What qualifies you to make these claims?
> I can't see for the life of me how expecting someone to be qualified is elitist. When I sent my kids to school I wanted them to be trained by qualified people. When I sent them to music lessons I wanted them to be trained by qualified people. What is wrong when I hear someone talking in great detail about singers and the way everything is wrong with singing and putting videos on YouTube to ask what experience that person has? That's not elitist at all it's just common sense. When I hear various people making certain pronouncements I want to know what qualifications they have for making those pronouncements. There are certain people going round making pronouncements about this virus on the Internet so do you think they should just be believed or do you think we should check up whether they are qualified to make these pronouncements? Frankly this is not elitist it's just common sense.
> And frankly I would sooner listen to someone who is actually engaged in professional singing as I do beLieve (contrary to what you say) that training is important. So can I ask you where you trained as a singer and what training experience you have? Or if you're just a music lover giving your opinion then that is fine. You have every right to do so.


Hypothetical: You're looking for a singing teacher for your child. There are two teachers in town. The first is a highly respected teacher who has advised at the Met, has a degree from a top music school, and has stage experience. He comes highly recommended by respected critics and well known teachers. But all his students sound exactly like Adelina Patti in that recording of Voi che sapete that you don't like. The other teacher has no stage experience, no prestigious degrees, in fact, no degrees at all, but their students sound like Frederica von Stade, whom you like a lot. You ask the second what her credentials are, but she says she has none. She learned from listening to records, reading books, and working with teachers you've never heard of and who aren't famous. Which teacher would you send your kid to?


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

howlingfantods said:


> I guess I've learned from this thread that the correct opinion is that it's not about the singing, it's just about the voice. Interesting.


I certainly don't think that. What I do think is that you can't have "the singing" without "the voice." It's like saying someone is really musical while playing on a flute that makes a buzzing sound. They might do some interesting, creative stuff with that flute. That doesn't mean they should play it in a classical orchestra. Instruments have to have the right sounds before they can be played well in a particular context, and the voice is no different.


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

Beautiful TIO video showing us examples of the incredible technique of Selma Kurz, who could hit hit high notes without any shrillness whatsoever. Nothing but pure, open, golden sound. Amazing.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

vivalagentenuova said:


> Hypothetical: You're looking for a singing teacher for your child. There are two teachers in town. The first is a highly respected teacher who has advised at the Met, has a degree from a top music school, and has stage experience. He comes highly recommended by respected critics and well known teachers. But all his students sound exactly like Adelina Patti in that recording of Voi che sapete that you don't like. The other teacher has no stage experience, no prestigious degrees, in fact, no degrees at all, but their students sound like Frederica von Stade, whom you like a lot. You ask the second what her credentials are, but she says she has none. She learned from listening to records, reading books, and working with teachers you've never heard of and who aren't famous. Which teacher would you send your kid to?


It is totally hyperthetical because the students would not all sound the same. They just don't. If you have any experience you will know that. You will also know that students have individual voices and they will not all sound like Freddie. Each student has their individual voice. If they haven't then their teacher is not doing a good job. The teacher is there to bring out what they have not to try and get them all to sound the same . I remember attending a Peter Pears masterclass and he made that point. I can answer the question from experience when my wife was looking for a teacher in that we took the recommendation of a very respected (And qualified!) musician we knew of a young lady who was an excellent singer and also taught. And boy, was she a good teacher! Not for me I hasten to add as my voice is a lost cause! The teacher now has an international reputation so guess we struck gold at the right time!


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

DavidA said:


> It is totally hyperthetical because the students would not all sound the same. They just don't. If you have any experience you will know that. You will also know that students have individual voices and they will not all sound like Freddie. Each student has their individual voice. If they haven't then their teacher is not doing a good job. The teacher is there to bring out what they have not to try and get them all to sound the same . I remember attending a Peter Pears masterclass and he made that point. I can answer the question from experience when my wife was looking for a teacher in that we took the recommendation of a very respected (And qualified!) musician we knew of a young lady who was an excellent singer and also taught. And boy, was she a good teacher! Not for me I hasten to add as my voice is a lost cause! The teacher now has an international reputation so guess we struck gold at the right time!


Well dodged! :cheers:


----------



## VitellioScarpia (Aug 27, 2017)

Bonetan said:


> Well dodged! :cheers:


Not even well dodged. The counterargument is not valid because it basically says "I do not like the assumption I am asked to adopt to answer." It is just a cop out. (By the way, David, the word is hy*po*thetical not hy*per*thetical... :lol


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

DavidA said:


> It is totally hyperthetical because the students would not all sound the same. They just don't. If you have any experience you will know that. You will also know that students have individual voices and they will not all sound like Freddie. Each student has their individual voice. If they haven't then their teacher is not doing a good job. The teacher is there to bring out what they have not to try and get them all to sound the same . I remember attending a Peter Pears masterclass and he made that point. I can answer the question from experience when my wife was looking for a teacher in that we took the recommendation of a very respected (And qualified!) musician we knew of a young lady who was an excellent singer and also taught. And boy, was she a good teacher! Not for me I hasten to add as my voice is a lost cause! The teacher now has an international reputation so guess we struck gold at the right time!


In the hypothetical situation vivalagentenuova proposed, I don't think the point is that all the students of the teacher with no credentials (or even the other teacher for that matter) sound the same. Of course they should not sound exactly the same. The point is that the teacher's students sound _good_. What vivalagentenuova was saying is that one teacher's students sound bad and the other teacher's students sound good, not that they all sound exactly like a certain singer.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> Well dodged! :cheers:


Why well dodged? I am dealing in facts not fiction.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

VitellioScarpia said:


> Not even well dodged. The counterargument is not valid because it basically says "I do not like the assumption I am asked to adopt to answer." It is just a cop out. (By the way, David, the word is hy*po*thetical not hy*per*thetical... :lol


Sorry about the misspelling. Sorry it appears to mean more than what I was saying. 
Obviously if you like to deal in fiction and hypothetical situations rather than real ones then you are probably right. I just prefer to deal with real situations rather than hypothetical ones n picking a coach. So what practical experience have you had in the singing game you can bring to the table?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

adriesba said:


> In the hypothetical situation vivalagentenuova proposed, I don't think the point is that all the students of the teacher with no credentials (or even the other teacher for that matter) sound the same. Of course they should not sound exactly the same. The point is that the teacher's students sound _good_. What vivalagentenuova was saying is that one teacher's students sound bad and the other teacher's students sound good, not that they all sound exactly like a certain singer.


We chose a teacher who sounded good herself and whose students sounded good, who turned out to be an excellent teacher and who now has an international reputation. I know some guys like to deal in hypothetical situations rather than real ones but I live in a real world and was dealing with a situation in a real world. Sorry! 
Perhaps people could tell us of their own practical experience of singing and singing coaches rather than hypothetical situations which have no bearing on reality. I mean, what about vivalagentenuova's own singing coaches?


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

DavidA said:


> Why well dodged? I am dealing in facts not fiction.


You could have simply answered! There was a very strong case to be made for both sides. The world would be less fun without hypothetical situations bro!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> You could have simply answered! There was a very strong case to be made for both sides. The world would be less fun without hypothetical situations bro!


I thought my answer was very simple indeed. I told you of a real experience. Frankly I have no time for hypothetical situations which could not exist in real life where all the students of a teacher sound the same. I have also never known a situation like she proposed have you? Or maybe you have. I just believe them when I'm paying a lot of money out In the real world I want excellence. What I learned by the experience was to have someone who was a really good singer herself who could communicate her art. What I noticed in Peter Pears' masterclass - he had 'been there done that'. You do take notice of someone like that.


----------



## AeolianStrains (Apr 4, 2018)

vivalagentenuova said:


> Hypothetical: You're looking for a singing teacher for your child. There are two teachers in town. The first is a highly respected teacher who has advised at the Met, has a degree from a top music school, and has stage experience. He comes highly recommended by respected critics and well known teachers. But all his students sound exactly like Adelina Patti in that recording of Voi che sapete that you don't like. The other teacher has no stage experience, no prestigious degrees, in fact, no degrees at all, but their students sound like Frederica von Stade, whom you like a lot. You ask the second what her credentials are, but she says she has none. She learned from listening to records, reading books, and working with teachers you've never heard of and who aren't famous. Which teacher would you send your kid to?


I'm with DavidA on this point. This is sophistry in the extreme. What do the actual, real-world facts have to say? Anyone can dream up a hypothetical, but they're absolutely useless in evaluating what is actually happening.


----------



## VitellioScarpia (Aug 27, 2017)

DavidA said:


> Sorry about the misspelling. Sorry it appears to mean more than what I was saying.
> Obviously if you like to deal in fiction and hypothetical situations rather than real ones then you are probably right. I just prefer to deal with real situations rather than hypothetical ones n picking a coach. So what practical experience have you had in the singing game you can bring to the table?


You are avoiding answering the argument from vivalagentenuova because it is a tight one and you cannot ever concede that he has a point. Instead, you disqualify it by saying that it is "just" a hypothetical point which I find it both dishonest and arrogant.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

VitellioScarpia said:


> You are avoiding answering the argument from vivalagentenuova because it is a tight one and you cannot ever concede that he has a point. Instead, you disqualify it by saying that it is "just" a hypothetical point which I find it both dishonest and arrogant.


Why are earth I have never found a situation like that in real life have you? It is surely not being arrogant to give a real answer rather than a hypothetical answer. I mean it is something that I don't think could possibly exist in real life could it, all pupils sounding like Freddie Von Stade? It's like asking a theological question of how many angels can dance on the end of a pin. I just gave you a real life experience which I don't think is arrogant at all unless you want to deal in fantasy not reality. Now can I ask you what I asked you before - what real experience have you got in singing coaching?


----------



## AeolianStrains (Apr 4, 2018)

VitellioScarpia said:


> You are avoiding answering the argument from vivalagentenuova because it is a tight one and you cannot ever concede that he has a point. Instead, you disqualify it by saying that it is "just" a hypothetical point which I find it both dishonest and arrogant.


Would you eat a baby if it meant preventing the Holocaust? Careful now, baby-eater...

Hypotheticals are a sure sign that the employer of such has lost the logic of the argument. And this is coming from someone who has no dog at all in the original argument (though I enjoy Price's work, I am not qualified, by degree or otherwise, to pronounce her better or worse than Tebaldi or whoever based on vocal technique).


----------



## zxxyxxz (Apr 14, 2020)

Hypotheticals are though interesting to discuss of themselves. I would be interested in how others would respond in the given question.

My own thoughts, geography must also play a part, if you live in an area with few good professional musicians you surely must take what's on offer and hope for the best. Though I guess in that scenario hopping between teachers and experiencing what's available is likely easier. I suppose it also comes down to money and who you know.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

If you want to talk about facts rather than hypotheticals then I would put forward the examples of Corelli and Simionato who were both superb singers, both taught in retirement and also both didn't produce a singer who went on to have a distinguished career. This demonstrates that knowing how to do something doesn't mean you can show others how to do it.

On the other hand Ettore Campogalliani didn't have a singing career per se, but taught many famous singers (most notably Freni and Pavarotti).

These real life examples show that you don't have to be a great singer to be a great teacher and that being a great singer doesn't mean you will be a great teacher.

N.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The Conte said:


> If you want to talk about facts rather than hypotheticals then I would put forward the examples of Corelli and Simionato who were both superb singers, both taught in retirement and also both didn't produce a singer who went on to have a distinguished career. This demonstrates that knowing how to do something doesn't mean you can show others how to do it.
> 
> On the other hand Ettore Campogalliani didn't have a singing career per se, but taught many famous singers (most notably Freni and Pavarotti).
> 
> ...


Absolutely. We all know that the greatest practitioners don't always make the best teachers. I certainly remember that some of our cleverest professors at university didn't necessarily make the best teachers! Same applies to sport. Sometimes the greatest players don't make the best coaches. In fact you would hardly reckon that a great singer made a great teacher because they are so busy having their own career they cannot specialise in teaching and voice coaching outside a few master classes. Campogalliani studied piano in 1921, graduating from the Conservatory of Bologna. He then studied composition at the Conservatory of Parma in 1933. Finally he studied singing at the Conservatory of Piacenza in 1940, so he wasn't exactly illiterate in the art. He was also a composer and was certainly qualified to teach and hadn't just had his head in a textbook. Just proves the point I am making. Hans Swarowsky was not the greatest conductor In the world but he was a great teacher apparently. Teaching is a different art to practising but the main thing is that the teacher has been there and had some experience themselves in the art. You would hardly choose a football coach who had never played himself. Unless you have actually done it and studied it then you don't know how to teach it. But the art of teaching is to know the art and communicate it. To know it you've actually have got to have done it yourself. The teaching also requires a further dimension of communicating the art and can be a specialism in itself. Why people who say a teacher does not need to be qualified are generally missing the mark.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

DavidA said:


> I thought my answer was very simple indeed. I told you of a real experience. Frankly I have no time for hypothetical situations which could not exist in real life where all the students of a teacher sound the same. I have also never known a situation like she proposed have you? Or maybe you have. I just believe them when I'm paying a lot of money out In the real world I want excellence. What I learned by the experience was to have someone who was a really good singer herself who could communicate her art. What I noticed in Peter Pears' masterclass - he had 'been there done that'. You do take notice of someone like that.


The hypothetical required you to use some imagination. Of course all students of a teacher could not actually sound the same. Teaching males and females eliminates that right off the bat. Then there are voice types etc. But if a teacher teaches a one-size-fits all technique or a technique with an easily identifiable characteristic, like ingolata singing for example, then people in the know would indeed say that all of their students sound the same. I have heard this said before. Maybe if viewed that way you'll find it more worthwhile to answer the question


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> The hypothetical required you to use some imagination. Of course all students of a teacher could not actually sound the same. Teaching males and females eliminates that right off the bat. Then there are voice types etc. But if a teacher teaches a one-size-fits all technique or a technique with an easily identifiable characteristic, like ingolata singing for example, then people in the know would indeed say that all of their students sound the same. I have heard this said before. Maybe if viewed that way you'll find it more worthwhile to answer the question


Sorry but it wasn't me who said the students would sound the same. Funny someone asks an impossible question then I am blamed for not using my imagination! One reason I didn't answer was because I knew that it was an impossible ask - like you've just said! I mean, if someone asks me a hypothetical question whether in a parallel universe Richard Dawkins would be archbishop of Canterbury would I be accused of a lack of imagination if I thought the question a little off-beat? I don't actually find it that worthwhile to answer hypothetical questions like that. I prefer the real world. Would you have a go at answering instead?


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

DavidA said:


> Sorry but it wasn't me who said the students would sound the same. Funny someone asks an impossible question then I am blamed for not using my imagination! One reason I didn't answer was because I knew that it was an impossible ask - like you've just said! I mean, if someone asks me a hypothetical question whether in a parallel universe Richard Dawkins would be archbishop of Canterbury would I be accused of a lack of imagination if I thought the question a little off-beat? I don't actually find it that worthwhile to answer hypothetical questions like that. I prefer the real world. Would you have a go at answering instead?


I suppose Viva gave you too much credit when asking the question. You could take it completely literally or apply some nuance, but in either case its not difficult to answer.

I would select the second teacher, but I think it would be a tough choice. The credentialed teacher would offer a ton of advantages and give my kid a clear path to the world's stages with their connections and knowledge of the biz, but the latter teacher could potentially give my kid the tools to stand out and make a major impact rather than just being another singer with a career.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> I suppose Viva gave you too much credit when asking the question. You could take it completely literally or apply some nuance, but in either case its not difficult to answer.
> 
> I would select the second teacher, but I think it would be a tough choice. The credentialed teacher would offer a ton of advantages and give my kid a clear path to the world's stages with their connections and knowledge of the biz, but the latter teacher could potentially give my kid the tools to stand out and make a major impact rather than just being another singer with a career.


Apply some nuance to the question? Perhaps you gave her too much credit for taking the question seriously! I always made sure whenever I set a question that it was practical and answerable. I always saw that as the job of the questioner. Whenever an examiner set a question like that we complained to the board! :lol:
But how likely do you think it would be that a teacher she describes would in practice have a load of brilliant pupils sounding like Freddie. How likely would it be that students of the calibre of Freddie would even go to such a person in the first place let alone the person produces a string of them? How many teachers do you know who have learned from listening to records and learning from books? I mean, how many people has Viva herself taught? We are dealing with reality here not hypothetical things in a parallel universe. In any case how was my reply giving a real life instant inferior to answering a hypothetical question? Or aren't you interested in real life situations only hypothetical ones?


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

AeolianStrains said:


> I'm with DavidA on this point. This is sophistry in the extreme. What do the actual, real-world facts have to say? Anyone can dream up a hypothetical, but they're absolutely useless in evaluating what is actually happening.





AeolianStrains said:


> Hypotheticals are a sure sign that the employer of such has lost the logic of the argument.


I must say I find this position bizarre. How does a hypothetical indicate that someone has lost the argument? They are quite standard in philosophy. Of course, they have to actually fit the given situation. If the charge is that the hypotheticalis irrelevant to the given situation, that's a reasonable criticism. But hypotheticals are a valid tool for evaluating arguments. They allow you to see the consequences of your claims. Thought experiments are a huge part of the history of science, math, and philosophy, and to say that they necessarily mean the user is incapable of making a real argument is absurd. Furthermore, they have nothing to do with sophistry, which is a specific kind of bad argument, not a catch-all term.

Anyway, here's what I was driving at. Yes, students of a teacher don't sound _exactly_ the same. That's not what I meant. They make the same _kinds_ of sounds. As I have said ad my own nauseum, TIO is talking about the _kinds_ of sounds singers make, for example, the sounds they call falsetto participation, chest voice, etc.. They describe singers as better or worse depending on how they use these sounds in their singing, or if they don't use them at all. So Tebaldi and Ponselle don't sounds _exactly_ the same, of course. That's not the point. They both make the same _kind_ of sound. So let me rephrase the hypothetical: if a teacher with no credentials produces singers that make the same _kinds_ of sounds, or sing in the manner or von Stade, and one with big credentials produces singers that make the same _kinds_ of sounds, or sing in the manner of Patti, who would you go to?

Now, why is this hypothetical relevant? It's relevant because _this is exactly the situation those of us who like old school singing are in, but reversed_. Well, David may never have heard of Stanley, but he produced singers who make old school kinds of sounds, or who sing in the manner of singers of the past. If you compare his students to the students of teachers teaching now who produce the likes of Kaufmann and Florez but are very famous and respected and credentialed (though Stanley, was, in fact, highly credentialed, David just ignores that because it's inconvenient), it raises the question of who you would rather train with. For those of us who like old school singing, I would pick a nobody teacher who got old school _results_ over a big shot teacher who would make me sound like Marcello Giordani _any day_. And I think that's entirely reasonable.

And so does David. We all know that he doesn't like Patti and has even said that she is a _bad singer_, even though _the composers of themselves_ who wrote the operas and are the biggest possible experts, along with all the famous singers and critics of the era, thought she was the best. I think that's fine. But by _David's standards_, he should be producing his qualifications to tell us "where he's coming from" and what "expertise" he's using to say that Patti is a _bad singer_ and von Stade is a good singer. This brings us back to the use of hypotheticals. They allow us to point out double standards, which most people seem to have understood was the point of my comment. David uses one set of standard for himself, then refuses to apply them fairly to others. When the standards he uses for others are applied to himself, he pretends he doesn't know what we're talking about.

I don't know how to make this any clearer. When we said we thought Price wasn't great, David cited critical opinion to show that we were "embarassing" ourselves. When he said he thought Patti was bad, and we, following _his own standards_, cited critical opinion far in excess of anything you could ever find about Leontyne Price, suddenly critical opinion was irrelevant: "I don't care what Lind (and not just Lind, btw, but the composers, singers, and top critics of the day) I know what I heard." Again: I think that's a fine attitude. The problem is that David _won't let us have the same attitude when it's singers he likes and we don't_. Instead, he asks us for qualifications.

And the last point is about whether this constant nagging about qualifications if relevant. The other point of my hypothetical is this: qualifications =/= results. When talking about competence, _results_ matter. But you can only identify results if you know what's a good result and what's a bad result. And you can't do that if you _only_ defer to expert opinion. Now, life is a process. When we're children, we defer to parents, teachers, preachers, authorities of all kinds, and that's fine because we're not able to think for ourselves very well yet. And in the areas of life that we don't care to develop confidence in, we are forced by necessity to defer in some measure (though we retain our basic reasoning no matter what the circumstance). I'm not going to tell the doctor how to do my surgery, but I will object if he wants to do it with a chainsaw. I won't defer to his expert opinion when it seems dangerous or illogical. But there are areas we develop competency in, to different degrees and in different ways. Most fields have "theory" and "application" in some way, and you don't need to apply the theory to know that a certain application of it isn't as good as it could be. You don't have to be a composer to know that the _St. Matthew Passion_ is a better piece of music than "Gangnam Style".

And therein lies a great irony of you saying that David has won the argument. David is arguing that _the argument shouldn't happen_. He doesn't think any of us can say anything at all about whether a singer is good or bad (except him) because we aren't qualified. We should just say, "I like this," and "I don't like that". David isn't actually arguing that Price is a good singer. We know he isn't because he's not qualified to say something is good, since it takes knowledge to say something as good just as much as it takes knowledge to say it is bad. He's arguing that _critics _say she's a good singer, and that none us get to disagree with the critics because we're nobody. Or "failures" as he described people who criticize authority in a previous thread. And that's exactly why I think his comments are elitist. His point of view totally ignores the fact that _people get into positions of respect and authority that they haven't earned all the time_. Anyone remember the scandal of parents trying to pay their kids way into elite colleges? Or the scandal that nobody talks about of how that's basically standard practice in legacy admissions? Or they achieve or fail to achieve success for reasons that have nothing to do with merit. Another poster was just saying on another thread that Virginia Zeani didn't have a recording career because she wanted to record with her husband and the record companies didn't. The fact that she didn't have big recording career doesn't necessarily have to do with her _merit_ as a singer (which was considerable, and more than some people who did have recording careers). Similarly, we know that Anita Cerquetti chose to end her career to be with her family, and that Florence Quartararo was actually _forced_ to stop singing because of her husband, or that Eileen Farrell just didn't really care for Wagner and didn't like the spotlight. We know that _Madama Butterfly_ was a failure at its premier not because it was a bad opera but because there was either a lot of anti-Puccini sentiment in the audience or even a conspiracy by the rival publishing house to upset his career. Some singers died young, and never got the chance. The point is that success =/= merit, something we all know when more people go to see _Baby Boss 2_ than _Ran_ at the movie theater. And it isn't just the public. Critics preferred a painting of a dog to Turner's _The Slave Ship_ when they both premiered at the Royal Academy in 1840.

Popular success and critical reputation, in addition to often being at odds (not sure how David squares that circle on singers whom the public likes but critics hate or vice versa), or often highly changeable over time. Bach once fell into relative obscurity. van Gogh achieved no success with anyone during his lifetime. John Donne was hugely popular and respected during his lifetime, considered a blight during the 18th and 19th centuries, and is now respected again. What is constant throughout all this is changing expert and popular opinion is that people at anytime have had the ability to develop competence for themselves in understanding an art, and know how interpret it for themselves regardless of what others think. _Sapere aude!_ That's all I ask.

As a final word, I've said elsewhere that I wouldn't care about comparing or ranking singers except that understanding singing on a deep level is something allows us to get more out of it. As for "who is better than who" I don't really care. But understanding what is good and what isn't is what allows us appreciate the art. TIO opera training my ear to the falsetto sound, in a way reading never could, is something I am extremely grateful for. It allows me to derive even more enjoyment out of the sound, and to understand on a deeper level why operas are written the way they are. It has awakened me to using my ear for myself to understand opera more. I don't care who they are or what their credentials are. Their results "sing" for themselves.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

DavidA said:


> Apply some nuance to the question? Perhaps you gave her too much credit for taking the question seriously! I always made sure whenever I set a question that it was practical and answerable. I always saw that as the job of the questioner. Whenever an examiner set a question like that we complained to the board! :lol:
> But how likely do you think it would be that a teacher she describes would in practice have a load of brilliant pupils sounding like Freddie. How likely would it be that students of the calibre of Freddie would even go to such a person in the first place let alone the person produces a string of them? How many teachers do you know who have learned from listening to records and learning from books? I mean, how many people has Viva herself taught? We are dealing with reality here not hypothetical things in a parallel universe. In any case how was my reply giving a real life instant inferior to answering a hypothetical question? Or aren't you interested in real life situations only hypothetical ones?


I'll be sure to never ever ask you a hypothetical question in the future lol. You block and parry better than Floyd Mayweather in his prime :lol:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> I'll be sure to never ever ask you a hypothetical question in the future lol. You block and parry better than Floyd Mayweather in his prime :lol:


Not at all.Just I thought that you being a practising singer would appreciate real situations to hypothetical ones. And I actually don't think it's me who's doing the blocking and parrying!


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

DavidA said:


> Not at all.Just I thought that you being a practising singer would appreciate real situations to hypothetical ones. And I actually don't think it's me who's doing the blocking and parrying!


Who else is blocking and parrying? I appreciate real situations of course, but the hypothetical was super relevant to the conversation imo


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

vivalagentenuova said:


> I must say I find this position bizarre. How does a hypothetical indicate that someone has lost the argument? They are quite standard in philosophy. Of course, they have to actually fit the given situation. If the charge is that the hypotheticalis irrelevant to the given situation, that's a reasonable criticism. But hypotheticals are a valid tool for evaluating arguments. They allow you to see the consequences of your claims. Thought experiments are a huge part of the history of science, math, and philosophy, and to say that they necessarily mean the user is incapable of making a real argument is absurd. Furthermore, they have nothing to do with sophistry, which is a specific kind of bad argument, not a catch-all term.
> 
> Anyway, here's what I was driving at. Yes, students of a teacher don't sound _exactly_ the same. That's not what I meant. They make the same _kinds_ of sounds. As I have said ad my own nauseum, TIO is talking about the _kinds_ of sounds singers make, for example, the sounds they call falsetto participation, chest voice, etc.. They describe singers as better or worse depending on how they use these sounds in their singing, or if they don't use them at all. So Tebaldi and Ponselle don't sounds _exactly_ the same, of course. That's not the point. They both make the same _kind_ of sound. So let me rephrase the hypothetical: if a teacher with no credentials produces singers that make the same _kinds_ of sounds, or sing in the manner or von Stade, and one with big credentials produces singers that make the same _kinds_ of sounds, or sing in the manner of Patti, who would you go to?
> 
> ...


I must confess I find your reasoning bizarre first saying singers will sound the same then saying off course they won't. Hypotheticals belong to the realm of mathematics and theoretical physics and philosophy not singing I would have thought. I have never heard of a teacher with no credentials apart from one up the road from us who claimed to have a PhD and who was discovered to be a fraud and dismissed. Any teacher worthy of his or her salt these days would have some credentials I can assure you if you live in the real world. That is unless you send your kid up the road to some old girl who can't play anyway, something we assiduously avoided! In fact the only people I know who despise qualifications are those people who haven't got them. When I took my kids to lessons I made sure the teacher was qualified. You surely wouldn't send them to a school where teachers were unqualified would you? Why to music lessons where you are paying out of your pocket?
You are writing a lot of words but the whole thing seems to me a matter of common sense. Of course you can find mavericks who don't fit the bill. But even Van Gogh had training in art although I am assured by an educated Dutch friend of mine that he doesn't hold a candle to Rembrandt. John Donne had a thorough education so what are you driving at? You say you don't really care 'who is better than who' yet you seem to spend an awful lot of time explaining why you think certain singers are better than others. 
So can I throw the question back to you as I am a practical not hypothetical man: how many teachers do you know who have produced a string of brilliant pupils who themselves have no credentials? I am interested because I don't know of any.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> Who else is blocking and parrying? I appreciate real situations of course, but the hypothetical was super relevant to the conversation imo


Sorry but surely you know singing is a real art so hypothetical situations are not relevant. They belong to the realm of mathematics or theoretical physics and even then have to be found of use in the real world.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

DavidA said:


> Sorry but surely you know singing is a real art so hypothetical situations are not relevant. They belong to the realm of mathematics or theoretical physics and even then have to be found of use in the real world.


I get it. You don't answer hypothetical questions. So who's the other person (or people) blocking and parrying?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> I get it. You don't answer hypothetical questions. So who's the other person (or people) blocking and parrying?


No I don't answer hypothetical questions - nat least not ones like that because I can't imagine a teacher with no qualifications producing a string of brilliant pupils. Can you?

Or perhaps you'd like to discuss when we might see Schrodinger's cat out of its box?

Or the twin paradox solved?


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

DavidA said:


> No I don't answer hypothetical questions - nat least not ones like that because I can't imagine a teacher with no qualifications producing a string of brilliant pupils. Can you?
> 
> Or perhaps you'd like to discuss when we might see Schrodinger's cat out of its box?
> 
> Or the twin paradox solved?


I'm more interested in your answer to the parrying question at this point...


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

> I must confess I find your reasoning bizarre first saying singers will sound the same then saying off course they won't.


Now this is _actual_ sophistry, which is to take two uses of the same word meant in different ways and draw a conclusion as though they were meant the same way. I made extremely clear in my follow up what I meant by "sound the same," and Bonetan gave a good example. If all the pupils of a teacher sing in, for example, collapsed head voice, they sound the same for my purposes. Of course the actual specific timbre of the voice will be somewhat different, but they make the same kind of sound.



> Hypotheticals belong to the realm of mathematics and theoretical physics and philosophy not singing I would have thought.


I didn't realize hypotheticals are useless to practical reasoning. Someone should tell, well, every moral philosopher ever. Hypotheticals are useful precisely because they can help us decide how to act in the real world. And it's quite clear that the question I put to you has to do with how you would act in a given situation.



> I have never heard of a teacher with no credentials apart from one up the road from us who claimed to have a PhD and who was discovered to be a fraud and dismissed.... In fact the only people I know who despise qualifications are those people who haven't got them.


Claiming to be something you aren't is generally not good so maybe they deserved to be fired for that reason, but aside from that if the person was a good teacher who cares if they don't have a PhD? Many people I know personally who've gone through the PhD process, either partially or fully, at prestigious institutions are just as or more cynical about academia and credentials as I am.



> Any teacher worthy of his or her salt these days would have some credentials I can assure you if you live in the real world.


I am a teacher in the real world, and I've known a lot of teachers as my own instructors or as colleagues. Some had minor "credentials" and got amazing results. Some had Harvard PhDs and were worthless.



> You surely wouldn't send them to a school where teachers were unqualified would you? Why to music lessons where you are paying out of your pocket?


Of course teachers should be qualified, if by that you mean _competence_. It's just that, unlike you, I don't think a degree makes someone competent. I would look at the results a teacher gets. Do the students seem like they learn? Are they healthy? Are they independent of mind, or do they just believe what they're told without question? Do they listen well to others? Are they moral? If a teacher can get those results without having a fancy degree, I don't care about the degree. I've seen that happen a lot. This opinion isn't hypothetical.



> But even Van Gogh had training in art although I am assured by an educated Dutch friend of mine that he doesn't hold a candle to Rembrandt. John Donne had a thorough education so what are you driving at?


Again, you put all the separate issues in the blender and hit puree. I was talking about van Gogh and Donne with respect to _critical reception_ which is a separate issue from _training_. And I don't object to education. I object to conflating education with degrees.


----------



## AeolianStrains (Apr 4, 2018)

vivalagentenuova said:


> I must say I find this position bizarre. How does a hypothetical indicate that someone has lost the argument?


Reread what I wrote. I didn't say you lost the argument. (I also never said DavidA won the argument.) I said you lost the logic of it. It shows an inability to deal with the facts on the ground by changing the facts and-here is the fallacy-having deduced you've won the debate by winning the hypothetical.

It's strawman, pure and simple. DavidA, for example, never said that someone without credentials couldn't produce talent.

By the way, argument is different from debate. An argument is what you use to defend your side/tear down the other. You're conflating a popular, secondary definition of argument when the more formal one is meant, which I believe by your own thread you called sophistry. But rather, I think you just read too quickly and mistook it.



> They are quite standard in philosophy.


In some, limited ways, yes, but you've abused that here.



> Of course, they have to actually fit the given situation. If the charge is that the hypotheticalis irrelevant to the given situation, that's a reasonable criticism. But hypotheticals are a valid tool for evaluating arguments.


Hypotheticals allow for a thought-experiment, but they always fail when used in place of an actual argument. It's a type of bait and switch or strawman argument, allowing one to claim victory when conceding to an unreasonable hypothetical.



> They allow you to see the consequences of your claims. Thought experiments are a huge part of the history of science, math, and philosophy, and to say that they necessarily mean the user is incapable of making a real argument is absurd. Furthermore, they have nothing to do with sophistry, which is a specific kind of bad argument, not a catch-all term.


Pop parlance. Sophistry is using logical fallacies dishonestly. If you wanted to say they all have a certain learned technique, you really ought to have just said so. But you clearly said "all sound the same" and now want to back-peddle out of it.

It's important to set up the hypotheticals right, and to become indignant when called out on lazy hypotheticals is, again, a sign that you've nothing really to stand on here.

There is a lot more to digest with your other comments, but if you had sources for the reception of John Donne and more closely tied the analogy together in your argumentation, you might have a more solid case to make, depending on what exactly you're arguing for.

Edit: It goes on!



vivalagentenuova said:


> And I don't object to education. I object to conflating education with degrees.


Can you point to the specific part where that happened? Why is there a need for analogies when such a weak argument in the first place could have been shored up in no time.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

vivalagentenuova said:


> Now this is _actual_ sophistry, which is to take two uses of the same word meant in different ways and draw a conclusion as though they were meant the same way. I made extremely clear in my follow up what I meant by "sound the same," and Bonetan gave a good example. If all the pupils of a teacher sing in, for example, collapsed head voice, they sound the same for my purposes. Of course the actual specific timbre of the voice will be somewhat different, but they make the same kind of sound.
> 
> I didn't realize hypotheticals are useless to practical reasoning. Someone should tell, well, every moral philosopher ever. Hypotheticals are useful precisely because they can help us decide how to act in the real world. And it's quite clear that the question I put to you has to do with how you would act in a given situation.
> 
> ...


Sorry it's not sophistry at all to think up things which can never happen in the real world as we see it. That is like Einstein's thought experiments which were OK in the world of Theoretical physics but do not apply to singing. We are not dealing with the world of moral philosophy of which I have had plenty. We are dealing with singing which has nothing to do with moral philosophy. If you can find a connection I would be interested. 
If it hasn't occurred to you people have qualifications to save us from charlatans. Surely you know as a teacher yourself that teachers need to be qualified. After all, anyone can set up in the music business and claim to be a teacher. I have known people set up with a grade 4 or 5 piano. Well if people are gullible enough to send their kid to someone like that then OK but I'm not. 
If you are a teacher in the real world then you will know (as I do) that teaching has to be taught - one reason why some university lecturers are useless as teachers because (at least in my day) they have never been taught how to teach. Teaching is a skill in itself and you will know you need first of all skill and competence in your subject and then skill in communication to put the subject across and energise the student in such a way that they learn the subject from you. 
I never said a degree makes people competent. Please don't put words into my mouth. Universities produce idiots as well as geniuses and sometimes these are combined in one person! A degree means a competence in the subject (hopefully!) but not necessarily competence to teach. I usually found that the better the degree the better the person was at the subject and the more likely they were to make a good teacher. That was a general rule and most people agree with that. Someone with a lazy 3rd would usually (not always) bring the lazy 3rd mentality to his / her students. Your hypothetical situation about someone with no qualifications turning out brilliant students is just that - hypothetical, especially these days. I would expect a music teacher to be properly qualified if I were to pay them the going rate. If you say you wouldn't then I don't know why you are a teacher if qualifications don't matter.
The matter of critical reception btw arose because some misguided (imo) soul reckoned that Price shouldn't have sung Aida. Never mind. I have a book on my shelf which says the same about Callas and Tosca. I laughed out loud when I read it. But maybe you think the same?


----------



## Parsifal98 (Apr 29, 2020)

(I am French-canadian so please forgive my mistakes)

I am new to this forum but on all the threads that I visit, DavidA is one of the main contributors. I say contributor, but he actually does not contribute much. He is better at putting the conversation to a halt by always repeating the same things and then defending himself by misreading the counter-arguments presented to him and finishing his posts with " I simply mean to... Sorry..." as if he had been unjustifiably attacked by the other members of the forum. I have no desire to stop someone from expressing him/herself, but one should be able to recognize when his/her position is weak or based on arguments that have been debunked, like the one about credentials being the absolute proof of someone's competency. It is not. We all know of many individuals with amazing credentials who are not always the brightest of lights or whose results in their field are sub-par. One's ability to be competent in anything comes mostly from common-sense, critical-judgment and acquired knowledge, none of which suddenly appear the moment you get a degree in your hands. They are the result of self-discipline and hard work, but also genuine interest. To give you a real-world example (for you are a man of the real-world), I went to see an opera performed by students from my local conservatoire (in Quebec City). The signing was, plainly said, atrocious. The students were performing with undeveloped voices from top to bottom. They had no core, and were signing as if they were speaking (and not declamating). If was hard to appreciate the performance of these singers , even though it was clear that they were giving their all. I did not blame them nor do I blame them to this day. But the only reason why they were performing with so much confidence is because they believed that they had received the proper training from their teachers. Teachers with credentials who have, for some of them, performed on international stages. But even with said credentials, they still failed their students who blindly followed them for they believed in the reputation and therefore quality of the education given at the conservatoire. But an institution is as good and competent as the persons who are part of it and make it work. Now you may say that they are only students, but many of them are now performing accross Canada and winning contests. Even worse, people sat in front of that performance for hours, believing that they were appreciating proper opera, which was not the case. But do you know why they happily applauded after each act? Because they blindly believed in the reputation and therefore quality of the education given at the conservatoire. How could the singers be bad? They are the conservatoire? Well, the answer is simple. The tools needed by the students and by the public to differentiate good from bad sounds have been replaced by blind deference, the kind of which you are defending. Now you may say whatever you want about TIO, but they are actually teaching us all the tools that are needed with a method that is not always delicate, but most of the time quite on point. They are giving us examples after examples after examples of proper operatic sounds. They compare singers not to start a competition, but to train our ear and our critical judgement to be able one day to recognize good sounds on our own. And the best thing is that I do not have to agree with everything that they say, for they have given me the tools to not base my opinion and appreciation on blind deference anymore. This is what education is all about.


----------



## VitellioScarpia (Aug 27, 2017)

DavidA said:


> Why are earth I have never found a situation like that in real life have you? It is surely not being arrogant to give a real answer rather than a hypothetical answer. I mean it is something that I don't think could possibly exist in real life could it, all pupils sounding like Freddie Von Stade? It's like asking a theological question of how many angels can dance on the end of a pin. I just gave you a real life experience which I don't think is arrogant at all unless you want to deal in fantasy not reality. Now can I ask you what I asked you before - what real experience have you got in singing coaching?


You appear to be obsessed with qualifications and, clearly, you cannot think out of your box. You either choose to be literal or not to advance your point at any cost. Someone mention sophistry earlier. That is an example.

Your question about about my _real experience_ in singing and/or coaching is totally irrelevant and another distractor. As I mentioned before, participation in this forum did not ask for submitting a résumé and references to determine acceptance and I will not fall for the bait. :tiphat:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

All of us need to accept the fact that DavidA is forever demanding to see our papers, else he just won't give anything we say a second look. So if you're a graduate of Trump University, get out that diploma and carry it with you at all times.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

VitellioScarpia said:


> You appear to be obsessed with qualifications and, clearly, you cannot think out of your box. You either choose to be literal or not to advance your point at any cost. Someone mention sophistry earlier. That is an example.
> 
> Your question about about my _real experience_ in singing and/or coaching is totally irrelevant and another distractor. As I mentioned before, participation in this forum did not ask for submitting a résumé and references to determine acceptance and I will not fall for the bait. :tiphat:


This is becoming ridiculous. I am obsessed with qualifications because I believe that a teacher should be qualified? Do you actually live in a modern society? For goodness sake, don't we expect every teacher in a modern society to be qualified? When I went for a job they asked for my qualifications. Maybe they didn't ask for yours but they certainly asked for mine. It doesn't mean to say that people are obsessed with them but they want to know them. I certainly want to know whether the guy who is piloting the plane I am taking is qualified to do so, don't you? I also want to make sure that the person who is teaching my kids music is qualified to do so. This is not an obsession with qualifications but commonsense. My question about real experience in singing and coaching is not irrelevant at all. As far as I can see that you are the person who is seeking to advance your point at any cost because you are seeking to argue something at the expense of common sense. Would you send your kids to a person who was advertising music lessons without checking they were qualified? I certainly didn't because I care for my kids.
Of course I can think out of my box and will discuss with you Schrödinger's cat or the twin paradox which are things which involve thinking out of the box and are appropriate for mind experiments but singing is not something which is appropriate for a mind experiment. You are trying to turn the thing round and blame me for using common sense when all I am trying to do is apply the normal rules of life to music teaching. All I did was give you an example from real life experience and apparently that is not what was required because what was required was some hypothetical answer to a hypothetical question which could not happen in real life. Of course I don't believe everyone should have a degree to take part in the discussion but I just gave you a practical example of what we ourselves did. But apparently practical examples of real life are not welcomed among some people. Sorry about that!


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

AeolianStrains said:


> It's strawman, pure and simple. DavidA, for example, never said that someone without credentials couldn't produce talent.


DavidA has said exactly that!

N.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The Conte said:


> DavidA has said exactly that!
> 
> N.


Well I must confess who ever taught you to read can't have been very talented! :lol:

What I did ask the question was whether you have known anyone without any credentials in singing producing a string of talented singers like Frederica Von Stade.

Never mind keep up with the strawmen! There will be a good harvest this year!


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> All of us need to accept the fact that DavidA is forever demanding to see our papers, else he just won't give anything we say a second look. So if you're a graduate of Trump University, get out that diploma and carry it with you at all times.


:lol::lol::lol:

DavidA has also told us many a time that he has zero credentials when it comes to singing and most of the people he disagrees with here have sung professionally at one time or another. He also hasn't explained what constitutes qualifications or credentials (is Grade 8 singing enough or do you need a degree, or two, or three, or will only a PhD do?)

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

DavidA said:


> This is becoming ridiculous. I am obsessed with qualifications because I believe that a teacher should be qualified?


It would help if we had more information about this. In what way to you think they should be qualified, there has also been mention of credentials, however there are a number of ways a singing teacher could be qualified. They could have sung as a professional opera singer, they could have a degree (but would a degree in composition suffice?) In short, what do you consider the minimum qualifications for a singing teacher in order for you to consider them qualified enough to do the job?

N.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The inconvenient truth is that we must have qualifications to judge others' qualifications. Until we can _all_ show our credentials, debating the merits of singers is futile. Achieving a general confidence in each other's authority to speak will require work and study on the part of everyone, but the eventual reward of conscientious effort will be that we will all issue diplomas to each other, and all debate will be replaced by nodding and smiling (hugs and handshakes being best avoided until the pandemic has passed).


----------



## AeolianStrains (Apr 4, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> The inconvenient truth is that we must have qualifications to judge others' qualifications. Until we can _all_ show our credentials, debating the merits of singers is futile. Achieving a general confidence in each other's authority to speak will require work and study on the part of everyone, but the eventual reward of conscientious effort will be that we will all issue diplomas to each other, and all debate will be replaced by nodding and smiling (hugs and handshakes being best avoided until the pandemic has passed).


It's not so much we can't all have opinions without credentials, but when someone says that those with credentials are akin to quacks, well, they ought to say why they are qualified to make such a sweeping claim. especially when the claim is rooted in correctness not just personal preference.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The Conte said:


> :lol::lol::lol:
> 
> DavidA has also told us many a time that he has zero credentials when it comes to singing and most of the people he disagrees with here have sung professionally at one time or another. He also hasn't explained what constitutes qualifications or credentials (is Grade 8 singing enough or do you need a degree, or two, or three, or will only a PhD do?)
> 
> N.


So which people I disagree with have sung professionally and have had singing lessons from unqualified teachers may I ask? And what unqualified teachers would you recommend?


----------



## AeolianStrains (Apr 4, 2018)

DavidA's essential question, if you go back far enough in this thread, is "How are you able to make such claims."

I mean, if this were a science forum, would we be having this same discussion? How many prominent scientists would jump in to defend the guy saying that bloodletting is good and modern science has gone astray? How many people would get upset if someone asked that bloodletting guy where he got his PhD and dismiss him, rightly or wrongly, because he hadn't got one at all.

Yeah, you don't necessarily need a degree, but having one shows that you put in the time and effort and seriousness into this as a career. Otherwise it's indistinguishable from the mass of noise on the internet. If we go far enough, it ends up being, "Tell me why I should listen to your opinion, you who thinks the whole establishment is wrong."


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

AeolianStrains said:


> It's not so much we can't all have opinions without credentials, but when someone says that those with credentials are akin to quacks, well, they ought to say why they are qualified to make such a sweeping claim. especially when the claim is rooted in correctness not just personal preference.


To misquote Oscar Wilde: Never speak disrespectfully of credentials, Algernon. Only people who haven't got any do that.' :lol:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The Conte said:


> It would help if we had more information about this. In what way to you think they should be qualified, there has also been mention of credentials, however there are a number of ways a singing teacher could be qualified. They could have sung as a professional opera singer, they could have a degree (but would a degree in composition suffice?) In short, what do you consider the minimum qualifications for a singing teacher in order for you to consider them qualified enough to do the job?
> 
> N.


Well in what way do you think a teacher should be qualified? You of course send your kids to a school full of unqualified teachers? So take a science teacher - how do you think they should be qualified? What are the minimum qualifications they should have for the job of teaching your kid A level science?


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

AeolianStrains said:


> It's not so much we can't all have opinions without credentials, but when someone says that those with credentials are akin to quacks, well, they ought to say why they are qualified to make such a sweeping claim. especially when the claim is rooted in correctness not just personal preference.


I don't think anyone has said that those with credentials are akin to quacks, the point that has been made is that there are many teachers in colleges and conservatoires with music related degrees or PhDs that aren't good singing teachers.

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

DavidA said:


> So which people I disagree with have sung professionally and have had singing lessons from unqualified teachers may I ask? And what unqualified teachers would you recommend?


You will need to define 'unqualified' for me to answer that question. Which qualifications count to make a singing teacher 'qualified' in your book?

As for your first question you have misunderstood my point. Vivalagentenuova put it better above than I ever could:

"I don't know how to make this any clearer. When we said we thought Price wasn't great, David cited critical opinion to show that we were "embarassing" ourselves. When he said he thought Patti was bad, and we, following his own standards, cited critical opinion far in excess of anything you could ever find about Leontyne Price, suddenly critical opinion was irrelevant: "I don't care what Lind (and not just Lind, btw, but the composers, singers, and top critics of the day) I know what I heard." Again: I think that's a fine attitude. The problem is that David won't let us have the same attitude when it's singers he likes and we don't. Instead, he asks us for qualifications."

You have admitted yourself that you don't have qualifications or credentials when it comes to singing and yet you have questioned Patti's greatness. When others have questioned Price's greatness you have asked what credentials they have. I am just pointing out that they have more credentials than you. If you can judge Patti without credentials, why do they need credentials to judge Price? You are the one who has set the standard of needing credentials to judge singing, but it's not a standard that you follow when it applies to you.

N.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The Conte said:


> I don't think anyone has said that those with credentials are akin to quacks, the point that has been made is that there are many teachers in colleges and conservatoires with music related degrees or PhDs that aren't good singing teachers.
> 
> N.


I think we have made that point. But you don't solve the problem by being taught by people who are unqualified!


----------



## AeolianStrains (Apr 4, 2018)

The Conte said:


> I don't think anyone has said that those with credentials are akin to quacks, the point that has been made is that there are many teachers in colleges and conservatoires with music related degrees or PhDs that aren't good singing teachers.





DavidA said:


> I never said a degree makes people competent. Please don't put words into my mouth. Universities produce idiots as well as geniuses and sometimes these are combined in one person! A degree means a competence in the subject (hopefully!) but not necessarily competence to teach.


Well now, looks like you two can quit bickering then, since you agree on the "essential" point.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The Conte said:


> You will need to define 'unqualified' for me to answer that question. Which qualifications count to make a singing teacher 'qualified' in your book?
> 
> As for your first question you have misunderstood my point. Vivalagentenuova put it better above than I ever could:
> 
> ...


You reckon anyone can teach singing from what you say - so presumably you reckon that anyone can teach science in schools by the same token? I would expect a teacher of anything to be properly qualified as a teacher especially if I were going to pay them. If it were a singing teacher for my kid I wouldn't want some quack messing around with my kid's voice - would you? Our on the piano with my kid's technique, teaching them bad habits. Believe me it happens - I've seen enough of it. But it doesn't matter to you that someone has never been taught to teach?

Of course anyone who thought Price wasn't great was embarrassing themselves. I thought that was obvious. She was hailed as the greatest Aida of her generation. (I put Tebaldi and Callas the generation before her) What I actually said about Patti was from what I HEARD I could see how anyone could say that she was a great singer - the awful wavering sound that was coming from that recording. Now you must ask yourself - if you heard this sort of sound in the flesh would you say she was a great singer? Of course you wouldn't without the prior knowledge that everyone in the day said she was great. So obviously either she was having a bad hair day when the recording was made or (more likely) the recording was so bad as to give the wrong impression of what her voice was really like. I just can't see why some of you guys can't get this point. I am basing my judgment on what I actually HEAR not from the judgment of people at the time. 
it's a bit like the old timers with their reminisces of fighters in the past who reckon Muhammed Ali wouldn't have gone two round with John L Sullivan based on reputations and some creaky old movies. Or that in W G Grace's day Joe Root would have been lucky to bat at no 11. Personally I don't believe it. Honestly you can have whatever attitude you like - worship the ground these singers walked on if you can find it. But don't expect me to shed the opinion based on the recordings presented.
It's funny these people who reckon they have more credentials than me - when I ask them what they have they never give any. Why I'm interested. If these guys are experienced singing teachers (not just theorists - anyone can do that) I'm interested in why they think the way they do.


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

I've been reading all this talk about qualifications with some unease: what makes a great teacher is not straightforward.

It might be worth contrasting two famous voice teachers: Antonio Cotogni and Manuel Garcia II. Between them they influenced generations of singers performing between the 1830s up until the 1970s if you consider Giacomo Lauri-Volpi. Their career paths could not be more different.

Antonio Cotogni only started taking students at the end of a wildly prolific career where he sang hundreds of roles on stage, a favourite of Verdi: he _started_ teaching at 63. His marvellous pupils included Gigli, Battistini and Lauri-Volpi. He had tons of practical, if not academic, experience.

Manuel Garcia II made an auspicious start with marvellous informal training and superb connections: his father was Manuel Garcia, his sisters Maria Malibran and Pauline Viardot (!!) Nonetheless, _his_ stage career was practically non-existent. He _retired_ from the stage at 24. Nepotism is perhaps the most plausible explanation for him securing a teaching job at 25. He is the very definition of "Those who can't do, teach".

In fact, Garcia II was fantastic at his job and as his experience grew so did his fame and he was later conferred all sorts of honours. His pupils included Lind, Marchesi, Santley and Wood. He ended up teaching for 65 years!

Neither teacher's idiosyncratic success can be explained by their formal qualifications. Nor is it straightforward that practical experience was a panacea: Their stage experiences were wildly different, their teaching emphasis were highly distinct. Neither had screeds of academic qualifications: Every conservatoire today could field dozens of teachers with better formal qualifications. Nonetheless, none have produced students of the caliber familiar to Garcia II and Cotogni...

A further complication is the assumption that famous singers were themselves 'qualified'. I believe I've read that Pinza and Pavarotti could not read sheet music and I think Gigli needed a dispensation to study just singing. It rather problematises the role of theory when three of the greatest vocal performers in history might have found it tricky passing an undergraduate music class.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Revitalized Classics said:


> I've been reading all this talk about qualifications with some unease: what makes a great teacher is not straightforward.
> 
> It might be worth contrasting two famous voice teachers: Antonio Cotogni and Manuel Garcia II. Between them they influenced generations of singers performing between the 1830s up until the 1970s if you consider Giacomo Lauri-Volpi. Their career paths could not be more different.
> 
> ...


May I just make a point that we are living in 2020 and not 100 years ago. The expectations of society have altered even during my lifetime. The mistake people are making is that when they read the word 'qualifications' they immediately think 'academic qualifications' which is somewhat different. Obviously vast stage experience is a qualification - I think I mentioned a Peter Pears Master class. Also there are those who never reach greatness themselves yet are great teachers - I mentioned Hans Sworawsky the conductor. There are also the exceptions that prove the rule. 
We are also not saying that all great singers are highly 'qualified' as musicians any more than George Best might have got a degree in sports science. We are talking about qualifications for *teaching* here in 2020 not 1830 and anyone wanting to set up to teach today would be expected to have a qualification. And can anyone give me a reason why not? I know some people here think qualifications are a bad thing but I've always thought they are rather a good thing for a teacher to have. Does not make a good teacher but it certainly proves they have studied the subject.
But let me also add - you cannot make a good teacher merely by training. You can get them to know the subject and the principles of teaching. But like everything there is also natural ability. You can develop it over the years but it's got to be there in the first place.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

DavidA said:


> May I just make a point that we are living in 2020 and not 100 years ago.


That may depend on who you ask.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Three things can give an assertion credibility: a well-reasoned argument, an exhibit of evidence, and the support of others. The third of those is in most cases the least valuable, useful mainly when it's impossible or impractical to produce the first two. The need for citations and the consensus of supposed authorities depends on the nature of the subject and the purpose of the conversation: a well-considered, well-expressed argument can be worth a hundred diplomas; a job interview is essential regardless of letters of commendation, and may make them entirely unnecessary.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, not in the reputation of the cook or the publisher of the recipe. If I spend an hour writing a carefully reasoned analysis of the meaning of the love potion in _Tristan und Isolde_, I have the right to regard someone who looks at me skeptically and asks me for my academic credentials as an obnoxious fool.


----------



## zxxyxxz (Apr 14, 2020)

DavidA said:


> May I just make a point that we are living in 2020 and not 100 years ago. The expectations of society have altered even during my lifetime. The mistake people are making is that when they read the word 'qualifications' they immediately think 'academic qualifications' which is somewhat different. Obviously vast stage experience is a qualification - I think I mentioned a Peter Pears Master class. Also there are those who never reach greatness themselves yet are great teachers - I mentioned Hans Sworawsky the conductor. There are also the exceptions that prove the rule.
> We are also not saying that all great singers are highly 'qualified' as musicians any more than George Best might have got a degree in sports science. We are talking about qualifications for *teaching* here in 2020 not 1830 and anyone wanting to set up to teach today would be expected to have a qualification. And can anyone give me a reason why not? I know some people here think qualifications are a bad thing but I've always thought they are rather a good thing for a teacher to have. Does not make a good teacher but it certainly proves they have studied the subject.
> But let me also add - you cannot make a good teacher merely by training. You can get them to know the subject and the principles of teaching. But like everything there is also natural ability. You can develop it over the years but it's got to be there in the first place.


But isn't this part of the point? All these music schools hire based on qualifications but what about people who's experience is only practical?

What about people who might have talent and hard work to sing but might not have the academic skills to pass a degree program?

Surely we have to accept that some things in the past might have worked better than they do now. But that would require study of all component parts.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

JAS said:


> That may depend on who you ask.


:lol:......................:lol:


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

While Price was very good, it can be instructive to go back further: I particularly enjoy Giannini's singing.

Rosa Ponselle





Dusolina Giannini




Ritorna Vincitor @ 21:49
Qui Radames verra @ 1:23:10 
O patria mia @ 1:24:10

Giannina Arangi-Lombardi




Ritorna Vincitor @ 20:41
Qui Radames verra @ 1:20:44
O patria mia @ 1:21:54

Eva Turner





Elisabeth Rethberg


----------



## zxxyxxz (Apr 14, 2020)

Another quick thought, surely singing is a craft not something that needs academic qualifications in the same way.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> Three things can give an assertion credibility: *a well-reasoned argument, an exhibit of evidence, and the support of others*. The third of those is in most cases the least valuable, useful mainly when it's impossible or impractical to produce the first two. The need for citations and the consensus of supposed authorities depends on the nature of the subject and the purpose of the conversation: a well-considered, well-expressed argument can be worth a hundred diplomas; a job interview is essential regardless of letters of commendation, and may make them entirely unnecessary.
> 
> The proof of the pudding is in the eating, not in the reputation of the cook or the publisher of the recipe. If I spend an hour writing a carefully reasoned analysis of the meaning of the love potion in _Tristan und Isolde_, I have the right to regard someone who looks at me skeptically and asks me for my academic credentials as an obnoxious fool.


I love this! "A well-reasoned argument, an exhibit of evidence, and the support of others". No other credential should be needed, especially since its been established that credentials come in all shapes and sizes.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I have a career, an agent, have sung on big stages. But I bow down to Viva, Woodduck, Conte etc when it comes to voice. I don't need to know how they know more than me to know that they know way more than me lol


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

I presume that in the matter of singing, an actual performance would count as pudding (good or bad).


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

zxxyxxz said:


> But isn't this part of the point? All these music schools hire based on qualifications but what about people who's experience is only practical?
> 
> What about people who might have talent and hard work to sing but might not have the academic skills to pass a degree program?
> 
> Surely we have to accept that some things in the past might have worked better than they do now. But that would require study of all component parts.


A music school should hire own the basis of qualifications and experience. We are talking here about the art of performing so the person teaching must at least have some idea of performing. They must also have learned the skills necessary for voice training and know how to impart them. Same as any teacher. I'm not judging the past or the present. Interesting that I have related an experience that we had of a teacher that worked very well in practice and I have been criticised roundly for it in some quarters. No I am told. Hypothetical questions which cold not possibly happen in practice are more relevant. Just a sign people like theorising rather than practice.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> I love this! "A well-reasoned argument, an exhibit of evidence, and the support of others". No other credential should be needed, especially since its been established that credentials come in all shapes and sizes.
> 
> I've said it before and I'll say it again. I have a career, an agent, have sung on big stages. But I bow down to Viva, Woodduck, Conte etc when it comes to voice. I don't need to know how they know more than me to know that they know way more than me lol


Well mate. You are taking them on as your vocal coaches because they have a well reasoned argument? Be my guest! Thankfully in real life we had the experience of a great teacher! The person with an experience is never at the mercy of a person with an argument! :lol:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

zxxyxxz said:


> Another quick thought, surely singing is a craft not something that needs academic qualifications in the same way.


We're talking about teaching and vocal coaching not singing!


----------



## zxxyxxz (Apr 14, 2020)

DavidA said:


> We're talking about teaching and vocal coaching not singing!


Exactly. To teach a subject you need two things: the ability to do the subject, trade, technique etc and the temperament and communication skills for teaching.

Thats it.

My A-level chemistry teachers were all qualified to teach A-level chemistry, however all but one were biologists in qualifications. It showed in their teaching, the chemistry teaching and results were poor as they had no aptitude for the subject.

However qualified, it needs to be relevant to the task.

Qualifications are only meaningful if everyone agrees they have merit. All things are essentially made up pieces of paper that proof nothing.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

DavidA said:


> Well mate. You are taking them on as your vocal coaches because they have a well reasoned argument? Be my guest! Thankfully in real life we had the experience of a great teacher! The person with an experience is never at the mercy of a person with an argument! :lol:


I'm not interested in Viva, Woodduck, or Conte as my vocal coach since I'm covered there, but I hold their opinions on singers and singing in very high regard. They've displayed all of the qualifications I require, and Woodduck's post summed those up perfectly 

And they do have experience! Otherwise, how would they know so much about the topic?? I just don't need them to explain that experience to me. The knowledge is enough.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

zxxyxxz said:


> Exactly. To teach a subject you need two things: the ability to do the subject, trade, technique etc and the temperament and communication skills for teaching.
> 
> Thats it.
> 
> ...


So a degree means nothing? Pity I wouldn't have put in those three years of hard slog if I'd have known! :lol:

Well the example you give is very poor as it shows the scarcity of chemistry teachers. It also makes the point as they were biologists - like having a pianist teach singing. We are assuming that a singing teacher is is qualified in teaching singing. I thought that was obvious!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> I'm not interested in Viva, Woodduck, or Conte as my vocal coach since I'm covered there, but I hold their opinions on singers and singing in very high regard. They've displayed all of the qualifications I require, and Woodduck's post summed those up perfectly


That is fine! So why aren't they out there coaching the finest singers in the world?


----------



## zxxyxxz (Apr 14, 2020)

But the crux of the matter is what qualifies someone to teach singing?

I've proved that appropriate qualifications mean nothing in isolation.

The ability to teach means nothing in isolation.

Besides a teacher only has to stay one lesson in front of the students.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

zxxyxxz said:


> But the crux of the matter is what qualifies someone to teach singing?
> 
> I've proved that appropriate qualifications mean nothing in isolation.
> 
> ...


You have answered your own question. What qualifies someone to teach chemistry?

btw a teacher has to stay a whole year of lessons in front of his students if you hadn't noticed. Perhaps that's why the results were so bad if you only had one lesson/

But to answer your point but from my own experience which is of course very limited, but having talked to musicians and vocal coaches. To teach singing:

At least a grade 8 in singing or above
Experience singing in choirs and as a soloist so you can say 'been there / done that'
Diploma in vocal coaching of some sort from a reputable college


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

DavidA said:


> That is fine! So why aren't they out there coaching the finest singers in the world?


I'll assume this is a rhetorical question...


----------



## AeolianStrains (Apr 4, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> The proof of the pudding is in the eating, not in the reputation of the cook or the publisher of the recipe. If I spend an hour writing a carefully reasoned analysis of the meaning of the love potion in _Tristan und Isolde_, I have the right to regard someone who looks at me skeptically and asks me for my academic credentials as an obnoxious fool.


Just to take this analogy further, though, if all the top chefs exclaim that pudding to be magnificent, but you personally don't like it, is it good or bad pudding? Do those chefs have good or bad taste?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

AeolianStrains said:


> Just to take this analogy further, though, if all the top chefs exclaim that pudding to be magnificent, but you personally don't like it, is it good or bad pudding? Do those chefs have good or bad taste?


Interesting to know how 'writing a carefully reasoned analysis of the meaning of the love potion in Tristan and isolde' links in with being a vocal coach! 

There are no doubt hundreds of carefully reasoned analyses of the love potion been written!


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

AeolianStrains said:


> Just to take this analogy further, though, if all the top chefs exclaim that pudding to be magnificent, but you personally don't like it, is it good or bad pudding? Do those chefs have good or bad taste?


A better analogy would be that the chefs are baking the pudding, exclaiming it is magnificent...and not asking the client if they like it or not.

Even better, they are baking a cake and defying you to notice they are rubbish.

Chef: "We have baked this cake, it is magnificent. Eat it"
Client: "Those are little soggy wafers... Your cakes used to be much better. Actually these are nothing like the great big cakes we had before...Would you not try that recipe that worked for hundreds of years and everyone thought was delicious?" 
Chef: "What are your qualifications???"
Client: "...Is your name DavidA?"


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Revitalized Classics said:


> A better analogy would be that the chefs are baking the pudding, exclaiming it is magnificent...and not asking the client if they like it or not.
> 
> Even better, they are baking a cake and defying you to notice they are rubbish.
> 
> ...


Sorry mate, you should get the analogy right. I am the client not the chef! Chef with egg on face! :lol:

You guys are hilarious! :lol:

All this ridiculous nonsense started when I said my wife had a brilliant vocal coach and people found it a problem somehow!. On a music forum at that! Oh my! :lol:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

AeolianStrains said:


> Just to take this analogy further, though, if all the top chefs exclaim that pudding to be magnificent, but you personally don't like it, is it good or bad pudding? Do those chefs have good or bad taste?


The pudding is neither good nor bad.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

AeolianStrains said:


> Well now, looks like you two can quit bickering then, since you agree on the "essential" point.


We have clarified and reached agreement on one point. We both agree that just because one is a fine singer or has a qualification that doesn't mean that one is automatically a good teacher. Where we may not agree is whether one _needs_ to have a qualification to be a good teacher. (Note that DavidA doesn't specify what he considers to be covered by the wide term 'qualification'. Is Grade 5 singing good enough (a fairly rudimentary English exam) or do you need a diploma in singing from a conservatoire, or is 'A' Level music good enough? Does being a professional musician count?)

However, that isn't the "essential" point. DavidA has claimed that he can tell Patti is a bad singer by just listening to her without qualifications or credentials, whereas TIO aren't to be trusted with their opinions of Price because they don't have qualifications or credentials other than being singing teachers and/or students of singing. It's this conundrum that hasn't been resolved.

N.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

AeolianStrains said:


> Just to take this analogy further, though, if all the top chefs exclaim that pudding to be magnificent, but you personally don't like it, is it good or bad pudding? *Do those chefs have good or bad taste?*


Now it's time to talk a bit about Hume's Aesthetics !


----------



## AeolianStrains (Apr 4, 2018)

Revitalized Classics said:


> A better analogy would be that the chefs are baking the pudding, exclaiming it is magnificent...and not asking the client if they like it or not.
> 
> Even better, they are baking a cake and defying you to notice they are rubbish.
> 
> ...


This is the exact opposite issue at hand. DavidA even brought up popularity, but was mocked for that. Seems now people are just flinging whatever muck they can find hoping something will stick.

What a joke, all because someone asked, "yes but why should I trust your opinion?"


----------



## AeolianStrains (Apr 4, 2018)

The Conte said:


> However, that isn't the "essential" point. DavidA has claimed that he can tell Patti is a bad singer by just listening to her without qualifications or credentials, whereas TIO aren't to be trusted with their opinions of Price because they don't have qualifications or credentials other than being singing teachers and/or students of singing. It's this conundrum that hasn't been resolved.


This is such a mischaracterization. This is why I initially jumped in after reading pages and pages of drivel with bad logic and smug superiority against the elites.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

DavidA said:


> You reckon anyone can teach singing from what you say - so presumably you reckon that anyone can teach science in schools by the same token? I would expect a teacher of anything to be properly qualified as a teacher especially if I were going to pay them. If it were a singing teacher for my kid I wouldn't want some quack messing around with my kid's voice - would you? Our on the piano with my kid's technique, teaching them bad habits. Believe me it happens - I've seen enough of it. But it doesn't matter to you that someone has never been taught to teach?


No I don't, where have I said that anyone can teach singing. You still haven't specified the qualification you are speaking of, how can I comment on your points if you don't clarify them fully? When you say 'properly qualified as a teacher' - do you mean then that only those with a diploma in teaching singing will make a good teacher?



DavidA said:


> Of course anyone who thought Price wasn't great was embarrassing themselves. I thought that was obvious. She was hailed as the greatest Aida of her generation. (I put Tebaldi and Callas the generation before her)


TIO didn't say that Price wasn't a great singer, nor I think did anyone else here. What TIO said was that she didn't have a voice for Aida, an opinion that I disagreed with.



DavidA said:


> What I actually said about Patti was from what I HEARD I could see how anyone could say that she was a great singer - the awful wavering sound that was coming from that recording. Now you must ask yourself - if you heard this sort of sound in the flesh would you say she was a great singer? Of course you wouldn't without the prior knowledge that everyone in the day said she was great. So obviously either she was having a bad hair day when the recording was made or (more likely) the recording was so bad as to give the wrong impression of what her voice was really like. I just can't see why some of you guys can't get this point. I am basing my judgment on what I actually HEAR not from the judgment of people at the time.


Yes, I do think Patti was a great singer. Her records need to be listened to in the rights keys and in the transcriptions by Ward Marston to get any idea of what she really sounded like. She was a lyric soprano and whilst she is sometimes a little flat in the high notes, her sense of style and the beauty of her legato speak for themselves and I don't find it difficult to understand why she was considered the Aida of her generation.

The point we can't get is how you justify your opinion that TIO is wrong to base his judgement of Price on what he HEARS not from the judgement of people of the time, whereas that's exactly what you are doing with Patti. My point (and that of a few others here) has little to do with Price, Patti, qualifications or credentials. It's the double standard of saying that one embarrasses oneself by saying that a singer who is hailed as being one of the greatest of their generation sounds awful, unless it is you yourself making the judgement and then it is fine.



DavidA said:


> it's a bit like the old timers with their reminisces of fighters in the past who reckon Muhammed Ali wouldn't have gone two round with John L Sullivan based on reputations and some creaky old movies. Or that in W G Grace's day Joe Root would have been lucky to bat at no 11. Personally I don't believe it. Honestly you can have whatever attitude you like - worship the ground these singers walked on if you can find it. But don't expect me to shed the opinion based on the recordings presented.
> It's funny these people who reckon they have more credentials than me - when I ask them what they have they never give any. Why I'm interested. If these guys are experienced singing teachers (not just theorists - anyone can do that) I'm interested in why they think the way they do.


A number of people here have mentioned that they are or have been professional singers. When you ask people directly however they probably feel a bit put on the spot and why should they spill out details of their personal lives? If you are interested in why they think the way they do I would suggest asking them what they hear that you don't and to add more to their comments. I doubt they will want to if you tell people they are embarrassing themselves.

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Bonetan said:


> I love this! "A well-reasoned argument, an exhibit of evidence, and the support of others". No other credential should be needed, especially since its been established that credentials come in all shapes and sizes.
> 
> I've said it before and I'll say it again. I have a career, an agent, have sung on big stages. But I bow down to Viva, Woodduck, Conte etc when it comes to voice. I don't need to know how they know more than me to know that they know way more than me lol


Thank you. I always read your comments with interest because of your experience and consider them carefully. I have learnt a lot from many posters here you included. TC is a veritable banquet of people who know and understand a lot about opera.

N.


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

AeolianStrains said:


> This is such a mischaracterization. This is why I initially jumped in after reading pages and pages of drivel with bad logic and smug superiority against the elites.


So what do you understand David's position to be with respect to Patti?

Also, you haven't told us: to what extent do you think the credentials of the person making a claim matter when evaluating the truth of the claim?


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

There is an entirely separate issue that someone might be very good at something, but inept at teaching others how to do it. When I was in college, I had a paid internship where I wrote programs to track phone sales. (Yes, it was a telemarketing arm of Citicorp, but it was not quite so annoyingly ubiquitous in those days, and I just tracked and reported statistics.) There were three people who, no matter what the product was, always got the best ratings. (Chiefly the highest number of yes I am interested or send me the information.) So, they were made supervisors and put in charge of others, with the hope that their magic would spread to people under their charge, but it never happened. Whatever it was that made them better at the calls, they either did not know what it was, or did not know how to teach others to do it.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

AeolianStrains said:


> This is the exact opposite issue at hand. DavidA even brought up popularity, but was mocked for that. Seems now people are just flinging whatever muck they can find hoping something will stick.
> 
> What a joke, all because someone asked, "yes but why should I trust your opinion?"


If you go back to post #85, you'll see the fallacy against which others here have pushed back. Here it is:



> Posted by Op.123:
> 
> The problem with modern vocal teaching is it doesn't care about developing a voice properly. Netrebko and Kaufmann are trying to create an "operatic" sound without really knowing how to resulting in what would have been considered a caricature 80 years ago.





> Posted by DavidA:
> 
> I am assuming you are a qualified voice coach?


The implication is not merely "Why should I trust your opinion?" but "What gives your opinion any merit if you don't coach singers, or do something else which I, expert that I am, believe would qualify you to speak on the subject?"

To this I would say, first, that no one here is asking anyone to "trust" them - to take their opinions on faith - and, second, that the main qualification for evaluating a singer's technique is a wide acquaintance with, and a careful listening to, voices, along with at least a basic understanding of how the vocal mechanism works. It's probably safe to say that most people who can speak knowledgeably about singing have either studied singing or worked with singers in some capacity, but there may be many roads to a destination, and great variation in people's ability to travel those roads profitably.

I studied singing and worked as a paid tenor soloist in churches in my younger years. I was a "natural" singer and didn't acquire a thorough technique, which limited my effective repertoire and would have kept me out of opera. Nevertheless I learned about singing through extensive and constant listening, reading, and thinking about what the human voice can do and what great singing sounds like. After many years I'm confident enough in my ability to identify the hallmarks of vocal excellence to compare meaningfully and in detail a 1906 shellac made by Battistini with a 1950 LP made by Warren or a present-day Met broadcast peformance by Lucic. If I offer judgments on these singers I don't expect people to take my word as definitive. What I do expect, if they want to evaluate what I say, is that they put in the work and listen carefully for themselves. And I definitely don't expect to be asked, "so are you a vocal coach?" as if the answer to that would magically bestow validity or importance on my judgments. The best answer to that presumption might be, "No. Why? Do you give out certifications to vocal coaches?"


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

The Conte said:


> Thank you. I always read your comments with interest because of your experience and consider them carefully. I have learnt a lot from many posters here you included. TC is a veritable banquet of people who know and understand a lot about opera.
> 
> N.


I appreciate that! I know for a fact that I wouldn't have made the progress I have without all of you here at TC. I came to singing very late and have no schooling, but the music education I've received from my teacher, coaches, and fine people of the Talk Classical Opera section has more than made up for it!

Hopefully when life returns to normal I'll be able to pick up where I left off and share some of my experiences


----------



## VitellioScarpia (Aug 27, 2017)

Bonetan said:


> I'll assume this is a rhetorical question...


Not rhetorical, just a taunt.


----------



## VitellioScarpia (Aug 27, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> The implication is not merely "Why should I trust your opinion?" but "What gives your opinion any merit if you don't coach singers, or do something else which I, expert that I am, believe would qualify you to speak on the subject?"
> 
> To this I would say, first, that no one here is asking anyone to "trust" them - to take their opinions on faith - and, second, that the main qualification for evaluating a singer's technique is a wide acquaintance with, and a careful listening to, voices, along with at least a basic understanding of how the vocal mechanism works. It's probably safe to say that most people who can speak knowledgeably about singing have either studied singing or worked with singers in some capacity, but there may be many roads to a destination, and great variation in people's ability to travel those roads profitably.


The points made by Woodduck above are certainly at the crux of this whole sequence of arguments which reappear in many threads.

I love to hear different opinions and I may agree or disagree with those. If I disagree, that's it. There is no reason to disqualify the _person_ emitting the opinion by asking the second question above. I am not seeking in this forum vocal coaching, validated and certified knowledge, or an academic degree. I thought that the point of being in these forums was to exchange ideas, share our likes and dislikes because it is *fun* to do so with people who are passionate for an art form we hold dear.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The Conte said:


> We have clarified and reached agreement on one point. We both agree that just because one is a fine singer or has a qualification that doesn't mean that one is automatically a good teacher. Where we may not agree is whether one _needs_ to have a qualification to be a good teacher. (Note that DavidA doesn't specify what he considers to be covered by the wide term 'qualification'. Is Grade 5 singing good enough (a fairly rudimentary English exam) or do you need a diploma in singing from a conservatoire, or is 'A' Level music good enough? Does being a professional musician count?)
> 
> However, that isn't the "essential" point. DavidA has claimed that he can tell Patti is a bad singer by just listening to her without qualifications or credentials, whereas TIO aren't to be trusted with their opinions of Price because they don't have qualifications or credentials other than being singing teachers and/or students of singing. It's this conundrum that hasn't been resolved.
> 
> N.


I do wish you would learn to at least read what I said instead of putting your own words into my mouth. I did not claim that Patti is a bad singer. What I said was on the basis of the *recording* I heard one couldn't tell whether or not she was the great singer she was reputed to be which is somewhat different. You seem you will put words on to people to twist them to suit your own biased agenda. If you also learn to read a bit further (which you obviously haven't mastered that bit) I gave a pretty good run-down of what I feel the general qualification one needs to be a teacher who is qualified to be let loose on the public. You would obviously entrust your kids to be taught by anyone but I wouldn't. I care for them a bit too much for that. I also assume that your despising of qualifications runs to all teachers and you sent your kids to Wackford Squeers Academy where all the teachers were unqualified? 
Your point about being a professional musician - these days a professional musician is generally qualified or are you so out of touch that you don't realise these thing? For goodness sake, in our local AMATEUR orchestra one has to have at least a grade 8 to get an audition. Same with the choir. When it comes to professionals the standard of training is rather higher I guess. We're living in 2020 as I say not 1820. 
You still haven't answered my question on Patti. I have only heard one pretty awful 78 of her. Now if you came to that blind and did not know who it was, would you immediately recognise it as a great singer not knowing any background? You see imagination plays a lot in these things. We have to fill in the overtones the recording has left out.
The other point about TIO is that if people want to amuse themselves putting ridiculous claims on the internet that the woman universally acknowledged to be one of the greatest Aidas of modern times should not have been singing the role and people on TC think she would have done better in her career with their help they are quite welcome to their opinion. They should have contacted Ms Price earlier! I don't think anyone needs qualifications to judge that - just common sense!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> I appreciate that! I know for a fact that I wouldn't have made the progress I have without all of you here at TC. I came to singing very late and have no schooling, *but the music education I've received from my teacher, coaches, *and fine people of the Talk Classical Opera section has more than made up for it!
> 
> Hopefully when life returns to normal I'll be able to pick up where I left off and share some of my experiences


That is wonderful. So you have had music education? Who are your coaches?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

VitellioScarpia said:


> The points made by Woodduck above are certainly at the crux of this whole sequence of arguments which reappear in many threads.
> 
> I love to hear different opinions and I may agree or disagree with those. If I disagree, that's it. There is no reason to disqualify the _person_ emitting the opinion by asking the second question above. I am not seeking in this forum vocal coaching, validated and certified knowledge, or an academic degree. I thought that the point of being in these forums was to exchange ideas, share our likes and dislikes because it is *fun* to do so with people who are passionate for an art form we hold dear.


You are of course quite right in what you say. This forum is for exchange of ideas. It's for exchange of opinions. What problem is that when people start disagreeing with certain people they get very dogmatic about it because they say that they are the experts in the field. That is why I asked them just what makes them the experts and what experience they had in vocal coaching. I was having a conversation sometime ago with a vocal coach and I did listen to him in a different way to what I do when somebody gives their opinion on TC because I know he actually practices the art. Why I wanted to know whether there were people on TC who actually practice the art of vocal coaching. I know people who do but wondered who else did. I don't know why people get defensive about this. I happened to be talking about the present pandemic situation to a man who was a doctor the other day and because he was a qualified doctor his opinions counted more. I just can't see why people can't see this. 
PS I'm still also wondering why some people found it objectionable when I said that my wife had a brilliant voice coach. Still puzzles me!


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

AeolianStrains said:


> Just to take this analogy further, though, if all the top chefs exclaim that pudding to be magnificent, but you personally don't like it, is it good or bad pudding? Do those chefs have good or bad taste?


I think that there is a phenomenon active here at TC that touches on this question. People who are looking to acquire a recording of a work often ask for suggestions. But others who have already acquired a recording (or even more than one) also often ask for what is the best, or your favorite of the available recordings. (Or, in other cases, someone has liked a particular work and asks what other works by the same composer might be sought out.) In all of these instances, I don't think people are looking for opinions to supplant their own. In other words, they are not looking for people to convince them that pudding they have tried and not liked is actually better than they think it is. They are looking for outside confirmation of their own reactions to the pudding, and recommendations for other pudding to try. (And people who liked pudding that you also liked may have a coincidence of taste, which may suggest that their recommendations are likely to be of special merit to you.) It is a reasonable way to try to limit the amount of bad pudding you have to consume in pursuit of good pudding.

My personal variation on this idea is that I often note that while it is good to learn from your own mistakes, it is even better to learn from the mistakes of others.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

It might also be noted that, at least in the academic world, the value of being an expert is not so much that you get to override the opinions of others as it is an advantage with familiarity in regard to the material available and analysis of it. In other words, the expert is expected to be able to produce the best argument, in terms of formulation and support. The degree to which he or she does so is the real measure of expertise.

Thus, it is not so much a matter that "this is the best argument because it was prepared by an expert" as it is that "this person is an expert because he or she has prepared the best argument" (and that argument holds up to further scrutiny).


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

DavidA said:


> I do wish you would learn to at least read what I said instead of putting your own words into my mouth. I did not claim that Patti is a bad singer. What I said was on the basis of the *recording* I heard one couldn't tell whether or not she was the great singer she was reputed to be which is somewhat different. You seem you will put words on to people to twist them to suit your own biased agenda. If you also learn to read a bit further (which you obviously haven't mastered that bit) I gave a pretty good run-down of what I feel the general qualification one needs to be a teacher who is qualified to be let loose on the public. You would obviously entrust your kids to be taught by anyone but I wouldn't. I care for them a bit too much for that. I also assume that your despising of qualifications runs to all teachers and you sent your kids to Wackford Squeers Academy where all the teachers were unqualified?
> Your point about being a professional musician - these days a professional musician is generally qualified or are you so out of touch that you don't realise these thing? For goodness sake, in our local AMATEUR orchestra one has to have at least a grade 8 to get an audition. Same with the choir. When it comes to professionals the standard of training is rather higher I guess. We're living in 2020 as I say not 1820.
> *You still haven't answered my question on Patti. I have only heard one pretty awful 78 of her. Now if you came to that blind and did not know who it was, would you immediately recognise it as a great singer not knowing any background? You see imagination plays a lot in these things. We have to fill in the overtones the recording has left out.*
> The other point about TIO is that if people want to amuse themselves putting ridiculous claims on the internet that the woman *universally acknowledged to be one of the greatest Aidas of modern times* should not have been singing the role and people on TC think she would have done better in her career with their help they are quite welcome to their opinion. They should have contacted Ms Price earlier! I don't think anyone needs qualifications to judge that - just common sense!


If you had only heard Leontyne Price sounding pretty bad in TIOs video "would you immediately recognise [her] as a great singer not knowing any background?"

Apparently not: The first thing you did on this thread was defensively provide a background by quoting someone who liked her in Post#2, then Steane and Karajan in post #6, then Schonberg in post #9 and so on.

In 25 pages you haven't trusted her recordings enough to reference one let alone a particular passage. Obviously you prefer talking in the abstract. Perhaps even the actual recordings don't live up somehow to what you're now describing as her "universally acknowledged" greatness?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Revitalized Classics said:


> If you had only heard Leontyne Price sounding pretty bad in TIOs video "would you immediately recognise [her] as a great singer not knowing any background?"
> 
> Apparently not: The first thing you did on this thread was defensively provide a background by quoting someone who liked her in Post#2, then Steane and Karajan in post #6, then Schonberg in post #9 and so on.
> 
> In 25 pages you haven't trusted her recordings enough to reference one let alone a particular passage. Obviously you prefer talking in the abstract. Perhaps even the actual recordings don't live up somehow to what you're now describing as her "universally acknowledged" greatness?


Why do people like you deal in hypothetical questions? I never heard Price sounding bad as I have her in modern stereo produced by Decca engineers at the time. Maybe the guy in TIO was trying to play her recordings on his wind-up gramophone and that's why they didn't sound good to him! 

I am not being defensive at all (as you are obviously here) as there is absolutely no need to be defensive about a singer who was universally praised as one of the great voices of the 20th century. I know some critics said she wasn't the greatest vocal actress but just the sheer sound of her voice was good enough for me. Just play her Aida under Solti and you will hear a great singer. Else one's ears deceive one. And no allowance need be made for recording quality here. For goodness sake, even at 57 in her farewell she still sounded pretty good! And just think, she did it without reference to the 'experts' in TIO! Poor Leontyne!


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

DavidA said:


> I do wish you would learn to at least read what I said instead of putting your own words into my mouth. I did not claim that Patti is a bad singer. What I said was on the basis of the *recording* I heard one couldn't tell whether or not she was the great singer she was reputed to be which is somewhat different. You seem you will put words on to people to twist them to suit your own biased agenda. If you also learn to read a bit further (which you obviously haven't mastered that bit) I gave a pretty good run-down of what I feel the general qualification one needs to be a teacher who is qualified to be let loose on the public. You would obviously entrust your kids to be taught by anyone but I wouldn't. I care for them a bit too much for that. I also assume that your despising of qualifications runs to all teachers and you sent your kids to Wackford Squeers Academy where all the teachers were unqualified?
> Your point about being a professional musician - these days a professional musician is generally qualified or are you so out of touch that you don't realise these thing? For goodness sake, in our local AMATEUR orchestra one has to have at least a grade 8 to get an audition. Same with the choir. When it comes to professionals the standard of training is rather higher I guess. We're living in 2020 as I say not 1820.
> You still haven't answered my question on Patti. I have only heard one pretty awful 78 of her. Now if you came to that blind and did not know who it was, would you immediately recognise it as a great singer not knowing any background? You see imagination plays a lot in these things. We have to fill in the overtones the recording has left out.
> The other point about TIO is that if people want to amuse themselves putting ridiculous claims on the internet that the woman universally acknowledged to be one of the greatest Aidas of modern times should not have been singing the role and people on TC think she would have done better in her career with their help they are quite welcome to their opinion. They should have contacted Ms Price earlier! I don't think anyone needs qualifications to judge that - just common sense!


Thanks for clearing up what you meant about Patti. In other words a small selection of recordings of a singing don't necessarily give a true picture of what the singer was like, which is the exact point I made up thread about the recordings of Price chosen by TIO. You have also explained what qualifications you mean exactly and I hadn't seen your post before I last commented. I don't agree that you _need_ to have those qualifications to be a good singing teacher. It may well be on average that there are better teachers from those that have all three rather than those who don't, but I would go on what other students of the teacher sound like and what they are doing now. The relationship that one has with a singing teacher is very personal and so you have to get on with them, that has to be taken into account too. The other thing to consider is what your weak points are as a singer and what you feel you need to work on, so that could affect your choice of teacher.

You have asked for an example of a great teacher who didn't hold the qualifications you specified. Ettore Campogalliani who I mentioned had a conservatoire diploma for singing, but didn't sing professionally and didn't have a teaching diploma so he still stands as an example.

As you aren't keen on hypothetical discussions lets leave who makes a good singing teacher and who doesn't and get back to the real life question of whether you need qualifications to discuss examples of recorded singing. I agree with those who have said that the comments can be taken and assessed on their own terms and they speak for themselves. On another thread someone has posted a recording pointing out that the singer is inaudible on a certain low note. That is an assertion that we can all prove or disprove by listening for ourselves. It makes no difference to me that the person posting the video is a professional singer.

N.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The Conte said:


> Thanks for clearing up what you meant about Patti. In other words a small selection of recordings of a singing don't necessarily give a true picture of what the singer was like, which is the exact point I made up thread about the recordings of Price chosen by TIO. You have also explained what qualifications you mean exactly and I hadn't seen your post before I last commented. I don't agree that you _need_ to have those qualifications to be a good singing teacher. It may well be on average that there are better teachers from those that have all three rather than those who don't, but I would go on what other students of the teacher sound like and what they are doing now. The relationship that one has with a singing teacher is very personal and so you have to get on with them, that has to be taken into account too. The other thing to consider is what your weak points are as a singer and what you feel you need to work on, so that could affect your choice of teacher.
> 
> You have asked for an example of a great teacher who didn't hold the qualifications you specified. Ettore Campogalliani who I mentioned had a conservatoire diploma for singing, but didn't sing professionally and didn't have a teaching diploma so he still stands as an example.
> 
> ...


When discussing teachers like everything else we have to talk about general rules not exceptions that prove the rule. We can all talk about exceptional people. For goodness sake, Ettore Campogalliani was a highly qualified musician and a composer and no doubt he sang to a pretty good level if not as a professional. For goodness sake, the guy was Italian! That is what I am talking about. He had been there and done it, he hadn't learned singing from a text book or looking at Youtube. 
Freni said that most of the singers who studied with Campogalliani received their basic training in sound production and vocal technique from other teachers, although Campogalliani would make corrections to these elements when he felt necessary. He was famous for teaching interpretation - how to look at the words and music to understand the intention of the librettist and composer and, when studying an opera character, how to build that role from what the score told them.
One of Campogalliani's hallmarks was the forward placement of the words. This means that speech (and the formation of words in song) happened in the front teeth and lips with special attention paid to the placement of the tip of the tongue at the point where the palate meets the upper front teeth. When properly deployed the singer can make every syllable and word not only intelligible but meaningful. When music was added to the words as they were formed in a forward way, the singer was able to use proper vocal technique to produce the sound and the Campogalliani method for the diction.
Of course the relationship with the student is vital - more vital than in a classroom situation as you are in a 'one to one'. Why Heifetz was not generally a good teacher - he just couldn't understand why everyone wasn't as good as he was! To be a good teacher is vastly different from being a great performer which is why often the great performers don't make great teachers. They might give an interesting master class but they haven't the time (or patience) to work on people's technique from scratch. I would disagree with you on finding your weak points as a singer - the teacher will do that if they are competent. They will tell you what you need to work on. The most important thing to me is they work on the strengths in your voice. I have heard young girl's voice's not done good to because the teacher was a contralto and got the kid to sing too low when the kid needed to work higher. So as you say the right teacher is vital.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

DavidA said:


> When discussing teachers like everything else we have to talk about general rules not exceptions that prove the rule. We can all talk about exceptional people. For goodness sake, Ettore Campogalliani was a highly qualified musician and a composer and no doubt he sang to a pretty good level if not as a professional. For goodness sake, the guy was Italian! That is what I am talking about. He had been there and done it, he hadn't learned singing from a text book or looking at Youtube.
> Freni said that most of the singers who studied with Campogalliani received their basic training in sound production and vocal technique from other teachers, although Campogalliani would make corrections to these elements when he felt necessary. He was famous for teaching interpretation - how to look at the words and music to understand the intention of the librettist and composer and, when studying an opera character, how to build that role from what the score told them.
> One of Campogalliani's hallmarks was the forward placement of the words. This means that speech (and the formation of words in song) happened in the front teeth and lips with special attention paid to the placement of the tip of the tongue at the point where the palate meets the upper front teeth. When properly deployed the singer can make every syllable and word not only intelligible but meaningful. When music was added to the words as they were formed in a forward way, the singer was able to use proper vocal technique to produce the sound and the Campogalliani method for the diction.
> Of course the relationship with the student is vital - more vital than in a classroom situation as you are in a 'one to one'. Why Heifetz was not generally a good teacher - he just couldn't understand why everyone wasn't as good as he was! To be a good teacher is vastly different from being a great performer which is why often the great performers don't make great teachers. They might give an interesting master class but they haven't the time (or patience) to work on people's technique from scratch. I would disagree with you on finding your weak points as a singer - the teacher will do that if they are competent. They will tell you what you need to work on. The most important thing to me is they work on the strengths in your voice. I have heard young girl's voice's not done good to because the teacher was a contralto and got the kid to sing too low when the kid needed to work higher. So as you say the right teacher is vital.


You've hit on an important point here which is that there are singing teaches who teach the basic technique of singing and that there are also vocal coaches who work more on the music and interpretation once you have the basic technique and they are two different beasts. A complete beginner can go to the most accomplished vocal coach in the world and learn nothing because what they need is the basic technique first.

Let me clarify what I mean by weak points. I don't mean that a mezzo or soprano should sing contralto, (and in any case all singers should work on both parts of the voice high and low within the range of their voice type). All singers should have good diction, legato and pure vowels. If a singer is lacking in these essential ingredients then those are the weak points that should be worked on. That said one should choose repertoire that shows off ones strengths, of course.

N.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The Conte said:


> You've hit on an important point here which is that there are singing teaches who teach the basic technique of singing and that there are also vocal coaches who work more on the music and interpretation once you have the basic technique and they are two different beasts. A complete beginner can go to the most accomplished vocal coach in the world and learn nothing because what they need is the basic technique first.
> 
> Let me clarify what I mean by weak points. I don't mean that a mezzo or soprano should sing contralto, (and in any case all singers should work on both parts of the voice high and low within the range of their voice type). All singers should have good diction, legato and pure vowels. If a singer is lacking in these essential ingredients then those are the weak points that should be worked on. That said one should choose repertoire that shows off ones strengths, of course.
> 
> N.


Well this is the same with all teaching. There are some teachers who teach the basic rules of mathematics and some teachers who teach about quadratic equations. There is no point in there kid going to an accomplished vocal coach who costs a fortune When they just need to know the basics. Actually most good coaches would refer them to someone lower down the pecking order first as they wouldn't want to be bothered with a beginner. You wouldn't go to Horowitz for your first piano lessons!
I'm in complete agreement with you about what parts the singers should work on. But there is also the type of voice they have and this is where a good teacher can detect whether they are using their voice properly to its maximum effect. This may actually affect the range you are singing in. For example we all know Bergonzi started off as a baritone but then moved to a tenor. I don't know who helped him make the switch but he had one of the best tenor voices of his generation. A good voice coach will know whether you're operating in the right part of your voice and rectify this


----------



## VitellioScarpia (Aug 27, 2017)

Another point that I feel that should be considered, is that likes or dislikes for singers and our ability to forgive or not their flaws depend on the balance between _stimme_ and _kunst_. I forgive singers in their waning years for the wobbles, the screeching or flawed techniques because of their _kunst_ such as Callas or Scotto as opposed to the likes for L. Price or Sutherland which were more vocal in their presentation. Of course, if I happen not to like the basic voice, no amount of _kunst_ will in general turn me off. However, one also evolves in the hearing as I discovered with Elizabeth Söderström.

I bring this up, because, the issue I have with the TIO is that they speak in absolutes and present themselves with papal infallibility. They are also hostage by the _oh, if you had heard so and so_ and malign people like DiDonato just because she does not sound like Bruna Castagna (this is just an example, not a quote) while they simply ignore what she can do which perhaps Castagna could not.

Music is not Science and one cannot validate musicianship by physical evidence and analysis (measurements and calculations) to prove it or disprove it. Art can only be appreciated provided that the basic techniques are in place. It is not the technical aspects that speak to us/me but how the technique is used to communicate to us ideas and emotions. That's why a flawed singer like Suliotis could excite audiences (and me) while the basic voice was still working. I feel that the people in TIO would not accept that without a trill she could be an exciting Anna Bolena in 1966, which I feel she was. On the other hand, that's why a technically accomplished singer like Sutherland can leave me cold in many roles for which she was famous...


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

DavidA said:


> Why do people like you deal in hypothetical questions? I never heard Price sounding bad as I have her in modern stereo produced by Decca engineers at the time. Maybe the guy in TIO was trying to play her recordings on his wind-up gramophone and that's why they didn't sound good to him!
> 
> I am not being defensive at all (as you are obviously here) as there is absolutely no need to be defensive about a singer who was universally praised as one of the great voices of the 20th century. I know some critics said she wasn't the greatest vocal actress but just the sheer sound of her voice was good enough for me. Just play her Aida under Solti and you will hear a great singer. Else one's ears deceive one. And no allowance need be made for recording quality here. For goodness sake, even at 57 in her farewell she still sounded pretty good! And just think, she did it without reference to the 'experts' in TIO! Poor Leontyne!


The question is your own from #367. I changed the name from Adelina Patti to Leontyne Price. I asked you your own question and now you are acting incredulous.

So you admit you didn't watch the video which is the topic of this thread...and you wouldn't believe their evidence even if you did.

I'll ask you now, did you factor in her later complete recording with Leinsdorf, the digital extracts with Mehta? _Any_ other live recordings? These are primary sources: they trump any review you have referenced. You've edited your post to mention that she was "pretty good" in 1985... when did you become a vocal coach? 

Say we take your word for it and the 1961 set is the one which actually counts. The question opera fans might ask, despite your swooning at the "sheer sound of her voice", is why her performance is of any interest besides Callas, Tebaldi, Nilsson, Arroyo, Caballe, Freni etc let alone oldies like Ponselle, Arangi-Lombardi, Giannini, Caniglia, Milanov etc.

It's a tough crowd, the cream of the crop over ninety years, and if "she wasn't the greatest vocal actress" why the indignation if people question your own limited assessment?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Revitalized Classics said:


> The question is your own from #367. I changed the name from Adelina Patti to Leontyne Price. I asked you your own question and now you are acting incredulous.
> 
> So you admit you didn't watch the video which is the topic of this thread...and you wouldn't believe their evidence even if you did.
> 
> ...


No the question is entirely yours as I do not own a copy of Price's voice on a scratchy 78. Of course I watched the video. I certainly do not agree with what they said as it contradicts my own ears. I have the recording with Leinsdorf but my favourite is the one with Solti. It is better recorded. I have made it clear my impressions are my own and I have never coached singers. Have you? or are you (like me) just some kinda armchair critic?
I didn't say that 1961 is when her voice counts - you did. Please learn to read what I said. If the voice is of no interest to you I don't know why you are bothering me with this chit-chat which appears meaningless. I couldn't care less if people like you question my 'limited assessment' - I mean why should I bother what people like you think anyway? Who are you? Some kind of vocal expert who writes learned tomes? Who coaches international singers? I would mention that I've also got Callas, Tebaldi, Nilsson, Arroyo, Caballe, Freni etc on my shelf too so I do know what they sound like! Just leave me to enjoy what I enjoy and you are very welcome to listen to your scratchy 78s if they give you enjoyment. I have no problem with that as long as you don't expect me to! Or listen to the kind of nit-picking of the TIO poster which I find spoils the experience of opera not enhances it. These people would find fault with perfection itself! :lol:


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

David, would you have a problem if TIO said not that Price wasn't a good Aida, but that to their ears her recordings don't reveal her to be a good Aida? And then said, Let's get Emmy Destinn in here for some good singing?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

vivalagentenuova said:


> David, would you have a problem if TIO said not that Price wasn't a good Aida, but that to their ears her recordings don't reveal her to be a good Aida? And then said, Let's get Emmy Destinn in here for some good singing?


Yes I would have a problem and so would most of the world's leading opera houses and conductors I think. Also the British critic J.B. Steane, who writes that "one might conclude from recordings that [Price] is the best interpreter of Verdi of the century," and Plácido Domingo who wrote in his autobiography, "The power and sensuousness of Leontyne's voice were phenomenal-the most beautiful Verdi soprano I have ever heard." But of course, what do they know besides the 'experts' in TIO who know better than anyone else! :lol:


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

DavidA said:


> That is wonderful. So you have had music education? Who are your coaches?


Where most singers get the basis of their music education before their career, I'm getting mine on the fly! We disagree a lot, but I learn from you as well David.

I'm not sure if this is a serious question, or if you're taunting me again lol, but I'll answer. Without naming names my main coaches come from Semperoper Dresden, The Met, Deutsche Oper Berlin, and La Scala. I was to begin working on a Wagner role with a coach from Vienna Staatsoper when COVID hit. Ideally I take my German rep to the coach from Dresden and my Italian rep to the coach from La Scala


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

Right. So the problem we're having is that _Verdi_ said that Patti was the great interpreter, even the greatest singer ever, and that doesn't change what you hear on a recording, but Domingo saying that Price was great invalidates what some of us hear on a recording. Granted, the recordings of Patti certainly don't show her at her best, and there's a lot more representative recordings of Price than of Patti. But some of us feel her greatness shows through, and she, being the most famous singer of the 19th century, and certainly an "Expert" in the sense you've been asking for, liked her own recordings well enough. The point is that we just want to be able to say, "We hear this, and we don't think it's good" without having you incessantly ask us who we are to say such things, just like you said you didn't like Patti's record and none of us asked you "Who are you that we should care what you think?" So let's just call a truce, eh? We won't argue with you about qualifications, seeing as we're obviously not going to see eye to eye there, and you don't ask us who we are to dare make our statements.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> Where most singers get the basis of their music education before their career, I'm getting mine on the fly! We disagree a lot, but I learn from you as well David.
> 
> I'm not sure if this is a serious question, or if you're taunting me again lol, but I'll answer. Without naming names my main coaches come from Semperoper Dresden, The Met, Deutsche Oper Berlin, and La Scala. I was to begin working on a Wagner role with a coach from Vienna Staatsoper when COVID hit. Ideally I take my German rep to the coach from Dresden and my Italian rep to the coach from La Scala


No I'm not taunting you at all. I'm quite serious and interested in your career. Of course I don't want to know names as this is a anonymous website. Presumably you've always been a singer of some sort . So may I ask you when did you learn that you had a voice good enough for opera?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

vivalagentenuova said:


> Right. So the problem we're having is that _Verdi_ said that Patti was the great interpreter, even the greatest singer ever, and that doesn't change what you hear on a recording, but Domingo saying that Price was great invalidates what some of us hear on a recording. Granted, the recordings of Patti certainly don't show her at her best, and there's a lot more representative recordings of Price than of Patti. But some of us feel her greatness shows through, and she, being the most famous singer of the 19th century, and certainly an "Expert" in the sense you've been asking for, liked her own recordings well enough. The point is that we just want to be able to say, "We hear this, and we don't think it's good" without having you incessantly ask us who we are to say such things, just like you said you didn't like Patti's record and none of us asked you "Who are you that we should care what you think?" So let's just call a truce, eh? We won't argue with you about qualifications, seeing as we're obviously not going to see eye to eye there, and you don't ask us who we are to dare make our statements.


Of course what they are they says doesn't eliminate what I HEAR on the recording. If Verdi said that then what we hear on the recording must be nothing like what she actually sounded in the theatre or otherwise singing has improved an awful lot along with the orchestral playing since that day. The recording I heard of Patti sounded awful which is why I argue you can't really judge what some of these singers were really like without a lot of imagination. If you think of the greatness shows through then that's fine but I doubt whether you would if you didn't know who she was. The psychology of these things adds to it. It will be interesting to hear what the great composer would have said about Price or Tebaldi. I'm not asking for a truce with anyone. This is a forum for sharing opinion not a war. I have no problems with people giving their opinions but when people set themselves up as experts I think I am quite entitled to ask what their expertise is and how they come by it. The other thing is I am genuinely interested in hearing from people who are into singing or coaching in practice. That is why I asked in the first place


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

DavidA said:


> No I'm not taunting you at all. I'm quite serious and interested in your career. Of course I don't want to know names as this is a anonymous website. So may I ask you when did you learn that you had a voice good enough for opera?


I was 32! Athletics were my passion in earlier life. I always had a good voice, but I didn't know the first thing about opera. I thought r&b/pop would be my path as a singer. Thankfully the right people came into my life and pointed me in the right direction


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> I was 32! Athletics were my passion in earlier life. I always had a good voice, but I didn't know the first thing about opera. I thought r&b/pop would be my path as a singer. Thankfully the right people came into my life and pointed me in the right direction


Wow! A late starter! So do you mind me asking who are these people who came into your life? I'm assuming you are a baritone? Or a bass?


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

Nevermind. I'm just going to leave it here.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

DavidA said:


> Wow! A late starter! So do you mind me asking who are these people who came into your life? I'm assuming you are a baritone? Or a bass?


The first teacher I ever went to was a pop singer in town. We had a few lessons and she heard something in my voice that gave her the idea to expose me to opera. That's where it began. About a month later I sang for a retired Wagnerian in town. In her career she sang at the Met, Bayreuth, and all of the big European houses. She has been my teacher ever since and I consider her my second mother.

I'm a dramatic baritone. I was a bass baritone singing mostly Wagner/Strauss/Puccini, but my top has opened up and now I'm exploring Verdi and loving it


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Well TIO set themselves up as experts don’t they? I have heard that term use of themselves. I would’ve thought anyone who said Leontyne Price shouldn’t be singing Aida was embarrassing themselves. A bit like saying Usain Bolt shouldn’t be running 100 m. The problem I have is with people who have done nothing wanting to pull apart a great African-American singer who made it to the top in spite of the prejudice of her generation. It’s the old thing of the tall poppy syndrome. Whenever you get someone who is successful there are always those who want to put them down to size


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> The first teacher I ever went to was a pop singer in town. We had a few lessons and she heard something in my voice that gave her the idea to expose me to opera. That's where it began. About a month later I sang for a retired Wagnerian in town. In her career she sang at the Met, Bayreuth, and all of the big European houses. She has been my teacher ever since and I consider her my second mother.
> 
> I'm a dramatic baritone. I was a bass baritone singing mostly Wagner/Strauss/Puccini, but my top has opened up and now I'm exploring Verdi and loving it


I think that's fantastic! Well done you! So can I ask you what roles you have actually sung?


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

DavidA said:


> I think that's fantastic! Well done you! So can I ask you what roles you have actually sung?


Thanks! The last few things I've done were a Bonzo, Monterone, Dutchman, and Wotan. I had Jack Rance and Kurwenal auditions wiped out by COVID. I was scheduled to sing another Wotan this summer that has been postponed. As I'm still in my 30s I'm not trotting these huge roles out on stage at the major houses yet, but hopefully someday soon!


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

DavidA said:


> Of course what they are they says doesn't eliminate what I HEAR on the recording. If Verdi said that then what we hear on the recording must be nothing like what she actually sounded in the theatre or otherwise singing has improved an awful lot along with the orchestral playing since that day. The recording I heard of Patti sounded awful which is why I argue you can't really judge what some of these singers were really like without a lot of imagination. If you think of the greatness shows through then that's fine but I doubt whether you would if you didn't know who she was. The psychology of these things adds to it. It will be interesting to hear what the great composer would have said about Price or Tebaldi. I'm not asking for a truce with anyone. This is a forum for sharing opinion not a war. I have no problems with people giving their opinions but when people set themselves up as experts I think I am quite entitled to ask what their expertise is and how they come by it. The other thing is I am genuinely interested in hearing from people who are into singing or coaching in practice. That is why I asked in the first place


Nobody here has claimed to be an expert (bar possibly one person). Nobody here thinks you need to be some sort of expert to comment on singing or opera in general (bar one person). If you think you need to be an expert to comment on singing, what does your expertise consist of?

You continue to miss the point about the recording you heard of Patti and the recordings used by TIO. The excerpts of Price on TIO are all live performances of her and the main one used as an example of her Aida is in quite bad sound, therefore it IS comparable with the 78 you heard of Patti. The main issue I have with TIO's Price video is that the make their point using one poor recording when there are others available. You are doing the same when it comes to your point about Patti.

N.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bonetan said:


> Thanks! The last few things I've done were a Bonzo, Monterone, Dutchman, and Wotan. I had Jack Rance and Kurwenal auditions wiped out by COVID. I was scheduled to sing another Wotan this summer that has been postponed. As I'm still in my 30s I'm not trotting these huge roles out on stage at the major houses yet, but hopefully someday soon!


Love old Monterone. I had David Ward singing him on my first opera recording I bought. Love the way he spoils the party! 

Sounds fantastic. Wish you every success. I always wished I could sing but the only use of my singing voice is to get rid of unwanted guests in a hurry! :lol:


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

DavidA said:


> Well TIO set themselves up as experts don't they? I have heard that term use of themselves. I would've thought anyone who said Leontyne Price shouldn't be singing Aida was embarrassing themselves. A bit like saying Usain Bolt shouldn't be running 100 m. The problem I have is with people who have done nothing wanting to pull apart a great African-American singer who made it to the top in spite of the prejudice of her generation. It's the old thing of the tall poppy syndrome. Whenever you get someone who is successful there are always those who want to put them down to size


Why does it have to be so absolute? I think they are wrong to say that Price didn't have a voice for Aida and I have said so consistently all along. However, does that mean that everything they say is wrong?

N.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The Conte said:


> Nobody here has claimed to be an expert (bar possibly one person). Nobody here thinks you need to be some sort of expert to comment on singing or opera in general (bar one person). If you think you need to be an expert to comment on singing, what does your expertise consist of?
> 
> You continue to miss the point about the recording you heard of Patti and the recordings used by TIO. The excerpts of Price on TIO are all live performances of her and the main one used as an example of her Aida is in quite bad sound, therefore it IS comparable with the 78 you heard of Patti. The main issue I have with TIO's Price video is that the make their point using one poor recording when there are others available. You are doing the same when it comes to your point about Patti.
> 
> N.


I don't miss the point at all about Patti. I understand people are interested in hearing great singers of the past. Sadly the recordings don't appear to do them justice, especially those higher up the vocal range. I am not doing the same about Patti at all. I said I don't see how anyone can tell she was a great singer from that recording I heard. The critique of Price was typical of a 'never was' trying to make himself feel better by pulling a great singer down. Sorry!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The Conte said:


> Why does it have to be so absolute? I think they are wrong to say that Price didn't have a voice for Aida and I have said so consistently all along. However, does that mean that everything they say is wrong?
> 
> N.


I just don't like the negative tone they constantly adopt as if they are the world's only experts. That's why I wanted to know just what qualifications they have to make the statements


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

DavidA said:


> Love old Monterone. I had David Ward singing him on my first opera recording I bought. Love the way he spoils the party!
> 
> Sounds fantastic. Wish you every success. I always wished I could sing but the only use of my singing voice is to get rid of unwanted guests in a hurry! :lol:


Thanks, I appreciate that!


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

DavidA said:


> *I don't miss the point at all about Patti.*I understand people are interested in hearing great singers of the past. Sadly the recordings don't appear to do them justice, especially those higher up the vocal range. I am not doing the same about Patti at all. *I said I don't see how anyone can tell she was a great singer from that recording I heard.* The critique of Price was typical of a 'never was' trying to make himself feel better by pulling a great singer down. Sorry!


It's great that you get the point that the recording you heard of Patti, played back on a scratchy old record, no doubt at the wrong speed is comparable to the tiny excerpt from a live Aida that TIO use to say that Price didn't have the voice for Aida. You say that you don't see how anyone can tell that Patti was a great singer from the recording you heard in the conditions you heard them in (which is a rather odd example to use as none of the rest of us can experience it). Do you think that anyone could tell that Price was a great Aida from the one brief excerpt TIO use in their video and no other knowledge of her?

N.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The Conte said:


> It's great that you get the point that the recording you heard of Patti, played back on a scratchy old record, no doubt at the wrong speed is comparable to the tiny excerpt from a live Aida that TIO use to say that Price didn't have the voice for Aida. You say that you don't see how anyone can tell that Patti was a great singer from the recording you heard in the conditions you heard them in (which is a rather odd example to use as none of the rest of us can experience it). Do you think that anyone could tell that Price was a great Aida from the one brief excerpt TIO use in their video and no other knowledge of her?
> 
> N.


I can tell Price was a great Aida as I have heard her in two Complete recordings and seen her on stage in the part. Why I was astonished that TIO had the nerve to say what it did. But then psychology describes it as the tall poppy syndrome.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

DavidA said:


> I can tell Price was a great Aida as I have heard her in two Complete recordings and seen her on stage in the part. Why I was astonished that TIO had the nerve to say what it did. But then psychology describes it as the tall poppy syndrome.


You've characteristically avoided answering the question about the actual point and made other points (which are good ones, but do not address the issue being discussed).

N.


----------



## VitellioScarpia (Aug 27, 2017)

Bonetan said:


> Thanks! The last few things I've done were a Bonzo, Monterone, Dutchman, and Wotan. I had Jack Rance and Kurwenal auditions wiped out by COVID. I was scheduled to sing another Wotan this summer that has been postponed. As I'm still in my 30s I'm not trotting these huge roles out on stage at the major houses yet, but hopefully someday soon!


I hope you will letting us know when you will be performing and if there are recordings of your performances to point us to them. It is so wonderful to be able to hear and exchange ideas with a musician. There's so much to learn!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The Conte said:


> You've characteristically avoided answering the question about the actual point and made other points (which are good ones, but do not address the issue being discussed).
> 
> N.


Not at all. I am characteristically talking about real issues which you are characteristically not. If no one could tell if Price was a great Aida from an except on a duff video then why did the guy use it, except he thought it might help make his pretty ridiculous point for his hatchet job?


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

VitellioScarpia said:


> I hope you will letting us know when you will be performing and if there are recordings of your performances to point us to them. It is so wonderful to be able to hear and exchange ideas with a musician. There's so much to learn!


I will do that! Thanks!!


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

TIO has removed their videos again!


----------



## VitellioScarpia (Aug 27, 2017)

adriesba said:


> TIO has removed their videos again!


Perhaps they will straighten up the confusion once and for all? :tiphat:


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

VitellioScarpia said:


> Perhaps they will straighten up the confusion once and for all? :tiphat:


I have no idea... This seems to be their new habit. They upload many videos over several weeks then disappear. They do not allow comments on their videos. It just seems fishy. If they want to educate people, why don't they leave their videos up? If someone is pestering them in the outside world so that they feel unsafe putting videos up, why don't they pursue legal action? If the situation doesn't warrant legal action, then why do they need to be worried about uploading their videos? It just seems ridiculous, and I expect they will be continuing this behavior as it just seems to be their new practice.


----------

