# Round 2: Gar Viel und Shon from Tannhauser/ Moll, Pape, Sotin



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

]


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Just a reminder - Pape is around 1:34:59 in the above YouTube selection.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

This one was tough - all three of these basses were vastly superior to the three in the first round.

I never imagined a contest in which Kurt Moll finished last, but I think that he's outclassed here. Compared to Sotin's extroversion and Pape's sensitivity with the text, Moll sounds a bit matter-of-fact, and despite his extraodinary voice, he seems to be reaching a bit too hard in his upper range. Sotin's singing is magnificent, and he really gets the public, declamatory nature of the passage. But I think that Pape (who is tonally more bass-baritone than bass) shows much more variety and care about phrasing - and I adore the sound of his voice.

Pape for the win.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

I recall a performance of *Parsifal* in San Francisco where Kurt Moll seemed to go on and on interminably in the last Act, so his voice is stuck in my brain and I don't know if he was not well, or tired, but his voice seemed to project just hollow resonance. Not so here, his voice is quite handsome.

I agree with wkasimer's assessment Pape sounds in a different category from the other two, the voice brighter and leaner than his competitors, though I'm not sure if those are the desired qualities.

I love Sotin's voice but I don't know *Tannhäuser* well but as Landgrave he should be noble and commanding, the exact qualities that Sotin's voice and interpretation project to these ears. Sotin for me.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

wkasimer said:


> Just a reminder - Pape is around 1:34:59 in the above YouTube selection.


Sorry I copied the wrong link with the wrong starting point. I fixed it. Thanks.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

Seattleoperafan said:


> Sorry I copied the wrong link with the wrong starting point. I fixed it. Thanks.


It starts with the Overture (my favorite).


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

wkasimer said:


> This one was tough - all three of these basses were vastly superior to the three in the first round.
> 
> I never imagined a contest in which Kurt Moll finished last, but I think that he's outclassed here. Compared to Sotin's extroversion and Pape's sensitivity with the text, Moll sounds a bit matter-of-fact, and despite his extraodinary voice, he seems to be reaching a bit too hard in his upper range. Sotin's singing is magnificent, and he really gets the public, declamatory nature of the passage. But I think that Pape (who is tonally more bass-baritone than bass) shows much more variety and care about phrasing - and I adore the sound of his voice.
> 
> Pape for the win.


I am going to try one more round on this aria with Wagnerian basses I chose and if it is a dud I will scrap all further Wagnerian bass contests that I have planned. It may not work. I don't have many so it won't be a big deal. My regular bass contests should be fine.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

A lot of smooth, easy-on-the-ear singing here. Moll's bass has a warm, velvety nap that makes him an easy embodiment of nobility. His Gurnemanz is virtually type-casting, and so is this, if you like your landgraves genteel. Pape's baritonal timbre is a pleasure too; at times he reminds me of a slightly bassier Bryn Terfel. Sotin's timbre is less pleasing to me than Moll's or Pape's, but that's purely personal. 

Given that these three are all nice to listen to, what's interesting about them? Moll's address occupies a comfortable niche between a proclamation and a friendly talk without being quite either one, which works for me. Sotin sounds official, rousing and commanding; that's dramatically appropriate, but not especially interesting. The odd one here is Pape, who isn't merely describing, relating and exhorting, but is either expressing his personal feelings, explaining to the Thuringians What It All Means, or giving us a lesson in rhetoric as taught at the Fischer-Dieskau Academy of Textual Illumination. He makes more out of the speech than I thought anyone could or would want to, and if I didn't find it so self-consciously arty I might give him the win here. As it is I'm going to pick Moll, who sounds like a nobleman without even trying.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> Pape's baritonal timbre is a pleasure too; at times he reminds me of a slightly bassier Bryn Terfel.


Early in their careers, Terfel and Pape were two singers I'd always hoped I'd hear as Hans Sachs. Terfel has ended up singing the role, but not until pretty late in his career. It's still a fine assumption, but it's a real stretch for him now in vocal terms. As far as I know, Pape has never sung the role, and it may be too late for him, too.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Tricky one. All these basses have very lovely voices and all aquit themselves well.

I fully expected I'd be voting for Sotin, as his is ther version I already knew from the Solti recording, which I've owned since my twenties. As it is I really liked Pape's more personal way with the music. Sotin's sounds like a public address, which I suppose is what it is, but Pape gives me the feeling that he is personally that bit more involved in the proceedings.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

After hearing these three fine voices, I went back to round one and listened to my choice there, Ludwig Weber. None of the present three has the sort of deep, dark bass that Weber does, and he has a way of declaiming, of putting words across - an elocution, perhaps - that says "old school" to me. But the thing that really grabs me is the way he makes the Landgrave's "public face" soften into something gentle and almost sad when he speaks of Tannhauser, of the mystery of his absence and return. The other singers make a gesture toward this, but only Weber hits the mark. It brings his fine portrayal of Gurnemanz to mind.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Well the avuncular has taken a downward turn but not voice quality. I think avuncular might win out in this song ( and its not like the first group didn't have some voices!!)

I did not get a huge difference in the readings.The young Kurt Moll had one of the great bass voices I've ever heard. But like the others, he sounds leading man here....Don Giovanni, Minister of Justice....not Uncle Earl! Pape has a great voice but doesn't sound as full as Moll. Sotin has more buzz on the sound but still great. I thought they were a toss-up...and since I accidentally voted for Moll before writing, I guess that's just fine!


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

MAS said:


> I recall a performance of *Parsifal* in San Francisco where Kurt Moll.....his voice seemed to project just hollow resonance. Not so here, his voice is quite handsome.


Reminds me of my take on Moll. The first time I heard him, in Fidelio, the voice just blew me away. The last I heard before this was the Mets video of the Ring with him as Hunding (looking over my shoulder for Tsaraslondon every time I mention old casting) and the effect was just as you described. He reminds me of Ghiaurov in a way.... both had gorgeous sounds I don't normally associate with the bass range but I don't think either maintained that sound as long as I would have expected.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

ScottK said:


> Well the avuncular has taken a downward turn but not voice quality. I think avuncular might win out in this song...The young Kurt Moll had one of the great bass voices I've ever heard. But like the others, he sounds leading man here....Don Giovanni, Minister of Justice....not Uncle Earl!


This is a nice observation that approximates my feelings about these moderns as opposed to the first trio of old-timers. There should be a hearty down-to-earthness, almost a folksiness, about the character, inherent not so much in the music perhaps (though subtly present) as in the opera's story. I get this from Frick and Weber, but not from Moll, Pape and Sotin, at least the first two of whom sound highly educated and impeccably groomed.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Woodduck said:


> This is a nice observation that approximates my feelings about these moderns as opposed to the first trio of old-timers. There should be a hearty down-to-earthness, almost a folksiness, about the character, inherent not so much in the music perhaps (though subtly present) as in the opera's story. I get this from Frick and Weber, but not from Moll, Pape and Sotin, at least the first two of whom sound highly educated and impeccably groomed.


With you all the way. I wonder if that quality we find important might be one that a performer can't put in with all the hard work in the world. There are some things you just have to have and this may be one.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

ScottK said:


> With you all the way. I wonder if that quality we find important might be one that a performer can't put in with all the hard work in the world. There are some things you just have to have and this may be one.


I think this is yet another aspect of how singing has changed. Modern singers, even ones with fine voices and solid techniques like Moll and Pape, don't acknowledge any territory between notes, which are laid neatly end to end with almost no use of portamento. We've come to expect this and to consider it "proper" style in 18th-century music, without really knowing what singers in that era did, and it's now come to characterize our approach to virtually all music. But we know from recordings that singers in the early 20th century, including many trained in the 19th, saw notes not as static entities to be attacked as directly as possible but as transient pitch points in the trajectory of a phrase, points which could be approached, joined together, and left in a variety of ways. It was hearing Caruso, whose voice poured out legato phrases that flowed _through_ pitches rather than _to_ them, who first made me aware of this as a way of singing. Such flexibility in connecting notes, and the ability to transcend the tyranny of separate pitch entities, brings music into an approximation of speech, with its infinity of inflections, and makes music more human. I hear that humanness in the voices of those old-time basses, who are unconcerned with cosmetic perfection, confident that their solid technique will make them perfect enough to say all they need to say with no need to resort to self-conscious artiness.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Woodduck said:


> I think this is yet another aspect of how singing has changed. Modern singers, even ones with fine voices and solid techniques like Moll and Pape, don't acknowledge any territory between notes, which are laid neatly end to end with almost no use of portamento. We've come to expect this and to consider it "proper" style in 18th-century music, without really knowing what singers in that era did, and it's now come to characterize our approach to virtually all music. But we know from recordings that singers in the early 20th century, including many trained in the 19th, saw notes not as static entities to be attacked as directly as possible but as transient pitch points in the trajectory of a phrase, points which could be approached, joined together, and left in a variety of ways. It was hearing Caruso, whose voice poured out legato phrases that flowed _through_ pitches rather than _to_ them, who first made me aware of this as a way of singing. Such flexibility in connecting notes, and the ability to transcend the tyranny of separate pitch entities, brings music into an approximation of speech, with its infinity of inflections, and makes music more human. I hear that humanness in the voices of those old-time basses, who are unconcerned with cosmetic perfection, confident that their solid technique will make them perfect enough to say all they need to say with no need to resort to self-conscious artiness.


Most of what you wrote was intriguing for its looking at singing in ways that I may have at times unconsciously enjoyed but have not consciously considered.

Your final sentence was a connection. After writing my thoughts about the "moderns" in the Tannhauser piece, of course I read everyone else. I saw praise for Pape's investment and realized that I had heard those moments and, as I thought at first, not given him his due. But as I thought more I changed my mind. I felt that, praiseworthy as it always is to hear a singer invest and make something more out of a phrase, the fact is that they didn't register for the reasons we've already discussed....he was, comparatively miscast and some phrasing wasn't going to change that and make the performance more impactful. What the older guys had was impactful.

What you say about older singers a la Caruso is not something I've ever heard or thought. Just today I put on Amato's Eri Tu, to see if I could hear what it is you love so much despite the GREAT disadvantage of not being able to hear the color that he most certainly had.Confession....I was pulled away mid-listening! Of course I heard something that commands my attention, yet I'd be lying if I said I absolutely get it. I'll return to it, first of all because it is just plain great, I'm not questioning that for a moment but more because I'm curious.

Without forcing the point, I think I'll listen some more with your thoughts of musical lines and voices pouring through pitches.


----------

