# Round One: Suicidio. Traubel, Hunter, Fassbaender



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

See my notes below


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

This may be my favorite aria and these are some of my favorite interpreters. It is one of the greatest arias for showcasing the chest register and at least a couple of mezzos, including Fassbaender, sang it as there are few mezzo arias that allow them to shine down low as this aria does. I have 7 diverse contestants and Callas will compete against the winners in a multiple choice finale. I did a contest with Tebaldi and the mezzo Obratszova a while back.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

The mezzo Fassbaender really sounds like a soprano and she is known as a good actress. I adore Traubel's version but Rita Hunters version, new to me, just blew me away with it's excitement, beauty and passion. What thrilling high notes as well as strong low notes! I think Hunter has the best high notes of all my contestants.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Seattleoperafan said:


> *The mezzo Fassbaender really sounds like a soprano* and she is known as a good actress. I adore Traubel's version but Rita Hunters version, new to me, just blew me away with it's excitement, beauty and passion. What thrilling high notes as well as strong low notes! I think Hunter has the best high notes of all my contestants.


I always thought she was a soprano from the get go, but she sings her rep well so, I don't think too much about it.

@OP Traubel as usual, and for the usual reasons.


----------



## Shaafee Shameem (Aug 4, 2021)

Traubel has a beautiful dramatic voice, and sings with passion, though her timbre sounds a little too stately for Italian opera. Well developed chest voice, though not used with the intensity of some Italian singers. Not one of my favourite versions, but clearly the best of this bunch.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

I found Traubel’s version a bit grande-dame and four-square and Anglo-Saxon in pronounciation (voechey, destinoe).

The Hunter version has, on the surface, everything that is needed in voice and intelligence, but I thought it curiously dissatisfying.

Only the Fassbaender version enters into the spirit of the aria and has the necessary savage tone that satisfies, though it may be too much for some people. I do find the basic timbre of the voice “wrong,” as I prefer a soprano voice for the aria.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Traubel does nothing wrong. Indeed she fulfils most of the demands of the music, but where is the _disprezzaione_? Not even a hint. Hunter isn't much more involved and her low notes are not great.

Fassbaender surprised me. She is both more involved and more involving. I'm not convinced it's the right voice for the piece and she can't float the _volavan l'ore _section, but here is desperation, the sense of a woman literally at the end of her tether. There are a few bumpy vocal moments but I found her version more exciting and more dramatic. A very easy win for me here.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Traubel transposes the aria down a half-step, something she apparently did frequently to accommodate her limited top. It doesn't hurt an otherwise solid reading, but a "solid reading" falls somewhat short of what one hopes for in this music. She knows how the thing goes, but does nothing with it that interests me. 

I was too distracted and annoyed by Hunter's fierce vibrato to notice much what she did. I don't want to go through it again to find out.

Fassbaender's voice isn't ideal in tonal body or register mix, but she's the only one of the three who seems to be performing the aria as I know it, in a style I feel is appropriate.


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

Traubel, easily...


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Traubel transposes the aria down a half-step, something she apparently did frequently to accommodate her limited top. It doesn't hurt an otherwise solid reading, but a "solid reading" falls somewhat short of what one hopes for in this music. She knows how the thing goes, but does nothing with it that interests me.
> 
> I was too distracted and annoyed by Hunter's fierce vibrato to notice much what she did. I don't want to go through it again to find out.
> 
> Fassbaender's voice isn't ideal in tonal body or register mix, but she's the only one of the three who seems to be performing the aria as I know it, in a style I feel is appropriate.


Her fierce vibrato is what I love. Different ears LOL. I never thought my beloved Traubel would win a contest but she just may. Have a good day!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Seattleoperafan said:


> Her fierce vibrato is what I love. Different ears LOL. I never thought my beloved Traubel would win a contest but she just may. Have a good day!


Traubel can have her moment. Once she's up against the genuine article she'll be back to the movies and "What's My Line?"


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

I tried something new. I decided not to look at who was singing and played the first one and immediately got my first impression of a voice I was not insane abut but actually could not fault her for anything at all. She sang it so perfectly (well, not Callas perfect but I don't want to bring that into this discussion I hope when I read the other reports)and her chest tones were admirable where I soon discovered the others were not. So who was that masked woman?

Next, had a prettier sound to her voice but was a bore to these ears. I didn't hear any nuance or expresisions that touched me and thought she had a pretty voice but nothing to put my finger on.
The 3rd singer's voice was my favorite and I even enjoyed her delivery sans the lack of chest tone that seems so important in this aria.
Which leaves me between the 1st and the 3rd .
I decided on the one whose voice was not my favorite but with those unforgettable chest tones was the one who ultimately got my money on her win.
Now ... who the heck did I pick?
I'll be right back.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

nina foresti said:


> I tried something new. I decided not to look at who was singing and played the first one and immediately got my first impression of a voice I was not insane abut but actually could not fault her for anything at all. She sang it so perfectly (well, not Callas perfect but I don't want to bring that into this discussion I hope when I read the other reports)and her chest tones were admirable where I soon discovered the others were not. So who was that masked woman?
> 
> Next, had a prettier sound to her voice but was a bore to these ears. I didn't hear any nuance or expresisions that touched me and thought she had a pretty voice but nothing to put my finger on.
> The 3rd singer's voice was my favorite and I even enjoyed her delivery sans the lack of chest tone that seems so important in this aria.
> ...


I am flattered by the thoroughness you continually show when listening to the contests!!!! Thank you.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Seattleoperafan said:


> I am flattered by the thoroughness you continually show when listening to the contests!!!! Thank you.


Bring 'em on. I luv this stuff.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

nina foresti said:


> I tried something new. I decided not to look at who was singing and played the first one and immediately got my first impression of a voice I was not insane abut but actually could not fault her for anything at all. She sang it so perfectly (well, not Callas perfect but I don't want to bring that into this discussion I hope when I read the other reports)and her chest tones were admirable where I soon discovered the others were not. So who was that masked woman?
> 
> Next, had a prettier sound to her voice but was a bore to these ears. I didn't hear any nuance or expresisions that touched me and thought she had a pretty voice but nothing to put my finger on.
> The 3rd singer's voice was my favorite and I even enjoyed her delivery sans the lack of chest tone that seems so important in this aria.
> ...


I almost never actually look at singers from the get go. Even in live operas, I might be looking at them maybe 1/3 or 1/2 the time, so this approach comes second nature to me.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Tsaraslondon said:


> Traubel does nothing wrong. Indeed she fulfils most of the demands of the music, but where is the _disprezzaione_? Not even a hint. Hunter isn't much more involved and her low notes are not great.
> 
> Fassbaender surprised me. She is both more involved and more involving. I'm not convinced it's the right voice for the piece and she can't float the _volavan l'ore _section, but here is desperation, the sense of a woman literally at the end of her tether. There are a few bumpy vocal moments but I found her version more exciting and more dramatic. A very easy win for me here.


Listening to Rita Hunter again, I can hear a voice with some good raw material. However, the middle was unfocused and pushed, and the top was shrill, because the head and chest voice weren't making friends with each other the way you need to keep that deep "oo" in the sound without losing clarity or power. The chest voice didn't actually sound that bad. It just sounded like a soprano with a lighter voice rather than a true Wagnerian like Traubel or Lieder. In all likelihood, this resulted from giving into the temptation to push the voice to sound deeper and bigger, hence the aforementioned strange and lack of balance in the upper half of the range. In my opinion, she would have been better suited to, say, early Verdi or bigger Mozart roles like Donna Anna, but her Wagner sounds a bit strained. She reminds me a bit of Renata Scotto, with whom I have a similar contention.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Traubel can have her moment. Once she's up against the genuine article she'll be back to the movies and "What's My Line?"


Next time some serious competition, one who might even sway some listeners away from Callas ( OMG!!!!!!!) Time will tell.


BalalaikaBoy said:


> Listening to Rita Hunter again, I can hear a voice with some good raw material. However, the middle was unfocused and pushed, and the top was shrill, because the head and chest voice weren't making friends with each other the way you need to keep that deep "oo" in the sound without losing clarity or power. The chest voice didn't actually sound that bad. It just sounded like a soprano with a lighter voice rather than a true Wagnerian like Traubel or Lieder. In all likelihood, this resulted from giving into the temptation to push the voice to sound deeper and bigger, hence the aforementioned strange and lack of balance in the upper half of the range. In my opinion, she would have been better suited to, say, early Verdi or bigger Mozart roles like Donna Anna, but her Wagner sounds a bit strained. She reminds me a bit of Renata Scotto, with whom I have a similar contention.


You know so much more about singing than me, but it is like we are listening to two different singers. She is one more in a list of singers that Seattle's opera public and I love that get indifferent or negative reactions from this group. If someone is loved here I should eliminate them from the competition it seems.


----------



## ColdGenius (9 mo ago)

They are not hated. Opera is good in its diversity, in its primary, less PC meaning. 
I know about music much less than you, my approach is totally unscientifical, but emotional and esthetical. I wish I could hear what others hear. But I'm not sure whether it would make me happier.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> I almost never actually look at singers from the get go. Even in live operas, I might be looking at them maybe 1/3 or 1/2 the time, so this approach comes second nature to me.


But I went beyond that this time. I only originally knew the names of the 3 but had no idea which of the 3 names was singing till after it was all over.


----------



## damianjb1 (Jan 1, 2016)

Much to my surprise I'm going to vote for Helen Traubel. It's a monumental voice. 
I'm a big Rita Hunter fan but I feel this recording caught her too late.
Brigitte Fassbaender has never really done it for me. I always feel she that she sounds a bit hysterical. That's not a bad thing in this aria but the sound itself doesn't do much for me.


----------



## ColdGenius (9 mo ago)

I've chosen Helen Traubel, I just like her singing and can't help it.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

I must say I'm a bit surprised that Traubel is doing so well. Admittedly it's a great voice, but Gioconda it is not (and she's transposed it down). Perhaps I should remind people of the words.

Suicide!...In these
awful moments
you alone remain to me.
You alone tempt me.
Last voice
of my destiny,
last cross
of my journey,
once upon a time
the hours gaily flew by;
lost now is my mother,
lost is my love,
I overcame the consuming
fever of jealousy.
Now I sink exhausted
in the darkness!...
I am reaching the end...
I only ask Heaven
to sleep quietly
within the grave.

I don't get any of that from Traubel.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Tsaraslondon said:


> I must say I'm a bit surprised that Traubel is doing so well. Admittedly it's a great voice, but Gioconda it is not (and she's transposed it down). Perhaps I should remind people of the words.
> 
> Suicide!...In these
> awful moments
> ...


Deleted.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Tsaraslondon said:


> I must say I'm a bit surprised that Traubel is doing so well. Admittedly it's a great voice, but Gioconda it is not (and she's transposed it down). Perhaps I should remind people of the words.
> 
> Suicide!...In these
> awful moments
> ...


Neither do I. Would anyone tolerate an actor uttering such thoughts in a monotone? Singing is more than nice sounds. Opera isn't merely a vocal Olympic game.

It would be an imposition to expect Seattleoperafan to post texts for all these competitions, but the rest of us would do well to investigate what these people are supposed to be singing about before deciding "who sang it best."


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

Tsaraslondon said:


> I must say I'm a bit surprised that Traubel is doing so well. Admittedly it's a great voice, but Gioconda it is not (and she's transposed it down). Perhaps I should remind people of the words.
> 
> Suicide!...In these
> awful moments
> ...


I would agree that Traubel isn’t as characterful here as Callas, Tebaldi, Arangi-Lombardi, Ponselle etc. but she more than has the voice for it and I don’t think she is interpretively uninteresting either, only the tempo is a bit fast and it loses a little of the anguish present in other versions. Rita Hunter has some nice chest tones but overall I don‘t find her noticeably more involved and prefer Traubel vocally. Fassbaender just doesn’t have the voice for it, of all roles this requires a dramatic voice and while there’s a bit more of the anguish here that Traubel is missing I don’t find much of the tragic grandeur that this aria usually conveys in her, not exactly freely produced, essentially lyric instrument.


----------



## ColdGenius (9 mo ago)

Now I'll write something different from my recent post in Otello contest. 
Opera is synthetic art, we see it no less than we listen to it, and we expect acting in addition to singing. This is why live performances are so attractive and why I'll go to the opera until they keep on singing there at all.
But an opera singer is not an actor. They sing because they can, and acting skills don't coexist with a voice obligatory. So we may prefer singers-actors, but we must not escape those who doesn't have inherent or acquired dramatic abilities. At least we deny ourselves some pleasure. 
I can say all the same about attractive appearance.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Op.123 said:


> I would agree that Traubel isn’t as characterful here as Callas, Tebaldi, Arangi-Lombardi, Ponselle etc. but she more than has the voice for it and I don’t think she is interpretively uninteresting either, only the tempo is a bit fast and it loses a little of the anguish present in other versions. Rita Hunter has some nice chest tones but overall I don‘t find her noticeably more involved and prefer Traubel vocally. Fassbaender just doesn’t have the voice for it, of all roles this requires a dramatic voice and while there’s a bit more of the anguish here that Traubel is missing I don’t find much of the tragic grandeur that this aria usually conveys in her, not exactly freely produced, essentially lyric instrument.


It's not just that she's not as characterful as the likes of Callas, Ponselle, Tebaldi and others, it's just that I don't get any desperation from her and Ponchielli did add the injunction _con disperazione. _I agree that Fassbaender has the wrong voice for this, but I do feel her desperation. She wouldn't win in a competition with those mentioned above, but she does understand what the aria is about and pays heed to Ponchielli's markings.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

ColdGenius said:


> Now I'll write something different from my recent post in Otello contest.
> Opera is synthetic art, we see it no less than we listen to it, and we expect acting in addition to singing. This is why live performances are so attractive and why I'll go to the opera until they keep on singing there at all.
> But an opera singer is not an actor. They sing because they can, and acting skills don't coexist with a voice obligatory. So *we may prefer singers-actors, but we must not escape those who doesn't have inherent or acquired dramatic abilities.* At least we deny ourselves some pleasure.
> *I can say all the same about attractive appearance.*


I can't help noticing that the word "music" doesn't occur in your analysis. Music is the most essential component of opera - the only one which, omitted, would leave us with no opera at all - and singers are musicians. What do we expect musicians to do? 

Do you really think that having a pretty face and shapely figure is of comparable importance to giving a musically insightful and dramatically compelling vocal performance?


----------



## ColdGenius (9 mo ago)

Woodduck said:


> I can't help noticing that the word "music" doesn't occur in your analysis. Music is the most essential component of opera - the only one which, omitted, would leave us with no opera at all - and singers are musicians. What do we expect musicians to do?
> 
> Do you really think that having a pretty face and shapely figure is of comparable importance to giving a musically insightful and dramatically compelling vocal performance?


I just tried to explain the opposite. How to separate music from opera? The voice and what they call technique is the main thing which defines a singer. I meant that in a modern theater appearence and acting skills attract too much attention. Would, say, Anna Netrebko make suchva carrier if she were less pretty and expressive on the stage?
And I would like to remind humbly that my opinion is totally unprofessional. 🙂


----------



## ColdGenius (9 mo ago)

And I can imagine how unprofessional opinions do annoy professionals.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Neither do I. Would anyone tolerate an actor uttering such thoughts in a monotone? Singing is more than nice sounds. Opera isn't merely a vocal Olympic game.


To me...it usually is a vocal Olympic game. There are a few exceptions for arias/scenes I connect with on another level, but for the most part, I care much more about beauty and power than I do expression.


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> To me...it usually is a vocal Olympic game. There are a few exceptions for arias/scenes I connect with on another level, but for the most part, I care much more about beauty and power than I do expression.


For me it's a combination of both. There's a special feeling of exhilaration you get from watching (listening) to those who are exceptionally talented, whether athletes or singers. When you couple this with genuine interprative insight it can be completely addictive. My favourite singers will always be those who tick both boxes, Callas, Ponselle, Bruna-Rasa, Petrella, Cigna, Volpi, Gigli, Basiola, Tibbett, Taddei, Pertile, Martinelli, Del Monaco, Simionato, Dominguez, Verrett etc. If faced with a choice between mostly a singer (Traubel, Milanov, Anderson, Nilsson, Pavarotti etc.) or more of an actor/actress (Scotto, Domingo etc.) I'd go with singer nine times out of ten.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Op.123 said:


> If faced with a choice between mostly a singer (Traubel, Milanov, Anderson, Nilsson, Pavarotti etc.) or more of an actor/actress (Scotto, Domingo etc.) I'd go with singer nine times out of ten.


I don't think any notable opera singer is "more of an actor" than a singer. Scotto and Domingo got where they got because they sang well, not because they were good actors. This is true even of Callas, who had the technique to sing the most difficult music brilliantly.


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> I don't think any notable opera singer is "more of an actor" than a singer. Scotto and Domingo got where they got because they sang well, not because they were good actors. This is true even of Callas, who had the technique to sing the most difficult music brilliantly.


I won't dispute you with Callas, she was a fantastic singer as well as an actress, but Scotto and Domingo, in comparison to Callas or the others I mentioned in the 'singer' category, Nilsson, Milanov etc., had rather mediocre voices.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Op.123 said:


> I won't dispute you with Callas, she was a fantastic singer as well as an actress, but Scotto and Domingo, in comparison to Callas or the others I mentioned in the 'singer' category, Nilsson, Milanov etc., had rather mediocre voices.


I wonder how you define mediocriy. While neither Scotto nor Domingo is among my favorite singers, I never thought them mediocre. They both had distinctive instruments well trained and well used, and were quite capable of handling a wide range of assignments admirably. Certainly they both exhibited a greater all-around competence than, say, Nilsson, whose voice was peculiar and whose technique limited her truly effective repertoire to a small group of roles.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> I don't think any notable opera singer is "more of an actor" than a singer. Scotto and Domingo got where they got because they sang well, not because they were good actors. This is true even of Callas, who had the technique to sing the most difficult music brilliantly.


A little off topic, but Callas always fascinated me in that she seemed _more comfortable_ singing the most difficult rep, and _less comfortable _singing more "simple" rep. For example, she was easily outclassed singing Vissi D'arte or O Mio Babbino Caro, but then she turns around and absolutely slays notorious voice killers like Norma and Nabucco. Just like the rest of her rather dynamic personality, the voice always wanted to move, sounding most at home (at least in my opinion) when singing a combination of intense, high-lying coloratura with downward leaps where she growled like a wild cat.


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> A little off topic, but Callas always fascinated me in that she seemed _more comfortable_ singing the most difficult rep, and _less comfortable _singing more "simple" rep. For example, she was easily outclassed singing Vissi D'arte or O Mio Babbino Caro, but then she turns around and absolutely slays notorious voice killers like Norma and Nabucco. Just like the rest of her rather dynamic personality, the voice always wanted to move, sounding most at home (at least in my opinion) when singing a combination of intense, high-lying coloratura with downward leaps where she growled like a wild cat.


Medea is a good example, even in 1958 when her lyrical moments in Traviata were beginning to sound wavery she could turn around and sing this ridiculously difficult role with seeming ease.


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> I wonder how you define mediocriy. While neither Scotto nor Domingo is among my favorite singers, I never thought them mediocre. They both had distinctive instruments well trained and well used, and were quite capable of handling a wide range of assignments admirably. Certainly they both exhibited a greater all-around competence than, say, Nilsson, whose voice was peculiar and whose technique limited her truly effective repertoire to a small group of roles.


What I meant was that both had a poor method of vocal production in comparison, even from the outset Scotto was rather squeezed, especially at the top, and often pushed for extra volume. Domingo was again fairly squeezed at the top along with a nasality that I don't find at all pleasing. I with concede that they aren't Netrebko level awful, but they show the progression towards the modern way of voice production and how many steps some had already taken from the old school methods even 50-60 years ago.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> A little off topic, but Callas always fascinated me in that she seemed _more comfortable_ singing the most difficult rep, and _less comfortable _singing more "simple" rep. For example, she was easily outclassed singing Vissi D'arte or O Mio Babbino Caro, but then she turns around and absolutely slays notorious voice killers like Norma and Nabucco. Just like the rest of her rather dynamic personality, the voice always wanted to move, sounding most at home (at least in my opinion) when singing a combination of intense, high-lying coloratura with downward leaps where she growled like a wild cat.


Interesting opinion. I think there's something to it, but not much. Callas certainly did thrive on such challenges as you mention. Yet I find her "Vissi d'arte" the most moving I've heard, and her "O mio babbino caro" an interpretation more beguiling by far than most by singers whose vocal timbres might be more intrinsically evocative of a young girl. I think there are two main factors contributing to the impression - or, to a small extent, the reality - that simpler music is more difficult for her. The first is simply the peculiaries of her vocal timbre - or, rather, timbres - which are by nature evocative of complexities of character and emotion, and make her less suited to the portrayal of sweet young things, which she nonetheless can play effectively through the sheer power of art (think of her wonderful recordings of Gilda and Mimi). The other factor is what I consider the main weakness in her technical arsenal (referring now to her voice in its prime, not to its later deterioration), and that is her inability to "float" the tone in the upper part of her range. This ability is essential to the optimal performance of, say, Mozart, where sweetness and ease practically define a "Mozart singer." It isn't the technical simplicity of music that poses a challenge to her, but the aesthetic requirement for a sound of consistent purity. It isn't technical complexities that her voice wants to make its best effect, but emotional ones.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Interesting opinion. I think there's something to it, but not much. Callas certainly did thrive on such challenges as you mention. Yet I find her "Vissi d'arte" the most moving I've heard, and her "O mio babbino caro" an interpretation more beguiling by far than most by singers whose vocal timbres might be more intrinsically evocative of a young girl. I think there are two main factors contributing to the impression - or, to a small extent, the reality - that simpler music is more difficult for her. The first is simply the peculiaries of her vocal timbre - or, rather, timbres - which are by nature evocative of complexities of character and emotion, and make her less suited to the portrayal of sweet young things, which she nonetheless can play effectively through the sheer power of art (think of her wonderful recordings of Gilda and Mimi). The other factor is what I consider the main weakness in her technical arsenal (referring now to her voice in its prime, not to its later deterioration), and that is her inability to "float" the tone in the upper part of her range. This ability is essential to the optimal performance of, say, Mozart, where sweetness and ease practically define a "Mozart singer." It isn't the technical simplicity of music that poses a challenge to her, but the aesthetic requirement for a sound of consistent purity. It isn't technical complexities that her voice wants, but emotional ones.


Clapping....


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Interesting opinion. I think there's something to it, but not much. Callas certainly did thrive on such challenges as you mention. Yet I find her "Vissi d'arte" the most moving I've heard, and her "O mio babbino caro" an interpretation more beguiling by far than most by singers whose vocal timbres might be more intrinsically evocative of a young girl. I think there are two main factors contributing to the impression - or, to a small extent, the reality - that simpler music is more difficult for her. The first is simply the peculiaries of her vocal timbre - or, rather, timbres - which are by nature evocative of complexities of character and emotion, and make her less suited to the portrayal of sweet young things, which she nonetheless can play effectively through the sheer power of art (think of her wonderful recordings of Gilda and Mimi). The other factor is what I consider the main weakness in her technical arsenal (referring now to her voice in its prime, not to its later deterioration), and that is her inability to "float" the tone in the upper part of her range. This ability is essential to the optimal performance of, say, Mozart, where sweetness and ease practically define a "Mozart singer." It isn't the technical simplicity of music that poses a challenge to her, but the aesthetic requirement for a sound of consistent purity. It isn't technical complexities that her voice wants to make its best effect, but emotional ones.


I wouldn't say 'inability'. She did have problems with producing high pianissimi and as her career progressed she began to increasingly use constriction as a way of producing the desired effect, but in her prime there were times when she could produce supported pianissimi quite well, and others, sometimes in the same performance, where she could not. They, like the rest of her voice, never sounded as gloriously opulent as the pianissimo tones of Milanov or Ponselle, but they were there in the beginning, if not consistently.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Op.123 said:


> I wouldn't say 'inability'. She did have problems with producing high pianissimi and as her career progressed she began to increasingly use constriction as a way of producing the desired effect, but in her prime there were times when she could produce supported pianissimi quite well, and others, sometimes in the same performance, where she could not. They, like the rest of her voice, never sounded as gloriously opulent as the pianissimo tones of Milanov or Ponselle, but they were there in the beginning, if not consistently.


What I mean by "float" isn't just a supported pianissimo. It isn't entirely a question of dynamics, and I'm not even sure that the (relative) absence of it is necessarily a sign of technical deficiency. Some voices seem to have it, some don't. There can actually be more of it, for example, in a forte unleashed by Birgit Nilsson than in a piano by any number of singers. It's the sensation that the sound is disembodied, that it isn't produced physically but somehow materializes out of the air. I doubt that there's a purely technical explanation for the phenomenon, but tend to think that singers are simply not equally capable of it.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> What I mean by "float" isn't just a supported pianissimo. It isn't entirely a question of dynamics, and I'm not even sure that the (relative) absence of it is necessarily a sign of technical deficiency. Some voices seem to have it, some don't. There can actually be more of it, for example, in a forte unleashed by Birgit Nilsson than in a piano by any number of singers. It's the sensation that the sound is disembodied, that it isn't produced physically but somehow materializes out of the air. I doubt that there's a purely technical explanation for the phenomenon, but tend to think that singers are simply not equally capable of it.


Makes sense. With everything else in Callas's arsenal of tricks I can give her a pass on this. Nilsson certainly wasn't for everyone, but she was most definitely a freak of nature with what she could do with her voice production.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> What I mean by "float" isn't just a supported pianissimo. It isn't entirely a question of dynamics, and I'm not even sure that the (relative) absence of it is necessarily a sign of technical deficiency. Some voices seem to have it, some don't. There can actually be more of it, for example, in a forte unleashed by Birgit Nilsson than in a piano by any number of singers. It's the sensation that the sound is disembodied, that it isn't produced physically but somehow materializes out of the air. I doubt that there's a purely technical explanation for the phenomenon, but tend to think that singers are simply not equally capable of it.


I think I know what you mean. Callas could after all sing very quietly, but she wasn't able to produce those floated pianissimi we hear in the singing of Montserrat Caballé, an effect she altogether overused in her later career. There is a long sustained note in the Prayer in the last act of *Maria Stuarda *(I don't know what the note is, but it sounds as if it's probably somewhere round about the top of the stave) and when I compare, say Caballé and Janet Baker singing it, they both sing it very softly and swell towards the end, but they sound very different. Baker is more "human" somehow (and maybe more moving because of it). Caballé is amazing, but the note sounds almost not real, almost more like a theramin than a human being.


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

Tsaraslondon said:


> I think I know what you mean. Callas could after all sing very quietly, but she wasn't able to produce those floated pianissimi we hear in the singing of Montserrat Caballé, an effect she altogether overused in her later career. There is a long sustained note in the Prayer in the last act of *Maria Stuarda *(I don't know what the note is, but it sounds as if it's probably somewhere round about the top of the stave) and when I compare, say Caballé and Janet Baker singing it, they both sing it very softly and swell towards the end, but they sound very different. Baker is more "human" somehow (and maybe more moving because of it). Caballé is amazing, but the note sounds almost not real, almost more like a theramin than a human being.


Caballe's pianissimi are very beautiful but they don't seem to float in the same way as Milanov's who must have had the most glorious pianissimo tones of all. Some have suggested that Caballe's pianissimi were produced in a similar manner to Calve's 'fourth voice' rather than in the normal manner, although I'm not altogether sure. Callas's pianissimi are interesting and were, I suspect, much more effective live. Even in her met debut as Norma when she was in admittedly poor voice reviewers praised the beauty of her pianissimo tones. I have read others describe them as disembodied tones that seemed to come down from the ceiling of la scala, or something to that effect. That said, I would never put her forward as an expert of the pianissimo from records.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> The other factor is what I consider the main weakness in her technical arsenal (referring now to her voice in its prime, not to its later deterioration), and that is her inability to "float" the tone in the upper part of her range. This ability is essential to the optimal performance of, say, Mozart, where sweetness and ease practically define a "Mozart singer." It isn't the technical simplicity of music that poses a challenge to her, but the aesthetic requirement for a sound of consistent purity. It isn't technical complexities that her voice wants to make its best effect, but emotional ones.


I can more or less agree with this.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Op.123 said:


> I wouldn't say 'inability'. She did have problems with producing high pianissimi and as her career progressed she began to increasingly use constriction as a way of producing the desired effect, but in her prime there were times when she could produce supported pianissimi quite well, and others, sometimes in the same performance, where she could not. They, like the rest of her voice, never sounded as gloriously opulent as the pianissimo tones of Milanov or Ponselle, but they were there in the beginning, if not consistently.


"Didn't have a good pianissimo" is not a criticism I would make of Callas, because I've never expected singers of any fach to have good pianissimi. Even among the best singers, maybe....5% of them have a good pianissimo. It's always a welcome surprise, never an expectation.


----------

