Classical Music Forum banner

Top 10 opera singers today

33K views 119 replies 39 participants last post by  jflatter 
#1 ·
I saw this list today on another site. Wondered what people thought about it.

the top 10 opera singers of today

renée fleming
anna netrebko
angela gheorghiu
joyce didonato
elina garanca
juan diego florez
plácido domingo
jonas kaufmann
dmitri hvorostovsky
rené pape

List revised on June 17th afte thorough deliberations, where waltraud meier and karita mattila from the initial list have been replace by joyce didonato and juan diego florez.

Opinions? Not much in the heavier roles for both men and women. Popularity contest or really 'the' top 10 singers?
 
#2 · (Edited)
I saw this list today on another site. Wondered what people thought about it.

the top 10 opera singers of today

renée fleming
anna netrebko
angela gheorghiu
joyce didonato
elina garanca
juan diego florez
plácido domingo
jonas kaufmann
dmitri hvorostovsky
rené pape
The Domingo vote surely is not for current singing ability since the 70+ year old is not capable of singing close to the level of 30 years ago or going toe to toe with JDF, perhaps lifetime achievement vote....

Can't strongly disagree with other choices for overall portfolio of performance strength, Pape and Garanca might get replaced in my top 10 current singers list. Wagner fanatics would generate a much different list as would baroque opera fans
 
#3 ·
renée fleming
anna netrebko
angela gheorghiu
joyce didonato
elina garanca
juan diego florez
plácido domingo
jonas kaufmann
dmitri hvorostovsky
rené pape
I was kind of surprised at the violence of my opinions on this topic - they left mattila off? how dare they - on the other hand, what has she done lately? Hmm ... and rene pape is at the bottom, when he should be near the top, just under mattila - I hate to include netrebko but she does have an amazing voice - as far as the other names are concerned, eh. None of them really thrills me. I guess my top ten list would have only three names on it :lol:
 
#4 ·
renée fleming
anna netrebko
angela gheorghiu
joyce didonato
elina garanca
juan diego florez
plácido domingo
jonas kaufmann
dmitri hvorostovsky
rené pape

While I personally prefer other singers to some of those on this list, I do think it generally reflects the reality of the opera "business" today. Domingo may be nearing the end of his career and one may question his forays into the baritone repertoire, but the man is still drawing the audiences as much as he ever did and his recordings are still selling well.
 
#5 ·
None of the one in the "list" can really fit the title of a "top" singer, always compared to those of the past, even the immediate one (70s or even 80s).
Fleming is the closest to a good (or even very good) singer of the past, but not the very best (the "top").
Domingo compared to his own past is just a "shadow" of himself.
Florez is fine, sometimes very fine, but that's all.
Kaufmann has an excellent potential to go further but he is not yet there.
However, there are some excellent voices and superb artists in the field of Lieder, Oratorio and Baroque Opera (few of the "list" have excelled in these fields too).

Principe
 
#10 ·
You know, part of the problem with the question is it's awfully hard to separate one's singing ability from one's acting ability - some of the people you think are the greatest singers aren't that great when you're only listening!

I think Thomas Hampson and Natalie Dessay should be on the list, on second thought. Not Renee Fleming, please. I've seen her do ONE THING really well - Eugene Onegin - and everything else, it's just not that good. Plus she doesn't act so well either. Kind of uninvolved, not quite to the point of saying she's wooden, no, but not ... not all there.
 
#13 ·
An Opera singer is, first of all and above all, a singer! So, the quality of voice and the singing technique are of paramount importance. Acting comes as a separate feature, necessary tool for the whole performance. However, Magda Oliviero, who was an excellent actress suffered as a singer and never made a big name in the History of Opera, while Joan Sutherland, a mediocre (to say the least) actress, was one of the greatest singers of the 20th century and an example to follow for many aspiring singers. Nilsson (one of the greatest Wagnerian singers) too.
Finally, in Baroque Operas, acting is practically the least one has to expect. The music is working like an immense...concerto.

Principe
 
#15 ·
An Opera singer is, first of all and above all, a singer! So, the quality of voice and the singing technique are of paramount importance. Acting comes as a separate feature, necessary tool for the whole performance.

Of course if you are watching a performance as opposed to merely listening, the acting and the whole visual experience is of the greatest importance. It's hard to envision Joan Sutherland and Pavarotti rolling about as young lovers out of a scene like this:

 
#17 ·
That's why i prefer audio recordings to video ones.

But nowadays (in my opinion) Opera must not have statue-like singers. Performance as realistic as possible is as important as singing. The "physique du role" is demanded.

Some singers can be excellent in both areas (like young Peter Hoffman or Netrebko).

Others like Nilsson or Pavarotti, i think that today wouldn't have as much impact as back then. Their voices were unique (for they are my Isolde and Rodolfo/Nemorino, respectively). But seeing a fat Radamés going to war with the Ethyopians is not what one expects to see when one hears such voice.

I had this discussion a couple of weeks before with guythegreg
 
#26 ·
Opera is theater, where the "actors" sing instead of talking. So, music is the first and primordial question there. That's why the "authors" of the Opera are still called composers. So, Opera is not theater "assisted" by music, but rather (great) music supporting or justifying (normally) silly or naive plots, that, without the music would make very little sense in the actual theater (see Beaumarchais' "Figaro" with Mozart's "Le nozze" or who cares for a "theatrical" Cosi fan Tutte without the music of Mozart).

Pavarotti or Sutherland were singing examples and they set some high standards for operating singing difficult even to match. As one wise critic said, they "perform" with their superior voices and their amazing technique (only the rubato of Pavarotti was a performance of the role itself). Theatrical interpretation definitely enhances the theatrical aspect of the Opera, but without solid and good singing, it is like driving a very nice car with a weak engine.

By the way, mamascarlatti, do you think the "interpretation" in Giasone (particularly in the recitatives) enhances an already weak (mediocre) singing performance of a work which is already "thin" as for its actual plot and particularly the way it is handled by its average composer? To me it looks like a "pitiful" effort to cover up a "failed work" in a thin musically performance.

Principe
 
#29 · (Edited)
By the way, mamascarlatti, do you think the "interpretation" in Giasone (particularly in the recitatives) enhances an already weak (mediocre) singing performance of a work which is already "thin" as for its actual plot and particularly the way it is handled by its average composer? To me it looks like a "pitiful" effort to cover up a "failed work" in a thin musically performance.
The work is rather lovely and great fun, and Christophe Dumaux is an excellent singer. I'll take him over Pavarotti any day. And I don't actually see what is thin about a plot where a rather foolish man is torn between two women. People in this opera behave far more realistically than in, say, most belcanto and early/mid Verdi.

But going back to the original discussion, I certainly agree with you, and said before, that the singing is paramount. No question about that.

All I'm arguing is that opera is MORE than the singing, and to talk about visual "distraction" ignores the nature of an artform which has a strong visual and dramatic element.
 
#30 ·
The least I can say about your first paragraph, mamascarlatti, is that I cannot comprehend it. So, I cannot possibly agree with it.
However, I'm quite happy with the last two. I'm not against any theatrical and dramatic elements in the production of an Opera, but, I can live with a medium theatrical presentation of the work concerned, but I cannot possibly stand any work poorly or even adequately sung.

Principe
 
#34 ·
The least I can say about your first paragraph, mamascarlatti, is that I cannot comprehend it. So, I cannot possibly agree with it.
I am referring to the plot of Il Giasone, which I assumed you had seen as you accused the work of being "already "thin" as for its actual plot", and were dismissive of the principal singer.

In this opera, Giasone has abandoned his wife for a younger woman unencumbered with children. The two women fight over him. He is rather foolish and vain. I think we can see this happening in the world all around us. The characters in this play behave quite realistically, they are weak and full of faults and foibles. I am saying that the plot of this opera is actually less foolish than some bel canto or Verdi plots where people behave in unlikely ways, including dying on the spot for no good reason.
 
#35 ·
My point, mamascarlatti, was not about the plot itself, but about how well the music of its average composer as well as the performance itself serves it.
By all means, the plots of belcanto and some Verdi Operas are more than silly, but they are divinely or miraculously well served by their respective (good or great) composers and, often, by the performers too. If you find "Giasone" well served by both music and performance is fine with me, but it does not seem to be the case, as a more general view (reviews, etc.). In the same vein, all these DVDs one may "admire" watching them, as you may see, rarely reach the CD level, since they are not that good as a musical listening experience. Fortunately, "Il Giasone" was released in both formats.
Personally, I didn't find it as a bright score and well served by the performance as, for instance, Haendel's Rinaldo with Jacobs (on HM) or Marin Marais' Semele with Niquet (on Glossa) or Boismortier's Daphnis et Chloe with Niquet again on Glossa too.

Principe
 
#36 ·
principe, you are right that Giasone is not a top-rank listening experience in the same way as, say, Rinaldo.

But then I was never claiming this, only that acting in Baroque operas is possible and can even enhance the experience.

BTW thanks for the suggestions about Semele and Daphnis et Chloe, I will investigate these.
 
#40 ·
Actually Mattila is still going strong. She recently did Marie in Wozzeck, Ariadne in London, Sieglinde in Die Walkure, all new roles to her. I'd say she is doing as much if not more than other sopranos, all of these after your posting on here.
definitely. I saw her in her debut as Ariadne and she's a very fine Ariadne already.
 
#38 ·
Out here in New Mexico, we have been very fortunate with the Santa Fe Opera Company which did one of the Strauss operas every season for fifty years. In fact they did all of them with the exception of die Frau ohne Schatten and Guntram. Many of them were the first US performance of these operas and John Crosby who founded the opera company was a terrific Strauss conductor, probably due to the fact that he was his favorite composer. There are so many wonderful thing to hear in every one of them.
 
#43 ·
Who compiled that list? People magazine? My God, if these are really the ten greatest opera singers active today, we are living in whatever is the opposite of a Golden Age. A Leaden Age, perhaps? Seventy years ago there were more first-rank sopranos from Germany than singers in all vocal categories in this whole international bunch.

I'm not buying it. Things may be bad, but they aren't that bad.
 
#50 ·
I would not compile such a list.

Seems like an easy way out. You declare the opinions of others to be a failure, but offer no alternative of your own.
 
#56 · (Edited)
There are perfectly good reasons for not wanting to play this particular game. What, for example, does "top 10" actually mean? Most vocally gifted? Most technically accomplished? Most musically refined? Most dramatically convincing? Most versatile? Most charismatic? Best looking? Most in demand? Highest paid? Longest before the public? How does one weigh all the factors that might make someone "top"?

Does "top 10" just mean "favorite 10"? One may or may not have a favorite 10. I don't know who my favorite 10 are and don't care. What I notice about the 10 on the OP list, though, is that they might have been chosen by someone who knows little or nothing about opera, singing, or music. Placido Domingo? Really? The man deserves every success he has had, but he's 73 years old. Rene Fleming is 55. Hvorostovsky is 52. Are there really not three younger singers in their vocal primes whose accomplishments warrant their substitution for these superb but aging artists? If there are, then this list is suspect; if there are not, then opera is in trouble.

I'm not declaring anyone's opinions to be a failure. I'm suggesting that either the poll, or the contemporary state of opera singing, has problems. I happen to think that both are true - and with regard to the second point, I could cite any number of operatic artists from generations past who, head to head with half the people on the OP list, could sing the pants off them.

And that's as near as I'll come to participating here.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top