I imagine most opera lovers have favorite recordings of their favorite operas determined in large part by the singers. How big a role does the conducting play for you? Are there recordings that are at least partly spoiled for you by the conducting despite an excellent cast? Conversely are there recordings that are elevated for you by exceptional conducting?
Conducting in Opera Recordings
1 - 20 of 67 Posts
Joined
·
10,902 Posts
Quite a bit. I avoid opera recordings conducted by Solti, especially Verdi, as I think his conducting is usually bombastic, over emphatic and lacking in lyricism. The more I listen, the more I've begun to appreciate Serafin in both Verdi and Puccini. Most of his recordings I have because of Callas, but I think he's seriously underrated.
I can't think of many recordings where the conducting makes up for an inferior cast, but De Sabata and Karajan in his first recording of Tosca are major factors in the success of those two recordings. Even with superior casts, they would not have achieved their classic status with different conductors at the helm. The Beecham La Bohème is another such recoding.
Joined
·
560 Posts
Opera as any other form of ensemble musical form depends on all those participating. A bad conducting job can spoil a performance that otherwise could be a credible one as it will influence the participation of the singers, chorus, etc. in the same way that a bad cast member(s) can spoil an otherwise good performance. Musicians do not operate in vacuum and ensemble performing is one of the most collaborative of forms of expression requiring all to be on and listening to one another.
As an example, Daniel Baremboim did a listless conducting job in the Berlin 1982 Aida with a cast that otherwise could have delivered an exciting performance (Varady, Toczyska, Pavarotti). As a counterpart, the recently published recording of Turandot is largely successful, in my book, thanks to the contribution of Antonio Pappano in my estimation who delivers a sensitive and exciting performance of the opera.
You can see it here in the comments for several of the singer competitions posted, where a great singer contribution is insufficient to overcome a bad conductorial performance or a rushed one for time limitations imposed by the recording media, no matter how brilliant the singer may be.
As an example, Daniel Baremboim did a listless conducting job in the Berlin 1982 Aida with a cast that otherwise could have delivered an exciting performance (Varady, Toczyska, Pavarotti). As a counterpart, the recently published recording of Turandot is largely successful, in my book, thanks to the contribution of Antonio Pappano in my estimation who delivers a sensitive and exciting performance of the opera.
You can see it here in the comments for several of the singer competitions posted, where a great singer contribution is insufficient to overcome a bad conductorial performance or a rushed one for time limitations imposed by the recording media, no matter how brilliant the singer may be.
Joined
·
10,902 Posts
I feel the same about his Aida. The conducting is superb, as is the contribution of the orchestra and chorus. Still, I note that it tends to be the last one I pull down from the shelves, as the singers just aren't up to the standard of those in earlier sets.
Joined
·
3,479 Posts
Good glory there are so many. Here are 5:
Levine
von Karajan
Nezet-Seguin
Pappano
Serafin
Those who I by-pass:
Domingo
Maazel
Celibidache
Levine
von Karajan
Nezet-Seguin
Pappano
Serafin
Those who I by-pass:
Domingo
Maazel
Celibidache
Joined
·
560 Posts
@nina foresti: Nézet-Séguin is a good conductor for symphonic music but should be prohibited from vocal coaching. According to him, the chest voice should not be engaged in the lower tones of the range for a soprano, because it is "the weak register." The man does not seem to know much about voice production.
Yannick Nézet-Séguin - "vocal coaching"
Yannick Nézet-Séguin - "vocal coaching"
Joined
·
3,531 Posts
This is going to sound terrible, but I couldn't care less who the singers are. Golden voices of the past don't make a whit of difference to me. It's all about the pacing and sound - so I go for at least stereo recordings, and then who's on the podium. Nina listed some favorites, but I'd add Varviso and Mehta. Probably Maazel, too. His Trittico is pretty impressive as are the Ravel operas.
Joined
·
22,551 Posts
The relative importance of the conductor and the singers depends as much on what operas we're talking about as it does on who's conducting and singing. This is reflected in the way we refer to recordings. Recordings of Wagner's operas, in which the orchestra is sometimes more important than the singers to the musical and dramatic impact of the work, are commonly identified by their conductors. We speak of the "Furtwangler Tristan" rather than the "Suthaus/Flagstad Tristan," despite the stature of the singers, in recognition of the conductor's unique and powerful vision of the complex score. Similarly we speak of the Kempe Lohengrin, the Solti Ring, or various Knappertsbusch Parsifals.
Furtwangler's Tristan is important to me mainly because of him, although all the singers are at least good. Flagstad, the most celebrated of them, can be heard to generally better effect, both vocally and dramatically, in various live recordings from the years of her prime, where she also has the Tristan of Melchior and some other outstanding singers of the interwar period.
I could say much the same about several other Wagner performances (I've named a few above), but I can't think of an instance of Italian opera in which the conducting has been as important to me as the singing, not even in late Verdi or Puccini. Concomitantly, we tend to refer to recordings of Italian opera by their lead singers more often than by their conductors. Even though Victor de Sabata conducts Tosca brilliantly and contributes greatly to the classic status of his recording, we generally identify that recording as the "Callas Tosca," mentioning the other artists or conductor if we need to distinguish it from the "second Callas Tosca."
Furtwangler's Tristan is important to me mainly because of him, although all the singers are at least good. Flagstad, the most celebrated of them, can be heard to generally better effect, both vocally and dramatically, in various live recordings from the years of her prime, where she also has the Tristan of Melchior and some other outstanding singers of the interwar period.
I could say much the same about several other Wagner performances (I've named a few above), but I can't think of an instance of Italian opera in which the conducting has been as important to me as the singing, not even in late Verdi or Puccini. Concomitantly, we tend to refer to recordings of Italian opera by their lead singers more often than by their conductors. Even though Victor de Sabata conducts Tosca brilliantly and contributes greatly to the classic status of his recording, we generally identify that recording as the "Callas Tosca," mentioning the other artists or conductor if we need to distinguish it from the "second Callas Tosca."
Joined
·
10,902 Posts
I'm not sure this is true, and, personally, I've come to think of it as the De Sabata Tosca, possibly because he seems to me to be the most important element in its success, and maybe because I don't think Tosca was that important to Callas as an artist. It's mostly because of this recording, and because she sang the role quite a lot at the end of her career, that she is so much associated with it. She didn't much like the role or the opera, and, apart from the unadverturous Met, didn't sing it at all between 1953 (the year of the De Sabata recording) and 1964. Despite the excellence of its cast, it is De Sabata's conducting that has elevated the recording to classic status.
On the other hand, Callas's participation in any recording means that most of the operas she particpated in are referred to by her name, even the Callas Parsifal!
We talk of the Callas Butterfly when referring to the 1955 recording, but the Karajan Butterfly, when referring to the one with Freni and Pavarotti, though Karajan conducted both.Actually, now that I think of it, there are quite a few other Italian opera recordings that are generally referred to by their conductor's name, Don Carlo for one. The Giulini, the Solti, the Karajan or the Abbado, and so on. Also the Bohème with De Los Angeles and Björling is usually referred to as the Beecham, so is his Carmen with her, and, as far as I can remember, all other recordings of that opera are usually referred to by their conductors, other than of course the Callas Carmen.
Maybe it is Callas who is the exception to the rule. There are others too. Most of Sutherland's complete recordings are referred to by her name, not her husband's.
Joined
·
566 Posts
Based on Frank Hamilton's compilation of Callas' performance annals, apart from the Met performances in 1956 and 1958, she sang three nights of Tosca at the Teatro Carlo Felice, Genova in March 1954 and remember, there is that televised and filmed Act 2 with Tito Gobbi and Albert Lance in her Paris debut on 19 Dec 1958.
Fact checking aside, I agree that De Sabata's conducting plays a hugely important role in the 1953 EMI/UK Columbia Tosca attaining classic status and later critics' appraisal of it mostly attributes the success of the recording to the close-knit teamwork and chemistry among the conductor and the principal singers rather than just focusing on Callas alone.
Joined
·
10,902 Posts
I'd forgotten about the Genova performances in 1954, and I wasn't really counting the Paris Gala concert. However it's safe to say she had little interest in the role. She never sang it at her cultural home of La Scala.
Joined
·
3,479 Posts
I totally agree. I read that article too. But he is an excellent maestro for the Met Operas.
Joined
·
560 Posts
Unfortunately, Nina, he's in a position of power at the Met and his ignorance will continue to degrade the art of singing by imposing his ill-informed views. I find it irresponsible that someone that knows so little about vocal production is at the helm of one of the important opera houses in the world.
Joined
·
3,479 Posts
But what about conductors who don't give a whit about the singers voices being heard and just plow right on through? James Levine was an example of a thoughtful conductor to the singers. He always had their back. Pappano is another.
Joined
·
560 Posts
Based on reviews I've read I would say the De Sabata Tosca's critical reputation derives as much from Gobbi's performance as that of Callas. But guess whose name is featured in big letters on the cover!I'm not sure this is true, and, personally, I've come to think of it as the De Sabata Tosca, possibly because he seems to me to be the most important element in its success, and maybe because I don't think Tosca was that important to Callas as an artist. It's mostly because of this recording, and because she sang the role quite a lot at the end of her career, that she is so much associated with it. She didn't much like the role or the opera, and, apart from the unadverturous Met, didn't sing it at all between 1953 (the year of the De Sabata recording) and 1964. Despite the excellence of its cast, it is De Sabata's conducting that has elevated the recording to classic status.
On the other hand, Callas's participation in any recording means that most of the operas she particpated in are referred to by her name, even the Callas Parsifal!
Actually, now that I think of it, there are quite a few other Italian opera recordings that are generally referred to by their conductor's name, Don Carlo for one. The Giulini, the Solti, the Karajan or the Abbado, and so on. Also the Bohème with De Los Angeles and Björling is usually referred to as the Beecham, so is his Carmen with her, and, as far as I can remember, all other recordings of that opera are usually referred to by their conductors, other than of course the Callas Carmen.
Maybe it is Callas who is the exception to the rule. There are others too. Most of Sutherland's complete recordings are referred to by her name, not her husband's.
Joined
·
2,514 Posts
Totally agree its ridiculous
Joined
·
8,506 Posts
Joined
·
10,902 Posts
As arguably the most famous soprano of the twentieth century, it's hardly surprising, though, is it? Somehow I have a feeling Gobbi wouldn't object at all. He was a great admirer and friend of "little Maria", as he called her, and also a generous colleague. He would have realised that the opera is called Tosca, not Scarpia, and mindful of the fact that it was her name that was selling the product. Indeed, in those 1960s performances of the opera in London and Paris, most people referred to it as the Callas/Gobbi Tosca. It was the poor tenor, who didn't get much of a look in.
Joined
·
10,902 Posts
This is one of those myths that deserves a better look. Just who are the singers who were ruined by Karajan? Names and evidence, please. Many singers, including Callas, thought he was a singer's conductor, much more so than Solti, for instance.^^^^
von Karajan anyone?
Let's look at some of the candidates.
Freni. When she took on Elisabetta and Aida, she had already sung Amelia in Simon Boccanegra at La Scala under Abbado. She was no doubt mindful that she couldn't sing ingénue roles for the rest of her life and wanted to expand her repertoire. In any case, though her voice did change, it remained pretty healthy throughout a very long career. She was also pretty astute about her own limitations. Though offered it over and over again, she never sang Butterfly on stage, as she thought it was too heavy for her voice. Verdi's more transparent orchestration made roles like Elisabetta and Aida a safer bet for her.
Carreras. No doubt he shouldn't have gone on to sing heavier roles, like Don Carlo and Radames, but there are countless examples of lyric tenors doing the same thing without any help from Karajan (Di Stefano and Alagna anyone?) Carreras continued singing quite a few heavy roles after that too, none of them with Karajan conducting.
Ricciarelli. No doubt it was a very strange casting choice getting her to sing Turandot, but she never attempted it on stage. Nor for that matter did Sutherland, and, when Callas recorded it, it would have been beyond her in the theatre. (Nonetheless I am grateful that the studio recording affords us a glimpse of what she would have been like in the role in her early years.) Not so long ago I listened to the Karajan Turandot for the first time in several years. Ricciarelli, though obviously stretched, is not half as bad as I'd misremembered. You might think she could never have sung it in the theatre, but, then, so did she.
Dernesch. Maybe there are grounds here, but I'm not sure they even hold water. Having heard in the theatre, both in her soprano and mezzo days, I can attest to the fact that it was a pretty large voice. I also have a live recording of her singing the Dyer's Wife under Solti at Covent Garden. She has no trouble riding the orchestral storm Solti whips up, but the top is evidently under stress. Soon after this she withdrew from opera and re-trained as a mezzo, thus extending her career for quite a few years. No doubt some people will argue her unsuitability for the roles of Isolde and Brünnhilde (though her first Brünnhildes were actually for Scottish Opera, not for Karajan), but I honestly think her Leonore under Karajan one of the best on record.
When Jessye Norman first sang the Liebestod in concert with Karajan, an interviewer asked her if she would now sing the role on stage. Her answer was that, with Karajan in the pit, she would consider it, but not with anyone else.
I don't know where this myth of Karajan being a voice wrecker came from, but it makes no sense to me. In any case, aren't singers responsible for their own careers? He apparently wanted Schwarzkopf to sing Leonore, and she said she did very briefly consider it (she recorded Abscheulicher! with him) but quickly realised it wasn't for her and that was an end of the matter. They continued a long and fruitful career, making quite a few great opera recordings together.
1 - 20 of 67 Posts
