Singers who ruined (/set the bar too high for) opera for you

11425 Views 89 Replies 25 Participants Last post by Seattleoperafan, Sep 5, 2021

BalalaikaBoy

Discussion Starter · Jun 11, 2015

one singer who comes to mind immediately for me is Samuel Ramey who, the more I think about it, is a freak of nature as far as male voices are concerned, possessing a bizarre combination of
- the deep, resonant timbre and lower extension of a basso profundo
- high notes which puts most spinto tenors to shame
- agility which puts most coloraturas to shame
- the elegance of a bel canto soprano

it's hard enough finding basses who possess even one of these characteristics, but in combination (especially when combined with a charismatic stage presence).....wow. I have yet to find a bass who comes even close. there are basses I can objectively recognize as great singers (Ciepi, Hines, Ghiaurov, etc), but not of them really thrill me the way Ramey does. frankly, with a handful of exceptions, he's almost ruined the entire fach for me.

Reactions: 2

21 - 40 of 90 Posts

schigolch

· #21 · Jun 11, 2015

Woodduck said:
I don't think it gets us anywhere to throw generalizations about. I haven't talked about "these people." I've talked about a particular singer I think is superb, and I've said why, in some detail now.

I don't generally "ask technical questions" either when I hear singers. I merely hear their technical skill, of which I consider myself a pretty good judge. You asked, listening to Stracciari, "but why?" I did my darnedest to tell you why. If you don't hear the things I hear, you might keep listening - or, if you don't want to hear or learn, not listen. That's your prerogative. Enjoy whatever you want to enjoy. I don't care. But I'm not interested in arguments which are not arguments for or about anything except your inability to see what I'm talking about.

I could take you, bar by bar, through a Stracciari performance of "Largo al factotum" (he made several recordings) such as this one:

and show you the points of vocal superiority to this one by Bruscantini:

It would still be perfectly legitimate for you to prefer Bruscantini (a fine singer, certainly) on grounds of timbre preference or interpretation. Obviously the recorded sound is superior, if that is an issue for you.

As for your comparison of singers with athletes breaking the records of their predecessors, music is not athletics. It should be obvious that not everything improves with time. You might as well say that Mozart was a great composer in his time, but that Mozart's times have been surpassed. I'll remind you of that next time you put down Wagner.

I fully agree.

Stracciari's baritone voice was as beautiful as they get, rounder and fuller than the voice of his contemporaries Ruffo, Molinari, de Luca or Amato, and with stronger low notes than a Battistini. His capacity to sing legato was legendary. Let me quote Rodolfo Celletti: "The voice was velvety and delicate, uniform in all registers, with brilliant top notes, and strong low notes. Wonderful technique: impeccable emission, perfect diction, elegant phrasing, flawless musicality".

On the other hand, he was sometimes considered by the critics as too cold, too restrained on stage, centered in a quest for vocal perfection. In my view, however, he sang his roles, and especially Verdi's roles, just with the right balance between the traditional Belcanto technique, and the dramatic expressiveness favored in the early 20th century.

I listen frequently to Stracciari's arias, and sometimes also to his complete recordings of "Rigoletto" and "Barbiere". But perhaps my favorite piece from him is this one:

See less See more

Reactions: 1

graziesignore

· #22 · Jun 11, 2015 (Edited)

I gotta say, Stracciari's devotion to a clean line of singing is exactly why I like Italian baritones in general, (and, for me, Zancanaro in particular). Why has this style of singing fallen out of fashion? Is there no joy in voices that ride the natural line of the music without artificial emoting? Why do we knee-jerk prefer HUGE voices to voices that are seamless in all registers? Why do we tolerate singers who (again, I won't name names) pause for huge ugly gasps of breath in the middle of what should be a flawlessly executed line?

It is frustrating for me because I don't even understand how some singers today can get work, much less be acclaimed Met-worthy.

(shutting up now)

Reactions: 2

Woodduck

· #23 · Jun 11, 2015

graziesignore said:
I gotta say, Stracciari's devotion to a clean line of singing is exactly why I like Italian baritones in general, (and, for me, Zancanaro in particular). Why has this style of singing fallen out of fashion? Is there no joy in voices that ride the natural line of the music without artificial emoting? Why do we knee-jerk prefer HUGE voices to voices that are seamless in all registers? Why do we tolerate singers who (again, I won't name names) pause for huge ugly gasps of breath in the middle of what should be a flawlessly executed line?

It is frustrating for me because I don't even understand how some singers today can get work, much less be acclaimed Met-worthy.

I guess the answer is: if you want to perform the operas, somebody has to sing them.

Figleaf

· #24 · Jun 12, 2015 (Edited)

Woodduck said:
Aspiration of vowels, whether or not we approve of it, didn't begin with verismo, though I suspect the more vehement style of verismo increased its prevalence. We do in fact hear it in Battistini's singing:

Notice that it occurs mainly on quick notes; in slower-moving passages he always maintains a smooth legato connection. But if you'll listen again to Stracciari's "Il balen" (assuming you listened to it before, given that you think he "ruined" his own records) you will hear that the aspirates occur, like Battistini's, on quick notes, and that his legato cantilena is impeccable - superior to most baritones we've heard since, certainly. The aspirate, if not used too much or in inappropriate places, could be felt to be a device of expressive articulation; I'm sure singers of the level of accomplishment of Battistini and Stracciari were not unconscious of using it, and it certainly doesn't represent a technical flaw or an inability to make a legato connection.

Stracciari, for me, is similar to Caruso in that he bestrides two eras and styles; he has the faultless technique and stylistic flair that show his bel canto origins, allied with the visceral excitement and power which musical styles of the late 19th and 20th centuries required. The result is the kind of singer which we've come to call the "Verdi baritone," of which I have never heard a finer representative than Stracciari.

Thank you, that's a good example of a Battistini record with aspirated vowels, so I stand corrected! I think that, not having listened to that record very attentively before, I'd been inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. I'm not sure about aspirates as an affective device: I'm sure singers often did it intentionally where they did it at all, but it smacks of either carelessness or poor taste. Regarding the modern 'Verdi baritone' as a kind of verismo singer with bel canto roots, I prefer those who are more bel canto oriented than verismo oriented. One could put Stracciari in that category, but I don't like his voice much and the aspirates (more blatant than Battistini's) really bother me. Here's a more recent Verdi baritone who sounds to me like a bel canto throwback, in a totally good way: he's Pavel Lisitsian, singing Eri tu, and I prefer his recording to Stracciari's mostly excellent one- largely because his timbre is so much pleasanter to my ear. He certainly 'ruins' most other baritones of the LP era for me!

Woodduck said:
I could take you, bar by bar, through a Stracciari performance of "Largo al factotum" (he made several recordings) such as this one:

and show you the points of vocal superiority to this one by Bruscantini:

It would still be perfectly legitimate for you to prefer Bruscantini (a fine singer, certainly) on grounds of timbre preference or interpretation. Obviously the recorded sound is superior, if that is an issue for you.

I still say Peter Dawson's is better!

Bellinilover said:
I'm in a library so I can't listen to the clips, but speaking generally this is what I think: while I do believe you have to allow for both limitations in recorded sound and "the style of the times," as well as the possibility that some of these singers weren't totally comfortable in front of a microphone, I have sometimes had the same experience as you, DavidA -- with, for example, Aureliano Pertile. No matter how many times I listen I cannot hear why he was/is considered so great. So while I do love certain singers from about the same time (Ponselle, De Luca), and I can easily hear their greatness on recordings, in general I just prefer more modern artists.

Sonata said:
I have found the opposite effect. Nobody has set the bar so high that the others have been ruined.....actually the bar seems to get set so high by other opera fans for Callas, Tebaldi, and the other greats (and great they truly are) that I expect to get blown away but that doesn't always happen.

On the flip side, I almost never hear people rave about Beverly Sills. I borrowed a CD of hers from the library on a whim....and I was thrilled by her singing. .... And while I fully intend to indulge in the big names, I look forward to going off the beaten path from time to time due to pleasant surprises like this.

Reputations get exaggerated. Before the internet, critics wielded a disproportionate amount of power, and their enthusiasms for certain singers of the past and their aversion to others seemed to become received opinion. Lack of reissues on vinyl or even CD made it especially hard to reevaluate the reputations of singers whose recordings were deprecated or overlooked by the mid to late 20th century's arbiters of taste. I have shared Bellinilover's experience of disappointment with Pertile, an excellent example of a singer elevated to near godlike status whose records were in many cases really bad. Yet very frequently, Youtube yields excellent examples of singing from the same era by artists who may well have enjoyed success in their own time but whose names are a great deal less familiar to us than those of singers like Pertile, whose reputation is so towering and whose recordings are often so disappointing.

DavidA said:
. As I say it's difficult to judge with ancient recordings but I've always found myself very puzzled when people come up with the view these people were incomparable. I've no doubt they were great in their day in the same way (say) Emil Zatopek was a great runner in his day. But Zatopek's times have been surpassed.

Many singers' times have remained unsurpassed for a century or more. There were some very rushed tempi necessary to get a whole aria on to a 10 inch record!

See less See more

Reactions: 2

BalalaikaBoy

Discussion Starter · #25 · Jun 12, 2015

I wanted to open the thread with a less cliche example, but, frankly, Joan Sutherland blows most out of the water in the rep she sings and has definitely dulled my appreciation for the other soprano voices of the world.
- a large, dramatic voice which can also be delicate and feminine. when I hear other dramatic female voices, they often come off like drag queens, bellowing through what should be a sensual, amorous aria of romance and/or tragedy.
- similarly, a dramatic voice with easy, spinning high notes, a bright, heroic timbre and an elegant vocal line which puts all but the most seasoned bel canto specialists to shame
- among the handful of real dramatic coloratura sopranos to have made proper recordings (Edita Gruberova and Diana Damrau are not dramatic coloratura sopranos. that people call any coloratura soprano with even a reasonable amount of vocal power dramatic is an annoying trend). when I listen to other coloratura singers, it sounds like they are missing the bottom 2/3 of their voice, and when I listen to dramatic sopranos, they sound like they are missing the last top 1/3 (though admittedly, I still listen to Sutherland and wonder where the bottom 1/3 went

)

while she has not completely ruined the soprano voice for me, Sutherland is probably the main reason why I prefer sopranos with powerful chest registers, because that sort of "fills in the gaps" of my vocal collection. additionally, she is probably the biggest reason why I prefer middle weight voices, because I need florid, elegant, graceful singing and formidable power and authority. having either one or the other simply isn't enough to satisfy me.

See less See more

Volve

· #26 · Jun 12, 2015

Christa Ludwig did it for me. I can never enjoy someone singing Ortrud again thanks to her.

Reactions: 3

Woodduck

· #27 · Jun 12, 2015

Figleaf said:
Thank you, that's a good example of a Battistini record with aspirated vowels, so I stand corrected! I think that, not having listened to that record very attentively before, I'd been inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. I'm not sure about aspirates as an affective device: I'm sure singers often did it intentionally where they did it at all, but it smacks of either carelessness or poor taste. Regarding the modern 'Verdi baritone' as a kind of verismo singer with bel canto roots, I prefer those who are more bel canto oriented than verismo oriented. One could put Stracciari in that category, but I don't like his voice much and the aspirates (more blatant than Battistini's) really bother me. Here's a more recent Verdi baritone who sounds to me like a bel canto throwback, in a totally good way: he's Pavel Lisitsian, singing Eri tu, and I prefer his recording to Stracciari's mostly excellent one- largely because his timbre is so much pleasanter to my ear. He certainly 'ruins' most other baritones of the LP era for me!

I still say Peter Dawson's is better!

Reputations get exaggerated. Before the internet, critics wielded a disproportionate amount of power, and their enthusiasms for certain singers of the past and their aversion to others seemed to become received opinion. Lack of reissues on vinyl or even CD made it especially hard to reevaluate the reputations of singers whose recordings were deprecated or overlooked by the mid to late 20th century's arbiters of taste. I have shared Bellinilover's experience of disappointment with Pertile, an excellent example of a singer elevated to near godlike status whose records were in many cases egregiously bad. Yet very frequently, Youtube yields excellent examples of singing from the same era by artists who may well have enjoyed success in their own time but whose names are a great deal less familiar to us than those of singers like Pertile, whose reputation is so towering and whose recordings are often so disappointing.

Lisitsian was a superb singer, no question. His singing and style will get no criticism here. I do find Russian a bit hard to swallow in such quintessentially Italian music; he sounds great, while his gulped vowels sound as absurd here as they sound fine in Mussorgsky. Best of the postwar baritones? Maybe so, technically, but not my favorite baritone sound.

Yeah, Dawson's utterly delightful. As a voice, though? Come on now, be honest...

I agree that some singers have inflated reputations. It's inevitable. A few singers I don't "get"? Martinelli, top of the list. I find him positively horrifying. He sings like an elephant in heat. Pertile? Tend to agree with others here. Varnay: a ponderous, crude voice, a long way from bel canto. But I see the forgottenness of many great singers as more unfortunate than the overestimation of a few.

Well, this isn't supposed to be about singers we dislike, so I'll stop before I get into any more trouble.

Reactions: 1

Figleaf

· #28 · Jun 12, 2015

Woodduck said:
Lisitsian was a superb singer, no question. His singing and style will get no criticism here. I do find Russian a bit hard to swallow in such quintessentially Italian music; he sounds great, while his gulped vowels sound as absurd here as they sound fine in Mussorgsky. Best of the postwar baritones? Maybe so, technically, but not my favorite baritone sound.

Yeah, Dawson's utterly delightful. As a voice, though? Come on now, be honest...

I agree that some singers have inflated reputations. It's inevitable. A few singers I don't "get"? Martinelli, top of the list. I find him positively horrifying. He sings like an elephant in heat. Pertile? Tend to agree with others here. Varnay: a ponderous, crude voice, a long way from bel canto. But I see the forgottenness of many great singers as more unfortunate than the overestimation of a few.

Well, this isn't supposed to be about singers we dislike, so I'll stop before I get into any more trouble.

Yes, the forgottenness of great singers is far worse than the overestimation of a few, no argument! I've been pondering the question of whether Peter Dawson had a great voice. I think he did, though it obviously wasn't quite as opulent a sound as those of the very greatest bass baritones of his time like van Rooy or Schorr (the latter a prolific 'ruiner' of other singers' records of Lieder). I love Dawson for his unassuming virtuosity and the unfailing tastefulness of his singing, and for a certain straightforward muscular Edwardian Britishness he had, more useful in the song repertoire associated with him than in operatic arias perhaps. I found this interesting recording of Iago's Credo on Youtube:

Perhaps he hasn't quite 'ruined' that one- a casualty of the English translation and not really sounding evil enough- but it's still good, and I can't help thinking his reputation would be greater if he had been Pietro D' Osonio and recorded arias in the original language, instead of being the British-based concert singer he was.

See less See more

Reactions: 1

Woodduck

· #29 · Jun 12, 2015 (Edited)

DavidA said:
The comparison with Zatopek was, of course, not dealing with a creative artist. Singers are not creative artists. I would certainly not used the comparison in dealing with composers as it does not apply. In any case it is an incomplete analogy not to be pushed to its limit.
It's not that I don't know what you are talking about, as I thought I'd made clear that is not the issue. I've had musical training and I understand (most of) the technical stuff. I also have a wife who has taught singing! But what I am talking about is preferences of the listener. Our problems seem the same, friend. You don't appear to get what I am talking about! Our priorities are different! But let's agree to differ on that! Happy listening!

Sorry, but I do not agree that "our problems are the same."

You began this conversation by saying you didn't know why I thought Stracciari was a great singer. You said "Sorry but when I hear clips like this I just wonder what all the fuss is about. It may be the ancient recording but this guy doesn't compare - let alone surpass - some of the modern singers. He may have been considered great in his day but when I hear him I just ask, "But why?"

Thinking you might really want to know "why," I proceed to tell you what I think are the criteria of a great singer and why I think Stracciari meets them. You then say "I don't ask these sorts of technical questions. The main question I ask is do I like his voice?...As I say it's difficult to judge with ancient recordings but I've always found myself very puzzled when people come up with the view these people were incomparable."

I try to elaborate a bit on my previous explanation, still harboring some illusion that you actually want to understand why Stracciari is considered a great singer. But all you can say is "what I am talking about is preferences of the listener."

Well. I may be a little slow, but I think I'm getting it now. Obviously you don't really care why some singers are considered great, and your question wasn't a real question. So why did you ask it and put me to the trouble of answering it, when what you really wanted to say is that you're not impressed by Stracciari or other singers on those old recordings, and that all that matters to you is what you like, just because you like it - so take that, all you bloody connoisseurs of singing who think you know so much!

Then, having admitted that knowledge of singing is not your concern, you make a completely insupportable claim of - guess what? knowledge of singing! - by posing an analogy purporting to show that modern singers must have surpassed their predecessors. Why have they? Because athletes have!

And now you are saying that "our problems seem the same"? No. They don't. I do not have the same problem as you, whatever the heck that is. My problem is being asked to explain something to someone who doesn't give a fig for the explanation, but just wants to flaunt his personal tastes in the faces of people who actually have some ideas on the subject.

Next time, just say "personally, I prefer Bruscantini." I will try to remember not to ask you why.

See less See more

Reactions: 3

Woodduck

· #30 · Jun 12, 2015 (Edited)

Figleaf said:
Yes, the forgottenness of great singers is far worse than the overestimation of a few, no argument! I've been pondering the question of whether Peter Dawson had a great voice. I think he did, though it obviously wasn't quite as opulent a sound as those of the very greatest bass baritones of his time like van Rooy or Schorr (the latter a prolific 'ruiner' of other singers' records of Lieder). I love Dawson for his unassuming virtuosity and the unfailing tastefulness of his singing, and for a certain straightforward muscular Edwardian Britishness he had, more useful in the song repertoire associated with him than in operatic arias perhaps. I found this interesting recording of Iago's Credo on Youtube:

Perhaps he hasn't quite 'ruined' that one- a casualty of the English translation and not really sounding evil enough- but it's still good, and I can't help thinking his reputation would be greater if he had been Pietro D' Osonio and recorded arias in the original language, instead of being the British-based concert singer he was.

I'm going to differ with you and say that Dawson was a great singer with something less than a great instrument. I really did enjoy this, but a bit more "opulence" of timbre is important to me. I know it's a subjective preference, but for Iago? Darkness and weight of tone really is needed. I can't believe Dawson is evil; just set him alongside, say, Gobbi. A difference of "Night and Day" (Dawson could sing that quite stylishly, don't you think? With a little Noel Coward attitude?). He has a veddy British sound, to my ears - sort of reedy. No offense, but I can't help visualizing G & S when I hear him.

"Batti, batti..." (I'm covering my head).

Reactions: 1

Bellinilover

· #31 · Jun 12, 2015

Having read the posts several times, I'm honestly puzzled as to what precisely the above conflict is all about.

At any rate, I don't think I'll be participating in this thread anymore.

Woodduck

· #32 · Jun 12, 2015

Bellinilover said:
Having read the posts several times, I'm honestly puzzled as to what precisely the above conflict is all about. At any rate, I don't think I'll be participating in this thread anymore.

The above conflict is about someone asking me a question about singing, not really wanting an answer, and showing disrespect for my sincere and detailed efforts to provide an answer.

DavidA

· #33 · Jun 12, 2015 (Edited)

Woodduck said:
Sorry, but I do not agree that "our problems are the same."

You began this conversation by saying you didn't know why I thought Stracciari was a great singer. You said "Sorry but when I hear clips like this I just wonder what all the fuss is about. It may be the ancient recording but this guy doesn't compare - let alone surpass - some of the modern singers. He may have been considered great in his day but when I hear him I just ask, "But why?"

Thinking you might really want to know "why," I proceed to tell you what I think are the criteria of a great singer and why I think Stracciari meets them. You then say "I don't ask these sorts of technical questions. The main question I ask is do I like his voice?...As I say it's difficult to judge with ancient recordings but I've always found myself very puzzled when people come up with the view these people were incomparable."

I try to elaborate a bit on my previous explanation, still harboring some illusion that you actually want to understand why Stracciari is considered a great singer. But all you can say is "what I am talking about is preferences of the listener."

Well. I may be a little slow, but I think I'm getting it now. Obviously you don't really care why some singers are considered great, and your question wasn't a real question. So why did you ask it and put me to the trouble of answering it, when what you really wanted to say is that you're not impressed by Stracciari or other singers on those old recordings, and that all that matters to you is what you like, just because you like it - so take that, all you bloody connoisseurs of singing who think you know so much!

Then, having admitted that knowledge of singing is not your concern, you make a completely insupportable claim of - guess what? knowledge of singing! - by posing an analogy purporting to show that modern singers must have surpassed their predecessors. Why have they? Because athletes have!

And now you are saying that "our problems seem the same"? No. They don't. I do not have the same problem as you, whatever the heck that is. My problem is being asked to explain something to someone who doesn't give a fig for the explanation, but just wants to flaunt his personal tastes in the faces of people who actually have some ideas on the subject.

Next time, just say "personally, I prefer Bruscantini." I will try to remember not to ask you why.

I'm sorry you appear to consider someone disagreeing with you amounts to disrespect. It's not like that at all. Just I have my opinion. I said in the beginning that personally I prefer Bruscantini by what comes out of the speakers. You don't seem to have accepted that point and launched into why you thought Stracciari was wonderful. Fine! I've no problem with that. But when I say that these technical issues are not the chief thing I look for you appear to get offended and think it's disrespectful. Sorry! But we think differently! As I said before I just wanted to agree to differ but you can't seem to accept that. Sorry!

DavidA

· #34 · Jun 12, 2015

Diminuendo said:
Callas and Gobbi for me. Whenever I'm listening to another baritone or soprano I feel something is missing. With tenors I don't have problems, even though I Di Stefano is my absolute favorite.

Callas and Gobbi were both Incomperably as vocal actors. However the actual sound of their voices have certainly been surpassed by others. Why no singer could ever 'ruin' things for me as everyone has something different to bring to the table. Mind you, Gobbi's credo takes some beating!

Headphone Hermit

· #35 · Jun 12, 2015 (Edited)

DavidA said:
Singers are not creative artists

If you really mean this, then I can only think you are listening to the wrong singers.

Great singers 'create' as do all great musicians - their interpretations are creative (and in both 'big C' and 'little c' terms of creativity) and the greatest singers have changed the repertoire, the critical reception of aspects of the repertoire, understanding of specific pieces etc etc etc

Reactions: 3

Figleaf

· #36 · Jun 12, 2015 (Edited)

Woodduck said:
I'm going to differ with you and say that Dawson was a great singer with something less than a great instrument. I really did enjoy this, but a bit more "opulence" of timbre is important to me. I know it's a subjective preference, but for Iago? Darkness and weight of tone really is needed. I can't believe Dawson is evil; just set him alongside, say, Gobbi. A difference of "Night and Day" (Dawson could sing that quite stylishly, don't you think? With a little Noel Coward attitude?). He has a veddy British sound, to my ears - sort of reedy. No offense, but I can't help visualizing G & S when I hear him.

"Batti, batti..." (I'm covering my head).

Interesting that Dawson and Gobbi were both unusually versatile singers, yet each projected a certain persona that suited some kinds of music very well and seemed slightly out of place in others, even while they sang very well. I've heard Gobbi in lighter music such as Tosti's Ideale where his voice seems a little too dark to be suitable, as if a certain villainous/antihero quality which he uses to very good effect as Scarpia/ Iago/ Rigoletto is inherent in the timbre of the voice itself and can't be put aside just because it is unsuited to the material currently being sung. Dawson has a similar yet opposite problem in the Credo: the character is villainous but he sounds hearty and likeable, which is arguably appropriate for the Iago who is dissembling in the presence of the other characters but inappropriate for a soliloquy in which supposed to be revelling in undisguised villainy. Of course, I am not discounting the fact that Gobbi, while he could not change the basic timbre of his voice, was a distinguished operatic actor whereas Dawson (his turn as 'Hector Grant' aside) was content to be very much himself in everything he sang.

To the extent that I'm any kind of connoisseur of singing, two British (according to a broad definition of 'British'!) singers are responsible, and they are Peter Dawson and John McCormack. Both recorded popular material prolifically, and their records were the first records by great singers that I encountered (before I had heard any opera or 'classical' material), and together they set an incredibly high standard of baritone and tenor singing which the most celebrated continental and American singers should be held up to. To this day, I think that all baritones and basses chantantes should be subjected to the Peter Dawson test: can they sing the Largo al factotum, or Schubert's Erlkoenig, or Honour and Arms (or whatever) as cleanly, easily and elegantly as that great and underrated Australian bass baritone did? There is of course nothing wrong with associating him with his core repertoire of G&S, rousing patriotic songs etc, which were to him what Verdian and Puccinian villains were to Tito Gobbi. To get back on topic, sort of, Dawson has comprehensively 'ruined' the song repertoire associated with him for any other singers. I can't listen to anyone else singing 'The Fishermen of England' or 'The Road to Mandalay' (I hope Wood forgives me for secretly enjoying such obnoxiously rightwing, imperialistic songs as the latter, but it's an amazing Dawson performance nevertheless.)

PS If you find Dawson too reedy, you may enjoy Robert Easton. He came the closest to 'ruining' Gounod's Mephistopheles for me, in the English language recording conducted by Beecham in 1929-30. He has the elegance, the poise, the beauty of voice, but I was hoping for a little more thunder and rumbustiousness in 'Le veau d'or', where he is rather too well mannered (as was Plançon). Youtube has his 'Vecchia zimarra' from the complete Act IV of Boheme, which shows off his beautiful voice and tasteful singing, the latter always a relative rarity in Puccini:

Here he is in the Peter Dawson repertoire- a setting of the Kipling poem 'Boots', frustratingly lacking the last few bars.

And here is Dawson himself, so we can decide whether he has in fact quite 'ruined' the song for the more opulent voice of Robert Easton:

See less See more

Reactions: 1

Woodduck

· #37 · Jun 12, 2015

Figleaf said:
To this day, I think that all baritones and basses chantantes should be subjected to the Peter Dawson test: can they sing the Largo al factotum, or Schubert's Erlkoenig, or Honour and Arms (or whatever) as cleanly, easily and elegantly as that great and underrated Australian bass baritone did? There is of course nothing wrong with associating him with his core repertoire of G&S, rousing patriotic songs etc, which were to him what Verdian and Puccinian villains were to Tito Gobbi. To get back on topic, sort of, Dawson has comprehensively 'ruined' the song repertoire associated with him for any other singers. I can't listen to anyone else singing 'The Fishermen of England' or 'The Road to Mandalay' (I hope Wood forgives me for secretly enjoying such obnoxiously rightwing, imperialistic songs as the latter, but it's an amazing Dawson performance nevertheless.)

PS If you find Dawson too reedy, you may enjoy Robert Easton. He came the closest to 'ruining' Gounod's Mephistopheles for me, in the English language recording conducted by Beecham in 1929-30. He has the elegance, the poise, the beauty of voice, but I was hoping for a little more thunder and rumbustiousness in 'Le veau d'or', where he is rather too well mannered (as was Plançon). Youtube has his 'Vecchia zimarra' from the complete Act IV of Boheme, which shows off his beautiful voice and tasteful singing, the latter always a relative rarity in Puccini:

Here he is in the Peter Dawson repertoire- a setting of the Kipling poem 'Boots', frustratingly lacking the last few bars.

And here is Dawson himself, so we can decide whether he has in fact quite 'ruined' the song for the more opulent voice of Robert Easton:

Dawson is certainly fun to hear in his native metier. I fear I shall never find his timbre to my taste in Italian opera, or feel much identification with songs like "The Fishermen of Mandalay" (oops!) or "Boots", but I do enjoy the excursion across The Pond and the decades. So, thanks.

Easton has a clear, resonant voice indeed. That Boheme is charming (I'm listening right now). The lightweight voices make Rodolfo and Mimi sound like kids, which is not inappropriate. They aren't going to replace the likes of Bjorling and Tebaldi, but that's all right.

"Boots" made me laugh, by the way. Is it supposed to?

Reactions: 1

Figleaf

· #38 · Jun 12, 2015

Woodduck said:
Dawson is certainly fun to hear in his native metier. I fear I shall never find his timbre to my taste in Italian opera, or feel much identification with songs like "The Fishermen of Mandalay" (oops!) or "Boots", but I do enjoy the excursion across The Pond and the decades. So, thanks.

Easton has a clear, resonant voice indeed. That Boheme is charming (I'm listening right now). The lightweight voices make Rodolfo and Mimi sound like kids, which is not inappropriate. They aren't going to replace the likes of Bjorling and Tebaldi, but that's all right.

"Boots" made me laugh, by the way. Is it supposed to?

I assumed 'Boots' was meant to be sort of funny: Boer war gallows humour. The way Easton sings the line 'Omigod keep me from going lunatic' did actually make me laugh out loud, and I also like how Dawson let his Aussie accent show nicely on the first syllable of 'going' to convey the wry, earthy humour.

That Boheme recording is indeed a beauty, and has totally transformed how I think about that opera. I thought I had heard it years ago but I was obviously wrong as I remembered it being in English, which it isn't. I think Heddle Nash is a little reminiscent of Schipa in his elegance (and slightly strained top). I really wish they had recorded the whole opera!

Reactions: 1

DavidA

· #39 · Jun 12, 2015 (Edited)

Headphone Hermit said:
If you really mean this, then I can only think you are listening to the wrong singers.

Great singers 'create' as do all great musicians - their interpretations are creative (and in both 'big C' and 'little c' terms of creativity) and the greatest singers have changed the repertoire, the critical reception of aspects of the repertoire, understanding of specific pieces etc etc etc

Yes I agree. The context I made the comparison was that of composers. but singers can be said to 'create' a part.

Woodduck

· #40 · Jun 12, 2015

Headphone Hermit said:
Great singers 'create' as do all great musicians - their interpretations are creative (and in both 'big C' and 'little c' terms of creativity) and the greatest singers have changed the repertoire, the critical reception of aspects of the repertoire, understanding of specific pieces etc etc etc

Absolutely. Every intelligent performing musician appreciates the extent to which the creation of a musical experience is in the hands of the interpreter of those pages of dots, dashes and squiggles known as "the score." Remarkably little of that experience can be represented in written form in much of the music we listen to, and in vocal music least of all. Creating a performance of an operatic role is a major creative achievement - or, rather, it can be, though it too often is not. Most singers, like most people in most of life's activities, are more or less content to do what they have learned how to do, and even their thrusts at individuality are pretty conventional and unmemorable. We are not even likely to imagine what's possible until a singer/actor with the spark of genius - a Hotter, a Vickers, a Ludwig, a Lehmann, a Schwarzkopf, a Callas, an Olivero - gets hold of a work we thought we knew and reveals dimensions in it we never suspected.

"Creating a role" is merely a conventional expression for being the first to sing it. Taking that role and creating a character is a true act of co-creation with the composer.

See less See more

Reactions: 2

21 - 40 of 90 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.