[BaritoneAssoluto]

Hello everyone. it's your neighborhood Baritone, BaritoneAssoluto here and I've got a great deal to talk about. Today's topic might be something a few of us may know and a lot of us may not understand just in-depth what truly is the cause of said topic. Today's topic I will be examining will be the Soprano Assoluta voice also known as the Soprano Sfogato and its place in the world of Opera today. I'm going to start this conversation off with a video from a youtuber by the name of Primohomme. He released three videos on the "in-between" Soprano voices: Assoluta, Falcon, and the Dugazon (which is just a Mezzo-Soprano Soubrette). I started the video within 00:22 seconds of the video so we can skip the filler.

Historically, this term was given to the past "divas" of Opera's yesteryear such as Giuditta Pasta, Maria Malibran, Giulia Grisi, Adelina Patti, and Henriette Sontag. More commonly, the term has been used to describe the Greek-American Soprano of the 20th century, Maria Callas. Here's a brief history behind the usage of the name and how it was appliedinoperasofit's day:

"The assoluta's heyday was the first four of five decades of the nineteenth century, the period which coincides with the flourishing of Romanticism all over Europe, and she represented the artistic emancipation from the neo-Aristotelian proprieties of character: consistency, suitability to station, trueness to type, appropriateness of behavior, and so forth, along with the Romantic interest in human heroism, the defiance of the gods, the extremes of human character, of situtation and behavior, and a total unpredictability." (Source: The Assoluta Voice in opera: 1797-1847, by Geoffrey S. Riggs)

Here's a few characteristics of the assoluta/Soprano Sfogato voice:

It possesses a dark timbre with a rich and strong low register, as well as the high notes of a soprano and occasionally a coloratura soprano. Those voices are typically strong, dramatic and agile, supported by an excellent bel canto technique and an ability to sing in the soprano tessitura as well as in the contralto tessitura with great ease.
The common requirements for the roles associated with this voice type are:

• widely varied tessitura throughout the role, extended segments lying well into the low mezzo or contralto tessitura and segments lying in high soprano tessitura
• a range extending down to at least low B and at least up to high B with at least one whole tone required at either end
• fioratura (coloratura) singing in the most intricate bel canto style
• florid singing combined with heroic weight
• a heavy or dense sound in the lower range
• vocal power over energetic orchestral accompaniment.

With that being said, the Assoluta voice is more than rare in the Opera world today. We have been forced to accept the notion that only canaries can sing Lucia di Lammermoor, Roberto Deveraux and that only dramatic/spintos can sing Aid, Leonora from Destino and Trovatore, Medea, and Norma. In the days of the Assoluta, you were REQUIRED to sing Norma, Donna Anna, Donna Elvira, Medea, Tosca, Kundry, Aida, Norma, Gioconda, Countess, Armida, Armina, Elisabetta, Leonora (destino and Trovatore), Mimi. We must eliminate that notion once again and bring back the good old singing... where those singers gave it their all and didn't regret it.

The Assoluta of today is nowhere to be found (and please don't sayDevia or Gruberova because those two queens are horrible.) Angela Meade is the only one who is close to an actual dramatic coloratura soprano but she doesn't have that extra "it" to be an Assoluta (unless she retrains her entire instrument like they did back in the 19th and 18th centuries.)

Please discuss guys, I'm always ready! Once again this is your neighborhood Baritone, BaritoneAssoluta speaking and saying "Out"!

 

[BaritoneAssoluto]

Has that sort of activity happened on this topic? I wished you would you would've told me that before. But honestly, I know the people are mature here.

 

[BaritoneAssoluto]

As the historians have noted, it is a particular fach that is described for a rare type of Soprano. There's only been one pure Assoluta in the 20th century but there's been some others who have "proto-assoluta" like qualities, but they lack some of the mean ideal characteristics that would classifiy them wholly as an Assoluta.

 

[BaritoneAssoluto]

you're probably expecting some major disagreement from me, but you are criticizing technical trends which arouse out of the fach system, not the fach system itself. with that in mind, your criticism is valid. several examples I think of are:
1) failure to teach heavier voices to sing some degree of coloratura. among healthily-produced big voices, everyone from Kirsten Flagstad to Dolora Zajick to Tito Gobbi believes that vocal flexibility is important in keeping the voice fresh.
2) teaching lighter voices that they don't need to support the bottom 2/3 of their range (except for tenors, in which case it's all types of tenors and the bottom 4/5 of the range lmao).
3) (especially in Wagner), the notion that big voices do not need to sing with legato (hell, we basically expect lyric singers to sing legato anymore. after dramatic voices, some of the biggest offenders are those girly lil coloraturas, and it seems like we've given up on the concept of male voices singing legato altogether apart from Hvorostovsky).

And this is why you have less and less dramatic voices and more for a lack of a better term "screwed" up voices, that only sound good with microphones. Cecilia Bartoli is the only light lyric coloratura Mezzo-Soprano i know that hasn't wandered off and sung inappropriate repertory because she knows her small sized voice limits here ability to do anything dramatic.

There's a wonder why Dolora Zajick made a foundation specifically created to cultivate and to further help big-sized voices or Dramatic voices to have a career. They are being pushed aside for "lyrics" or small-sized instruments and the reasons are:
1. They're cheaper.
2. They can delude people that the sound that they make are their "own" aka with a microphone, eliminating the "work to be heard from the floor seats to the cheap seats" out of the equation.
3. They're more primed to sing then the dramatic voice and thus as a result of neglecting a big, dramatic artist/voice, they are killing the true purpose of what Opera is all about: The art and not the actually "look" of the singers.

All in all,I can't name you one person from each voice type that is going to save us because half of the ones we already know are pushing to retirement (due to age) or they lost their former vocal glory and have moved on to "easier" work (Terfel, Fleming, Otter singing and performing on broadway more).

Hvorostovsky sings with a microphone so he's not a good example for legato singing. He basically huffs and puffs his way through the intricate Verdian line and it distorts his breath and overall vocal production.

 

[BaritoneAssoluto]

I don't know whether this is another thread exulting great singers of the past, but I want to say that I was around 50 or so reading the reviews of some of Callas' Bel Canto recordings in the Gramophone and they were not universally favourable. Perhaps a perceptive comment at the time was made by (I think) Andrew Porter who said something like: "A Callas, a Sutherland, a Caballe comes along, and all we can do is to talk about their failings......" There appears to be this myth about great singers of the past but frankly hearing some of them (albeit in totally inadequate recordings) I do find it difficult to enthuse.

So because of a few bad reviews, must one completely ignore all of the positive and mostly pin-point accurate reviews that are not based off on a previous bias? I mean what's the purpose of a musical historian then? And no this will not turn into one of the other threads because I will regularly check that it doesn't. We're not just discussing Madame Callas (despite using as a prime example,) anyone with actual characteristics (not just because of a big or huge voice can be termed an assoluta,) are welcomed in this discussion.

 

[BaritoneAssoluto]

Someone forgot to tell her that...............

Oh yeah... that. Cecilia Bartoli that she needs to stick to the earlier operas of Paisiello, Scarlatti, Caccini, and Vivaldi. She shouldn't EVER touch Bellini (especially Norma or La Sonnambula where she "thinks" just because of her idol, Maria Malibran did them, that she is DESTINED to follow "past greatness"). Bartoli is suited for stuff that isn't heavy or sits in one place. She's the complete opposite of an assoluta and is a Dugazon... a much lower tessitura-filled Soubrette voice, suited for the great trouser roles.

Same could be said for Caballe or Sutherland when they touched it as well. Caballe thinks that by singing PPP (even though they WEREN'T written in the score), they make her interpretation more "personal" and actually good. I can't even consider Caballe an Assoluta but she's a nice lyric soprano who made her make doing things that released Hell's gates upon the world of Opera ever since then.

Sutherland? No question or no comment on that one. You guys could probably do a better job of ripping her to shreds then myself.

 

[BaritoneAssoluto]

Yes to get the facts and not to fill it up with lies based upon their own pre-existing biases. No critic I've known have fit their criteria and that's the main reason why Opera Singers hate critics. They lie and make-up nonsense to sell their stories. It happened in the 30's with Ponselle, 50-60's with Callas, 70's-80's with Sherill Milnes and it has happened now with Hvorostovsky and Netrebko.

 

[BaritoneAssoluto]

first off, Caballe is a spinto, not a lyric. she has wonderful recordings of heavier roles like Armida, Forza del Destino, Turandot, even some Wagner. the voice was large, powerful and capable of hefty dramatic weight when called for

as for Norma, I mostly agree, except that....I actually prefer Sutherland's interpretation of both of the arias, the cabaletta and trio. this is ironic, because she is ill suited for the role overall. other than that, Callas is THE Norma (especially the duet. omfg.......).

The thing is Caballe stated in an interview before she was also a "full-lyric soprano," so that Spinto thing just doesn't work. She may have done those roles but technically (speaking on the assolutas requirements,) she didn't fit the bill to be classified as an assoluta -- yet alone the even scarce Spinto. It was a medium sized instrument (in it's prime with some agilita, but that went away around 1975-1981) that only got it's recognition for her overall abuse of PPPs. The voice was quite ugly when sung out in full force as her Turandot and Leonora proves that and she was quite restricted on low notes (again, they weren't as present but better than Sutherlands by a mile.)

Sutherland's horrible diction, loss of her vocal agility, and her husband all adds to the core of the problem: Sutherland wasn't primed to singing the great Bel canto roles in Opera. She got away with a having a vocally secure Lucia and Armina but when it came down to the "nitty, gritty", she suffered. By 1975, she had lost 65% of her once acclaimed agility, her diction was always horrible and was just mush and her lower register and middle registers developed a nasty mid-career wobble. She had to transpose her pieces up in order to avoid climatic phrases that required her to sing lower notes and thanks to her husband, was forced to sing repertory that showcased her worst spots. Sutherland singing Norma, Elvira, Violetta, Lucrezi and Maria Stuarda were not good. And don't get me started on her poor attempt of singing Versimo with Puccini's Turandot.

 

[BaritoneAssoluto]

I knew it, didn't take long till the bashing started and here we go again.

Not bashing. Trust me, I can bash but I'm keeping it honest. We need to fully be honest with each other in order to have such a candid conversation.

 

[BaritoneAssoluto]

And I thought I was tough on singers! :lol:

The faults you point to were real, though isn't 65% a bit excessive and overspecific? Even in late career Sutherland had fine coloratura, even if the voice was no longer the clean, silvery instrument it had been. I don't much like the way her voice and musicianship developed after the early 1960s - the mushy diction and swoony phrasing were just unmusical, and of course the encroaching wobble - but my ears tell me that in early career she was vocally superb in the lighter bel canto roles, and that even in the '70s there was no one with her combination of range, power and agility in that repertoire. For that matter there hasn't been since, as far as I'm aware (Radvanovsky may be the best we have at the moment, and her coloratura is no match even for late Sutherland, though she's a better musician and actress).

Sutherland's voice was fit to restoring the great Baroque and earlier light-Belcanto (opera Buffo) roles. The heavier the role she picked, the worst it sounded in her voice. There's a reason why her Lakme and Alcina still outsells the rest of her entire discography. The voice was silvery like a bell, had the colorization of a true lyric coloratura and her voice was more energetic than when she got caught up with her husband and his nefarious demands of her singing the harder Belcanto repertorie. I wholeheartedly believe that Early SUtherland 1959-1968 will always be her prime. Not a big fan of her voice but she was good in that period. The "Horne, Pavarotti" era is where the voice was at its lowest and the 70's weren't kind to her either.

I don't know why but I really miss Jennifer Larmore and Carol Vaness. Where are those two lovely ladies?

 

[BaritoneAssoluto]

Galvany is a monochromatic singer. She has basically one quality of expression: maniacal. Lucia as Lady Macbeth. Her coloratura is hit or miss, OK when she can ride her powerful vibrato but terrible in the Norma excerpt. She has no trill. Can you imagine that voice as Amina? More like Santuzza, regardless of the role. Far from "assoluta," if the term actually means more than high, low, and loud.

Gencer was a strong artist but not exactly a paragon of musical poise and style. Versatile yes, but that clip's attempt to portray her as all those different types, from lyric coloratura to contralto, is absurd. Still, despite a certain roughness, a better candidate for "assoluta" than Galvany.

There's an unidentified mezzo in the Pendatchanska clip. It's mostly a lot of loud coloratura singing anyway. I think this is more revealing:

Well, it isn't bel canto, is it? Such uneven tonal emission, and a weird, wild, bumpy ride, musically speaking. She does have a trill. I think her Lucia is stylistically saner and technically better, though the approach to high notes is sometimes crude and the phrasing not very imaginative or finely drawn:

She has another one of these voices, so common nowadays, that I couldn't necessarily pick out in a lineup.

Well. Now for the real deal. You only have to listen to Shirley Verrett for a few moments to hear that she completely outclasses the others in every way. I'd also say she's the only true falcon in the group, with a range encompassing securely both soprano and mezzo. She had the voice, technique, musicianship and sense of style to sing virtually anything, beautifully and memorably.

I'd just like to add this, a performance worthy to stand beside assoluta Rosa Ponselle's "O nume tutelar" as an exemplar of the fine art of singing:

My verdict? One out of four: Shirley Verrett, Assoluta.

I've classified Mrs. Verrett as a Proto-Assoluta, meaning she's got assoluta-like qualities but her coloratura wasn't as stable as say a Callas or Sutherland. I think Soprano Falcon works for her best. While she had great high notes, some of those high notes were quite strident and often weaker when compared to her counterpart, Grace Bumbry (who was often afraid of her own high notes as well and didn't have the stronger coloratura either.)

 

[BaritoneAssoluto]

It is my opinion and mine alone and I honestly think you can not be a serious musician if you don't have these recordings, somewhere saved in your laptop/desktop. She does so much by doing so little and every bits and pieces of information she gives out, is spot on and very intelligent. I actually think she could've been a great teacher to lower voiced males (she had an affinity for those Baritones and often complimented them and the basses for their voices and overall characterization but felt they needed more.)

If it's alright with you guys, I'd like to share a few clips of the class myself here:

Enjoy! Hopefully by Sunday, I should have another juicy topic to discuss in this thread but until then, hopefully those videos will satiate your thirst!

 

[BaritoneAssoluto]

I think her voice could have easily been cast as a spinto Soprano, instead of the pushed up (or down) Mezzo-Soprano she forced herself into being. Tebaldi never had a true B flat, Ponselle would criticize her own High notes, Callas hated her High A's (and people even said it made them seasick, yikes!) but when I listen to Horne (as a mezzo and in those early '63 excerpts,) the voice sits exactly where it should -- in the very middle-topish of her voice. Or, quite frankly she could've been cast as a Falcon as Verrett and Bumbry are known to be.

 

[BaritoneAssoluto]

Do anyone think Carol Vaness would fit the bill of a Soprano Assoluta?

 

[BaritoneAssoluto]

[/B]

1. Do you have proof that Hvorotstovsky sings with a microphone?

2. Even if he did sing with a microphone, what connection does that have to good legato singing? I can think of a number of pop singers, past and present, who have fine legato and, naturally, sing with microphones.

1. Yes i have on many occasions actually. His performance in Un Ballo around 2015, at the Met. He was doing his best to hide it but it made it even more obvious and the easily noticeable things he was doing:
a. Overcompensating for his lack of dramatic intensity in his singing by pushing the voice to do things he wouldn't do if he truly was a dramatic voice.

2. I mean it's Opera! You don't need a microphone to sing and the single fact that you're questioning about good legato singing, shows that Opera in 2016 is no longer the field it was just 100 or even 50 years ago. Good legato singing is the ultimate rule for Bel Canto singing. if you lack even that connectivity to singing, I question whether or not you should be singing bel canto or even music in general.

 

[BaritoneAssoluto]

That would speak volumes that our teachers are NOT during their jobs then. Any singer who can't sing note to note with the purest form of legato, in my estimation, shouldn't be singing Opera let alone shouldn't be singing music in general. I've seen it happen too many times in universities and even in high schools. Teachers are no longer relying on the techniques of old (that has proven to work many times) to continue that tradition of Bel Canto (which as we know is more than just beautiful singing).

 

[BaritoneAssoluto]

I'm going to start in reverse here:

"Accusatory tone.."? First things first throughout my time here, I've never done anything that should be questioned really and I've always talked to you users with the utmost respect so that allegation of having a non-pleasant tone, is rather confusing to me. Your "question" really isn't a question but just be plain old common sense. You state pop singers can sing legato with a microphone but how can you tell when they have special microphones? And now with the advent of apps that can strip background music and all the extra theatrics from a singer's performance now, we can now analyze entire performances just purely hearing the singers voice and the results have all been negative. Amplifcation adds a HUGE deal to the overall sound of Opera. I ttakes away the NATURAL ability to communicate with the audience, with your God-Given talent and getting a chance to test out your voice against orchestras and the audience. Microphones hinder that simple process. There's a reason why Titta Ruffo was called the Golden lion or Maria Callas was called the biggest voiced-Sopranos of our time: they used their own voices and their own abilities to carry them through a theater, not some cheap tricks. And again one can easily look into the past and see how some, need not use any microphone in order to express conventional Bel Canto singing nor legato singing. It's ludicrous really to try to compare to different fields when one field EMPHASIZES on the need for legato singing and the other has several different styles that a singer can "indulge' in.

Now to your comment on my Hvorostovsky comment. I have NEVER made any accusations or assumptions based off of someone else's hearsay or their opinion. I form my own opinion by obviously going to see something LIVE and in person or hearing a recording of them and seeing what I can analyze myself. It was a nice trip that involved a summer opera camp giving out free tickets to see the Met's performance of "Un ballo in Maschera", 2015. We did get some nice seats (I had a chance to see Mr. Levine conduct in person and was astounded by his relationship to Verdi) and ultimately we got a chance to talk backstage (I had a chance to get Dmitri to sign my Met book!) Everyone knows I have a love-hate relationship with Dmitri's voice: On the onset, it's a very lyrical-cantabile baritone voice that combines (usually,) good legato singing with purity of tone, however, it's a voice that is so far pushed out of its limits that it's usually uncomfortable to sit and listen to him for more than 15 minutes. He's a pure lyric baritone who (like his American counterpart,) Thomas Hampson, who's attempts of the more Verdian/Dramatic baritone roles are facetious at best. He struggled throughout the entire performance that night and many of us in the camp were thinking that he was purely attempting vocal suicide with the way he was carrying on. It was a vocal lesson I'll never forget and hopefully NEVER have to go through myself.


Does that now answer your question?

 

[BaritoneAssoluto]

Well, it doesn't, really, because your latest post is very hard to follow. For example, what are "special microphones," and how would they give the impression that a pop singer has good "line" when he does not? It seems to me that (at least) two different issues are being confused here: projection/size of voice and legato singing. In your initial post you wrote, "Hvorostovsky sings with a microphone, so he's not a good example of legato singing." If he does sing with a microphone in the opera house, then that's a vocal size/projection issue, not a "legato" issue.

Again, I have no argument with the idea that opera singers should not be using microphones other than when recording or broadcasting, so there is no need to keep reiterating that point. On the other hand, you've still provided no proof that Hvorostovsky actually uses a microphone; as far as I can tell, it's your opinion that he does. While I don't doubt your credentials as an experienced vocal technician, I stand by what I said above: if you have no actual proof of what you say, then it is wrong to say it as though it's a fact -- because if, after all, it's not a fact, then all that has been accomplished is the damaging of a singer's reputation.

I mean in response to the Microphone, Famous Operatic Mezzo-Soprano Marilyn Horne, even stated this:

"The microphones are coming. It's just a matter of time before the older generation that understands what a disaster microphones would be is safely out of the way. And when they come, that'll be the beginning of the end. Who will really learn to sing? There won't be any need to. The same thing will happen to opera that we have seen happen to Broadway. When I was young there were any number of well-produced, attractive voices in musicals. Today you have George Hearn, maybe one or two others, and that's it. There is no market for a good sound" (New York Times, March 24, 1991).

Take that with whatever as you may and the thing with the Hvorostovsky... If you can't take my word on something, that's your discretion. However, if you're going to tell me that the group of people, who we all saw the exact same thing, communicated on the very exact issue, then again that is your discretion. I know what I saw and in no way am I trying to "discredit" his reputation. I gave him some of the very best reviews I've got for a current lyrical baritone but honestly that doesn't exclude him from the current incursion regarding Microphones and Opera singers. Marilyn Horne spoke about in 1991, Callas spoke about it in 1972, Joseph Shore continues to talk about it today so when I say that I'm confident that the usage of microphones is killing the Opera industry, I can back that "assumption" up.

I gain nothing... absolutely NOTHING for saying that comment (like monetary gain wise that is or any "kick" for doing it) and I stick by it 135%

 

[BaritoneAssoluto]

Really? How good is her monologue from Wozzeck?