This stuff is going all over my social media at the present thanks to opera singing friends. And fair enough too - a bunch of saggy old men having a go at women for their looks in an art form that is (or should be) defined first and foremost by the quality of music and music-making. What a crock of %^&*

 

She's heavy, but far from ugly. Great singer. If all goes well this whole debacle will only make her more famous and successful.

 

Singers should be judged first and foremost on their musical ability, and only secondarily, if that, on their appearance. I think this kind of treatment is uncalled for.

 

With all of the male opera singers who are 30+ pounds overweight, a female singer gets no slack even in a trouser role.

 

Johan Botha gets a lot of sniggering and he's a fabulous singer too. Not to excuse these clowns (the critics), just saying.

 

Just a note. I read once that whenever you see the word "should," it's followed by a value judgment.

 

It's cruel, but oh so typical. Female tennis players & swimmers have been mocked for their appearance lately too. What is it with men? Why do so many think that they have the right to comment on the appearance of any woman? How will it help opera if female singers feel hounded into trading good health and equanimity for eating disorders & makeovers?

Angry & Despairing, but Unsurprised.

 

What is it with men? Why do so many think that they have the right to comment on the appearance of any woman?

Maybe the fact that the woman is on the stage. She wears custome, make-up and all the other stuff supposed to make her look in a certain way. Commenting on her appearance, if free of unneccessary malice, is simply expressing your impression on certain aspect of spectacle.

 

I saw a segment -- I think on 60 minutes, or a like major television network show, where a female secretary was called in for a consult with her boss, and she went in prepared with a hidden microphone in her purse and she recorded that meeting.

She was informed, a few degrees to the right of implicit and several degrees to the left of specific, that she was expected to lose some weight and have breast augmentation surgery if she wanted to keep her job.

She commented in this TV segment, (voice and face digitally masked) that this near imperative was delivered to her by a boss who is well overweight, who has a sagging pot belly and well-progressed male baldness.

I'm all for the comments about how one does or "should" look, as long as the rules and the game are the same for everyone, those critics included

 

Gosh I was expecting something rotund, but far from it. Seems to me that the issue here is one of casting, costumes, direction and acting. In this opulent opera of beautiful people, critics clearly have expectations beyond the music, and so does the audience.

Tara looks quite pretty to me. Speaking as a red-blooded (lecherous?) male, if should could drop a few pounds she'd be a stunner. If you're going to be a fuller figured lady your voice has to be pretty damn good like, say, Jamie Barton.

 

I think that if we met Tara, heard her voice, interacted with her personality....we might still think she's a 'stunner' at whatever weight she presently is...the power of the whole personality to charm shouldn't be underestimated.
That said, it makes sense to present oneself to greatest effect in a dramatic part...& thus it would make some sense to lose some weight....but 'whatever' there is no place in a critical review for such highly personal remarks, irrespective of gender.

 

Y'know, alex, I'm sure Tara would be rapt with your assessment of her sexual attractiveness if she were on the prowl at Inverness's hottest nite spot (or maybe not?!).

But actually she's singing at Glyndbourne.

 

Y'know, alex, I'm sure Tara would be rapt with your assessment of her sexual attractiveness if she were on the prowl at Inverness's hottest nite spot (or maybe not?!).

But actually she's singing at Glyndbourne.

We have to assume Alex is also a real stunner, with less than 10% body fat, the rest all taut muscle, that he is on or a bit above six feet in height, and that he has a face also stunning enough "to launch a thousand ships." Ha Haaaaa Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

 

So much for fat soprano stereotypes.

It's surprising more than anything. Has the audience never watched Wagner? This girl would be the thinnest Fricka the world has seen. When did opera audiences start caring about this?

Besides, isn't Anna Netrebko still the darling of opera?

 

When did opera audiences start caring about this?

I think the audience for the lyric repertoire has different physical expectations from the singers, possibly because said singers have always been thinner. I might be wrong, I haven't thought long and hard about it. But the expectations are obvious when watching recent productions/DVDs.

 

Opera makes the news. Everywhere!
Tara Erraught becomes (at least temporarily) famous, and no doubt in demand. Hope she's able to make the most of it.
Glyndebourne sells more tickets.

I think the (non-opera-going) general public will be amazed as what is considered overweight in the opera world these days.

 

Personally I think it's all a bit of a storm in a teacup, and one that will probably do the young lady's career no harm at all, but one should note that both Strauss and Hofmannthal both had in mind a slim, boyish figure to play Octavian; the reasons for casting the role as a soprano were both physical and vocal. I do think that, whereas one might accept a slightly larger Sophie or Marschallin, it is much harder to get away with a little extra weight in a role like Octavian, or Cherubino.

I have seen quite a few Octavians in my time, both on stage and on video - Sena Jurinac, Agnes Baltsa, Anne Howells, Brigitte Fassbaender, among others - all slim, all physically believable and, as such, able to help us suspend disbelief and imagine Octavian really is a boy, though, if I'm honest, Jurinac does have something of the pantomime principal boy about her, which can also be a trap of the role. Anne Howells was actually the most convincingly boyish.

Size can matter sometimes, and others not. For instance I have the DVD of Caballe as Norma from Orange, where her size and relative immobility bother me hardly at all, whereas in a telecast from Japan of the famous Zeffirelli Covent Garden Tosca, it bothered me rather more. The set had a rather high parapet from which Tosca would jump to her death. I saw quite a few sopranos in this production, most of them much slighter figure. The final plunge to her death was meant to be a mad dash to the finish, but Caballe started her slow ascent to the parapet for her suicide much, much earlier than any of the other singers. The guards would have had to have been very slow indeed not to catch her. This is when suspending one's disbelief can be a problem.

 

Personally I think it's all a bit of a storm in a teacup, and one that will probably do the young lady's career no harm at all, but one should note that both Strauss and Hofmannthal both had in mind a slim, boyish figure to play Octavian; the reasons for casting the role as a soprano were both physical and vocal. I do think that, whereas one might accept a slightly larger Sophie or Marschallin, it is much harder to get away with a little extra weight in a role like Octavian, or Cherubino.

Well I'm sure that Beethoven had in mind a skeletal figure as Florestan in Fidelio, but it din't stop the Met casting Ben Heppner in the role. Karita Mattila couldn't even get her arms round his neck when she was singing about how gaunt he was. But as far as I can see the reviews mention his lack of acting but not his size.

 

Posted on another forum: "Full figured great contralto ERNESTINE SCHUMANN HEINK entered the Hall in Detroit to rehearse a concert. On her way to the podium she knocked over music and music stands and a few chairs whereupon conductor Ossip Gabrilowitsch gently suggested "Tina, why don't you walk sideways"? The amazed singer ruefully said "Ossip, can't you zee, wiz me dere iss NO SIDEVAYS."

 

Richard Morrison in The Times of London: "Unbelievable, unsightly and unappealing."

I did a quick Google image search for him - and found that apparently, he has no chin. Makes you think.

 

Morrison does not appear on stage though!

 

An ad hominem argument against the critic doesn't make sense. His job is to give opinions on what he hears and sees, not to compare the artist to himself. However I certainly won't defend his unnecessary rudeness.

Putting the (rather fetching) Tara aside, as in this case its seems a matter of production, direction and expectations...

...I'm not in the camp that says it's okay for you to be obese as long as you sing beautifully. Nor do I want singers to be stick thin. I wish them to be fit and healthy, the same as I wish for myself, family and friends.

Can we dismiss the notion that bigness is required to have a good operatic voice?

 

In my world his rudeness makes it worthwhile to consider him a chinless wonder.
And as for the logical fallacy - oh dear. But I'm prepared to take that one on my own chin.

 

In my world his rudeness makes it worthwhile to consider him a chinless wonder.

so does bari-chunks

 

Richard Morrison in The Times of London: "Unbelievable, unsightly and unappealing."

I did a quick Google image search for him - and found that apparently, he has no chin. Makes you think.

Why does it make you think? You do grasp that there are different expectations for actors as there are for critics... and yes opera singers are actresses and actors as well as singers. Opera is musical theater. We would likely laugh at a film that cast an older overweight actor as a seductress or teenage lover. By the same token I would have difficulty with an older Pavarotti and Sutherland in this scene:

I have the same difficulty with poorly acted or horribly staged/costumed productions. Opera is musical theater... but one can only suspend one's disbelief so far.

Having said this, there is no excuse for the critic's excessive rudeness. If he felt that the singer/actress in question was unsuitable for the role that is more the fault of the director and producer who cast an individual in a role in which they may have been fully suited as a vocalist, but not in appearance.

 

Yes, I do grasp. Perhaps you too can grasp the idea that not everyone uses a smiley or an emoticon at the end of a post. If you can then you'll understand my comment.
And again, there's no excuse for his rudeness.

 

Not to mention women who comment playfully on the beauty of other women, hehe.

 

Expressing that you find a specific singer very attractive is not necessarily an implication that you want the less attractive singers to fix their imperfections or get off the stage.

 

The fact is that opera is supposed to be music theatre. When I hear this nonsense:

Writing for the Guardian website, fellow mezzo soprano Jennifer Johnstone, asked: "How, then, have we arrived at a point where opera is no longer about singing but about the physiques and looks of the singers, specifically the female singers?"

Opera is about the voice but it's also about the looks of the singers. Especially now we are in an age of filmed opera where close-ups are far more common. I have a DVD of mastersingers which I do not watch simply because the tenor looks as if he should have been playing Falstaff! The same hulking tenor also ruined a performance of Beethoven's Fidelio, even though he sang well. I mean, can you imagine a man who has been starving in a dungeon coming out looking about 20 stone?
I note that when HvK recorded butterfly he recorded it with Pavarotti, who sang wonderfully. But when the Ponnelle film came out Domingo played the role of Pinkerton. I wonder why?
Part of the problem with this Gylndebourne production appears to be the anachronistic nature of it which struggles against what the composer had in mind. Of course, the trouser role singer should be young and lithe - that is what is in the piece. There is no excuse for rudeness by critics but neither is there an excuse for the silly outpouring of indignation at people commenting that the lass looks wrong in the part.
As it is I noticed the production is being broadcast on June 8. The curious can go and see there. I doubt whether I will be among them!

 

If we want to hear the music of opera supremely well-sung, we are going to have to tolerate, at times, singers whose physical appearance is less than ideal. If we want a perfect theatrical illusion, we will at times have to tolerate less than the best singing. We will get some of both, as we always have. I come down more on the side of vocal and musical excellence; those who come down on the other side should be aware of which singers they cannot enjoy watching and avoid attending their performances. Frankly, I have my limits too: I can't bear to watch the Met DVD of Tristan und Isolde with Jane Eaglen, whose extreme obesity is visually shocking, makes her incapable of moving well, and destroys all dramatic credibility (Ben Heppner, to be fair, is pretty bulky too, but not immobilized by fat). But we should not let the extreme cases determine the general rule. Everything is a compromise in such a complex art as opera, and some tolerance is required of all of us. Most of us think that it's worth it.

 

People are so oversensitive nowadays... Anyway, the article says nothing about the lady's own reaction, so it is possible that she actually could not care less about what some random people think of her.

 

The young lady in question has very sensibly refused to comment.

 

Whilst on this topic, though, there is such thing as having the physique du role. I remember critics saying that for instance the diminutive Scotto never really convinced as Norma, because she didn't have it, whereas the much larger Caballe did. Callas had it when she was both fat and thin.

Certainly, a slim figure is an advantage in the role of Octavian, given what the singer is likely to have to wear.

Surely what happened to Deborah Voigt here in London a few years ago was actually more heinous.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/3540667.stm