What is the point of Ian Bostridge?
Barry Riley
Mark S
> ?
Good question.
There's nothing to the voice itself, which is particularly limited in
expression and unattractive in quality. That greatly limits his
ability to bring much insight/depth to his singing. It's the kind of
voice that people who don't like singers tend to enjoy very much. I
can't think of a modern singer who the critical press has adorned with
the proverbial emperor's nonexistent wardrobe more than Bostridge.
Compared to Bostridge, Pears was Wunderlich.
Bob Harper
I wish I had before me a copy of an essay written by a former student
(an aspiring opera singer, and at the very least a fine tenor) who
recounted his encounter with Bostridge at a concert in Portland (OR).
AIR, after allowing for the lack of beauty of the voice, he said he was
still thunderstruck by the communication Bostridge achieved. YMMV, but I
think the young man's got a point.
Bob Harper
Mark S
Well, Bob, all I can say is that just like your "former student," I
felt that I knew everything there was to know about what qualified as
being communicative singing when I was still a "young man"...and I
knew that without having had the opportunity and TIME to hear hundreds
of professional singers so that I might form a basis for expressing
such an opinion...so I'm going to go ahead and assume that any opinion
expressed by a student/young man - especially in an "essay" - about
what constitutes a communicative artist should be taken with a grain
of salt.
The truth is that many of the greatest singers - like Wunderlich - can
communicate more through the sheer beauty of their voice than a
Bostridge could ever hope to achieve with all of his obvious book
knowledge and externally imposed musicality. One need not graft on
some arbitrary communicative device when the voice itself touches the
soul. That's the point I'm trying to make.
mandryka
memorable, haunting,beautiful. Once was at Covent Garden where he was
singing Don Ottavio. He was magical in the trio "Proteggra il giusto
cielo." The other was in a Jonathan Miller production of Monteverdi's
Orfeo, where he sang Orfeo.
I have a couple of CDs. One is one of my very favourites, and includes
Dichterliebe and the Op 24 Liederkreis. I recommend it unreservedly,
especially the OP 24. The other is Wolf, and I think it's less
successful. But really I haven't played the Wolf CD much and I could
be missing something.
He belongs maybe to a tradition which includes Pears, Erb and maybe
Cuenod and Muneteanu.
ivanmaxim
>
> - Show quoted text -
The great thing about Wunderlich is that his artistry improved with
time and he didn't "depend" on the voice to accomplish all of his
artistic gaols. Comparing his two recordings of Schone Mullerin one
hears a definite improvement in the interpretation. I'm not sure he
would ever have become a great Lieder singer, but the fact that he
worked at his art so assiduously counts for a great deal. Wagner fan
wkasimer
I've heard many of his recordings, but I've seen him live only once -
in the Britten War Requiem with the BSO perhaps a decade ago. I was
really quite surprised at how well his voice carried, and how much
fuller he sounded in the flesh than on records. He also seemed less
mannered, perhaps because he was concentrating on *singing* rather
than interpreting.
But his recordings are ghastly. I suppose that the interpretations
might be interesting, but the voice itself sounds so threadbare that I
can't get past it.
Bill
William Sommerwerck
news:bfe514d4-203e-4610...@y13g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> The truth is that many of the greatest singers - like Wunderlich - can
> communicate more through the sheer beauty of their voice than a
> Bostridge could ever hope to achieve with all of his obvious book
> knowledge and externally imposed musicality. One need not graft on
> some arbitrary communicative device when the voice itself touches the
> soul. That's the point I'm trying to make.
You've obviously never seen Disney's "Sleeping Beauty".
Bob Harper
Perhaps so, but that does not invalidate his experience.
>
> The truth is that many of the greatest singers - like Wunderlich - can
> communicate more through the sheer beauty of their voice than a
> Bostridge could ever hope to achieve with all of his obvious book
> knowledge and externally imposed musicality. One need not graft on
> some arbitrary communicative device when the voice itself touches the
> soul. That's the point I'm trying to make.
>
That Wunderlich was wonderful is not to be disputed. His death at such
an early age is up there with Lipatti and Cantelli in terms of the loss
to music. But is it necessary to make invidious comparisons? If
Bostridge;s singing speaks to people in ways that move them, isn't that OK?
Bob Harper
Mark S
> If
> Bostridge;s singing speaks to people in ways that move them, isn't that OK?
Sure. People are also moved by Bocelli's singing. Your point?
Mark S
> I've heard many of his recordings, but I've seen him live only once -
> in the Britten War Requiem with the BSO perhaps a decade ago. I was
> really quite surprised at how well his voice carried, and how much
> fuller he sounded in the flesh than on records. He also seemed less
> mannered, perhaps because he was concentrating on *singing* rather
> than interpreting.
>
> But his recordings are ghastly. I suppose that the interpretations
> might be interesting, but the voice itself sounds so threadbare that I
> can't get past it.
>
My experience of Bostridge is limited to his recordings, which is why
I also find his singing to be ghastly.
And you're probably correct that he had to stay on his voice more in a
live situation than in a recording studio where his "interpreting"
leads him to the ghastly singing.
Matthew�B.�Tepper
to be typed in news:c8479aa2-9aee-4b66-99fb-66efdda947e7
@v11g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
Let me know when Bostridge attempts roles such as Turiddu or Manrico.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!!
"I don�t think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable
than left-wing social engineering. I don�t think imposing radical
change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free
society to operate. I think we need a national conversation to get
to a better Medicare system with more choices for seniors." Former
Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich on "Meet the Press" 15 May 2011
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers.
Mark S
> Mark S <markstenr...@yahoo.com> appears to have caused the following letters
> to be typed in news:c8479aa2-9aee-4b66-99fb-66efdda947e7
> @v11g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Jul 13, 6:13 am, Bob Harper <bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> If Bostridge's singing speaks to people in ways that move them, isn't
> >> that OK?
>
> > Sure. People are also moved by Bocelli's singing. Your point?
>
> Let me know when Bostridge attempts roles such as Turiddu or Manrico.
>
He attempts to sing the great song cycles by Schubert, Schumann and
others...and fails, just as surely as Bocelli fails in Mascagni &
Verdi.
Christopher Webber
> If Bostridge;s singing speaks to people in ways that move them, isn't
> that OK?
Of course it is. Do these people think they are saying anything worth
even thinking, let alone saying? Evidently some of us feel that value
judgements can be made between Chalk and Cheese (or in this case,
perhaps, between a fine, fruity Riesling and a Fino Sherry.)
By the way, I don't happen to find Bostridge much to my taste, either.
And I admire Wunderlich. But the idea that people who respond to this
contemporary singer's verbal intelligence and musical insight are
somehow to be denigrated is most unpleasant, as well as patently
arrogant and stupid.
--
Christopher Webber, London, UK
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Webber
ZARZUELA.NET
Mark S
wrote:
>
> By the way, I don't happen to find Bostridge much to my taste, either.
> And I admire Wunderlich. But the idea that people who respond to this
> contemporary singer's verbal intelligence and musical insight are
> somehow to be denigrated is most unpleasant, as well as patently
> arrogant and stupid.
No one's saying that he isn't intelligent nor that he doesn't have
musical insights to offer, just that he might have been better off
taking up the fiddle or piano as the musical instrument on which he
chose to display said insights and intelligence, because his voice is
- to use your words - most unpleasant.
Christopher Webber
For you, not for others. You're not alone in being resistant to the
distinctive beauties of the "English School" of lyric tenor for which he
is the current touchstone. But would your time not be better spent
asking oneself what you're missing, when others find great pleasure in
his work?
Although (with few exceptions, such as his incisively intelligent early
Britten album, on a par with Pears or Langridge) his singing fails to
move me, I can at least acknowledge that what's there has a strong
appeal for many, and see why. His voice is perfectly placed and he
understands the technical aspects of voice production deeply. His
interpretations can be polemical, but they are always thought through.
He has chosen his repertoire with care, taste and discrimination. His
diction when singing in English is magnificent and can produce an
unusually equal weighing of text and music (this is perhaps one of the
things you dislike?)
Last point: there are few enough truly distinctive singers around for
either you or I to dismiss Bostridge rudely or high-handedly. And in the
flesh for sure, the voice has a vibrant presence and ring which is
surprisingly visceral, and far from "unpleasant" - whatever that might
mean. Beyond that, I'm afraid to say that (after a long day's reviewing)
I took exception to your tone in voicing your distaste: and I apologise
for being sharp in my initial reply!
Mark S
wrote:
> On 13/07/2011 21:39, Mark S wrote:
>
> > On Jul 13, 1:34 pm, Christopher Webber<zarzu...@zarzuela.invalid.net>
> > wrote:
>
> >> By the way, I don't happen to find Bostridge much to my taste, either.
> >> And I admire Wunderlich. But the idea that people who respond to this
> >> contemporary singer's verbal intelligence and musical insight are
> >> somehow to be denigrated is most unpleasant, as well as patently
> >> arrogant and stupid.
>
> > No one's saying that he isn't intelligent nor that he doesn't have
> > musical insights to offer, just that he might have been better off
> > taking up the fiddle or piano as the musical instrument on which he
> > chose to display said insights and intelligence, because his voice is
> > - to use your words - most unpleasant.
>
> For you, not for others. You're not alone in being resistant to the
> distinctive beauties of the "English School" of lyric tenor for which he
> is the current touchstone. But would your time not be better spent
> asking oneself what you're missing, when others find great pleasure in
> his work?
You're probably correct, in that I find what often earns the moniker
"English School" is either 1) technically deficient singing, and/or 2)
not possessed of a real quality instrument to begin with. I am very
much a fan of Richard Lewis and Alexander Young, both English tenors
(well, Lewis was Welsh) who sang with a very Italianate technique.
That's probably why they're not necessarily considered to be "English
School" tenors, but rather, tenors whose vocal technique met
international standards for great singing. They are definitely of a
higher caliber of singer in every respect than is Mr Bostridge.
>
> Although (with few exceptions, such as his incisively intelligent early
> Britten album, on a par with Pears or Langridge) his singing fails to
> move me, I can at least acknowledge that what's there has a strong
> appeal for many, and see why. His voice is perfectly placed and he
> understands the technical aspects of voice production deeply. His
> interpretations can be polemical, but they are always thought through.
> He has chosen his repertoire with care, taste and discrimination. His
> diction when singing in English is magnificent and can produce an
> unusually equal weighing of text and music (this is perhaps one of the
> things you dislike?)
As if the qualities you outline above aren't the stock-in-trade of 90%
of of singers plying their trade on the international stage. You're
giving Bostridge points for achieving what should be considered a
baseline of competence as a singer of international stature and
reputation. It's almost like you're assigning these qualities to
Bostridge because he has a second-class sound, as if that alone
somehow gives him an intelligence hors concours that a singer with a
better basic instrument doesn't or can't possess. Or, perhaps you can
name singers currently treading the stages of the world and making the
occasional recording who must bow to Bostridge's superior technique,
choice of repertoire, diction etc.
> Last point: there are few enough truly distinctive singers around for
> either you or I to dismiss Bostridge rudely or high-handedly.
Well, we'll just need to disagree. I find nothing distinctive about
Bostridge's singing, let alone anything truly distinctive. And, sorry,
but if people can still vehemently and passionately argue Callas v
Tebaldi, I see no reason to treat Mr Bostridge with kid gloves.
>Beyond that, I'm afraid to say that (after a long day's reviewing)
> I took exception to your tone in voicing your distaste: and I apologise
> for being sharp in my initial reply!
> --
> Christopher Webber, London, UKhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Webber
> ZARZUELA.NET
Thanks for your considered comments. I don't mind a sharp response
when it's backed up with sound opinion.
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:bdab8b7c-34ac-443d-9e10-
3dbcc4...@m5g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
That may be so, and it probably is, but he does bring to Janacek's "Diary
of One who Vanished" a certain degree of ... not-quite-there-ness.
mandryka
> On Jul 13, 5:08 pm, Christopher Webber <zarzu...@zarzuela.invalid.net>
> wrote:
Or, perhaps you can
> name singers currently treading the stages of the world and making the
> occasional recording who must bow to Bostridge's superior technique,
> choice of repertoire, diction etc.
>
In lieder, there are singers which are outclassed by Bostridge for
depth and insight of interpretation.In Dichterliebe for example,
Gerald Finley seems so insincere. When I listen to him I feel as
though I'm hearing a good if rather vulgar character actor in a
melodrama. Sometimes the extent of his hammery verges on the risible -
in 'Wenn ich in deine Augen seh' for example. He could learn a lot
from Bostridge.
And similarly for the narcissistic Thomas Hampson.
Of course that's not really technique, diction or repertoire. You
chose carefully.
Terry
> Mark S <markst...@yahoo.com> appears to have caused the following letters
> to be typed in news:c8479aa2-9aee-4b66-99fb-66efdda947e7
> @v11g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Jul 13, 6:13 am, Bob Harper <bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> If Bostridge's singing speaks to people in ways that move them, isn't
>>> that OK?
>>
>> Sure. People are also moved by Bocelli's singing. Your point?
>
> Let me know when Bostridge attempts roles such as Turiddu or Manrico.
No, let's all have a good listen when Carlo Cossuta brings out his first
"Schöne Mullerin". Isn't there an expression "horses for courses"?
--
Cheers, Terry
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in
*cackle*
Mark S
>
> > Let me know when Bostridge attempts roles such as Turiddu or Manrico.
>
> No, let's all have a good listen when Carlo Cossuta brings out his first
> "Schöne Mullerin". Isn't there an expression "horses for courses"?
> --
I'd sooner listen to Cosutta's Schöne Müllerin than Bostridge's
Otello...
Mark S
>
> No, let's all have a good listen when Carlo Cossuta brings out his first
> "Schöne Mullerin". Isn't there an expression "horses for courses"?
> --
You need to come up with new references to peddle your red herrings.
Cossuta died over a decade ago.
That said, I'd certainly prefer to hear Cossuta attempt Schöne
Müllerin than I would Bostridge attempting Otello...
Matthew B. Tepper
@j14g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
> On Jul 15, 1:45�am, Terry <address...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> No, let's all have a good listen when Carlo Cossuta brings out his first
>> "Sch�ne Mullerin". Isn't there an expression "horses for courses"?
>
> You need to come up with new references to peddle your red herrings.
> Cossuta died over a decade ago.
>
> That said, I'd certainly prefer to hear Cossuta attempt Sch�ne
> M�llerin than I would Bostridge attempting Otello...
Substitute Jose Cura for the late Carlo Cossuta.
Mark S
>
> > That said, I'd certainly prefer to hear Cossuta attempt Sch ne
> > M llerin than I would Bostridge attempting Otello...
>
> Substitute Jose Cura for the late Carlo Cossuta.
>
But I don't want to hear Jose Cura in ANYTHING!
Matthew B. Tepper
@y13g2000prb.googlegroups.com:
Then my point has been amply made.
Terry
> On Jul 15, 1:45 am, Terry <address...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>> No, let's all have a good listen when Carlo Cossuta brings out his first
>> "Schöne Mullerin". Isn't there an expression "horses for courses"?
>> --
>
> You need to come up with new references to peddle your red herrings.
> Cossuta died over a decade ago.
>
Why am I not surprised?
--
Cheers, Terry
Barry Riley
Edge" (LSO/Haitink) which is marred by strange enunciation and a hard
edge to the voice. I get the impression of a singer wishing to attract
attention to the interpreter rather than the interpretation. George
Maran (w. London String Quartet/Ivor Newton, 1955) is superior in all
respects.
Christopher Webber
Whilst I agree 100% that Bostridge's performance with Haitink is *most*
peculiar, for the exact reasons you mention, the comparison with one of
the versions for Piano Quintet and Tenor is not quite fair on him.
The orchestral version is more inflexible than that original, not so
well balanced between singer and instrumental forces, not so allowing of
verbal rubato and inflexions, and extremely hard to bring off well. The
nearest I've heard to a truly involving performance was a live one
(issued on Intaglio CD many years ago) with Richard Lewis and the LPO
under Boult, in the RFH on the 1972 centenary day of the composer's
birth. But the recording was poor, and Lewis by that stage of his career
was in fallible voice as far as his "break" and upper register were
concerned.
For the (superior) original version, there are many extremely fine
versions to choose from. Maran's sounds to my ears a little antiquated,
and this workmanlike singer perhaps lacks the verbal imagination of Ian
Partridge, John Mark Ainsley and other more recent interpreters.
Of course the more adventurously inclined will want to go back to Peter
Pears's searing, highly operatic reading, made in his vocal prime with
the Zorian Quartet and Benjamin Britten at the piano. It's a memorable,
dangerous document which won't be to all tastes, but once heard it is
never forgotten.