June Anderson's Anna Bolena
Mack Dixon
this role at the Pittsburgh opera? If so, how was she? It's very
interesting to me that she's singing this role because I read in
an interview a few years ago in which she stated that the only
Donizetti roles that interested her were Lucia and Marie.
insan...@my-deja.com
Aliberti is doing it in Berlin on March 28 and the whole city will be
afire that night!
Regards,
Bob>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jeff
Check the Opera-L archives at
http://listserv.cuny.edu/archives/opera-l.html I read some glowing
reviews of her Anna Bolena there.
Jeff
Dave Pickering
review.
--
Dave Pickering
dav...@earthlink.net
"If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you."
"Jeff" <dd...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3a0f557b....@news.earthlink.net...
acar...@my-deja.com
and it was worth the trouble. She was magnificent!
Phyllis Pancella was a somewhat better than OK
Giovanna Seymour; the less said about the men the
better. As the performance went on I was getting
worried about what the tenor (David Miller) was
going to do to Percy's arias in the last act. We
will never know; they were cut. Too bad; properly
sung they are wonderful pieces.
In article <3a0f557b....@news.earthlink.net>,
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Shahrdad
<acar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8ut83v$f7h$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I travelled 3500 miles to hear her sing the role,
> and it was worth the trouble. She was magnificent!
> Phyllis Pancella was a somewhat better than OK
> Giovanna Seymour; the less said about the men the
> better. As the performance went on I was getting
> worried about what the tenor (David Miller) was
> going to do to Percy's arias in the last act. We
> will never know; they were cut. Too bad; properly
> sung they are wonderful pieces.
The last time I heard Anderson, she still couldn't sing a trill, which is
unforgivable in any soprano, especially a coloratura soprano specializing in
bel canto. How did she manage "Al dolce guidami" with its many written and
inescapable trills?
S.
acar...@my-deja.com
"Shahrdad" <Shah...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> <acar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8ut83v$f7h$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > and it was worth the trouble. She was magnificent!
> > Phyllis Pancella was a somewhat better than OK
> > Giovanna Seymour; the less said about the men the
> > better. As the performance went on I was getting
> > worried about what the tenor (David Miller) was
> > going to do to Percy's arias in the last act. We
> > will never know; they were cut. Too bad; properly
> > sung they are wonderful pieces.
>
> unforgivable in any soprano, especially a coloratura soprano specializing in
> bel canto. How did she manage "Al dolce guidami" with its many written and
> inescapable trills?
>
> S.
>
Let me give you an example: what follows is from a 1998 San Francisco
Chronicle review of Carol Vaness as Norma (I saw the performance being
reviewed):
She doesn't have the high notes. Her coloratura is
labored and unsure, her vibrato a widening wobble. Her pitch was
unreliable(she sang ``Casta diva'' a shade flat from start to finish,
even after transposing it down to E).
And in the end, it didn't matter. Vaness occupied this
character so fully and so ferociously that she simply defied a listener
to find fault.
Sure, it would have been nice to have a little more
blend of generosity and rivalry toward Adalgisa, the wrenching
alternation of guilt and pride in her Act 2 soliloquy over her
sleeping children, or the blaze of vengeful triumph over
Pollione -- were profound.
He’s right - it didn’t matter. When Ms. Vaness stepped into the fiery
furnace and the music stopped the house was absolutely silent - I believe
the word is “mesmerized” You could have heard the proverbial pin drop.
Then everybody went nuts, of course.
I go to the opera for the drama as well as the music; if I want to hear
a particular role sung as well as it can be sung, by anyone, under ideal
conditions, I take myself down to the Virgin Megastore when I am in San
Francisco or New York and I get the appropriate CD (or two, or three)
My standard for Anna is Sutherland’s 1988 CD, with Mentzer, Ramey,
Hadley, et al. The only live Anna I heard before Anderson’s was Carol
Vaness in San Francisco in 1995. If one had used a scorecard and treated
the performance as a recital, it might - might, not necessarily would -
have been the case that Vaness’ performance scored higher than Anderson’s
in Pittsburgh last month.
About this San Francisco production the Chronicle said
.... we got opera by numbers, dragging its feet all the way.
But everybody sang all their notes, Ms. Vaness included, complete with
trills.
This was not the case with the Pittsburgh performance: the supporting
cast was in no way equal - in singing - to San Francisco’s ( e.g.,
Susanne Mentzer sang Giovanna in San Francisco, Phyllis Pancella in
Pittsburgh)
The Chronicle (after panning the director and the conductor) commented:
Even soprano Carol Vaness ... struggled to inject life
into the title role. Looking uncertain of the character's dramatic
situation ... .she rarely made Anne (sic) seem like the center of the
action.
As an aside: I wonder which Carol Vaness is going to show up in Seattle
in March to sing Tosca - the Norma Carol or the Anna Carol?
I know the question was about June Anderson. The answer in short is that
I didn’t look for the same qualities late in the final act of Anna Bolena
that one would expect from the recording studio after multiple takes,
over several days, and if the trills and ornamentation were not present
to the same degree - well, I guess I wasn’t paying much attention to that
aspect of the performance. I despise the “park and bark” ( also known
as “stand and deliver” ) school of opera performance; and I will forego a
lot of trills to get an overall performance as good as Anderson’s. She
made all her high notes with plenty of assurance, and by the end she was
very convincingly nuts (the woman must do a great Lucia)
Shahrdad
<acar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8uv1f0$ujq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I know the question was about June Anderson. The answer in short is that
> I didn't look for the same qualities late in the final act of Anna Bolena
> that one would expect from the recording studio after multiple takes,
> over several days, and if the trills and ornamentation were not present
> to the same degree - well, I guess I wasn't paying much attention to that
> aspect of the performance. I despise the "park and bark" ( also known
> as "stand and deliver" ) school of opera performance; and I will forego a
> lot of trills to get an overall performance as good as Anderson's. She
> made all her high notes with plenty of assurance, and by the end she was
An honest and conscientious artist will not only honor the composer's
dramatic intent, but also his written intent. There was an episode during
one of Callas' masterclasses where a singer didn't sing a trill written in
one of the Verdi arias. When Callas stopped her, the student asked,"Do I
HAVE to sing it?" and Callas simply answered, "Well, he wrote it!"
As other posters have said, one need only check Callas in this role, and
you'll hear every trill and ornament done beautifully and flawlessly, and
each fully contributing to it's intended musical and dramatic end. In
Donizetti and Bellini, a trill is not just two notes alternating rapidly;
it's the vocal manifestation of longing, or of love, or of sorrow, or of
fury (such as the ascending series of trills at end of the mad scene in
Bolena). If a singer cannot execute the composer's written intention, he or
she has no business defiling his score, no matter how dramatically he or she
can occupy the role.
And being technically proficient does not necessarily make one a "stand and
bark" singer. Sills could sing any ornament and still act up a storm, as
could Moffo or Gruberova. And even Sutherland always made a great attempt
at good acting, despite her more limited acting skills. And more than
anyone, Callas in her prime showed the miraculous merging of great acting
and great singing. I suggest you find a recording of Callas live 1957
performance of Anna Bolena or the EMI recording of the Mad Scene from 1958,
and you'll hear how one can sing a role perfectly as the composer intended
AND bring it fully to life.
I am very fond of Anderson, but I strongly feel that she has no business
singing roles such as Bolena or Leonora in Trovatore if she's unable to
execute the composers' written intent, not least of which is a trill.
S.
Enrique Eskenazi
>I know the question was about June Anderson. The answer in short is that
>I didn’t look for the same qualities late in the final act of Anna Bolena
>that one would expect from the recording studio after multiple takes,
>over several days, and if the trills and ornamentation were not present
>to the same degree - well, I guess I wasn’t paying much attention to that
>aspect of the performance. I despise the “park and bark” ( also known
>as “stand and deliver” ) school of opera performance; and I will forego a
>lot of trills to get an overall performance as good as Anderson’s. She
>made all her high notes with plenty of assurance, and by the end she was
>very convincingly nuts
But it is not a matter of 'either/or'. I've heard Gruberova (live, no studio
retakes) singinga wonderfully dramatic Anna Bolena with trills, ornaments
and accomplishing most of belcanto requirements. You can (you should) have
a credibile character and wonderfull and precise singing- specially in
Donizetti.
Just listen to Callas or to Gencer (in Anna Bolena I mean, much better IMO
than Sutherland in the studio recording), to get BOTH things together, even
better yet: the character and the drama come out of the great singing.
>(the woman must do a great Lucia)
>
Anderson sang Lucia at Barcelona's Liceu last season... IMO she has deepened
her dramatic engagement, but the voice is not that reliable. A great Lucia?
I wouldn't like to repeat those performances. Greast is a word that today I
would reserve for Gruberova, Devia, Orgonasova...
Regards
---
Enrique
eske...@teleline.es
OmbraRecds
>I go to the opera for the drama as well as the music
Hate to disagree, but the drama is in the music. It is not necessary to have
one without the other. The composers of Bolena and Lucia and Norma knew exactly
what they were doing when they wrote all the embellamenti. It ALL means
something, and to think that a singer can fake it by substituting stage
business for drama instead of conveying the inherent drama in the music, as
written, is to miss the whole reason for these operas..I unfortunately
witnessed Miss Anderson in Norma and it was neither dramatic or evenly remotely
well sung. Bolena is as demanding, and to attempt to sing it without the proper
technique is ridiculous.Audiences seem to applaud nearly anything today.
acar...@my-deja.com
The assumption that is implicit, of course, is that each writer’s
knowledge of Ms. Anderson, the role, and other singers’ recordings of it
enables them to deny the validity of my observation that she performed
well. Yours was a variant; the audience (i.e., I), lacking your
discernment, will accept anything. Maybe, maybe not. I would feel a
little safer in accepting these criticisms if just one of them came from
somebody who saw and heard the same performances I did.
As to the contention that the music IS the drama - well, if that were the
case people like me - I am the president of the board of a small regional
company - wouldn’t have to spend so much time raising money for our
professional staffs to spend on costumes, sets and rehearsals. I would
guess that less that one per cent of the opera performed in this country
is done in concert version - which suggests to me that audiences think
there is more than just the music involved. Now, if you believe that
audiences don’t know what is good or necessary in the way of enjoying
opera - well, I guess we have a disagreement.
Henson Keys
>
>As other posters have said, one need only check Callas in this role, and
>you'll hear every trill and ornament done beautifully and flawlessly, and
>each fully contributing to it's intended musical and dramatic end. In
>Donizetti and Bellini, a trill is not just two notes alternating rapidly;
>it's the vocal manifestation of longing, or of love, or of sorrow, or of
>fury (such as the ascending series of trills at end of the mad scene in
>Bolena). If a singer cannot execute the composer's written intention, he or
>she has no business defiling his score, no matter how dramatically he or she
>can occupy the role.
Thank you for this excellent post. A beautiful definition of the
dramatic importance of the trill.
Jeff
wrote:
(snipped)
>
>I am very fond of Anderson, but I strongly feel that she has no business
>singing roles such as Bolena or Leonora in Trovatore if she's unable to
>execute the composers' written intent, not least of which is a trill.
>S.
>
>
Well, I guess this disqualifies Montserrat Caballe in your book, since
the woman could not trill. Fortunately, Caballe did not let this stop
her; otherwise, we wouldn't have her fabulous recordings and
interpretations of the Bellini and Donizetti heroines. Callas is a
unique creature and a giant among singers. Her Lady Macbeth is
supreme and was sung in the bel canto style, with each note struck
with precision; however, this does not diminish the pleasure I get
from listening to Ludwig's version, despite the fact that Ludwig did
not quite have the bel canto approach, flexibility and coloratura
ability of Callas. Some singers are better than others at delivering
the composer's composition, but even if they fail here and there, the
overall performance is what matters to me in the end. I am not saying
that a trill is not important (it is), but saying a singer has no
business singing a certain role because she lacks this or that ability
is not being fair to the singer. Can you imagine what we would have
lost if Leyla Gencer had decided not to sing opera because of her
glottal attacks and scoops? All this said, I always thought June
Anderson had a nice trill. Perhaps I need to relisten to her
recordings.
Jeff
OmbraRecds
>audiences don’t know what is good or necessary in the way of enjoying
>opera - well, I guess we have a disagreement.
You still don't seem to get the point about singing the music as written, which
is unfortunate. Costuming and sets, etc are important. Audiences should be
entertained, yes. You, however, must realize that the composers have already
seen to the drama in the music through the use of their particular musical
devices, trills, chromatic runs. These are not there to show off the singer's
skills but to convey a variety of emotions. If you are on the board, or
whatever, of some small company, as you say, then you have a responsibility to
know this and help audiences who don't. I am afraid that playing down to
audiences that are unfamiliar with certain styles and making these bel canto
masterpieces into less than they are is a crime. There is plenty of verismo out
there that requires not much more than lung power and stamina to excite today's
audiences with "drama". Neither Norma nor Bolena fall even remotely into this
category. Your assumption that not having heard Anderson sing this particular
Bolena makes it impossible to comment on her technique is wrong. I have heard
her more than once in the belcanto repetoire and the technique is not there. I
doubt very seriously that she suddenly has aquired these skills.
Shahrdad
<acar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8v1dh9$stj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> The assumption that is implicit, of course, is that each writer's
> knowledge of Ms. Anderson, the role, and other singers' recordings of it
> enables them to deny the validity of my observation that she performed
> well. Yours was a variant; the audience (i.e., I), lacking your
> discernment, will accept anything. Maybe, maybe not. I would feel a
> little safer in accepting these criticisms if just one of them came from
> somebody who saw and heard the same performances I did.
>
> As to the contention that the music IS the drama - well, if that were the
> case people like me - I am the president of the board of a small regional
> company - wouldn't have to spend so much time raising money for our
> professional staffs to spend on costumes, sets and rehearsals. I would
> guess that less that one per cent of the opera performed in this country
> is done in concert version - which suggests to me that audiences think
> audiences don't know what is good or necessary in the way of enjoying
> opera - well, I guess we have a disagreement.
Although I didn't see Ms. Anderson's Bolena, I did see her in Norma and I
have heard her in Trovatore. She did perform a reasonable, albeit very
forgettable Norma; and for some reason, she tried to interpolate an
unwritten trill near the end of Casta Diva--a la Sutherland--and it was an
embarrassment. The written furious trills during her last act confrontation
with Pollione were non-existent and equally unforgivable. And as for
Trovatore, I don't know why she ever went near the role or why any conductor
would agree to let her sing it. She was barely adequate through most of the
role and embarrassingly bad in D'amor sul ali.
So it's not a with a blind point of view that some of think she shouldn't be
doing Bolena. We have heard her over many years and we know what she can
and cannot do. And sing a trill is one of those things she just cannot do,
no matter what. And without this technical pre-requisite, she doesn't have
any business touching this role. She might be singing Anderson's Bolena,
but it certainly isn't Donizetti's.
As for music being drama, that was the composers' intention when they wrote
these pieves. The scenery, the costumes, and the acting merely add to this,
but the heart of the drama is in the music and the voice. And that's
exactly why its absolutely obligatory that every written ornament be sung as
intended, since they were put there to express a certain emotion. What made
Callas so great: was that you could close you eyes and still see the scenery
and the drama through her voice and what she did with the music, while
honoring the composers' every written intention and instruction.
Sorry to be a hard-nose about this, but this is what i believe.
S.
Shahrdad
> Well, I guess this disqualifies Montserrat Caballe in your book, since
> the woman could not trill. Fortunately, Caballe did not let this stop
> her; otherwise, we wouldn't have her fabulous recordings and
> interpretations of the Bellini and Donizetti heroines. Callas is a
> unique creature and a giant among singers. Her Lady Macbeth is
> supreme and was sung in the bel canto style, with each note struck
> with precision; however, this does not diminish the pleasure I get
> from listening to Ludwig's version, despite the fact that Ludwig did
> not quite have the bel canto approach, flexibility and coloratura
> ability of Callas. Some singers are better than others at delivering
> the composer's composition, but even if they fail here and there, the
> overall performance is what matters to me in the end. I am not saying
> that a trill is not important (it is), but saying a singer has no
> business singing a certain role because she lacks this or that ability
> is not being fair to the singer. Can you imagine what we would have
> lost if Leyla Gencer had decided not to sing opera because of her
> glottal attacks and scoops? All this said, I always thought June
> Anderson had a nice trill. Perhaps I need to relisten to her
> recordings.
You're right: Caballe had no business doing the bel canto roles that depend
so heavily on the trill, such as Bolena or Trovatore. Norma only has a
couple of trills, and though i would like to hear them done well, you don't
lose a whole lot if they're omitted or done less than perfectly. Il Pirata
has almost no written trills, and Caballe was great in that role Same with
many other bel canto roles for which Caballe, Anderson, or Scotto (all
trill-less singers) are rather well suited. But there are roles with arias
that absolutely cannot be circumvented in any way. There is just no way to
sing "Al dolce guidami" or "D'amor sul ali rose" with faked trills or no
trills and still have them sound anything like what the composers had in
mind. They absolutely will not permit you to do it. Likewise, the
caballetta to Anna's mad scene has the series of rising trills which are
again inescapable. Most of Lucia, however, you can sing just fine without a
great trill, and even in the caballetta to Lucia's first scene, those fast
trills can usually be approximated without too much loss to the shape of the
music.
I agree with you that Callas was unique among singers, but she upheld
certain principals and stuck to them. She always said it's just as
unacceptable for a singer to have technical defects, such as no trill, as
for a pianist or violinist. I just think that there are so many great roles
that Anderson could do where her technical deficiency will not mar the
performance and insult the composer, it's just a shame that she chooses not
to stick to those roles.
S.
Tartufo dalba
"As to the contention that the music IS the drama - well, if that were the case
people like me - I am the president of the board of a small regional company -
wouldn’t have to spend so much time raising money for our professional staffs
to spend on costumes, sets and rehearsals. I would guess that less that one
per cent of the opera performed in this country is done in concert version -
which suggests to me that audiences think there is more than just the music
involved. Now, if you believe that audiences don’t know what is good or
necessary in the way of enjoying opera - well, I guess we have a disagreement."
=======================
Yes, I'm afraid quite a few people would disagree with you. I happen to
believe with the others who have written that the many trills written by
Donizetti in the Finale of ANNA BOLENA are there for a specific purpose...they
are meant to express and amplify varying emotions and states-of-mind. But
let's leave the merits or faults of Miss Anderson's ANNA BOLENA out of it for a
moment because, frankly, we can all debate a given singer's specific
performance forever and there will never be unanimity of opinion. The more
crucial issue here is the concept of drama in opera..
Of course there is "more than just the music involved". However, many of us
believe the drama IS inherent in and springs from the music, and acting,
costumes, scenery are there to assist, amplify and accentuate that drama, not
substitute for it. I'm very sorry but if you (and your audiences) do not hear
and feel the drama written into the music by the composers I would humbly
suggest you are truly missing out on one of life's great pleasures and are only
receiving a small and reduced portion of the power and glory of operatic music.
Michael Delos
> sing "Al dolce guidami" or "D'amor sul ali rose" with faked trills or no
> trills and still have them sound anything like what the composers had in
> mind.
This is a fascinating statement. Zinka Milanov was the reigning Trovatore
Leonora for 25 years, and did not possess a trill. Caballe sang Trovatore
EXQUISITELY. I think it was not until Callas sang Leonora that people even
realized there WERE trills in the part. So I suppose by post-Callas comparison,
Caballe should be rapped on the knuckles, but she had every other attribute for
the part, and amply demonstrated it for 2 decades. Traubel didn't have a high C
for the bulk of her career, but it certainly didn't stop her from singing Isolde
or Brunnhilde. She simply sang as high as she could at those moments, and
audiences had to be satisfied with a B flat... still one wouldn't want to be
without her performances. Rysanek had no lower middle voice, but was quite
successful for 40 years... go figure.
To say Caballe had NO BUSINESS singing Trovatore is ludicrous. Say rather that
Scotto had no business singing Nabucco and we'll happily agree with one
another...
Enrique Eskenazi
wrote:
>You're right: Caballe had no business doing the bel canto roles that depend
>so heavily on the trill, such as Bolena or Trovatore.
Caballe was in my experience an inforgettable Leonora in Trovatore, and
there are lot of great live performances with her as well as some videos to
prove it.
She had a trill, albeit not a perfect one. The same can be stated of many
splendid Leonoras, like Muzio or Hina Spani (whose recording of the
Trovatore arias were considered by Toscanini as great pieces of excelent
singing). I can't understand why people keep insisting in Caballe not having
a trill or not having a high C, when she has sung Tosca all over the world
(impossible without a C)
Sutherland, indeed, had a better trill than Caballe, but has never been a
better Leonora
Regards
---
Enrique
eske...@teleline.es
Enrique Eskenazi
wrote:
>To say Caballe had NO BUSINESS singing Trovatore is ludicrous.
Finally a sensible post IMO. I have many of her live Leonoras in my
collection and never get tired of listening at her exquisite interpretation.
In fact, it was one of her (many) best roles
Regards
---
Enrique
eske...@teleline.es
Shahrdad
"Michael Delos" <mde...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3A14E50C...@home.com...
> This is a fascinating statement. Zinka Milanov was the reigning Trovatore
> Leonora for 25 years, and did not possess a trill. Caballe sang Trovatore
> EXQUISITELY. I think it was not until Callas sang Leonora that people
even
> realized there WERE trills in the part. So I suppose by post-Callas
comparison,
> Caballe should be rapped on the knuckles, but she had every other
attribute for
> the part, and amply demonstrated it for 2 decades. Traubel didn't have a
high C
> for the bulk of her career, but it certainly didn't stop her from singing
Isolde
> or Brunnhilde. She simply sang as high as she could at those moments, and
> audiences had to be satisfied with a B flat... still one wouldn't want to
be
> without her performances. Rysanek had no lower middle voice, but was
quite
> successful for 40 years... go figure.
>
> To say Caballe had NO BUSINESS singing Trovatore is ludicrous. Say rather
that
> Scotto had no business singing Nabucco and we'll happily agree with one
> another...
As I type this, I'm listening to Milanov singing D'amor sul ali, and she is
indeed trilling as indicated. No, they're not Sutherland trills, nor are
they the liquid, fully molded trills of Callas, but you can definitely hear
the two notes alternating. And a minute ago, I was listening to Caballe
sing the same aria from one of her recital disks, and where the trill is
written, she brays, rather like a goat. Whatever you call it, it's not a
trill. I haven't heard the rest of her performance, but I don't doubt it
was wonderful. From the evidence of her recorded D'amor sul ali, I'd say
that the rendition of that particular aria was very poor, the gorgeous
pianissimi aside. On the same recital disk, an absolutely gorgeous "Arrigo,
tu parli" from Vespri is again spoiled by a very prolonged bray at the end.
Now mention the most beautiful, heartfelt and heart-breaking "Senza Mamma"
and no one comes within miles of Caballe, not even Callas.
The bring the example of Traubel is ridiculous, as the roles she sang,
didn't depend that heavily on the very top notes where she was weak. And in
her younger days, Traubel could hit those notes, though not with the ease of
a Nilsson or a young Flagstad. But Bolena does depend heavily on the trill,
especially in the final scene, and in that crucial scene, Anderson's defect
would be glaringly obvious. And the Rysanek example is even more
ridiculous. She may not have had a STRONG lower middle and lower voice, but
she DID have a voice in that range and she DID sing the notes.
S.
acar...@my-deja.com
tartuf...@aol.com (Tartufo dalba) wrote:
> acar...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> "As to the contention that the music IS the drama - well, if that were the case
> people like me - I am the president of the board of a small regional company -
> to spend on costumes, sets and rehearsals. I would guess that less that one
> per cent of the opera performed in this country is done in concert version -
> which suggests to me that audiences think there is more than just the music
> necessary in the way of enjoying opera - well, I guess we have a disagreement."
> =======================
> Yes, I'm afraid quite a few people would disagree with you. I happen to
> believe with the others who have written that the many trills written by
> Donizetti in the Finale of ANNA BOLENA are there for a specific purpose...they
> are meant to express and amplify varying emotions and states-of-mind. But
> let's leave the merits or faults of Miss Anderson's ANNA BOLENA out of it for a
> moment because, frankly, we can all debate a given singer's specific
> performance forever and there will never be unanimity of opinion. The more
> crucial issue here is the concept of drama in opera..
>
> Of course there is "more than just the music involved". However, many of us
> believe the drama IS inherent in and springs from the music, and acting,
> costumes, scenery are there to assist, amplify and accentuate that drama, not
> substitute for it. I'm very sorry but if you (and your audiences) do not hear
> and feel the drama written into the music by the composers I would humbly
> suggest you are truly missing out on one of life's great pleasures and are only
> receiving a small and reduced portion of the power and glory of operatic music.
>
I did not suggest that staging replace the music; it is obvious that it
is intended to supplement it. It is also obvious, given the decline in
the stand and deliver school of opera production in the United States
(i.e., the increased attention generally given to acting), that I am not
alone in this; to the contrary, opera is one performing art that has an
increasing audience base.
You are all free to be certain of the superiority of your own artistic
and musical sensibilities - as you no doubt are. The fact that American
audiences (and donors) tend to agree with me is, no doubt, irrelevant to
your concerns
I notice that no one argued with my proposition that concert version
presentations are not popular; that would suggest, wouldn’t it, that
staging is important? And if you are going to stage a production, with
sets, costumes, and acting, why not do it as well as possible?
It is not clear to me whether June Anderson’s sin is simply that she is
June Anderson, who failed to live up to some people’s early expectations,
or whether it is because she doesn’t sing as well as Callas did at her
best. (We will put aside for the time the fact that most of the time
Callas didn’t sing as well as Callas, either)
What are we to do? Boycott June Anderson? You will, I won’t, I will
have seen a most satisfactory performance of the role, you will have been
spared - well, I guess you will have been spared observing what you
believe to be the desecration and sacrilege of a something holy. Fair
enough.
I wonder what you believe the state of opera would be no roles would
be sung by persons incapable of duplicating the best recorded performance
of that role by anyone, anywhere. There wouldn’t be a house that could
stay open - including the Met (e.g., Vivaca Genaux’s Seattle Rosina last
May was more polished than her 1998 San Diego Rosina, which, in turn, was
more polished than her Met debut in December 1997. You could easily hear
the difference.
Now tell me this: which time did Ms. Genaux commit sacrilege against the
holy canon of Rossini?)
REG
about - it is NOT an obstacle course. Yes, it would be "better" if Anderson
could trill, but to imagine that this is a major issue for the performance
of the piece as a whole is to confuse details with performance. We know that
virtually every composer of the time sanctioned all kinds of changes in
their scores, including transpositions, insertion of aria, cuts, etc, and I
needn't remind you that people didn't sit and listen to records with a
score..they sat in a fully lit theatre where they could observe each other
as much as the singers, came late, left early...they didn't think they were
going to a museum. As to Milanov, I'll bet you are listening to a commercial
recording, where she could "get it right", just as I am sure Miss Anderson
could in a recording studio. If it's a live performance of Zinka you are
listening to where she is trilling, please share the details with us, but
frankly I doubt it. And just to educate you a little since you seem obsessed
with trillsl, it's not "braying" with Caballe, you would refer to it as a
"glottal trill" - not, granted, that there is such a thing in 19th century
music, but what you are hearing is glottal.
>Shahrdad wrote in part:
OmbraRecds
>about - it is NOT an obstacle course
YOU are not understanding the issue. To say that Anderson's lack of a trill,
among other things, is not a major issue is indicative of the sort of attitude
among audiences that has allowed opera to disintegrate into the theatre
substitute it has become. All these wacked out directors and board members,
etc, that can't make it in legitimate theatre have turned to bastardizing
opera, the most complete of the art forms. Do you think a flautist would make
it in the classical music world if he could not execute all the music AS
WRITTEN? What do you think the composers had in mind when they wrote their
music, an outline for some artsy fartsy director to project his weird " take"
over their sublime pennings? I don't think so. Opera is very apt to suffer the
fate of R&B when put in the hands of people who neither know nor care about
tradition and musicality. Rap ain't pretty!
Shahrdad
"REG" <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:YOnR5.61610$w3.48...@typhoon.nyc.rr.com...
> Shahrdad - You are really not understanding what musical performance is
> about - it is NOT an obstacle course. Yes, it would be "better" if
Anderson
> could trill, but to imagine that this is a major issue for the performance
> of the piece as a whole is to confuse details with performance.
It wouldn't be "better" if Anderson could trill; in this repertoir it's
absolutely obligatory that she do those trills, and do them well. They're
put there by Donizetti for a reason, and they're not given in the score as
an option. To omit them is no different if Anderson chose to omit all the
notes above G, for example. There is simply no excuse.
And just to educate you a little since you seem obsessed
> with trillsl, it's not "braying" with Caballe, you would refer to it as a
> "glottal trill" - not, granted, that there is such a thing in 19th century
> music, but what you are hearing is glottal.
What a glottal trill is is when you use a glottal production to produce two
distincly alternating notes, which is pretty much what Milanov does in the
1955 Trovatore.. Though I love Caballe, what she does is produce one single
note in rapid succession with fast glottal stops, rather like Elmer Fudd's
famous laughter. That's not a trill glottal or otherwise; it's a bray.
S.
Shahrdad
"OmbraRecds" <ombra...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001120002013...@ng-cq1.aol.com...
Amen. To quote Callas, "First you must learn the score AS WRITTEN, nothing
more and nothing less. That's what I call 'straight jacketing.' Only
afterwards you can take wing." And another time she said, "If there is a
single note or embellishment in the score which you cannot do, you have no
business singing that opera."
I agree with you 100% that no less should be demanded of the singer than is
demanded of an instrumentalist. The singer IS the first instrument of the
orchestra, and he or she should be able to perform these written demands,
just like an instrumentalist is. A pianist playing Chopin would be tarred
and feathered and run out of town if he performed these pieces and failed to
produce any of the trills. No less should be expected of a singer of the
bal canto repertoire, which is the vocal equivalent of Chopin.
S.
Skip
opera... A trill does not make an opera...
Using this analogy, no Lucia should take the high e flat during the mad
scene, the highest note in the score for Lucia is a C (I think) so if the
composer didn't write it, one should not sing it.
If opera was decided on a singers trill, half the singers on stage would not
be singing many roles.
"Shahrdad" <Shah...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:dDaS5.822$NT6.3...@nnrp2.sbc.net...
Shahrdad
"Skip" <sk...@nospam.com.nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:03fS5.62941$w3.50...@typhoon.nyc.rr.com...
> Many roles Callas should not have sung. Callas is not the say all of
> opera... A trill does not make an opera...
> Using this analogy, no Lucia should take the high e flat during the mad
> scene, the highest note in the score for Lucia is a C (I think) so if the
> composer didn't write it, one should not sing it.
> If opera was decided on a singers trill, half the singers on stage would
not
> be singing many roles.
No, Callas is not the say all of all opera, but she did have some wonderful
points to make, and that's exactly why she was so highly regarded by all the
great maestri of her time. She had soaked up the wisdom of De Hidalgo,
Serafin, De Sabata, Votto, Kleiber, Bernstein and many other wonderful
musicians, so she had a little bit of credibility regarding opera.
Again, you're misunderstanding my point the need for the trill in these
operas. Indeed, a trill does not make an opera, but the lack of one where
the composer intended one to be severely damages the opera. As has often
been said here, the composers did not write these embellishments just for
prettiness sake; they wrote them to express a certain emotion or state of
mind. The eliminate them just because one has neglected to learn to proper
technique does a great disservice to the composer and to the audience.
As for the high E-flat, that's another story. These scores were written
with the expectation that the singer would be able to sing EVERYTHING on the
page in the first place, and then to go farther and to embellish on the
written score. If Ms. Anderson had decided to sing the first verse of the
cabaletta as written, including every one of the ascending series of trills,
and then come back and embellished on the written score in the second verse,
even substituting something else for the trills, I don't think anyone would
be objecting. She could even go and finish the whole thing off with an
E-flat. More power to her. But the fact that she cannot execute what
Donizetti wrote in the score disqualified her as an exponent of this opera.
And I'm not saying that any singer who cannot sing a trill should not be on
stage. What I am saying is that they should stick with the operas where
their technical defects do not damage the opera and distract from the
composers' intent. There are multitude of roles, even bell canto ones,
where a strong trill is not required, but Boolean and Throatier are not
among these.
so.
Shahrdad
"There are multitude of roles, even bell canto ones,
> where a strong trill is not required, but Boolean and Throatier are not
> among these.
Damned spell checker....."There are multitude of rules, even bel canto ones,
where a strong trill is not required, but Bolena and Trovatore are not among
these."
That's better.
S.
Shahrdad
> Shardad - Skip is correct here - First of all, I seriously doubt that
Callas
> EVER said anythiing like "If there is a single note or embellishment in
the
> score which you cannot do, you have no business singing that opera". I'd
> like to see where you think that quote is from - it doesn't sound anything
> like what someone who ever sang would say. Do you really have any
extensive
> experience in opera or singing at all? To think that the fraility of the
> human voice is made the equivalent to the violin, and that "technique" is
> the same issue for both instruments suggests to me that you haven't yet
had
> the opportunity to think through the differences between singing and other
> forms of omusic making. ALSO, I sometimes have the impression that people
> focus on a few details because they don't really know the scores or the
> operas, and so fasten on to the few identifiable things they can hear and
> make them the sine qua non of performance. The reason I wonder if this is
> true for you is that you keep talking about "trills", but you HAVEN'T told
> us which trills La Anderson is sinning against. I await hearing from you
> with some specificitiy. WHICH trills in Bolena do you think are most
> important?????
Callas has said exactly that or its equivalent not once, but many times in
interviews. Just get the CD's and listen. If memory serves right, what she
said was something like, "I know this is going to sound cruel, but if there
is one note or embellishments a singer can't do in a score, he or she has no
business singing that opera." Try listening to the radio interviews from
1957, the one in Chicago or maybe the one from New York.
As a matter of fact I have been a classical pianist since age six, and I
trained for several years with a baritone who retired from the Met in the
mid eighties. And so yes, I do know a couple of things about singing and
performing. And I know very well how frail the human voice can be, but I
also know that even a large male voice can be trained to negotiate runs and
do trills wherever demanded, throughout the vocal range. I also spent my
early years in a culture where every singer is expected to be able to trill
not only on half and whole steps, but also on major and minor thirds (I have
never mastered that one). And as a lover of bel canto operas, I have
listened to many of these with the score in my hand, and I've seen what the
composer wrote and what he didn't.
The trills--or lack thereof--which I heard myself were in Trovatore (heard
on radio) and Norma (in person). Ms. Anderson botched every single written
trill in "D'amor sul ali," totally destroying the haunting melancholy mood
of the aria. I also heard her in Norma where she botched all the five
ascending trills in the confrontation with Pollione in the last act. On top
of that, she tried to insert a trill as Sutherland used to do at the end of
"Casta Diva," and it was a total and embarrassing disaster. I did not hear
her in Bolena, but after knowing her for all these years, I doubt she sang
any of the any of the written trills in "Al dolce guidami." When sung
properly, these trills convey the most heartbreaking sense of longing and
despair. Likewise, I'm certain she did not do the ascending trills in the
Caballetta, as these are very similar to the ones written for Norma. Here
they convey an almost unbearable sense of outrage and fury. Lose the trill,
and you lose the thrill.
Which trills in Bolena do I think are the most important? Every last one of
them. They are not written and suggestions, but as requirements.
S.
REG
EVER said anythiing like "If there is a single note or embellishment in the
score which you cannot do, you have no business singing that opera". I'd
like to see where you think that quote is from - it doesn't sound anything
like what someone who ever sang would say. Do you really have any extensive
experience in opera or singing at all? To think that the fraility of the
human voice is made the equivalent to the violin, and that "technique" is
the same issue for both instruments suggests to me that you haven't yet had
the opportunity to think through the differences between singing and other
forms of omusic making. ALSO, I sometimes have the impression that people
focus on a few details because they don't really know the scores or the
operas, and so fasten on to the few identifiable things they can hear and
make them the sine qua non of performance. The reason I wonder if this is
true for you is that you keep talking about "trills", but you HAVEN'T told
us which trills La Anderson is sinning against. I await hearing from you
with some specificitiy. WHICH trills in Bolena do you think are most
important?????
Skip <sk...@nospam.com.nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:03fS5.62941$w3.50...@typhoon.nyc.rr.com...
> Many roles Callas should not have sung. Callas is not the say all of
> opera... A trill does not make an opera...
> Using this analogy, no Lucia should take the high e flat during the mad
> scene, the highest note in the score for Lucia is a C (I think) so if the
> composer didn't write it, one should not sing it.
> If opera was decided on a singers trill, half the singers on stage would
not
> be singing many roles.
> "Shahrdad" <Shah...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:dDaS5.822$NT6.3...@nnrp2.sbc.net...
> >
> > Amen. To quote Callas, "First you must learn the score AS WRITTEN,
> nothing
> > more and nothing less. That's what I call 'straight jacketing.' Only
> > afterwards you can take wing." And another time she said, "If there is
MD
state that, 'singers who cannot perform certain virtuoismos should not sing,
according to me.' Callas was notoriously outspoken on this subject, and even
brings it up again in the Edward Downes interview, now available on EMI. It
made her seem extremely condescending towards every other singer on the planet,
and did much to generate hostility towards her from other artists during her
career. To say that a singer who is not capable of singing a distinct trill
should not sing in public, is on the face of it, absurd. Or that Tebaldi,
because she sang "easy" repertoire couldn't be compared to her. Mind you, I'm a
Callas fan, but the woman was a study in contrasts, and often contradicted her
self, most often in the same sentence!
MD
REG wrote:
--
THE VOCAL RESOURCE:
http://www.ups.edu/faculty/mdelos/vocal.htm
HOMEPAGE:
http://www.halcyon.com/nwac/
james jorden
anything. Produce the quote, please, and the context. (Goodness knows Callas
was not above self-aggrandizement in her interviews.)
Shahrdad wrote:
> "REG" <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:mnkS5.62945$w3.50...@typhoon.nyc.rr.com...
> > Shardad - Skip is correct here - First of all, I seriously doubt that
> Callas
> > EVER said anythiing like "If there is a single note or embellishment in
> the
> > score which you cannot do, you have no business singing that opera". I'd
> > like to see where you think that quote is from - it doesn't sound anything
> > like what someone who ever sang would say. Do you really have any
> extensive
> > experience in opera or singing at all? To think that the fraility of the
> > human voice is made the equivalent to the violin, and that "technique" is
> > the same issue for both instruments suggests to me that you haven't yet
> had
> > the opportunity to think through the differences between singing and other
> > forms of omusic making. ALSO, I sometimes have the impression that people
> > focus on a few details because they don't really know the scores or the
> > operas, and so fasten on to the few identifiable things they can hear and
> > make them the sine qua non of performance. The reason I wonder if this is
> > true for you is that you keep talking about "trills", but you HAVEN'T told
> > us which trills La Anderson is sinning against. I await hearing from you
> > with some specificitiy. WHICH trills in Bolena do you think are most
> > important?????
>
--
==============
james jorden
jjo...@bellatlantic.net
www.parterre.com
"I cannot begin to describe the filth backstage." -- Kyra Vayne
MD
Before Callas sang the written trills in TROVATORE, virtually no one associated
them with the role. Since Milanov was by all accounts the greatest Leonora of
the 40's and 50's, are you suggesting that she had no business singing the
role? Or is it only in hindsight that she seems stylistically wrong? Cigna
sang Norma too, without any flexibility in the scale passages and no discernable
trill either, yet she was considered the standard for the role from the mid-30's
until the advent of Callas. Not a great Norma? By today's standards? By any
standards?
I really am just soliciting your thoughts, because I think it's a fascinating
subject for discussion.
MD
Shahrdad wrote:
> "REG" <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:mnkS5.62945$w3.50...@typhoon.nyc.rr.com...
> > Shardad - Skip is correct here - First of all, I seriously doubt that
> Callas
> > EVER said anythiing like "If there is a single note or embellishment in
> the
> > score which you cannot do, you have no business singing that opera". I'd
> > like to see where you think that quote is from - it doesn't sound anything
> > like what someone who ever sang would say. Do you really have any
> extensive
> > experience in opera or singing at all? To think that the fraility of the
> > human voice is made the equivalent to the violin, and that "technique" is
> > the same issue for both instruments suggests to me that you haven't yet
> had
> > the opportunity to think through the differences between singing and other
> > forms of omusic making. ALSO, I sometimes have the impression that people
> > focus on a few details because they don't really know the scores or the
> > operas, and so fasten on to the few identifiable things they can hear and
> > make them the sine qua non of performance. The reason I wonder if this is
> > true for you is that you keep talking about "trills", but you HAVEN'T told
> > us which trills La Anderson is sinning against. I await hearing from you
> > with some specificitiy. WHICH trills in Bolena do you think are most
> > important?????
>
--
Skip
in
> interviews. Just get the CD's and listen. If memory serves right, what
she
> said was something like, "I know this is going to sound cruel, but if
there
> is one note or embellishments a singer can't do in a score, he or she has
> business singing that opera." Try listening to the radio interviews from
> 1957, the one in Chicago or maybe the one from New York.
Again, who the hell made Callas the say all?
And as a lover of bel canto operas, I have
> listened to many of these with the score in my hand, and I've seen what
the
> composer wrote and what he didn't.
and many things the composer didn't write Callas added (high e in Aida??? -
Mexico City)
Many roles Callas sung, were with cuts, Composers intentions to have his
score cut?
I think before listening to the things Callas said, one should listen to
what she did and did not do.
As much as I love Callas, Bel-Canto (beautiful singing) Callas? beautiful
singing?
This sounds like an obession with trills and Callas......
I could care less that Tabaldi or Caballe could not trill, but for them not
to sing the roles that required them? Please........
Lose the trill and you lose the thrill? Who cares if a singer could trill
all night long and give nothing to the character? If a singer has a good
trill, fine, but I listen to the over all performance, Joan Sutherland could
trill for days, and at the same time put me to sleep.
Ileana Soulioits couldn't really trill either, but her Nabucco, and Bolena
were very exciting without them.
Many so called "golden aged" singers had no trills either.
The Callas trills were more like a tremolo or a very slow and wide
vibrato..... to me (ugly)
> The trills--or lack thereof--which I heard myself were in Trovatore (heard
> on radio) and Norma (in person). Ms. Anderson botched every single
written
> trill in "D'amor sul ali," totally destroying the haunting melancholy mood
> of the aria. I also heard her in Norma where she botched all the five
> ascending trills in the confrontation with Pollione in the last act. On
top
> of that, she tried to insert a trill as Sutherland used to do at the end
of
> "Casta Diva," and it was a total and embarrassing disaster. I did not
hear
> her in Bolena, but after knowing her for all these years, I doubt she sang
> any of the any of the written trills in "Al dolce guidami." When sung
> properly, these trills convey the most heartbreaking sense of longing and
> despair. Likewise, I'm certain she did not do the ascending trills in the
> Caballetta, as these are very similar to the ones written for Norma. Here
> they convey an almost unbearable sense of outrage and fury. Lose the
trill,
> and you lose the thrill.
"Coppia iniquia" is not the entire role of Bolena.......
Shahrdad
> Again, who the hell made Callas the say all?
Aida??? -
> Mexico City)
> Many roles Callas sung, were with cuts, Composers intentions to have his
> score cut?
> I think before listening to the things Callas said, one should listen to
> what she did and did not do.
There has been a tradition of interpolation of high notes since these operas
were written. That's what the composers expected to hear in their day too,
and in some scores, the composers themselves offer the high note option.
Granted, the E-flat in Aida is a bit unusual, but I doubt Verdi would have
been upset about it at all. As for the cut scores, these decisions are made
by the conductor, not the singer. And if many of these scores were
performed complete with repeats and all, the audience would find them
interminably long.
> As much as I love Callas, Bel-Canto (beautiful singing) Callas? beautiful
> singing?
> This sounds like an obession with trills and Callas......
No, it's an obsession with good musicianship and good training and with
honoring what the composer wished the singer to do at any given point in the
score. Listen to Callas' "Al dolce guidami" from the 1958 "Mad Scenes"
recital, and you'll hear exactly what bel canto is about.
> Many so called "golden aged" singers had no trills either.
> The Callas trills were more like a tremolo or a very slow and wide
> vibrato..... to me (ugly)
And what distinguished the Golden Age was that most singers were quite well
trained in these basic elements of singing. Go to the Opera News archives
and look at the January 1999 issue. There is a great articule about the
trill and the decline of the standards of singing since that time. What's
interesting is that not only the women, but also the men, even basses, had
good working trillls in the 19th century and early 20th century. Even
Flagstad and Ponselle with their gigantic voices had this technique down
pat.
Callas trills may have slowed down and become more tremolo-like in character
late in her career, but they were still clear articulations between two
notes. In the fat days, however, they were fast and clean and possessed the
force of a hurricane when needed, as in the cabaletta in Abigaile's big
aria.
> I could care less that Tabaldi or Caballe could not trill, but for them
not
> to sing the roles that required them? Please........
> Lose the trill and you lose the thrill? Who cares if a singer could trill
> all night long and give nothing to the character? If a singer has a good
> trill, fine, but I listen to the over all performance, Joan Sutherland
could
> trill for days, and at the same time put me to sleep.
> Ileana Soulioits couldn't really trill either, but her Nabucco, and Bolena
> were very exciting without them.
Again, you are misunderstanding what I'm saying. Singing what the composer
wrote and executing all his trills and abellimenti are only the starting
point in this repertoir. Then comes and musicianship, the expression, the
drama. But it all must be rooted in the score and the music, including all
these written embelishments. No one wants to listen to a technically
proficient but boring singer. What we should expect and applaud is the
exciting singer who also manages to honor the composers written wishes.
Souliotis' Bolena exciting? I guess it's as exciting as watching a plane
crash.
> "Coppia iniquia" is not the entire role of Bolena.......
No, but it's one of the most crucial points in the plot and in development
of Anna's character, and the trills are there for a reason. It's the last
impression Donizetti intended to leave in the listeners' mind, and to not
sing it properly is inexcusable.
S.
OmbraRecds
>sang Norma too, without any flexibility in the scale passages and no
>discernable
>trill either, yet she was considered the standard for the role from the
>mid-30's
>until the advent of Callas.
Cigna, not only inflexible and trilless, but she frequently sang out of tune.
You don't consider Ponselle's Norma? What an odd omission. The statement that
Cigna's performances of Norma sans trills was the standard of the 30's simply
indicates that this was a period that lacked a great Norma, not that this was
acceptable.
Patrick Byrne
james jorden
> That's what the composers expected to hear in their day too,
> and in some scores, the composers themselves offer the high note option.
> Granted, the E-flat in Aida is a bit unusual, but I doubt Verdi would have
> been upset about it at all.
That's funny. I was talking to Verdi just the other day, and he told me, "You
know, I hate that damn high E-flat. but you just can't tell Maria *anything*!"
> As for the cut scores, these decisions are made by the conductor, not the
> singer.
Hello! Tell that to conductors who worked with Kiri te Kanawa on ROSENKAVALIER
or ARABELLA, or with Nilsson on TURANDOT or DIE FRAU OHNE SCHATTEN, or Pavarotti
on practically anything. Most singers *still* learn scores with the "standard
cuts" and it takes negotiation and persuasion to get them to relearn them
differently.
> No, it's an obsession
Well, now at least we have some dawning of self-knowledge.
For all that, I agree that the chain of trills in the finale of ANNA BOLENA is
very important to the musical structure of the scene; I believe the singer
should at the very least find a way to *suggest* trills at this point if she is
not capable of well-formed trills. But I don't think it's fair to make the
trills an absolute prerequisite for performing this role.
I was only yesterday listening to a live 1975 recording of Scotto singing this
scene. It's superb. She does not manage the passage in question well. Should
she then have abandoned the entire role? No, I think that would have been a loss
to all of us.
Shahrdad
"MD" <mde...@home.com> wrote in message news:3A1A0809...@home.com...
> In her audio interviews in 1955, with somebody named Rodrini, she does in
fact
> state that, 'singers who cannot perform certain virtuoismos should not
sing,
> according to me.' Callas was notoriously outspoken on this subject, and
even
> brings it up again in the Edward Downes interview, now available on EMI.
It
> made her seem extremely condescending towards every other singer on the
planet,
> and did much to generate hostility towards her from other artists during
her
> career. To say that a singer who is not capable of singing a distinct
trill
> should not sing in public, is on the face of it, absurd. Or that Tebaldi,
> because she sang "easy" repertoire couldn't be compared to her. Mind you,
I'm a
> Callas fan, but the woman was a study in contrasts, and often contradicted
her
> self, most often in the same sentence!
> MD
>
listens to the whole interview, in context, these statements don't emerge
quite so harsh. What she meant, I believe, is that if a singer is unable to
sing the "virtuoismos," he or she should sing roles that do not demand that
facility. I don't think she meant to say that without a trill, you
shouldn't sing at all.
And again, the statements about Tebaldi are true and tactless. Their
voices, their repertoires, and their technical abilities were so different
that they just cannot be compared in any meaningful way. Each was superb in
her own way.
S.
dtritter
anent the greatest [to these ears...recordings, of course] of all
normas, ponselle said that when she was about to take on the role, she
took marion telva, her adalgisa, along with renowned coach romano
romani, to her home at lake george, ny, and they spent hours every day
for 10-12 weeks of the summer respite working on precisely these
stylistic essentials. listen to the recordings of ponselle's excerpts
and hear the embellishments considered the norm from the opera's first
performances.
dft
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
acar...@my-deja.com
> > Again, who the hell made Callas the say all?
> > and many things the composer didn't write Callas added (high e in
> Aida??? -
> > Mexico City)
> > Many roles Callas sung, were with cuts, Composers intentions to have his
> > score cut?
> > I think before listening to the things Callas said, one should listen to
> > what she did and did not do.
>
> There has been a tradition of interpolation of high notes since these operas
> and in some scores, the composers themselves offer the high note option.
> Granted, the E-flat in Aida is a bit unusual, but I doubt Verdi would have
This thread began with an apparently innocent request whether anyone had
heard June Anderson’s Anna Bolena in Pittsburgh. I responded that I had;
apres moi le deluge
Thereafter the discussion has been almost entirely focused on (1)
conviction of some that trills, particularly in “Al doce guidami,” are an
absolute necessity (2) the conviction of the same people that June
Anderson cannot sing a trill, (3) the fact that Maria Callas could trill
like a son of a bitch (after this thread started I went out and got the
recording of her 1957 Anna, and she surely does trill), and (4) the
conclusion drawn from the foregoing premises that (5) Callas was the
greatest Anna ever, and (6) Anderson should not have tried to sing the
role (desecration and sacrilege were the words used, I believe)
It is irrelevant, apparently, that (with regard to Pittsburgh Opera’s
ANNA) several thousand people, who doubtless included most of the people
who contribute several million dollars a year to fund that organization,
thought her Anna was just fine. One person (not Shahrdad) suggested that
it was people like this (and me) who are responsible for the decline (and
I guess, imminent fall) of opera in America.
Why are we doing opera? Because it thrills us. Did June Anderson’s live
“Al doce guidami” thrill/chill me more than Maria Callas’ recording? Of
course it did; Vaness’ (in a San Francisco Opera production completely
undistinguished except for its sets) did as well. Did Vaness’ Norma
(despite the fact that her “Casta diva” was a bit flat, her notes wobbled
and she missed some high ones completely) thrill me? Of course it did -
me and three thousand other people, including the Examiner critic, who
admitted that “It didn’t matter”
If opera to you is a matter in which the singers are to be judged as if
it were a vocal competition - then you can’t understand what he was
talking about. Of course opera is a form of theater; done poorly (as
theater ) it will not survive financially. The one or two per cent of
the population in this country that contributes to the support of opera
through both the purchase of tickets and donations wants more than what
it would get on recordings.
You will, of course, take the position that the foregoing is no more than
a demonstration of my unrefined taste; maybe so. But one thing is
obvious: you are never going to get another Callas in an environment
where a singer cannot hope to make a living except as a recitalist; how
many recitalists build a career as such without first building a
reputation in live opera? You would never have had a Callas if there had
not been already in existence a network (an infra-structure, if you will)
of opera houses into which she could move.
Anyway, with regard to June Anderson and her performance in Pittsburgh:
did she trill in “Al doce guidami”? Yes, she did, or at least gave a
hell of a good suggestion of doing so. Did she trill as well as Callas
in the aforementioned 1957 recording? No
Did it make any difference to the people who bothered to show up and
listen? Not that I could tell.
Does her alleged inability to trill discourage the people who make opera
happen? Doesn’t seem so. Ms Anderson is engaged to sing leading roles
in several major houses in the next couple of years both in the United
States and abroad.
So - what conclusion to we draw other than everybody (the audiences, the
donors, the boards, opera company managements everywhere) is out of step
but Shahrdad and a few others?
acar...@my-deja.com
james jorden <jjo...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
> Shahrdad wrote:
>
> > That's what the composers expected to hear in their day too,
> > and in some scores, the composers themselves offer the high note option.
> > Granted, the E-flat in Aida is a bit unusual, but I doubt Verdi would have
> > been upset about it at all.
>
> know, I hate that damn high E-flat. but you just can't tell Maria *anything*!"
>
> > singer.
>
> or ARABELLA, or with Nilsson on TURANDOT or DIE FRAU OHNE SCHATTEN, or Pavarotti
> on practically anything. Most singers *still* learn scores with the "standard
> cuts" and it takes negotiation and persuasion to get them to relearn them
> differently.
>
>
>
> For all that, I agree that the chain of trills in the finale of ANNA BOLENA is
> very important to the musical structure of the scene; I believe the singer
> should at the very least find a way to *suggest* trills at this point if she is
> not capable of well-formed trills. But I don't think it's fair to make the
> trills an absolute prerequisite for performing this role.
>
> I was only yesterday listening to a live 1975 recording of Scotto singing this
> scene. It's superb. She does not manage the passage in question well. Should
> she then have abandoned the entire role? No, I think that would have been a loss
> to all of us.
donors, the board, opera company managements everywhere) is out of step
but Shahrdad and a few others?
> ==============
>
> james jorden
> jjo...@bellatlantic.net
> www.parterre.com
>
> "I cannot begin to describe the filth backstage." -- Kyra Vayne
>
>
Shahrdad
<acar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8vel23$3jg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > This thread began with an apparently innocent request whether anyone had
heard June Anderson's Anna Bolena in Pittsburgh. I responded that I had;
apres moi le deluge
>
> Thereafter the discussion has been almost entirely focused on (1)
> conviction of some that trills, particularly in "Al doce guidami," are an
> absolute necessity (2) the conviction of the same people that June
> Anderson cannot sing a trill, (3) the fact that Maria Callas could trill
> like a son of a bitch (after this thread started I went out and got the
> recording of her 1957 Anna, and she surely does trill), and (4) the
> conclusion drawn from the foregoing premises that (5) Callas was the
> greatest Anna ever, and (6) Anderson should not have tried to sing the
> role (desecration and sacrilege were the words used, I believe)
You're absolutely right on (1); if Donizetti wrote the trills, he wanted the
trills. They're not options.
As for (2), Anderson's lack of a trill is not a matter of opinion, but of
fact. Please point me to a recording where she produces anything that could
honestly be called a trill. As for (3) and (4), yes, in her prime, Callas
could trill amazingly well, and as to whether or not she was the greatest
Anna since the 1950's, many great ciritics think that she was, and some
people surely would prefer Sills or Gencer or Sutherland or Gruberova or
whomever. The reason Callas was brought up in this discussion is that she
is a good example of a singer who sang Donizetti's and Verdi's music with
its written abellimenti and revealed their full musical and expressive
potential., as well as a singer who was adamant that these should be sung
wherever the composer demanded, because they were written for a reason. As
for (6), I am of the opinion that this was not a role for Anderson, nor was
Leonora. I'm sure others will disagree. I don't think I used the words
"sacrilage" or "desecration," but I would say that any singer's technical
shortcoming damages the opera and does a great deal of disservice to the
composer.
> It is irrelevant, apparently, that (with regard to Pittsburgh Opera's
> ANNA) several thousand people, who doubtless included most of the people
> who contribute several million dollars a year to fund that organization,
> thought her Anna was just fine. One person (not Shahrdad) suggested that
> it was people like this (and me) who are responsible for the decline (and
> I guess, imminent fall) of opera in America.
The fact that several thousand people would applaud Ms. Anderson's Anna or
Leonora still does not make it right for her to sing the roles for which
she's not equiped. Afterall, this is an era where almost anything receives
a standing ovation, and the more money you contribute, the more you feel you
have to shower the performance with huzzas. No, you are not responsible for
the decline of opera, but the musical director or conductor should insist on
soloists who are up to the technical challenges of these roles. They should
no more allow an Aida without a high C to take up that role than to let an
Anna without a trill to undertake Anna Bolena. Anything else shortchages
the public (though probably most won't know it) and cheats them.
> Why are we doing opera? Because it thrills us. Did June Anderson's live
> "Al doce guidami" thrill/chill me more than Maria Callas' recording? Of
> course it did; Vaness' (in a San Francisco Opera production completely
> undistinguished except for its sets) did as well. Did Vaness' Norma
> (despite the fact that her "Casta diva" was a bit flat, her notes wobbled
> and she missed some high ones completely) thrill me? Of course it did -
> me and three thousand other people, including the Examiner critic, who
> admitted that "It didn't matter"
The "It didn't matter" bit is the real sad part of this discussion. It DOES
matter, and it matters a great deal. Just imagine how much greater the
thrill would have been if Anderson had sung the aria with its written
trills, or if Vaness had sung the Casta Diva on pitch.
> You will, of course, take the position that the foregoing is no more than
> a demonstration of my unrefined taste; maybe so. But one thing is
> obvious: you are never going to get another Callas in an environment
> where a singer cannot hope to make a living except as a recitalist; how
> many recitalists build a career as such without first building a
> reputation in live opera? You would never have had a Callas if there had
> not been already in existence a network (an infra-structure, if you will)
> of opera houses into which she could move.
But also keep in mind that Callas grew up and learned to sing in an era
where the standard for Norma was Cigna, and when most singers had already
forgotten how to perform the abellimenti. Yet she somehow learned to trill
and to sing every other ornament beautifully. This was not a matter of
operatic infra-structure, but one of artistic integrity. You're right, the
"network" is absolutely necessary, but the people in power should be the
guardians of these great operas and to allow them to be performed only by
singers who are equipped to meet the challenges of the written score..
> Ms Anderson is engaged to sing leading roles
> in several major houses in the next couple of years both in the United
> States and abroad.
And this makes it okay for her to sing roles for which she's not technically
equipped? Please!
> So - what conclusion to we draw other than everybody (the audiences, the
> donors, the board, opera company managements everywhere) is out of step
> but Shahrdad and a few others?
No, but perhaps I and a few others would like to hold your opera company to
a higher standard than you're willing to meet. And perhaps if you hold up a
higher standard, it would encourage such great talents as Anderson to
regroup and to repair whatever technical deficiency they might have. The
audience would end up being the winner either way.
S.
Shahrdad
> This is a somewhat wrtetched discussion, IMHO. I accept that a phrase that
> is not sung as written by the composer may well be less effective than a
> phrase sung as written. There isn't any doubt in my mind that the
ascending
> trills in Coppia add something, and that that phrase, and its impact, are
> less effective. But there are phrases thoughout any performance that are
> relatively more and less effective depending on the singer. The problem
> started with SHARDAD's silly, and to my opinion jejeune, endorsing of the
> idea that singers shouldn't sing roles which they could not master
> technically.
I don't think there's anything either silly or jejune in wishing to hear
these operas sung well and to see the composer's wishes honored. Perhaps if
I didn't know the score, I could listen to a mediocre version and think it
wonderful. But knowing what is supposed to be sung and hearing it not
performed adequately is very disappointing to many of us. How could you
listen to "D'amor sul ali" without trills and not feel cheated out of the
full beauty and genius of Verdi's creation?
The problem, as James Jordan, Skip, and others have pointed out
> in one way or another, is that no singer live (as opposed to in a
reocrding
> studio) can really do the exact score in most instances, and it doesn't
much
> matter in the abstract if they can -
As a matter of fact, the Callas and the Gruberova recordings of Bolena are
live indeed, and yet they somehow manage to sing the trills and the other
abellimenti. And live recordings of Ponselle and Sills and Sutherland show
them able to perform these basics as the compsers wrote them. I wonder how
they achieved this technological miracle??
> These are singers, not musical typewriters, and Shardad needs to learn the
> importance of the difference or he will be depriving himself of a great
deal
> that is rewarding.
You're right, they are not typewriters, but the technical defects I'm
objecting to are the very basic tools of a bel canto singer. These are not
unusual freakish demands such as a trill on a high D. These should be as
natural to a good singer of this repertoire as breathing.
I don't think there is anything wrong with enjoying a Big Mac and Coke, so
long as one realizes what they are and doesn't praise them as if they were
the finest Filet Mignon and Burgundy Wine. A Bolena mad scene without
trills might still be moving and exciting, but it's not what Donizetti wrote
or wanted.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this issue.
S.
REG
is not sung as written by the composer may well be less effective than a
phrase sung as written. There isn't any doubt in my mind that the ascending
trills in Coppia add something, and that that phrase, and its impact, are
less effective. But there are phrases thoughout any performance that are
relatively more and less effective depending on the singer. The problem
started with SHARDAD's silly, and to my opinion jejeune, endorsing of the
idea that singers shouldn't sing roles which they could not master
in one way or another, is that no singer live (as opposed to in a reocrding
studio) can really do the exact score in most instances, and it doesn't much
reductionistic viewpoint, then no one should ever perform Ariadne Aux Naxos
live because, I assure you that virtually no soprano even tries to trill on
the extended high D at the end of "Grossmachtige" (?sp) - ok, maybe one or
two freak voices, but without a Zerbinetta there is no opera. Similarly in
Strauss, my dear idol Leonie Rysanek probably never sang the opening high
D - she just left a blank - should we have left the Empress to Ruth Welting?
Should the great FLAGSTAD not have sung Isolde because she could not hit the
Cs in the love duet in the second act? FINALLY, my dear Maria Callas didn't
sing all the notes which were written either...if you listen to the pirate
of the Paris Normas, you will hear that she simply does not sing the the
written sustained C in the phrase "e cielo avro" - she just leaves a blank
and it sticks out like the proverbial absent sore thumb (quite a proverb).
These are singers, not musical typewriters, and Shardad needs to learn the
importance of the difference or he will be depriving himself of a great deal
that is rewarding.
<acar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8vek5c$2tl$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
MD
1934 season, and in any case had the disputed trills that began the discussion.
As to Cigna, she certainly WAS acceptable, and people sold out every performance
of the role she sang, and none of them at the time complained that what they were
hearing was sub-par. I think it's just a question of the public taste, and
changing styles. I think if we heard Lilli Lehmann's NORMA, we'd laugh it off the
stage, but in it's day, it was considered definitive, whatever that means.
MD
OmbraRecds wrote:
> >stylistically wrong? Cigna
> >sang Norma too, without any flexibility in the scale passages and no
> >discernable
> >trill either, yet she was considered the standard for the role from the
> >mid-30's
> >until the advent of Callas.
>
> Cigna, not only inflexible and trilless, but she frequently sang out of tune.
> You don't consider Ponselle's Norma? What an odd omission. The statement that
> Cigna's performances of Norma sans trills was the standard of the 30's simply
> indicates that this was a period that lacked a great Norma, not that this was
> acceptable.
>
> Patrick Byrne
--
Skip
voice..........
"Shahrdad" <Shah...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ERHS5.1409$%Q5.1...@nnrp3.sbc.net...
Skip
off the stage too.
"MD" <mde...@home.com> wrote in message news:3A1B68A3...@home.com...
OmbraRecds
>off the stage too.
Ridiculous statement. Callas always managed to convince the audience of her
intent. She was not initially understood when she began her Italian career.
They were used to the sort of singing that a Caniglia was famous for, sloppy
musicianship, out of tune, everything sounding as if Mascagni had coached the
singer. Callas managed to bring an entire generation of an audience into a new
appreciation of music done as the great composers intended. She continues to do
so to this day.
OmbraRecds
>voice..........
Oh what an informed reply. Beauty is in the eye of... Strange that this ugly
voice is and always will be the most discussed and appreciated soprano of the
previous century.
Patrick Byrne
Shahrdad
> I'm also sure, if Callas sang in the golden age, she would have been
laughed
> off the stage too.
To the contrary, if you read accounts and descriptions of Guiditta Pasta for
whom Norma and Anna Bolena and Sonnambula were written, at times one cannot
tell whether they are describing Callas or Pasta. The similarities are
quite striking.
S.
Shahrdad
> I'm also sure that Donizetti did not want Anna to have an ugly
> voice..........
>
create Anna Bolena and Bellini chose to create Norma and Sonnambula.
Neither she nor her amazing contemporary Maria Malibran had voices that
could be considered "beautiful" if one is to believe the written accounts.
As stated before, the similarities between Pasta and Callas are almost
amazing if one is to believe what the critics wrote.
S.
Commspkmn
S. >>
There's a big difference between "ugly" and not "beautiful," or at least, there
can be. Seven years before the premiere of Bolena, Stendahl praised Pasta's
voice. By the time of the premieres of Bolena, Norma, and Sonnambula (which
took place within the span of a year, from 26 December 1830-26 December 1831),
perhaps Giuditta Pasta was experiencing increased difficulty keeping her voice
under control. But as far as I can tell, no one suggested that the voice, at
that stage of her career, was "ugly." It appears true that, by the end of her
career, Pasta's voice was in disarray. But that was well after Bolena,
Sonnambula, and Norma.
As for the Anderson-Bolena-trill debate, I don't think it is possible to reach
a consensus. Operatic singing requires the synthesis of a considerable number
of elements-a technique and artistic sensibility that allows fidelity to the
score as well as the ability to negotiate it in a dramatically convincing
fashion, a voice of attractive (if not beautiful) quality, a convincing
physical appearance, etc. Few singers possess all of these qualities in equal
measure, and so compromises will be made.
Composers certainly make these compromises. If one adhered to the opinion that
a singer who is incapable of negotiating every last requirement in the score
should not sing a particular role, we would have very few tenors, past or
present, singing Radames. How many can properly execute the final B-flat in
"Celeste Aida," with its pianissimo attack and "morendo" resolution?
(Bergonzi, on occasion, but few others). When a tenor informed Verdi that he
could not sing the aria as written, the composer did not forbid the singer from
performing Radames. Instead, he wrote an alternative ending, with the singer
dropping from a loud high B-flat to a quiet middle B-flat. Perhaps, sometimes,
composers are more accomodating than their audiences.
Ken Meltzer
acar...@my-deja.com
All it takes is money - assuming there are singers out there who can meet
your standards. Let's figure this out: we (opera company subscribers,
donors boards and professional management) declare a holiday (i.e., close
our houses) for a year or two while June Anderson (and others) learn to
sing? I'd love to try to sell that one to Joe Volpe. Better yet, why
don't you and I go see Joe, and YOU tell him. I'll rent a hall and sell
tickets; this ought to be good.
It was interesting that after a week of BS you acknowledged that Ms
Anderson was a "great talent"
As to the Vaness Norma where "it didn't matter" that she missed some
notes etc - no, I guess a technically perfect rendition would have shut
up the guy in the seat next to me who was bitching during the first act -
by the conclusion he was standing up and cheering, too
More to the point - I think one or more of the Wagnerian heavyweights are
going to do Norma during the next few years, and I intend to make a point
of catching at least one. I would bet the rent money that (1)
technically the performance will be better, and (2) dramatically it will
be flat. So - you talked about chills and thrills at the opera - Jane
Eaglen as a Druid priestess firing up the troops to murder Romans - gimme
a break This will call for suspension of disbelief big, big time - sort
of like this year's Fidelio at the Met - should have stayed home and
listened to the broadcast. Hepner playing at being a circus bear, the
guards fooling around with plastic M-16s, the prisoners being allowed to
roam around an area where the weapons (the Times critic called them
"shotguns" - I guess we found somebody else who dodged the draft) are
being uncrated - on and on. You don't like it when the notes the
composer wrote aren't sung - and it drives me equally nuts when directors
misunderstand / ignore the composer's (assuming he had control over the
libretto) intent when they direct a production I haven't heard seen
your comments declaiming against that practice - and I would think that
composer's intentions would be important to you (at least that is what
you have been saying)
And perhaps if you hold up a
> higher standard, it would encourage such great talents as Anderson to
> regroup and to repair whatever technical deficiency they might have. The
> audience would end up being the winner either way.
>
> S.
>
>
Shahrdad
<acar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8vifq5$u6u$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> It was interesting that after a week of BS you acknowledged that Ms
> Anderson was a "great talent"
Of course she's a great talent. Do you think she could have made an
international career without having a great deal of talent? But Anderson's
is a talent which is not fully developed due to an incomplete technique,
especially in the repertoire she has chosen to sing. By all means, let her
sing, but not the roles that make a great deal of demand for that one thing
she cannot supply. There are beautiful bel canto roles such as Il Pirata
which would show off what she can do well, without exposing her technical
deficiency. I just hope she doesn't decide to tackle Verdi's I Masnadieri
next!
S.
Skip
role..... Some roles call for an ugly voice, Lady Macbeth is one, but other
roles, I do not want to hear an ugly voice... Callas had anything but a
beautiful voice.
"OmbraRecds" <ombra...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001122082806...@ng-xa1.aol.com...
> >I'm also sure that Donizetti did not want Anna to have an ugly
> >voice..........
>