Favorite Ernani's
david...@aol.com
recording with Price, Bergonzi, Sereni, and Flagello with Thomas
Schippers conducting. All four soloists are in splendid voice, and I'm
a huge fan of Mario Sereni, who has been overshadowed by several
baritones of the same generation whose only point of superiority over
Sereni is a somewhat larger instrument. Here it hardly matters: he
produces mellifluous sounds, his voice never sounds too small, and he
sings with great sensitivity in what is, after all, the baritone's
opera. Flagello is also underrated: in his day he had a big fat
gorgeous instrument, and as much as I revere Tozzi and Siepi, I'm not
convinced they're superior to Flagello as Silva (and I mean Tozzi and
Siepi in general rather than Tozzi and Siepi in the specific
performances listed below).
I'm slightly disappointed with Thomas Schippers: the live Met
performances from the early 60's with Schippers are far more intensely
vivid, but he's far from a disaster.
I have two of the live Met performances and wouldn't part with either
one of 'em:
Price, Bergonzi, MacNeil, Siepi, Schippers (December 1, 1962)
Price, Corelli, Sereni, Tozzi, Schippers (April 10, 1965)
Some people will tell you that Bergonzi is not an adequate Ernani, and
it's perfectly true that he doesn't have the reserves of power
ideal for the most strenuous moments in the role, especially up top.
In our imperfect world, my response to that is, "So what?" In any
case, Bergonzi is equally adequate - or inadequate, depending on your
point of view - live and in the studio: the Price/Bergonzi team sounds
much the same on RCA as in the theatre. It's Schippers who is
palpably better live.
I picked up Price/Bergonzi live because I wanted a souvenir of Cornell
MacNeil's Carlo, which several people around here swear by. I was
impressed by his musicality and the basic adequacy of his voice to the
role, but - despite protestations to the contrary from Ed and Charlie -
he wobbles too much for me. Ed and Charlie have their very own
definition of
the word wobble, which I've never seen comprehensibly explained.
They simply assert categorically that MacNeil never wobbled (or that
Siepi never wobbled). My definition of a wobble is a vibrato moving
back and forth above and below the actual pitch that is sufficiently
slow in speed and wide in compass to be somewhat annoying. We're not
talking about a wobble as wide as Callas's at the end of her career,
but we're talking just enough wobble to distress me. Discussing this
very issue on this very forum, I gave specific examples from the
performance in question, pointing to specific notes where MacNeil
wobbles. If you can find the thread, you will find Ken Meltzer's
response to my all too easily verifiable claims . . . and Ed and
Charlie simply asserting that MacNeil never wobbled. I'm glad to
have MacNeil's performance, but I wish it had been captured a few
years earlier or on a better night. Tozzi is also captured in less
than the glorious form he so often exhibited earlier in his career and
in the studio, but the totality of the performance, with all four
principals and Schippers throwing themselves into the thing, makes it
well worth keeping, not least because of Schippers.
Same goes for Price/Corelli, where, we have so often been assured, we
will discover that Corelli is a natural for the role. Well, Bergonzi
is a natural for some aspects of the role, Corelli for others. I'm a
big fan of Corelli and of this Corelli performance, but I'm not the
sort of Corelli fan who can't hear that his performance is not
invariably as smooth and elegant as parts of the role demand. Corelli
has the right size voice for the part, and there's a real musical
intelligence lurking there somewhere despite the lapses in musicianship
that his less than perfect vocal production sometimes resulted in.
Sereni sounds better on RCA. Siepi is in characteristic form
musically, which is enough for me, and I'm disinclined to discuss my
reservations about his performance at the moment.
I also have the earlier Met broadcast with Milanov, Del Monaco, Warren,
and Siepi with Mitropoulos conducting. I expected to like this
performance much more than I do on the basis of recommendations from
Grandpa Dave. Dave is usually an admirer of a little bit too much
smoothness, cleanness, and precision for my taste, so you can imagine
my surprise when this performance failed to exhibit at least some of
the cleanness, smoothness, and precision you find in, say, the
Norman-Domingo-Solti studio recording of Lohengrin, a performance that
makes me want to mess its hair. I don't mind having a souvenir of
the great lady, but Milanov is past it. In all fairness to Del Monaco,
there is passage after passage where he genuinely strives to modulate
his heroic instrument in the interests of a delicate and sensitive
effect, but he has trouble singing softly, especially the higher he
goes, and he strays just far enough outside the lines to bug me.
Warren is reasonably impressive but somehow not quite as impressive as
elsewhere. I don't want to figure out what I think about Siepi here
just now.
Mitropoulos's performance is cut from cloth very different from
Schippers'. Even live, there is a tad of inflexibility in the
Schippers performances, a projection of intensity by nothing more than
an unflagging and frankly metronomic drive in some bits. (In some
bits, that's a good thing.) Mitropoulos phrases everything with a
greater refinement. Not enough just to say that, of course, but I
don't have a score handy, nor the energy, nor etc. etc. etc. In a
sense, Mitropoulos is a bit less inflammatory on the podium than
Schippers, but his approach works for me. Nor do I want to end on a
critical note in Schippers' case: the two live Ernani's are
terrific.
-david gable
Chuckie
david...@aol.com wrote:
> In Schippers: Corelli for others. I'm a
> big fan
MANCINI,PENNO,TADDEI on cetra(Warner)
tapef...@webtv.net
Caballe/Prevedi/Glossop is another recommendable one, but my favorite
is still Price/Bergonzi/Sereni/Flagello
(though I'd have preferred Siepi, Tozzi, or Hines as Silva).
edo...@gmail.com
The greatest by far is the Met broadcast of 1962- Bergonzi, Price,
MacNeil, Tozzi. And, for your information, LT, I never said MacNeil
NEVER wobbled. I just said that, IMO, he has no wobble in this
magnificent performance. I also think the 3700 or so in the audience
would tend to agree with me, since he stops the show cold with his
great Act 3 aria. The year was 1962, and this is still prime, fairly
early MacNeil.
There may be some movement in the voice, which you hear as a wobble. I
don't. Same with Siepi, who, for my taste, never developed a wobble.
MacNeil did, by 1970 or perhaps a year or two earlier, though he was
still one of the greatest baritone voices I ever heard, along with
Merrill.
As a matter of fact, (my fact, or my opinion) MacNeil's performance in
this Ernani is one of the truly greatest performances I have ever heard
by any opera singer in any role, male or female. He always stole the
show from even the great Corelli. This is a memory that will never
leave me. Try is unbelievable high piano singing in the "Vieni meco."
It is ethereal, and unreal for a voice of that size and magnitude.
At his best, which he certainly is here, MacNeil is a superlative
singer, and one of the greatest voices I ever was lucky enough to hear.
Ed
Ken Meltzer
premie...@aol.com wrote:
> The greatest by far is the Met broadcast of 1962- Bergonzi, Price,
> MacNeil, Tozzi. And, for your information, LT, I never said MacNeil
> NEVER wobbled. I just said that, IMO, he has no wobble in this
> magnificent performance. I also think the 3700 or so in the audience
> would tend to agree with me, since he stops the show cold with his
> great Act 3 aria. The year was 1962, and this is still prime, fairly
> early MacNeil.
Ed-
The fact that MacNeil gets a tremendous ovation (and justifiably so,
IMO) for his singing capped with an unbelievable high note doesn't
necessarily mean that his voice is absolutely steady throughout the
performance.
I love MacNeil's singing here. But after re-hearing the performance
(prompted by David's suggestion), I have to agree with him that there
are some problems.
But it definitely was much more noticeable in later years.
Best,
Ken
grndp...@aol.com
There is a Met performance (I believe from 1956). It offers one of
Warren's most brilliant performances. In Act III he makes one's heart
pump with his majestic: "E vincitor dei secoli."
Mitropoulos pads the very short Act IV with ballet music imported from
MACBETH.
There is also a Florence May Festival performance with Cerquetti,
Christoff and Bastianini. It's quite good, too, although I find
Christoff a bit too lugurbrious to be the impassioned lover. (Siepi is
great in the Met recording although he sounds a bit too youthful.)
The Met recording also offers James McCracken in a tiny role.
Although the opera is called ERNANI, I think CARLO QUINTO might have
been a more appropriate title, given that nearly all the most memorable
music in the opera is allotted to the baritone.
The studio recordings strike me as much too staid. I like Sereni (a
kind of pre-Cappuccilli) but he doesn't have the vocal authority of
Warren or Bastianini.
Bergonzi is easily the best Ernani, but there is not much to be made of
this role. Leontyne Price is just about ideal as Elvira, but that
role, like Ernani's, is one-dimensional.
By the way, the Met chrous (under Mitropoulos) is in great form with
"Si ridesti al Leon di Castiglia" (Verdi most Risorgomento-ish number).
==G/P Dave
==G/P Dave
donpaolo
that he owned this role, bar none, even Warren (who is certainly no slouch
in the 1956 bdcst).
I'll never forget how he blew the roof off the Old Met in the "o deh
verd'anni miei) & took all those optional high notes in the sunsequent "o
sommo Carlo". Wonder of Mr. Bollman found Mac's singing an excuse to run
across the street for libation? :>)
And, I wish RCA cast Mac over Sereni, as well as Tozzi over Flagello. That
would have made it a perfect set!
DonPaolo
"premie...@aol.com" <edo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157204677....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Chuckie
BILL KASIMER JUST HAD AN ATTACK OF APOPLEXY!!!!
THERE AIN'T NO APOSTROSTROPHE in "Ernani's"..
VERGOGNA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! CH
Chuckie
grndp...@aol.com wrote:
> Mitropoulos gave us two performances of ERNANI available on CD.
>
> There is a Met performance (I believe from 1956). It offers one of
> Warren or Bastianini.
>
> Bergonzi is easily the best Ernani, but there is not much to be made of
> this role. Leontyne Price is just about ideal as Elvira, but that
> role, like Ernani's, is one-dimensional.
>
1. On Thanksgiving night,1962..Corelli took EVERY HIGH NOTE with
Price...drowned out as usual....It was fabulous.
2. As Macneil took the "FA" of "Fara' at the end of the aria in act
three.(before the last A flat)....you heard a GASP..because the note
was so sensational....even bigger than Warren..which already is
amazing.
3.Zinka's aria was poor..just not good fioratura..but by the rest of
it..Gorgeous..and the TRIO with Siepi and delMonaco was
phenomenal..That is on a CD Import....
4. The late Arturo Sergi tripped and fell down the stairs at an
entrance in the opera.
5. The small role in Ernani...I forgot his name..was sung by James
McCracken..it sounded just as bad as his leading roles....
tapef...@webtv.net
> BILIOUS KASAVUBU JUST HAD AN ATTACK OF APOPLEXY!!!!
No, it's just flea-infection, contracted during his trysts with Stinky
Le PedoPhooliak Bollmann (aka, The Thief).
> VERGOGNA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! CH
Truly.
tapef...@webtv.net
donpaolo wrote:
> While Mac was not my fav (later wobble drove me crazy), no question, but
> that he owned this role, bar none, even Warren (who is certainly no slouch
> in the 1956 bdcst).
>
> I'll never forget how he blew the roof off the Old Met in the "o deh
> verd'anni miei) & took all those optional high notes in the sunsequent "o
> sommo Carlo". Wonder of Mr. Bollman found Mac's singing an excuse to run
> across the street for libation? :>)
>
> And, I wish RCA cast Mac over Sereni, as well as Tozzi over Flagello. That
> would have made it a perfect set!
In this, Mac's power or not, I'm glad it was Sereni. His singing is
just far more beautiful, actually on a par with my other favorites in
the role, Basianini and (in excerpts) Stracciari.
Agreed that Tozzi would have been even finer vocally and dramatically
than the also-excellent Flagello. Price and Bergonzi, though, could
not be topped; equalled, perhaps, by Tebaldi or Milanov at her best,
partnered with Corelli, - but not bettered. I enjoyed Freni's
performance of this role, though some still say she was fach-tually
overparted. Her real-life husband Ghiaurov was magnificent as Silva,
one of his greatest roles.
> DonPaolo
L. Guess Who I'm Not Mentioning T. :)
donpaolo
<tapef...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:1157238273.2...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> L. Guess Who I'm Not Mentioning T. :)
>
DoNP.
Mitchell Kaufman
I agree with this choice. I also prefer Penno in this role to either of
Del Monaco's performances, though if you haven't heard it, you might
also give Cerquetti, Del Monaco, Bastianini, Christoff, Mitropooulos a
try, especially for the soprano, who may or may not be to your taste.
All said, though, I like the Met perfrmance with Corelli and Siepi best,
though Sereni is ordinary. The others seem adequate to the demands of
their roles--Corelli much more than that. He's something special.
Must've been very exciting in the theatre.
Bergonzi, exceptional as he always is, sounds a bit overextended in the
live Met performance (far more animated than the studio recording)--this
is just not for him, though he makes a valiant effort indeed. Same
comments for Price at this early point in her career--there's just not
enough sound-making equipment, particularly in the low register. (Even
the second performance is no standout in this regard.)
The second Met performance and the Cerquetti, with the Cetra thrown in
for one or the other according to preference, give me all the Ernani I
need.
MK
ljo
>> While Mac was not my fav (later wobble drove me crazy), no question, but
>> that he owned this role, bar none, even Warren (who is certainly no
>> slouch
>> in the 1956 bdcst).
>>
>> I'll never forget how he blew the roof off the Old Met in the "o deh
>> verd'anni miei) & took all those optional high notes in the sunsequent "o
>> sommo Carlo". Wonder of Mr. Bollman found Mac's singing an excuse to run
>> across the street for libation? :>)
>>
>> And, I wish RCA cast Mac over Sereni, as well as Tozzi over Flagello.
>> That
>> would have made it a perfect set!
>
> In this, Mac's power or not, I'm glad it was Sereni. His singing is
> just far more beautiful, actually on a par with my other favorites in
> the role, Basianini and (in excerpts) Stracciari.
>
> Agreed that Tozzi would have been even finer vocally and dramatically
> than the also-excellent Flagello. Price and Bergonzi, though, could
> not be topped; equalled, perhaps, by Tebaldi or Milanov at her best,
> partnered with Corelli, - but not bettered. I enjoyed Freni's
> performance of this role, though some still say she was fach-tually
> overparted. Her real-life husband Ghiaurov was magnificent as Silva,
> one of his greatest roles.
>
>> DonPaolo
>
> L. Guess Who I'm Not Mentioning T. :)
Wunnerful wunnerful! Everybody is simply wunnerful! And everybody is more
beautiful than everybody else! Excellent excellent! Nobody is un-excellent!
Magnificent magnificent! Every singer is simply more magnificent than every
other singer? Who do you want to talk about? Magnificence guaranteed!
Wunnerful wunnerful wunnerful!
david...@aol.com
Mitchell Kaufman wrote:
> All said, though, I like the Met perfrmance with Corelli and Siepi best,
> though Sereni is ordinary.
I can't specifically remember the live Sereni performance at the
moment, although I do recall liking it less than his studio recording.
That being said, his suave, sensitive, patrician, and musical
performance in the studio is anything but ordinary. He's not guilty of
a MacNeil-ian wobble, the comparative blandness of a Bastianini, or a
Cappuccillian vagueness of pitch, but I don't hold that against him.
Of course, all three of these guys had voices bigger than Sereni's,
which rules him out in advance in the eyes of the typical opera buff,
who, on the evidence, can't tell that Cappuccilli couldn't sing in tune
or that MacNeil already had a wobble by the time of the Ernani
broadcast.
>Same
> comments for Price at this early point in her career--there's just not
> enough sound-making equipment, particularly in the low register. (Even
> the second performance is no standout in this regard.)
1962 may have been early in Price's tenure at the Met. It was not
early in her career, and by the late 1960's she was no longer singing
as well as she had sung a decade earlier. Just compare her
contributions to the RCA Trovatore's she recorded under Basile and
Mehta, where the youthful abandon characteristic of the Basile
recording gives way to the caution, constriction, and effort
characteristic of the performance under Mehta.
I love Price and I love her singing, but Price's technique was never
perfect. She certainly never exhibited the kind of techical mastery
characteristic of a Ponselle or a Rethberg. That rapid throaty gospel
singer's gargle that colored all her singing was not a product of good
technique, and it contributed to a faster than necessary decline. If
her technique had been better, she wouldn't have experienced the
Fanciulla disaster. She never had a strong lower register. She was
never a perfect master of the fioritura required by Ernani and
Trovatore. She could never really float a soft high note a la Milanov.
That being said, she was a perfect temperamental fit for early and
middle-period Verdi - it's the only music for which she was a perfect
temperamental fit - and I don't have the slightest problem with either
of her two Met broadcasts of Ernani or with the studio recording.
-david gable
Mitchell Kaufman
> That being said, she was a perfect temperamental fit for early and
> middle-period Verdi - it's the only music for which she was a perfect
> temperamental fit - and I don't have the slightest problem with either
> of her two Met broadcasts of Ernani or with the studio recording.
I do think the 1965 Met performance is by far the best for Price: she
sings with far more ease, verve, toughness and abandon. In '62 she
mostly peters out in the low end, and for me the studio perfrmance is
too careful. The '65 leaves very little to be desired, though she and
Corelli are a tad mismatched.
Temperament? Price had very little temperament at all on stage. She kind
of just stood there like a slug.
That said, Price is one of my all-time favorite singers, but I'm well
aware of the changes in her vice during her career, and of her various
shortcomings. Nobody's perfect.
MK
Mitchell Kaufman
MK
Stephen Jay-Taylor
revelations....
SJT, most put out
Richard Loeb
news:1hl22yu.1tyyr7yntyi8rN%forg...@iaint.disclosinit...
Yes I was very disappointed when I saw her on stage -not an actress. As for
the studio Ernani, it doesn't really find her in the best voice either -
e.g.the Ernani Involami is not that good (I always go back to her first Aida
for the voice really fitting the role)and Sereni was, for me, always a very
very good grade B baritone who recorded better than he sounded in the house.
Richard
tapef...@webtv.net
Lawrence Welk Bollmann gushes:
> Wunnerful wunnerful!!! blahblaaaaah
Unfortunately, Stinky, no one can seriously say that about - you.
LT
tapef...@webtv.net
donpaolo wrote:
> <tapef...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:1157238273.2...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > L. Guess Who I'm Not Mentioning T. :)
> >
> Ummmm - Bruson?
Uh.... yeah, ok. :)
Absolutely NO TOP-blech!
But what a Midrange!!! His top and lower register weren't his Pride
and Joy, compared to some other leading baritones, but the overall
effect was more than enough to make for some fine performances in his
prime years.
> DoNP.
LT
Andrew T. Kay
[L. Price]
> That being said, she was a perfect temperamental fit for early and
> middle-period Verdi - it's the only music for which she was a perfect
> temperamental fit -
That's a bit narrow. You don't think she was a perfect temperamental
fit for Gershwin's Bess, or hymns and spirituals, or the music that her
friend Barber composed with her in mind? Maybe you just mean of music
that you listen to the most; but even at that, her recording of the
excerpts on the "Blue Album" suggests to me that Puccini's Liu may have
been her most congenial role of all. It's a shame the various complete
TURANDOT sets of her time missed her.
Todd K
david...@aol.com
Mitchell Kaufman wrote:
> Temperament? Price had very little temperament at all on stage. She kind
> of just stood there like a slug.
It's the temperament revealed in the singing that matters to me. I
haven't the slightest objection to the stand and deliver approach to
performance as long as the singing is passionate and musical.
-david gable
david...@aol.com
Andrew T. Kay wrote:
> > That being said, she was a perfect temperamental fit for early and
> > middle-period Verdi - it's the only music for which she was a perfect
> > temperamental fit -
> That's a bit narrow.
Maybe a little. I do think her middle-period-Verdian Mozart is
completely unidiomatic, and her recordings of Strauss's Four Last Songs
and Berlioz's Summer Nights are major disasters. The Berlioz is so bad
it would make a good party record. It doesn't help that nobody clued
her in about certain aspects of French prosody. For example, "âme" is
a one-syllable word in spoken French, two in most French poetry.
Berlioz correctly sets it as a two-syllable word, and I shudder in
horror when Price sings it as one, not quite certain where to put the M
sound that closes off the sound of the word.
-david gable
Andrew T. Kay
> Andrew T. Kay wrote:
>
> > > That being said, she was a perfect temperamental fit for early and
> > > middle-period Verdi - it's the only music for which she was a perfect
> > > temperamental fit -
>
> > That's a bit narrow.
>
> Maybe a little. I do think her middle-period-Verdian Mozart is
> completely unidiomatic,
I'm inclined to agree, although her Mozart is not without its points of
interest and allure. I just picked up the new, cheap reissue of the
Leinsdorf COSI and I'm liking it (her performance included) more than I
expected I would.
Interestingly, your recently deceased un-favorite portrayer of the
Marschallin praised Price at length in her final interview for doing
exactly the opposite! ("Ah, her voice was unusually beautiful. She had
great expression -- it's a totally different voice from mine, totally
different character -- and very, very good singing. There was not a
flaw, never any kind of thinking back to singing Verdi or Puccini. She
sang pure Mozart. She had the brains and the taste of a great artist.
It was stylistically perfect. She knew exactly what you must never do
in singing Mozart, what you should always have in your ear when you
sing the note." This is next to a nice production photo of them as the
two Donnas in GIOVANNI; OPERA NEWS, July)
> and her recordings of Strauss's Four Last Songs
> and Berlioz's Summer Nights are major disasters. The Berlioz is so bad
> it would make a good party record.
I wouldn't go quite that far, but I never get it out (or the Strauss
either) when I want to hear those songs. Agreed also that French was
decidedly not her best language -- that's an issue on the famous
Karajan CARMEN as well, but Corelli's French is so extraterrestrially
awful as to draw attention away from hers.
Todd K
Donald Grove
<david...@aol.com> wrote:
> She was
>never a perfect master of the fioritura required by Ernani and
>Trovatore. She could never really float a soft high note a la Milanov.
I am glad you said this about her fioritura. Price was much touted in
her day for singing Elvira and Fiordiligi, but I always felt her
Ernani Involami was a bit off, and same for the Come Scoglio.
She still ranks as my personal Diva. Voice of pure gold. Was always a
very idiosyncratic singer. One either allows or does not allow the
idiosyncrasies.
When you say "rapid throaty gospel singer's gargle", do you mean her
vibrato?
I agree with the poster who said that Liu may have been her most
congenial role. This is precisely because of her floated high notes.
No, Price's high notes were not like Milanov's, but then their voices
weren't really comparable on any level. Both very beautiful voices,
but, to my ear, beautiful for very different reasons (Milanov's more
solid technique among them).
Ken Meltzer
> I agree with the poster who said that Liu may have been her most
> congenial role. This is precisely because of her floated high notes.
I saw her sing the Rondine aria in recital, and the floated high notes
were as breathtakingly magical as her recording (maybe even more so).
> No, Price's high notes were not like Milanov's, but then their voices
> weren't really comparable on any level. Both very beautiful voices,
> but, to my ear, beautiful for very different reasons (Milanov's more
> solid technique among them).
I agree that Milanov had a much better integration of registers
(Price's lower register was always problematic). But do you think that
Milanov's superior technique extended to her singing of coloratura?
Best,
Ken
Mitchell Kaufman
> I am glad you said this about her fioritura. Price was much touted in
> her day for singing Elvira and Fiordiligi, but I always felt her
> Ernani Involami was a bit off, and same for the Come Scoglio.
I'm not David, but I feel she had acceptable fioriture for most of the
rep she sang--certainly superior to a Tebaldi--who sang Traviata!--or a
Milanov, who really had little facility at all.
Listen to her "Ernani, involami" in the 1965 Met broadcast, where she's
superb.
> She still ranks as my personal Diva. Voice of pure gold. Was always a
> very idiosyncratic singer. One either allows or does not allow the
> idiosyncrasies.
Right.
> When you say "rapid throaty gospel singer's gargle", do you mean her
> vibrato?
David will have to answer this.
> I agree with the poster who said that Liu may have been her most
> congenial role.
There is a recording of her Liu with the Met production in Philadelphia
in 1961 with Stokowski, Nilsson, and Corelli. And very nice it is. Her
best role? Celebrate its reissuance this coming Tuesday by giving it
another spin: her glorious Butterfly.
MK
david...@aol.com
Andrew T. Kay wrote:
> I'm inclined to agree, although her Mozart is not without its points of
> interest and allure. I just picked up the new, cheap reissue of the
> Leinsdorf COSI and I'm liking it (her performance included) more than I
> expected I would.
I'm not that wild about her Fiordiligi but I love her spitfire Donna
Anna's and Donna Elvira's. And yet, if I were casting the Don Giovanni
of my dreams, she wouldn't be in the cast.
> Interestingly, your recently deceased un-favorite portrayer of the
> Marschallin praised Price at length in her final interview for doing
> exactly the opposite! ("Ah, her voice was unusually beautiful. She had
> great expression -- it's a totally different voice from mine, totally
> different character -- and very, very good singing. There was not a
> flaw, never any kind of thinking back to singing Verdi or Puccini. She
> sang pure Mozart. She had the brains and the taste of a great artist.
> It was stylistically perfect. She knew exactly what you must never do
> in singing Mozart, what you should always have in your ear when you
> sing the note."
I don't for one second take these effusions at face value.
-david gable
david...@aol.com
Donald Grove wrote:
> When you say "rapid throaty gospel singer's gargle", do you mean her
> vibrato?
Yes. But the sound is throaty, and its the bad throaty technique that
shortened her career . . . or at least the number of years when she
sounded as fresh as she did in the first few RCA recordings (Trovatore
w/Basile, Don Giovanni w/Leinsdorf, Aida w/Solti).
-david gable
david...@aol.com
I think this is Don Grove speaking:
> > I agree with the poster who said that Liu may have been her most
> > congenial role. This is precisely because of her floated high notes.
Liu is just about the easiest leading soprano role in a standard
repertory opera to sing, and Liu's high notes are not very high.
I think this is Ken Meltzer speaking:
> I saw her sing the Rondine aria in recital, and the floated high notes
> were as breathtakingly magical as her recording (maybe even more so).
I don't know the recording and I wasn't at the recital, but I'd have to
hear the high notes to know whether I thought they were "floated." I
don't know of a single Price high note that I'd describe as being
floated.
> I agree that Milanov had a much better integration of registers
> (Price's lower register was always problematic). But do you think that
> Milanov's superior technique extended to her singing of coloratura?
I don't know if you're asking me, but I don't. Indeed, I consider
Milanov to be the saboteur who ruined the
Barbieri-Bjoerling-Warren-Cellini Trovatore. Sticking the Price of the
Basile Trovatore in her place would have saved it for me.
-david gable
Ken Meltzer
david...@aol.com wrote:
> I think this is Ken Meltzer speaking:
> > I saw her sing the Rondine aria in recital, and the floated high notes
> > were as breathtakingly magical as her recording (maybe even more so).
>
> I don't know the recording and I wasn't at the recital, but I'd have to
> hear the high notes to know whether I thought they were "floated." I
> don't know of a single Price high note that I'd describe as being
> floated.
My definition of "floated" high notes are those that are sung very
softly, but with support, and beautiful tone. Both Milanov and Caballe
were extraordinary in this realm (I personally prefer Caballe). But in
her rendition of the Rondine aria, Price matches them.
IMO.
Best,
Ken
donpaolo
from chronic sinusitis.
DonP.
<tapef...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:1157250696....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
david...@aol.com
It sounds as if we have the same definition not only of wobbling but of
floating.
-david gable
Ken Meltzer
David-
I've spent the better part of my life wobbling and floating! (;-)
Best,
Ken
Andrew T. Kay
The AIDA is a Decca. I would add the Leinsdorf BUTTERFLY (RCA) and
Karajan TOSCA (Decca) that Mitchell likes, and the RCA CARMEN (limiting
my scope to "freshness of sound," not fach, French style, or anything
else). And of course that "Blue Album" -- even if you already have her
singing most of the complete roles that are sampled on it, it's
necessary, because she's phenomenally good throughout. The quality of
her voice seemed to change in the mid-1960s; on records, anyway, it
takes on a dusky quality and, as you say, becomes throatier, as well as
narrower at the top (the compensation is that there does seem to have
been a gain in size in the *middle* of her range; she has more sheer
heft for the spinto roles). Also, she sometimes sounds *tired* on the
later recordings. This is something I find problematic on the BALLO,
for one; it sounds as though it comes from later than it does.
This is not to say I would throw out everything after 1965. The '67
Verdi Requiem under Karajan is pretty wonderful (I do miss her pristine
sound as captured on Reiner's slow-motion Decca horror show, but her
greater experience with and understanding of the work is apparent in
her shaping of the music), and I have never had your problems with her
second TROVATORE.
Special thanks to Mitchell for informing us of the Liu under Stokowski.
I was not aware of its existence.
Todd K
Donald Grove
>But do you think that
>Milanov's superior technique extended to her singing of coloratura?
No, I think Milanov's coloratura was weak. But I think she had a more
"consistent" sound, from top to bottom.
I remember being very disappointed the first time I heard a recording
of Milanov's cabaletta to Casta Diva. I didn't know what to expect,
but I wanted to be thrilled. Instead, it was just sort of there.
Along with Price and Milanov, another terrific sopranos without much
coloratura was Freni. Gorgeous voice, not easily moved around.
Donald Grove
Kaufman) wrote:
>Celebrate its reissuance this coming Tuesday by giving it
>another spin: her glorious Butterfly.
I have the Tucker/Price Butterfly on RCA. It is indeed spectacular.
Price at top form.
Donald Grove
while I can hear how her voice might be placed "too far back" for some
people's taste, I take no position on whether this shortened her
career.
On 3 Sep 2006 07:53:29 -0700, "david...@aol.com"
david...@aol.com
Andrew T. Kay wrote:
>> the first few [of Price's] RCA recordings (Trovatore
>> w/Basile, Don Giovanni w/Leinsdorf, Aida w/Solti).
> The AIDA is a Decca.
By your reckoning, so is the Don Giovanni. Both were among a host of
recordings recorded for RCA by Decca that later reverted to Decca,
although they featured mainly singers exclusive to RCA. Other examples
include the recordings of Figaro, Ariadne, & Walkuere with Leinsdorf,
an RCA property; the Dutchman with Rysanek and Dorati; the Forza and
Gioconda with Milanov, Di Stefano, Warren, and Previtali; etc. I think
the first Sutherland Norma was originally released on RCA, although she
was no RCA property.
-david gable
david...@aol.com
Donald Grove wrote:
> Hmm. Not sure what to say about this. I love Price's vibrato, and
> while I can hear how her voice might be placed "too far back" for some
> people's taste, I take no position on whether this shortened her
> career.
I didn't say whether I like the sound or not. It is a fact that it
shortened her career. It also explains some of her goofy ideas about
singing. She believed that you only have so many performances in you
and warned against singing too much. If you sing with the technique of
an Erna Berger, you can do vocalises every day and sing a performance
every night without shortening your career. You're a singer, Donald.
Just imagine what that Price sound would feel like in your throat. The
production is not relaxed and open.
-david gable
tapef...@webtv.net
Ken Meltzer wrote:
> david...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > I think this is Ken Meltzer speaking:
> > > I saw her sing the Rondine aria in recital, and the floated high notes
> > > were as breathtakingly magical as her recording (maybe even more so).
> >
> > I don't know the recording and I wasn't at the recital, but I'd have to
> > hear the high notes to know whether I thought they were "floated." I
> > don't know of a single Price high note that I'd describe as being
> > floated.
>
> My definition of "floated" high notes are those that are sung very
> softly, but with support, and beautiful tone. Both Milanov and Caballe
> were extraordinary in this realm (I personally prefer Caballe).
I'd take Milanov. Corelli, too, had fantastic floating pianissimmi,
very often heard - fortunately.
> But in
> her rendition of the Rondine aria, Price matches them.
Agreed.
> IMO.
Mine, as well.
> Best,
> Ken
Mitchell Kaufman
Also the Karajan Tosca, originally a Soria Series release; the Reiner
Verdi Requiem, too. That Gioconda was so 'Decca' to the core--in spite
of being released on RCA--that it even *sounded* like a Decca (as did
some of the others), produced by John Culshaw and engineered by Kenneth
Wilkinson. I actually find it one of the best-sounding opera recordings
ever made, as befits its parentage.
Conversely, some of the others were recorded by RCA personnel: the
Dutchman and Aida (and IIRC, the Walküre) were Mohr-Layton productions.
The Reiner Verdi Requiem was produced by Eric Smith of Decca at the
Sofiensaal in Vienna (Culshaw produced the later Solti recording for
Decca, his last project for the label, as a matter of fact, and about to
be reissued in the Originals series), and the Tosca was a Culshaw-Parry
as was the Price-Karajan Carmen (which remained on RCA). The
Resnik/Schippers Carmen on Decca was also produced by Culshaw, though
Wilkinson was the engineer (it's better-sounding, too, I think).
And yes, the first Sutherland Norma was released on RCA--I have it on an
RCA open-reel box, which I was able to acquire a couple of years ago
still factory-sealed.
Confusing enough for you?
MK
Stephen Jay-Taylor
Verdi Requiem, too."
All way before my collecting time, natürlich, but wasn't the Soria series
something to do with Walter Legge and the deluxe packaging for the American
market of HMV [ EMI ] Angel recordings, like the Vickers "Samson" and the
Giulini Verdi Requiem ? Herbie's "Tosca" Mk.I was always on Decca here.
Sic transit gloria vinyl..
SJT
david...@aol.com
Mitchell Kaufman wrote:
> That Gioconda was so 'Decca' to the core--in spite
> of being released on RCA--that it even *sounded* like a Decca
Presumably you're talking about the recorded sound, about which you
know and care more than I do. It would never have occurred to me to
think anything but RCA. Milanov and Warren were RCA properties, and
Previtali appeared mainly on Cetra and RCA.
-david gable
Mitchell Kaufman
Yes, that, too, but I decided not to confuse the matter further.
MK
Mitchell Kaufman
And di Stefano? A newly-signed Decca artist. The chorus, and orchestra,
and recording venue: Decca.
There's no quick and easy answer here, I'm afraid.
MK
david...@aol.com
> And di Stefano? A newly-signed Decca artist. The chorus, and orchestra,
> and recording venue: Decca.
The Accademia di Santa Cecilia was run by Decca?
-david gable
Mitchell Kaufman
No, David, it wasn't "run" by Decca, but it was used exclusively for
Decca's opera recordings since the mono Tebaldi series and into the
stereo era. Virtually all their Italian opera recordings were made there
at the time.
MK
david...@aol.com
Mitchell Kaufman wrote:
> > The Accademia di Santa Cecilia was run by Decca?
>
> No, David, it wasn't "run" by Decca, but it was used exclusively for
> Decca's opera recordings since the mono Tebaldi series and into the
> stereo era. Virtually all their Italian opera recordings were made there
> at the time.
>
> MK
OK. Now I'm convinced.
-david gable
Donald Grove
<david...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Donald Grove wrote:
>> Hmm. Not sure what to say about this. I love Price's vibrato, and
>> while I can hear how her voice might be placed "too far back" for some
>> people's taste, I take no position on whether this shortened her
>> career.
>
>I didn't say whether I like the sound or not.
You called it a rapid gospel singer gargle. It was hard to tell
exactly what you were talking about, but gargle isn't a word I assume
you use to describe a sound you admire. The "rapid" made me wonder if
you meant vibrato.
> It is a fact that it
>shortened her career. It also explains some of her goofy ideas about
>singing. She believed that you only have so many performances in you
>and warned against singing too much. If you sing with the technique of
>an Erna Berger, you can do vocalises every day and sing a performance
>every night without shortening your career.
This varies a lot from singer to singer. Technique is a way of
shaping gifts that the singer already possesses naturally. It doesn't
change what is in your throat. Not all singers can endure daily
performing. In fact, most stay away from it. Some can handle daily
singing without any harm, but that doesn't mean others should throw
away their voices because of what Erna Berger could do. And bodies
change at different paces at different times. Besides, Erna Berger
was singing a totally different rep.
> You're a singer, Donald.
>Just imagine what that Price sound would feel like in your throat. The
>production is not relaxed and open.
I guess I hear very different things and feel different things in my
throat than what you describe when I listen to her. I feel breath
that is very very relaxed, and a very precise focus of sound which
combines a very spacious "back" of the throat with a LOT of very open
head sound. (I am talking about her best, not her worst).
Yes, I am a singer, and I'm always wary of people explaining the
technical reasons why a singer had a decline. In the case of Price, I
can tell there is something you ddid't like about her sound, which you
call a gargle, and this thing became worse as time went by. I am not
sure that has anything to do with her technique, though it is clear
you think it was a technical thing which could have been prevented. I
still take no position on whether it shortened her career.
>
>-david gable
Donald Grove
Oh, and BTW I am glad to see there are a few other Sereni fans here. I
think his Carlo in the Price/Bergonzi/Schippers Ernani is terrific.
His singing, like Price's is very idiosyncratic. But he was a very
expressive singer, and his Carlo is such an interesting character. I
am sure his voice was never as lovely as MacNeil's, or as rich as
Warren's, but Sereni sang with a lot of feeling.
I also really love his Ping on the Leinsdorf Bjorling Nilsson
Turandot. Again, the expression is outstanding.
david...@aol.com
Donald wrote:
> You called it a rapid gospel singer gargle. It was hard to tell
> exactly what you were talking about, but gargle isn't a word I assume
> you use to describe a sound you admire.
Don't assume. I used the word gargle because of its meaning: it's
something you do back in your throat.
> Technique is a way of
> shaping gifts that the singer already possesses naturally.
Technique is whatever physical means you use to produce the sound. You
don't have a sound separate from the means used to produce the sound,
and how you produce it affects its character.
> It doesn't
> change what is in your throat.
When you lift weights, your muscles change. When you walk daily your
body changes. It is also possible to strain or tear a muscle. When
you abuse your vocal cords in certain ways, you develop nodes. When
you abuse a baritonal chest register as Callas (a singer with an
otherwise virtually flawless technique) did, you develop a wobble like
Callas's. Do you really think the harsh vocal-cord-lacerating manner
in which Suliotis sang and her Callas-like resorts to chest voice had
nothing to do with her career lasting less than a decade?
> Not all singers can endure daily
> performing.
No singer who is not doing physical harm to him- or herself while
singing need worry about singing every day.
> In fact, most stay away from it.
You've taken a poll?
> Some can handle daily
> singing without any harm,
All singers with a good technique can handle daily singing without any
harm.
> Besides, Erna Berger
> was singing a totally different rep.
Completely irrelevant. Technique should be like yoga, a means for
coordinating a number of physical activities quasi-effortlessly,
without force. Price did damage to herself.
-david gable
Donald Grove
<david...@aol.com> wrote:
>Don't assume. I used the word gargle because of its meaning: it's
>something you do back in your throat.
Whatever! Based on your original statement "rapid throaty gospel
singer gargle" I feel very free to assume you were referring to her
sound. What was I supposed to think. Gargle is not merely something
you do with the back of your throat. It is an onomatopoeic (sp?) word
that isn't particularly flattering to operatic vocalism. Thanks for
clarifying.
>
>> Technique is a way of
>> shaping gifts that the singer already possesses naturally.
>
>Technique is whatever physical means you use to produce the sound. You
>don't have a sound separate from the means used to produce the sound,
>and how you produce it affects its character.
>
Well that's true and it's not. We both know that not all voices are
alike. You are born with the voice which will be trained. Not all
voices are trained in an identical manner, nor should they be. I
don't assume that Nilsson and Sills were trained with identical
methods, for instance, nor should they have been. It's obvious that
how you produce a tone affects it's character, but I still believe
that technique only develops what is already there, and that voices,
like faces, have their own inherent qualities that technique can
support, but not change.
>> It doesn't
>> change what is in your throat.
>
>When you lift weights, your muscles change. When you walk daily your
>body changes. It is also possible to strain or tear a muscle. When
>you abuse your vocal cords in certain ways, you develop nodes.
Duh! But not all people who lift weights wind up with bodies like
Vassily Aleksyeyev, or even Tiger Woods. Not only that, but all the
technique in the world will not make an ugly voice beautiful. The
individual traits of voice that make stars famous are only ever partly
technique. Some of it is just plain gift. Otherwise, all anybody
needs to be a star is training and that mythic "motivation". But I
see lots of people with that mythic motivation, who study assiduously
with good teachers. Lots of them are admirable singers, but simply
not remarkable singers. We wind up in the chorus.<g> Technique alone
makes nobody famous.
> When
>you abuse a baritonal chest register as Callas (a singer with an
>otherwise virtually flawless technique) did, you develop a wobble like
>Callas's. Do you really think the harsh vocal-cord-lacerating manner
>in which Suliotis sang and her Callas-like resorts to chest voice had
>nothing to do with her career lasting less than a decade?
Of course not! And price did not wind up with a great big wobble, or
anything comparable to the decline Suliotis experienced. You are now
taking me to say that Suliotis didn't ruin her voice, which is a bit
of a leap. I agree with you about Suliotis. I think Price is not so
easy to pinpoint, and what you offer is the idea that a sound you
don't like is what led to her decline. Fair enough, but that is a
perception, which you construe as a reflection on Price's technique.
Is the rapid throaty gospel singer gargle the same thing as her uneven
movement between registers?
>
>> Not all singers can endure daily
>> performing.
>
>No singer who is not doing physical harm to him- or herself while
>singing need worry about singing every day.
>
>> In fact, most stay away from it.
>
>You've taken a poll?
I was conducting a poll, yes. But my statistical software crashed my
computer, and the chi square got so curved I mistook it for the p
value, completely corrupting the n. All on a Labor Day weekend. It
makes my position in this discussion precarious, I know. But I
decided to scrap the poll and go to Coney Island. <g>
I'm not sure what to say. One moment, I am called on to use my own
experience as a singer to grasp what you are saying, and the next
moment my experience as a singer doesn't include familiarity with what
other singers think. I stand by what I said. Daily performing is
avoided by most singers. I'm not talking about vocalising and
practicing. I'm talking about performing on a stage with an orchestra.
It isn't just more strenuous vocally to sing with an orchestra. It's
also more strenuous vocally because the chips are down and it's time
to deliver to an audience. There are some singers this doesn't phase,
but there are many who like some rest in between. That's not news, is
it?
>
>> Some can handle daily
>> singing without any harm,
>
>All singers with a good technique can handle daily singing without any
>harm.
>
>> Besides, Erna Berger
>> was singing a totally different rep.
>
>Completely irrelevant. Technique should be like yoga, a means for
>coordinating a number of physical activities quasi-effortlessly,
>without force. Price did damage to herself.
>
Yes I think the rep is relevant or I wouldn't have brought it up,
blithe dismissiveness notwithstanding.
I agree that technique coordinates, etc. I don't think that proves
that a rapid throaty gospel singer gargle is what shortened Price's
career. But that isn't technique. For instance, was that sound
forced? Was it off the breath?
Even if her registers were uneven, Price didn't force the the shifts.
Not in that shocking, breaky way that Callas or Suliotis would. There
are times when Price would over-darken her chest sound, for sure,
sacrificing the bel canto standard of consistency of tone. Worse yet,
you can't get chest like that without redirecting your breath, which
means you have to redirect it again when you move back into the rest
of your voice.
As for throaty gargling, I think that is something that Callas did
especially as she got older. It is also something I hear in
Sutherland from time to time. Are you familiar with Jennifer
Larmore? I find her unlistenable because her placement is so far
back. Let's get some standards going for what is being talked about.
Otherwise, I'm just supposed to equate out of hand what you hear with
facts about technique. And I don't.
>-david gable
david...@aol.com
Donald Grove wrote:
> Well [what I wrote about sound and body is] true and it's not.
On the contrary. It is absolutely true. You do not have a "voice" or
a "sound" here and a technique for producing the sound there. The
sound and the technique for producing the sound are inextricably
linked. Nor does the voice sound exactly the same regardless of the
technique used to produce it.
> We both know that not all voices are
> alike. You are born with the voice which will be trained.
You are born with the body your genes determined for you and the
potential inherent in it. But your sound never exists independent of
the physical production of the sound. You must do certain physical
things with your body in order to say "baba" or "dada" or "mama." That
is already "technique."
> I still believe
> that technique only develops what is already there
A technique is already there from the first time you say "baba." The
sound cannot exist without a technique for producing it. You can't
develop your "voice." You can only develop your technique.
> and that voices,
> like faces, have their own inherent qualities that technique can
> support, but not change.
In short, all bodies are individual. I do get that, you know. Nothing
you do can change the degree of potential inherent in your body. But
the development of technique does change the body. That's why pianists
practices scales: to strengthen the muscles in their fingers, enabling
them to do certain things that they couldn't possibly do otherwise.
The individual sound characteristic of the speaking or singing human
voice does not exist independent of the technique used to produce it,
and changing your technique has an effect - whether dramatic or subtle
- on the sound.
> But not all people who lift weights wind up with bodies like
> Vassily Aleksyeyev, or even Tiger Woods.
Multiple factors are involved: genetic, dietary, and psychological
factors; the specific techniques used to develop the muscles; the
amount of time spent. None of which changes my point.
> Not only that, but all the
> technique in the world will not make an ugly voice beautiful.
There probably is no such thing as a voice that would be inherently
ugly if the sound were produced correctly. Fran Dresher's speaking
voice doesn't have to sound like that. It's as much a function of
technique as Callas's chest tones.
Once a perfect technique is developed, the voice might be very tiny and
the range may not be extensive. But I doubt there are many voices
anybody would label ugly on the basis of the sound that came out once a
solid technique is in place.
The potential for agility programmed into us also seems to vary
considerably from human being to human being, although the best
possible technique will make us as agile as our physical nature
permits.
> The
> individual traits of voice that make stars famous are only ever partly
> technique. Some of it is just plain gift.
True but irrelevant.
> Otherwise, all anybody
> needs to be a star is training and that mythic "motivation". But I
> see lots of people with that mythic motivation, who study assiduously
> with good teachers. Lots of them are admirable singers, but simply
> not remarkable singers. We wind up in the chorus.
True enough. It will always be so. But inexperienced singers in their
late teens are not in a position to know whether they have a good
voice. Their bodies are not mature and their techniques are
inadequate. The question can only be answered after a reasonable
apprenticeship: in short, after a solid technique is in place.
> Technique alone
> makes nobody famous.
Who said it does? Sutherland's spectacular development of her
technique is precisely what made her famous, but nature supplied
suitable fodder. Take away either side of the equation and there would
have been no career.
> And Price did not wind up with a great big wobble, or
> anything comparable to the decline Suliotis experienced.
No, she did not. I used the extreme cases of Callas and Suliotis - I
could have thrown in Di Stefano - to induce you to concede that what
you do physically with your body in producing sound can have a negative
impact. Doing things physically with your body is the fundamental
condition of singing. With a good technique, you don't do damage to
yourself while singing.
> I think Price is not so
> easy to pinpoint
I disagree.
> you offer [...] the idea that a sound you
> don't like is what led to her decline.
Whoever told you I dislike Miss Price's sound is misinformed. I stop
liking her singing at some point in the late 60's. By the time you get
to the RCA Trovatore with Mehta, I find it painful to listen to her,
because I can almost physically feel what she's doing to herself. I
feel far worse listening to Callas sing "Suicidio!" where she strives
to sound like a well tuned baritonal buzz saw. She paid the price for
it. Gencer is another singer whose technique, like Callas's, was
fundamentally sound - in her younger days, she could effortlessly float
out the high notes - but her expressive resorts to almost violent
glottal stops didn't do her any good.
> Is the rapid throaty gospel singer gargle the same thing as her uneven
> movement between registers?
No. That's yet one more proof of Price's imperfect technique.
-david gable
Donald Grove
<david...@aol.com> wrote:
>- I
>could have thrown in Di Stefano - to induce you to concede that what
>you do physically with your body in producing sound can have a negative
>impact.
I never denied that or needed any inducement to believe it. In fact,
I asserted that many singers avoid daily performing precisely because
it can be harmful to the voice!
But I am still unclear exactly how the rapid throaty etc thing was so
conspicuously a technical flaw that shortened her career. A "rapid
throaty etc" etc is not a very clear description of a lack of
technique. Here:
1. The rapid-throaty-etc: was it revealing a technical flaw which
could have been corrected? If so, what was the correction?
2. Is Price's rapid vibrato the result of a too-throaty back
placement of the sound? Is the rapid vibrato part of what shortened
her career, or was the the throaty thing.
3. What does any of it have to do with gospel singing?
I've suggested issues involving breath control, excessive coloring of
the tone, placement, registers, compared what I consider a gargling
sound to other singers who also occasionally (or frequently) gargled,
and I still get no reference to what the technical problem is, or how
it shortened her career. I hear plenty of technical shortcomings in
Price's singing, and I still don't know what you're talking about.
The main difference I see between the singers I name who I hear as
gargling is an odd sort of shaping of the mouth that alters the
natural resonance of vowels. As a child, I heard Callas' recording of
Carmen, and I thought it was ludicrous that anyone could think that
weird, buzzy mouthy sound constituted good singing. Sutherland woud
do this as well, but very selectively. I never understood what she
was accomplishing. Larmore mixes the mouthy vowel thing with a very
pulled-back tone. She can pop out high notes all over the place, and
knock out very rapid coloratura, but the sound in the middle is ugly
specifically because of something she is doing in her throat.
With Price, I just don't hear it. I hear that there is a "filo di
voce", truly a very fine thread, but I don't hear anything closed or
tight. I don't think the rapid vibrato, which a find ravishing, is
associated with a tone that I will agree "traces a high arch" across
the back of her throat to the palette. It is the same technique that
Rosa Ponselle describes as "keeping the box" in the back of the mouth.
Others call it a "high dome", and that sound has also been used to
describe the OTHER La Price (Ms. Peg). And with all these qualities
of sound, I would also say that in the middle and upper voice, Price's
breath was marvelously free and steady, allowing a rich outpouring of
golden tone, which moved into and out of the top range with such
radiance. Sadly, she never managed to have a seamless movement into
the lower ranges, a la De Los Angeles.
BTW, I totally agree that Gencer had a very VERY beautiful voice, and
I haven't listened enough to the scopy of her recordings to have ideas
about how it lost its beauty. Gencer had a very "teardrop" shaped
tone, throughout her range the tone had focused brilliance combined
with a wonderful roundness. Price's tone was somewhat different, not
so much teardrop shaped as completely round. The focus sounds like a
slender beam in the center of the tone with resonance around it,
rather than focus at the top of the tone with resonance beneath it.
Stephen Jay-Taylor
ludicrous that anyone could think that weird, buzzy mouthy sound constituted
good singing."
Saints be praised. I thought it was only me. And as an adult, I still do.
SJT, who haers her and automatically "sees" Brando in the Godfather, all
jowels and mouthful of marbles.
Richard Loeb
"Donald Grove" <donal...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:t49pf2l644ekuuuv2...@4ax.com...
Who in the world said that her career was shortened???? She sang
professionally for over thrty years - how many more would you like????
Richard
david...@aol.com
> Who in the world said that her career was shortened???? She sang
> professionally for over thrty years - how many more would you like????
> Richard
Price started singing in the early 50's and she sounded awful by 1970.
That's two decades at best.
-david gable
david...@aol.com
I don't have another hour to answer you, but I may send you some
E-mail. It does seem to me that you are so blinded by your adulation
of Miss Price that you're unprepared to concede the least technical
problem on her part. But she wouldn't have lost her voice singing
Fanciulla and had to cancel her remaining scheduled performances if she
hadn't had technical problems. Singers with absolutely reliable
techniques manage to sing roles that are a size or two too large for
them without such problems. Their voices don't therefore and thereby
sound large enough for the parts, but they don't have massive
career-threatening train wrecks like Price had.
-david gable
Andrew T. Kay
Even if that's accurate (I don't think she sounded "awful" even by the
time of Levine FORZA -- just no longer she had been at the time of her
first FORZA recording), isn't two decades of absolute prime time about
average for an opera singer? There are the unfortunate ones like
Soulitis who get less than ten, and others who, partly by shrewdly
taking up appropriate new roles and dropping old ones, can fool you by
sounding incredible even after 30 or 40 (a la the sixtysomething
"Peaceful Sunday" in that WALKUERE broadcast you admired so much), but
those are the exceptions on either side.
Todd K
Andrew T. Kay
Andrew T. Kay wrote:
(couple of minor things I can't go without correcting)
> Even if that's accurate (I don't think she sounded "awful" even by the
> time of Levine FORZA -- just no longer she had been at the time of her
> first FORZA recording),
There's a "what" missing between "longer" and "she."
> isn't two decades of absolute prime time about
> average for an opera singer? There are the unfortunate ones like
> Soulitis who get less than ten, and others who, partly by shrewdly
> taking up appropriate new roles and dropping old ones, can fool you by
> sounding incredible even after 30 or 40
By "30 or 40," I meant that many years singing, and not the
chronological ages 30 and 40!
Todd K
Andrew T. Kay
david...@aol.com wrote:
> Donald,
>
> I don't have another hour to answer you, but I may send you some
> E-mail. It does seem to me that you are so blinded by your adulation
> of Miss Price that you're unprepared to concede the least technical
> problem on her part.
I thought he did concede technical problems on her part, via the not at
all awkwardly worded sentence "I hear plenty of technical shortcomings
in Price's singing."
Todd K
REG
limitations and imperfect techniques, and on top of that, inevitably make
various choices about 'how' they want to sound which further changes the
equation. David seems to be talking about it all as if there'a mathematical
formula which would explain it all, and it seems to me that if that was the
case, we'd have consistently better singing over time, and not, imho, worse.
Comparing Erna Berger to Price makes no sense to me at all - first, we have
no idea how EB would have sounded if she'd vocalized every day and sung
every night; all we know is that we're sure she didn't.
Patti, who knew a thing or two about singing, virtually NEVER went to
rehearsal after she became famous - she actually sent her maid!!!! She also
said that you should never sing more than you have to - every time you let a
note out, you never got back the beauty of that note.
Is Patti more 'right' than David? Well, she was somewhat of a better singer,
I'd wager. The whole interaction of techinique and physcial endowment is so
indirect, and David makes it sound like a certainty, that in that respect
alone one feels he has to be wrong on this matter already.
"Donald Grove" <donal...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:tt1nf2h0pdfb76flv...@4ax.com...
Donald Grove
>Patti, who knew a thing or two about singing, virtually NEVER went to
>rehearsal after she became famous - she actually sent her maid!!!!
Donald Grove does the same thing with this list.
Annina Despina Brangaene, Donald's Maid
PS David Gable is right!
david...@aol.com
Andrew T. Kay wrote:
> Even if that's accurate (I don't think she sounded "awful" even by the
> time of Levine FORZA -- just no longer she had been at the time of her
> first FORZA recording), isn't two decades of absolute prime time about
> average for an opera singer?
Depends on what you mean by "absolute prime," but a singer with an
absolutely reliable technique should be able to sing well for 40 years
and sound really terrific for 30 of 'em. You shouldn't be in as much
trouble as Price was a dozen years into her career (the Fanciulla
debacle), and you shouldn't be fading as fast as she was by 1970, which
was at most 20 years into her career.
Check out Erna Berger, Kirsten Flagstad, and Placido Domingo. Did you
hear Domingo singing Siegmund at 60 something last season? That's
partly genes but it's mostly very good technique, and it's 40 years
into his career. Carreras's good years - and great ones they were -
passed in an instant because of his constant forcing to get out the
high notes. It was thrilling when he was young, but that vibrato
quickly started getting wider and wider under pressure up top.
Do you know how old Berger was when she recorded Gilda with Peerce and
Warren? She was well into her 50's, and I defy you to find a Gilda
sounding as young as she did at that age. Caballé had a well nigh
flawless technique, but she could be a bit lazy when it came to using
it. There were the glottal stops, which, when used sparingly, won't do
much harm, and then there was the odd pressure she could pour on in
turning up the volume. She forced when she did that, and the more she
did it over the years, the worse it sounded when she did.
-david gable
REG
handful of singers who sang for a long time, but you are using logic
backwards - because they sang a long time, they had good techinique....how
are you defining technique independently of your conclusion? In Berger's
case, she retired from opera in 54 or 55 - she was born in 1900, so her
career for a light soprano isn't all that remarkable.
<david...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1157421593....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
edo...@gmail.com
tapef...@webtv.net wrote:
Agreed that Tozzi would have been even finer vocally and dramatically
than the also-excellent Flagello.
==================================================================And
just think if they had had the brains to use one Cesare Siepi. His
London contract was over, and London was recording everything with
Ghiaurov, such as Faust and Don Carlo. Siepi was by far the best Silva
in Ernani that I ever heard, and the recording, IMHO, would have been
100% better with Siepi and MacNeil over the unimaginative Sereni and
Flagello. I agree that Price and Bergonzi are tops. MacNeil and Siepi
would have made one fot great quartets of singers in any complete opera
recording. I simply cannot listen to Flagello. His voice was fine when
he sang smaller roles in the early 60's, such as the Sacristan, but by
the time he was given leading roles, such as Guardiano in Forza instead
of Melitone, his voice was already very "tubby" sounding, and all the
sheen was totally gone.
Ed
david...@aol.com
REG wrote:
> But how are you defining "a good technique?"
Easier to point to instances of bad. Lil' Jimmy could do it, though.
> We know that there are a
> handful of singers who sang for a long time, but you are using logic
> backwards - because they sang a long time, they had good techinique....how
> are you defining technique independently of your conclusion? In Berger's
> case, she retired from opera in 54 or 55 - she was born in 1900, so her
> career for a light soprano isn't all that remarkable.
And at age 51 she recorded Gilda, still sounding like a young girl.
Even if what you write were not a simplification that slightly distorts
what I wrote, longevity is indeed evidence of good technique and the
maintenance of it.
-david gable
david...@aol.com
REG wrote:
> But how are you defining "a good technique?"
Easier to point to instances of bad. Lil' Jimmy could do it, though.
> We know that there are a
> handful of singers who sang for a long time, but you are using logic
> backwards - because they sang a long time, they had good techinique....how
> are you defining technique independently of your conclusion? In Berger's
> case, she retired from opera in 54 or 55 - she was born in 1900, so her
> career for a light soprano isn't all that remarkable.
And at age 51 she recorded Gilda, still sounding like a young girl.
REG
are willing to say that Olivero, for example, or Freni had (and in Freni's
case, perhaps, still has) superlative technique. It really depends on what
you mean by technique, and the term is just too 'open' to really allow
meaningful discussion, I think. In many ways, I think Magda did have a
superlative technique, but it wasn't a technique that allowed her to keep
the middle focused in the last ten years or so of her active career....by
whcih time she was in her seventies, of course.
I suspect that both longetivity, in and of itself, and maintaining a very
specific sound, are not necessairly the main elements of 'technique', or
rather that there are different kinds of technique.
<david...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1157434438.9...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
tapef...@webtv.net
donpaolo wrote:
> Sounded to me in most anything I've heard with him, the poor man suffered
> from chronic sinusitis.
>
> DonP.
Couldn't he have snuck some Vick's VapoRub under his tunic, or
whatever the evening's costume? As Rigoletto, eg, he could have
applied it directly to the nasal-region (with his back to the audience)
while the Courtiers were kidnapping Gilda.
One who seems to be afflicted with sinus and throat ailments most
often: Juan Pons!
Now, if he could rid himself of the symptoms, especially the dryness,
roughness, and the hollow, hooty sound resulting from sinutis and
throat-problems, -what a difference that would've made. Still not a
Warren, though....
LT
> <tapef...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:1157250696....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > donpaolo wrote:
> >> <tapef...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> >> news:1157238273.2...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> > L. Guess Who I'm Not Mentioning T. :)
> >> >
> >> Ummmm - Bruson?
> >
> > Uh.... yeah, ok. :)
> >
> > Absolutely NO TOP-blech!
> >
> > But what a Midrange!!! His top and lower register weren't his Pride
> > and Joy, compared to some other leading baritones, but the overall
> > effect was more than enough to make for some fine performances in his
> > prime years.
> >
> >> DoNP.
> >
> > LT
> >