Vincenzo Scuderi

[howar...@vanderbilt.edu]

The above tenor, once known as Vincent Scuderi, sang Radames in a local
(Nashville) production of Aida last fall. (I sang in the chorus.) He
displayed an unusually powerful tenor voice. Has anyone else heard him sing?
Howard Hood

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

[Ancona21]

Any relation to Sara? (Scuderi, not Freeman).

Ancona21
Nemo me impune lacessit

[David Meadows]

howar...@vanderbilt.edu wrote:
>
> The above tenor, once known as Vincent Scuderi, sang Radames in a local
> (Nashville) production of Aida last fall. (I sang in the chorus.) He
> displayed an unusually powerful tenor voice. Has anyone else heard him sing?
> Howard Hood

I saw him as Puccini's Des Grieux in Melbourne (Aust) last year. A very
'dirty' sound, but powerful and easy across a fairly wide range. A good
actor, too. Needs to lose the belly (but then, who among tenors
doesn't?).

D.M.

[Gae...@nycnet.com]

What do you mean by 'dirty' sound. When I saw him in NYCO the sound was clarion
and clear--obviously, something has happened since then.

[David Meadows]

Gae...@nycnet.com wrote:
>
> What do you mean by 'dirty' sound. When I saw him in NYCO the sound was clarion
> and clear--obviously, something has happened since then.

By 'dirty', I mean 'not clean' - how much simpler can I put it?

It _is_ clarion and clear, but it has a 'rough' quality - not a
technical problem or a forcing issue or anything like that, not
technical, just a quality. A distinct sound that's just... well...
'dirty'.

Rough. Maybe even 'coarse'. Again, not technically... just... oh crap,
you have to hear it to understand what I mean.

D.M.

[Gae...@nycnet.com]

I did hear it. He is a bit of a throw-back to an age when a voice was requisite to a
career. I found it instructive that you thought it important enough to say of him
'lose the belly.' I have maintained all along that since the 1977 telecast of Boheme
with Pavarotti and Scotto a generation of opera-lovers that had been brought up on
televion realism really blinked when they saw these two middle-aged singers.
Americans no longer listen with their ears--they use their eyes instead. We are a
wholly visual society.

[Gae...@nycnet.com]

So you're appalled at Jane's obesity--you cannot abide that kind of laziness???? But of
course, you are not bigoted in any way? I find it instructive that you--like so many other
Americans--equate obesity with laziness. You are convinced that all she ever did was
recline on the couch eating Mallomars? I doubt you could maintain a schedule as rigorous
as hers. She is one of the hardest working singers I know. She is also quite obese--as I
would bet are most of her family--though it doesn't necessarily follow. Obesity of that
sort is an inborn error of metabolism not unlike diabetes. Hyperinsulinemia contributes to
fat formation even in the presence of very ordinary eating. But you don't like fat so you
want good visual casting even if they can't sing? Well you ought to be happythese
days--since that's what you get!

David Meadows wrote:

> Gae...@nycnet.com wrote:
> >
> > I found it instructive that you thought it important enough to say of him
> > 'lose the belly.' I have maintained all along that since the 1977 telecast of Boheme
> > with Pavarotti and Scotto a generation of opera-lovers that had been brought up on
> > televion realism really blinked when they saw these two middle-aged singers.
> > Americans no longer listen with their ears--they use their eyes instead. We are a
> > wholly visual society.
>

> I agree. I still am not sure exactly where I stand on this whole thing.
>
> I do know that I count staged opera as theatre, and when I go to the
> theatre, I expect some kind of passing effort towards visual realism, so
> I simply won't tolerate inappropraite casting anymore - that includes 25
> year-old basses playing 100 year-old guys, the fattest singers on the
> roster as the romantic leads, and colour-blind casting that is simply
> ridiculous (Gary Lakes and Jessye Norman as twins - I mean, puhlease!).
>
> On the other hand, I vocally prefer Montserrat Caballe's "Salome" to
> Catherine Malfitano's in spite of Malfitano's more suitable physical
> appearance (still not ideal, but then who is?). Vocally, I would rather
> Ben Heppner or Gary Lakes as "Tristan" rather than Siegfried Jerusalem
> or Peter Hofmann.
>
> The eternal issue in this image-obsessed society.
>
> But I would say this: Fat is definitely out! Jane Eaglen's obesity
> appals me - and it would appal me whether she was an opera singer or a
> computer programmer or a social worker or a taxi driver. There is simply
> no excuse for that kind of laziness. I'm aware that she may well be
> reading this, but I can't go half measure on this.
>
> To explain: As a director, I want the audience to be able to identify
> with, and fell empathy for, the characters I am guiding into life on the
> stage. In order for this to happen, the singers must be - at the very
> least - vaguely appealing physically.
>
> My thinking is that if the singers care so little for their own physical
> well-being (we all know that being that fat isn't healthy), how can we
> care for the characters they are portraying? That is simply death for
> anyone who cares one jot for the theatrical reality of opera.
>
> Music is another matter and something for someone with a greater
> understanding of the body and the mechanics of singing to chew over.
>
> To define: I have no problem with big, it's fat I can't deal with.
> Unless, of course, it's appropriate to the character.
>
> It's such a hairy issue... and speaking of hair, what do we think of
> that, people?
>
> Yours in eternal fnarr-gance,
> D.M.
>
> "The man who makes no mistakes makes nothing at all" - G.B. Shaw

[Enzo62]

Gaelin wrote:

>But you don't
>like fat so you
>want good visual casting even if they can't sing? Well you ought to be
>happythese
>days--since that's what you get!

The critical issue is not whether Eaglen's obesity is indicative of laziness
but to what extent it limits her effectiveness onstage. I have seen her
perform Turandot and all three Brunnhildes. On each occasion, she looked
distinctly insecure with her movements, communicating a profound sense of
discomfort with her own body image.

Eaglen's obesity would be inconsequential if she were a more giving performer.
Weight aside, there is little or no emotional connection with the music.
Plenty of hefty singers have been able to interpret a role with feeling and
commitment. Eaglen compounds her already problematic figure with singing that
is cold and uninvolving.

Where Eaglen is concerned, I have yet to understand what all the fuss is about.
And I may never know: her singing has been consistently erratic for some time
now.

Enzo Bordello

[paolo]

Holy Moly! I can't believe what I just read!

David Meadows wrote:

> snip

>
> But I would say this: Fat is definitely out! Jane Eaglen's obesity
> appals me - and it would appal me whether she was an opera singer or a
> computer programmer or a social worker or a taxi driver. There is simply
> no excuse for that kind of laziness.

I don't have a problem with singers (or taxi drivers or computer programmers, etc.) who
are. There have always been amply proportioned people and there always will be. Who are
we to judge or consider why they are that way? I often find our whole youth-oriented
visual-image-obsessed society appalling.

Opera, as is theater is make-believe: we suspend our perception of reality, we see
"representations" of things, people, images, situations - which should require us to engage
our imaginations. . - if one wants "realism" watch the news.

I have no problem with color blindness either - black brother - Chinese sister, it doesn't
matter to me. Is a 35 year old woman (beautiful or not) singing Octavian automatically
believable as a boy? Is a famous white singer automatically believable as the dark skinned
Moor? Is an American/Italian/Chinese singer automatically believable as 15 year old
Butterfly? Is anyone over 30 automatically believable as a teenage
princess/soldier/prostitute/ or a mere human being as a god?

Good opera is good story telling, and a good audience is one which can fully engage its
sense of imagination and not require that everything be spelled out for them.

paolo.

[Sara Freeman]

In <356981...@ozemail.com.australia> David Meadows

>But I would say this: Fat is definitely out!

The problem is that some of the fat singers, if they lose weight also
lose part of their voice. I remember an interview that Stefan Zucker
was doing with Cheryl Studer. She had lost some weight and said that
she would not hesitate to put it back on if she found her voice
suffered as a result.

I am not much of a watcher of opera, but more of a listener so it
doesn't matter to me what people look like.

I do tend to be a fanatic about weight the way many previous smokers
have become vehement anti-smokers. I "let myself go" faced the fact and
took 40 pounds off. Once I got that weight off I felt and looked so
much better that I thought if I can do it anybody should be able to.

But I do think if people have jobs which are physical, which singing
obviously is, they may have an excuse.
--
"If you think of reality as the software for the universe,
all it would take is for someone to change a comma
in the program, and the chair you are sitting on
wouldn't be a chair at all." - Jacques Vallee

[Gae...@nycnet.com]

So you're appalled at Jane's obesity--you cannot abide that kind of laziness???? But of
course, you are not bigoted in any way? I find it instructive that you--like so many other
Americans--equate obesity with laziness. You are convinced that all she ever did was
recline on the couch eating Mallomars? I doubt you could maintain a schedule as rigorous
as hers. She is one of the hardest working singers I know. She is also quite obese--as I
would bet are most of her family--though it doesn't necessarily follow. Obesity of that
sort is an inborn error of metabolism not unlike diabetes. Hyperinsulinemia contributes to

fat formation even in the presence of very ordinary eating. But you don't like fat so you

want good visual casting even if they can't sing? Well you ought to be happythese
days--since that's what you get!

David Meadows wrote:

> Gae...@nycnet.com wrote:
> >
> > I found it instructive that you thought it important enough to say of him
> > 'lose the belly.' I have maintained all along that since the 1977 telecast of Boheme
> > with Pavarotti and Scotto a generation of opera-lovers that had been brought up on
> > televion realism really blinked when they saw these two middle-aged singers.
> > Americans no longer listen with their ears--they use their eyes instead. We are a
> > wholly visual society.
>
> I agree. I still am not sure exactly where I stand on this whole thing.
>
> I do know that I count staged opera as theatre, and when I go to the
> theatre, I expect some kind of passing effort towards visual realism, so
> I simply won't tolerate inappropraite casting anymore - that includes 25
> year-old basses playing 100 year-old guys, the fattest singers on the
> roster as the romantic leads, and colour-blind casting that is simply
> ridiculous (Gary Lakes and Jessye Norman as twins - I mean, puhlease!).
>
> On the other hand, I vocally prefer Montserrat Caballe's "Salome" to
> Catherine Malfitano's in spite of Malfitano's more suitable physical
> appearance (still not ideal, but then who is?). Vocally, I would rather
> Ben Heppner or Gary Lakes as "Tristan" rather than Siegfried Jerusalem
> or Peter Hofmann.
>
> The eternal issue in this image-obsessed society.
>

> But I would say this: Fat is definitely out! Jane Eaglen's obesity
> appals me - and it would appal me whether she was an opera singer or a
> computer programmer or a social worker or a taxi driver. There is simply

[David Meadows]

[Enrique Eskenazi]

In article <356981...@ozemail.com.australia>, David Meadows
<dmea...@ozemail.com.australia> wrote:

>I do know that I count staged opera as theatre, and when I go to the
>theatre, I expect some kind of passing effort towards visual realism,
so
>I simply won't tolerate inappropraite casting anymore - that includes
25
>year-old basses playing 100 year-old guys, the fattest singers on the
>roster as the romantic leads, and colour-blind casting that is simply
>ridiculous (Gary Lakes and Jessye Norman as twins - I mean, puhlease!).
>

My God, that means dismissing black singers (except for Porgy and Bess
and Monostratos!), oriental singers (except for Butterfly and, maybe
Turandot) fat singers, phisically handicaped singers, etc...And Wagner
just for blondies!
But I still remember a good black Wotan and a good black Hollander
(Estes), a wonderful fat Salome, Norma, Medea, etc (Caballe), etc. etc.
I don't agree. Opera is theater, and there are lots of ways to become
"real" (that is: ilusory real) a character, not only by way of lights,
make up, costumes, wigs... but specially by the conviction of the singer
and his/her dramatic -this includes vocally dramatic- involvement. If
you want that sort of "visual realism" go the movies, with its
first-shots. In the stage an old person may appear as a young one (and
the opposite, of course). I still remember the last Lucia from
Sutherland: she sang it with Alfredo Kraus. Two old people magicallly
evoking the love of two youngster. And they did it. Theater is magic,
not reality! It's not the physic of the singer, but the dramatic
engagement (even only vocal) what is paramount: given this, the magic
works. A lot!
---
Enrique
eske...@mail.sendanet.es

Io chi sono? Eh, non lo so.
-Nol sapete?
Quasi no.

[David Scott Marley]

I would say that a singer who is physically inappropriate for a role is at a
disadvantage, but there are other ways he or she might make it up, and one
is by singing the hell out of the part. Not the only way to sell a role, but
certainly one.

However, opera singers don't usually get fat through laziness. The singing
itself encourages it. Most singers need to be on an empty stomach to sing
their best, which at the professional level usually means no eating for as
much as six hours before an opera starts. By the time they are done with the
opera, they are exhausted and have not eaten for eight or nine hours (make
that ten or eleven if it's Wagner). Most have to do this to sing their best;
if they consistently sing less than their best, they won't have a career for
long. After the performance, then, they eat heavily and go straight to bed.
What else are you going to do when you're starved and exhausted? Between
performances they have to rest their bodies and their voices, which makes it
hard to do any exercise. All of this leads to fat. They can really only
exercise at the end of the run--and if they're on the international circuit
they may have to catch a plane for an opera house halfway around the world,
where they'll start rehearsals for the next opera is a matter of days. So
exercise really requires more planning than for most people; their schedules
don't make it easy.

An obese opera singer is still obese, of course, and it would be better if
she weren't, but it's probably not due to laziness.

[Brian Newhouse]

In article <6kd3eq$kr9$1...@talia.mad.ibernet.es>, "Enrique Eskenazi"
<eske...@mail.sendanet.es> wrote:

"In article <356981...@ozemail.com.australia>, David Meadows
"<dmea...@ozemail.com.australia> wrote:
"
"
">I do know that I count staged opera as theatre, and when I go to the
">theatre, I expect some kind of passing effort towards visual realism,
"so
">I simply won't tolerate inappropraite casting anymore - that includes
"25
">year-old basses playing 100 year-old guys, the fattest singers on the
">roster as the romantic leads, and colour-blind casting that is simply
">ridiculous (Gary Lakes and Jessye Norman as twins - I mean, puhlease!).
">
"My God, that means dismissing black singers (except for Porgy and Bess
"and Monostratos!), oriental singers (except for Butterfly and, maybe
"Turandot) fat singers, phisically handicaped singers, etc...And Wagner
"just for blondies!
"But I still remember a good black Wotan and a good black Hollander
"(Estes), a wonderful fat Salome, Norma, Medea, etc (Caballe), etc. etc.
"I don't agree. Opera is theater, and there are lots of ways to become
""real" (that is: ilusory real) a character, not only by way of lights,
"make up, costumes, wigs... but specially by the conviction of the singer
"and his/her dramatic -this includes vocally dramatic- involvement. If
"you want that sort of "visual realism" go the movies, with its
"first-shots. In the stage an old person may appear as a young one (and

"the opposite, of course...

I agree with Mr. Eskenazi. If anything, this passion for so-called
"visual realism" has gone too far even on stage and in the movies. It
assumes, for one thing, that only the gorgeous, the hunky and the
fashion-model slender are worthy of our sympathy. (And these days, our
standards of physical beauty as regards weight are exceptionally
stringent.) But is this true even in real life? Granted, there are
repulsively ugly people around, thin as well as fat. But a pleasant and
expressive face and a good bearing are by no means a monopoly of the
conventionally pretty. If you look at pictures of great stage actors from
the days before movies, you'll see that many were not conventionally
handsome or beautiful. Granted, none were exceptionally stout, either;
but some were, shall we say, big-boned.

What counts in the body of a stage performer, whether in opera or in
spoken theater, is that the performer be able to move expressively and the
appearance of the body not be such as to get in the way. That does tend
to exclude the obese; but in some circumstances, even a stunningly
beautiful body can get in the way of dramatic truth. Particularly at the
visual distance at which we watch most operatic performances; expressive
gestures count for more than good looks. One of the greatest dramatic
performances I have ever seen was the fifty-something Elisabeth
Soederstrom as the teenage Jenufa; one woman I spoke to on the way out
marvelled that "she reminds me of my granddaughter!"

--
Brian Newhouse
newh...@newton.crisp.net

[AT]

GGOD SPAGGHETTI. I WILL DIE (FOR SURE ) FAT.

>Looks, smells and sounds like laziness to me.
>
>D.M.

[OperaGrrrl]

> The singing<BR>

>> itself encourages it. Most singers need to be on an empty stomach to

>sing<BR>

>> their best, which at the professional level usually means no eating for

>as<BR>

>> much as six hours before an opera starts.

Really???

[Salome45]

>Most singers need to be on an empty stomach to>sing<BR>
>>> their best, which at the professional level usually means no eating
>for>as<BR>

>>> much as six hours before an opera starts. Really???<BR>

HEll no! I can't sing on an empty stomach...makes me feel sick. Ideally, I eat
about 2 hours before I sing, so I don't get weak, sick or any of that stuff.

but 6 hours? OUCH!
Amanda
~too little temptation can lead to virtue~

[OperaGrrrl]

Does weight have any effect on a singer's voice? If a singer gains or loses a
significant amount of weight, will there be a (noticeable) change in the voice?

[Dylan Bryan-Dolman]

David Meadows <dmea...@ozemail.com.australia> wrote
>someone had written:

> > if one wants "realism" watch the news.
>

> I don't want realism, just a passing acknowledgement of it.

But that's just when opera is the silliest -- when it makes some
half-hearted gesture in the direction of realism it only serves to
underline the basic implausibility of the form. What makes opera so
dramatically exciting is the violence it does to reality, warping the flow
of narrative time with its repetitions, compressions, and moments of
ecstatic stasis. Surrealist theatre is supposed to be an invention of this
century, but opera, by the very nature of the form, has been breaking the
rules all along, showing us not the world we know but the world we feel.
When a heart breaks in opera, time stops for our grief. Next to that
fundamental defiance of physical truth, a rear end too wide for your kimono
is nothing.

> Now, while this wouldn't matter to those who think that operas should be
> heard and not seen, those of us who think that both are equally as
> important as the other are left scratching our heads at the
> improbability of it all.

Well, I think drama and music are equally important, and I don't give a
damn how zaftig the Butterfly is. You don't scratch your head over the
fact that a Japanese girl and an American soldier are plighting their troth
in Italian, do you? No, you accept it as a convention of the style, and if
the lovers began singing in their own languages you would experience it as
a disruption of the illusion, because the "rules" of operatic performance
would have been broken. Theatrical enchantment is so powerful not because
it is successful at duplicating the world (how could it be?) but because
performer and audience join in giving their consent to the ritual by which
the subjective is accepted as actual. It is the living, human bond between
actor and viewer that lends conviction to the actions of the stage figures,
not the other way around.

> If there were sufficient black tenors around to fill every production of
> "OTELLO", white tenors blacking up would not be tolerated - regardless
> of how terrific the voice was. I mean, after all, how many white actors
> have blacked up to play Shakespeare's Moor in recent years? None. And
> that's because there's plenty of fine black actors (and at least one
> black opera singer) who are more than capable of playing the role,
> making the concept of a white actor blacking up completely untenable.

No, it's because "blacking up" is no longer the style in contemporary
theatre. Actors are more often racially cross-cast now than ever before --
in all directions -- and they rarely make any attempt to disguise their
true race. Sometimes, the director is making an ideological point about
the artificial nature of racial identity, as in Genet's The Blacks or Caryl
Churchill's Cloud Nine. More often, it is simply a device to dislocate the
audience's sense of the real, and it is left to the actor's skill to carry
the part off with conviction.

> A Chinese soprano playing Butterfly in the recent film version was
> reason enough for me to avoid it. I detest the practise (commonplace in
> film and TV) of Asian playing Asian regardless of their specific country
> of origin. [...]

This is a very good point, and it's done with other races too -- Banderas,
a European, playing Cubans and Mexicans (my sister's Cuban boyfriend
*hates* him for this); the Italian John Turturro playing one nasty Jewish
stereotype after another just because he has the misfortune to have been
born with the face of a Nazi caricature, and so on. But it doesn't really
support your argument -- these are not examples of anti-realistic
cross-casting, but attempts at realism marred by a racist indifference to
real cultural distinctions.

Tell me, do you avoid Scotto, De Los Angeles or Freni in Butterfly? I
imagine not, although they are still more physically implausible than a
Chinese singer in the role. But their performances aim at evoking the
spirit of the work, not at tricking us with an impersonation of a "real"
Japanese.

In any case, it is highly debatable whether the character of Butterfly is
culturally Japanese at all. To me, it is more interesting and fruitful to
view her as a storybook "Orientalist" projection of western desire and
guilt than as a human woman rooted in Asian history. Butterfly's ancestors
are to be found "On many a vase and jar, on many a screen and fan" not in a
Buddhist cemetery.

> I use my imagination when I listen to the recordings, or when I attend a
> concert performance. When I go to see a fully staged performance, I want
> to see something that at least approximates a believable visual
> reality. Otherwise we're all just wasting our time.

A flawlessly believable visual reality can be had for free on the street,
and if that's what I'm paying for when I go to the theatre, I'm wasting
both my time and my money. I go to the theatre to see the world
illuminated in a new and richer way, not for a shadow-copy of the world I
already know.

Dylan
=dbd=

If I were the head of the Church or the State
I'd powder my nose and just tell them to wait
For Love's more important and powerful than
Even a Priest or a Politician.
-W.H. Auden

[Deborah Overes]

AT wrote in message <6khduf$k...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...

>GGOD SPAGGHETTI. I WILL DIE (FOR SURE ) FAT.
>
>>Looks, smells and sounds like laziness to me.
>>
>>D.M.
>

The fact remains that people have different metabolisms, using slowing more
as they get older. People point to Oprah Winfrey as an example of someone
who made a dramatic change but, in order to maintain the body she has now,
she works out twice a day, and hour to an hour and a half each time and
watches EVERY bite she eats. How many people can commit that kind of time
to exercise and maintain a careful diet while travelling and eating in
restaurants. Until you have dealt with these problems personally and
suffered the kind of insults and jokes people feel it is their right to
make, you have no right to judge.

Deborah Overes
- Art is God's turn to talk (Michael Moriarty)

[David Meadows]

> However, opera singers don't usually get fat through laziness.

How else would you explain an unwillingness to make time in the schedule
for exercising?

> The singing
> itself encourages it. Most singers need to be on an empty stomach to sing

> their best, which at the professional level usually means no eating for as

> much as six hours before an opera starts. By the time they are done with the
> opera, they are exhausted and have not eaten for eight or nine hours (make
> that ten or eleven if it's Wagner). Most have to do this to sing their best;
> if they consistently sing less than their best, they won't have a career for
> long. After the performance, then, they eat heavily and go straight to bed.
> What else are you going to do when you're starved and exhausted? Between
> performances they have to rest their bodies and their voices, which makes it
> hard to do any exercise. All of this leads to fat. They can really only
> exercise at the end of the run--and if they're on the international circuit
> they may have to catch a plane for an opera house halfway around the world,
> where they'll start rehearsals for the next opera is a matter of days. So
> exercise really requires more planning than for most people; their schedules
> don't make it easy.

Pavarotti was thin when he started, so was Eaglen. Both are now fat.

Ramey was thin, too. So were Te Kanawa, Kraus, Meier etc. They are all
still thin. How come?

[David Meadows]

> My God, that means dismissing black singers (except for Porgy and Bess

> and Monostatos!), oriental singers (except for Butterfly and, maybe

> Turandot) fat singers, phisically handicaped singers, etc...And Wagner
> just for blondies!

Ah, the wonderful LEAP to conclusions deal! Happy happy joy joy!

Black or Asian singers don't need anyone's permission to sing roles not
written for balck or Asian singers - certainly not mine. However, there
are always limitations to freedom. For instance, Simon Estes and Gregg
Baker might make great Jokanaans vocally, but physically - I don't think
so! "Dein lieb ist weiss wie die Lilien auf einem Felde!". Or what about
"Dein Lieb ist weiss wie der Schnee...". Or "Nichts in der Welt ist so
weiss wie dein Lieb!". Unless they white up for the role, your audience
is going to think Salome's a little premature in her insanity.

> But I still remember a good black Wotan and a good black Hollander
> (Estes)

Fabulous... and few if any limitations in terms of text or context.

> a wonderful fat Salome (Caballe).

Vocally, maybe. Physically... whatever takes your fancy.

> there are lots of ways to become
> "real" (that is: ilusory real) a character, not only by way of lights,
> make up, costumes, wigs... but specially by the conviction of the singer
> and his/her dramatic -this includes vocally dramatic- involvement.

Yeah, and paralysed people dream of walking, too. But there are some
pretty solid physical things standing in their way. The dream is one
thing, but the reality is quite another. Anbd no matter how much you
talk about 'dramatic involvement', there are still going to problems for
those people in the audience who aren't blind. With the kinds of
inconsistencies taking the stages of the world's opera houses these
days, it's hard to notice anything beyond the physical appearance of the
ill-chosen principal.

> If you want that sort of "visual realism" go the movies.

I shouldn't have to. Opera is as much a representation of a
reality-based fantasy as cinema is, so why should we get two different
menus for what is effectively the same meal - just in different forms?

D.M.

[David Meadows]

> this passion for so-called
> "visual realism" has gone too far even on stage and in the movies. It
> assumes, for one thing, that only the gorgeous, the hunky and the
> fashion-model slender are worthy of our sympathy.

You assume. I have no desire to see the 'beautiful people' populating an
opera, just the 'reasonably believable people'.

> And these days, our
> standards of physical beauty as regards weight are exceptionally
> stringent.

And rightly so, too. For health reasons rather than aesthetic ones.

> If you look at pictures of great stage actors from
> the days before movies, you'll see that many were not conventionally
> handsome or beautiful. Granted, none were exceptionally stout, either;
> but some were, shall we say, big-boned.

Yeah, so?! If I want to see Dan & Roseanne Conner, I'll stay at home and
watch "ROSEANNE", not go to see Heppner & Eaglen waddle about as Tristan
and Isolde. Give me the recording or the broadcast, you can have the
visuals!

> What counts in the body of a stage performer, whether in opera or in
> spoken theater, is that the performer be able to move expressively and the
> appearance of the body not be such as to get in the way. That does tend
> to exclude the obese

Precisely, monsieur!

> but in some circumstances, even a stunningly
> beautiful body can get in the way of dramatic truth.

Oh, for a stunningly beautiful body to get in the way of my anything!

D.M.

[David Meadows]

> So you're appalled at Jane's obesity--you cannot abide that kind of laziness???? But of
> course, you are not bigoted in any way?

Of course I'm bigoted - I hate fat, lazy bastards!

I find it instructive that you--like so many other
> Americans

I hate to nit-pick, but I'm Australian.

equate obesity with laziness. You are convinced that all she ever did
was
> recline on the couch eating Mallomars? I doubt you could maintain a schedule as rigorous
> as hers.

That's not the point. I don't have to.

She is one of the hardest working singers I know. She is also quite
obese--as I
> would bet are most of her family--though it doesn't necessarily follow. Obesity of that
> sort is an inborn error of metabolism not unlike diabetes. Hyperinsulinemia contributes to
> fat formation even in the presence of very ordinary eating.

Not being a doctor, I can't comment on that, but I can say this: Mutual
friends of Ms Eaglen and myself report that she is veeeery significantly
heavier now, in her mid-thirties, than she was about ten years ago when
she was based in Brisbane and working out of the Queensland
Conservatorium.

Those friends were flabbergasted when they saw her walk out onstage
during the James Levine 25th Anniversary Gala telecast to do the last
part of the Immolation monologue. The weight gain, according to them,
was enormous when compared to the comparatively svelte singer they had
known.

If the fat thing was familial or glandular, I suspect (but readily admit
I don't know for certain) that it would have surfaced a lot earlier.

> But you don't like fat so you
> want good visual casting even if they can't sing?

Oi.

Congratulations! You've just raised the art of leaping to conclusions to
its most moronic level ever in this NG!

If I'd meant that, I'd have said it. But I didn't, so back in your damn
box!

Don't assume that because I criticise aspects of this industry and
certain individuals within it, that I'm trying to bring it all down.
Jesus, it's either one or the other with you people - love it or piss
off! Well, I love it - enough to point out its glaring inadequacies and
the areas that could be improved.

If we stopped patting each other on the back about how defiantly
homophobic we all are, or complaining about how no-one's ever sung a
certain role properly since Caruso died, we might see that certain
so-called 'artistes' are really just lazy, self-indulgent, fame-seeking,
non-altruistic phonies who couldn't give a rat's arse about the totality
of the performance as long as they get their recording deal and their
cushy home on the Riviera.

Jane Eaglen is physically incapable of meeting the demands of even the
most reasonable director in the most staid of productions, and should
therefore be excluded from any staged performance of any opera until
such time as she realises the importance of maintaining a fundamentally
mobile physical machine, and then makes the necessary amendments. She is
a liability to any production with any claim to dramatic ot physical
credibility.

Call me a son-of-a-bitch, but that's how I feel.

D.M.

[David Meadows]

> Opera, as is theater is make-believe: we suspend our perception of reality, we see
> "representations" of things, people, images, situations - which should require us to engage
> our imaginations

Yes, but only to a certain point. Even fantasies have to be believable.

> if one wants "realism" watch the news.

I don't want realism, just a passing acknowledgement of it.

> I have no problem with color blindness either - black brother - Chinese sister, it doesn't
> matter to me.

Nor I, as long as it's biologically possible. My beef over the Gary
Lakes/Jessye Norman 'Walsung Twins' casting choice was that it's
something like a one in 200 billion chance (a freak biological
happenstance) that a black woman could be twin sister to a blonde white
man.

Now, while this wouldn't matter to those who think that operas should be
heard and not seen, those of us who think that both are equally as
important as the other are left scratching our heads at the
improbability of it all.

> Is a famous white singer automatically believable as the dark skinned
> Moor?

The only reason white tenors still black up to sing 'Otello' is because
at last count, there was only one black tenor (Moises Parker) who can
sing the role and live.

If there were sufficient black tenors around to fill every production of
"OTELLO", white tenors blacking up would not be tolerated - regardless
of how terrific the voice was. I mean, after all, how many white actors
have blacked up to play Shakespeare's Moor in recent years? None. And
that's because there's plenty of fine black actors (and at least one
black opera singer) who are more than capable of playing the role,
making the concept of a white actor blacking up completely untenable.

Is an American/Italian/Chinese singer automatically believable as 15
year old
> Butterfly?

A Chinese soprano playing Butterfly in the recent film version was
reason enough for me to avoid it. I detest the practise (commonplace in
film and TV) of Asian playing Asian regardless of their specific country

of origin. Japanese playing Chinese, Chinese playing Japanese, Koreans
playing Thais, Thais playing Vietnamese, etc etc etc. It's like... "Oh,
they're all gooks, who's going to tell the difference?". Well, me for
one!

Is anyone over 30 automatically believable as a teenage
> princess/soldier/prostitute/ or a mere human being as a god?

Now you're just being silly.

> Good opera is good story telling, and a good audience is one which can fully engage its
> sense of imagination

I use my imagination when I listen to the recordings, or when I attend a
concert performance. When I go to see a fully staged performance, I want

to see something that at least approximates a believeable visual

reality. Otherwise we're all just wasting our time.

D.M.

[David Meadows]

> The critical issue is not whether Eaglen's obesity is indicative of laziness
> but to what extent it limits her effectiveness onstage. I have seen her
> perform Turandot and all three Brunnhildes. On each occasion, she looked
> distinctly insecure with her movements, communicating a profound sense of
> discomfort with her own body image.

Precisely. And until such time as she becomes aware of the need for a
commitment to the totality of the performance, and takes the steps
necessary for her to be a viable practiser of those very noble ideals,
she will be regarded by those of us with those ideals at heart as a
liability to those kinds of performances.

I mean, for God's sake don't get me wrong - I love the woman's voice. I
broke my vow never to own a "TOSCA" set just so that I could have her
stunning performance on the English-language recording. But I couldn't
see her live in anything other than a concert or recital, because she
would be distractingly unbelievable.

Sad, but true.

D.M.

[Isabel Whitfield]

In article <01bd89c6$363f7420$7e41...@tjmmws01.comp.pge.com>, Dylan
Bryan-Dolman <dy...@slip.net> writes

<lots of really good stuff snipped>

>A flawlessly believable visual reality can be had for free on the street,
>and if that's what I'm paying for when I go to the theatre, I'm wasting
>both my time and my money.

or as the late lamented Peter Cook once said:

"You know, I go the theatre to be entertained ... I don't want to see
plays about rape, sodomy and drug addiction ... I can get all that at
home."

--
Isabel Whitfield, London, England

[Jack Johnson]

Dylan Bryan-Dolman wrote in message
<01bd89c6$363f7420$7e41...@tjmmws01.comp.pge.com>...

<hugely clipped>

>This is a very good point, and it's done with other races too -- Banderas,
>a European, playing Cubans and Mexicans (my sister's Cuban boyfriend
>*hates* him for this); the Italian John Turturro playing one nasty Jewish
>stereotype after another just because he has the misfortune to have been
>born with the face of a Nazi caricature, and so on. But it doesn't really
>support your argument -- these are not examples of anti-realistic
>cross-casting, but attempts at realism marred by a racist indifference to
>real cultural distinctions.

While appreciating the intelligence of most everything said in this post, I
believe this
is absurd.

First, European or Spanish is not a "race"; it is a nationality. In any
event, why on *earth* would you presume the casting decision to be the
result of "racist indifference to real cultural distinctions"? That's a
cavalier charge.

It's as though you're saying that to cast a Spaniard to play a Cuban is
"racist" but to cast an American, a Frenchman, or a fat Swiss diva is not.
Or maybe you're saying that only Cubans should be cast to play Cubans? (I
can't believe you mean that, as it would undermine the entire thesis of your
post.) Next, we'll be hearing that trouser roles are sexist because they
are anti-realistic cross-gender-casting.

[RGandel676]

In article <01bd89c6$363f7420$7e41...@tjmmws01.comp.pge.com>, "Dylan

Bryan-Dolman" <dy...@slip.net> writes:

>A flawlessly believable visual reality can be had for free on the street,
>and if that's what I'm paying for when I go to the theatre, I'm wasting
>both my time and my money. I go to the theatre to see the world
>illuminated in a new and richer way, not for a shadow-copy of the world I
>already know.

That's well and good. Nevertheless, if something is presented on stage which
disrupts the flow of the drama and, in so doing, distracts me from the music,
then there's a problem. One such disruption, for me, occurs when a performer
looks grotesque. And I emphasize the "for me" because, obviously, it's has to
do with my own perception and sensibilities. So I surely wouldn't (and
haven't) advise anyone to avoid a performance because one of the singers
resembles a battleship - any likewise, I don't need to be told by someone else
that my sensibilities are "incorrect".

Ron

Ron

[Dylan Bryan-Dolman]

David Meadows <dmea...@ozemail.com.australia> wrote:
> I had written:

> > But that's just when opera is the silliest -- when it makes some
> > half-hearted gesture in the direction of realism it only serves to
> > underline the basic implausibility of the form.
>

> Only if the director is a moron.

More so when the director is not a moron. Look at Zeffirelli.

> If today's target audience expects [...] central
> characters for whom they can feel empathy (ie: who care about their
> weight) [...]

Well. I really can't think of anything more antithetical to my conception
of the purpose and value of art than this sentence.

Dylan
=dbd=

[Enrique Eskenazi]

In article <356C3C...@ozemail.com.australia>, David Meadows
<dmea...@ozemail.com.australia> wrote:

>> But I still remember a good black Wotan and a good black Hollander
>> (Estes)
>
>
>Fabulous... and few if any limitations in terms of text or context.

Well, Senta looks at the portrait of that "pale" man, the Hollander."On
the high deck, the pale man, the master of the ships" says the Ballad.
"But redemption may one day come to the pale man...". And Erik, telling
his dream, speaks of two men coming, one was Senta's father, the other
was the man of the portrait with "pallid face"..., etc. Not a problem to
me. Estes was not Estes in that Hollander: when I looked at him I saw
that pale and mysterious man that his great interpretation was
suggesting not to my eyes but to my ears...
And when I watched Caballe's moving seductively on stage, I didn't see a
fat woman but the sensual princess of Judea that her sibiline singing
suggested. And it was great, indeed.

>But there are some
>pretty solid physical things standing in their way. The dream is one
>thing, but the reality is quite another. Anbd no matter how much you
>talk about 'dramatic involvement', there are still going to problems
for
>those people in the audience who aren't blind. With the kinds of
>inconsistencies taking the stages of the world's opera houses these
>days, it's hard to notice anything beyond the physical appearance of
the
>ill-chosen principal.

There is another sort of "blindness": not knowing 'what' to look at
What would you say of an spectator protesting that the flowers in the
movies didn't smell at all? That the smoke of that cinematographic
barbecue didn't invade the cinema? that the pictures were "flat" and
without volume (bi-dimensional), and so "little realistic"?

I think it's a wrong attitude to go to the opera looking for a 16 years
old Isolde (or Salome). Of course, it would be wonderful to have a 16
years old soprano, beautiful, sexy, dancing with erotism and being able
to sing the part with passion, accuracy and the right voice for it. But
it's not only impossible, it is *unnecesary*. The only *necessity* in
that case is the ability to sing the role adequately and with
engagement.
To me, the "visual" part of the opera is "illustrative", in such a way I
try to "see" with the ears and "listen" with the eyes. I'm not trying to
change your views, David and I respect your opinions and choices. I only
consider that those opinions and choices will make difficult for you to
enjoy opera and that this form of art might be completely enjoyable and
fully satisfactory even having a fat, middle-age soprano who is able to
sing with artistry and engagement the role of Salome, by instance.

I'm disturbed by different sort of "inconsistences" -not the singer's
physique- but the director's arbitrariness. By instance, in the last
Traviata I saw (with Ainhoa Arteta), when Violetta says to
Alfredo:"Prendete questo fiore" she gave him...nothing!; just tended to
him her empty hands.The whole dialogue about bringing the flower again
didn't fit with the stage action. Or when the gypsies in the Flora's
party read the hand of Flora, she didn't take off the gloves. That's
absurd, because you cannot read palms through gloves!

>
> Opera is as much a representation of a
>reality-based fantasy as cinema is, so why should we get two different
>menus for what is effectively the same meal - just in different forms?

But operatic conventions are quite different from cinematographical
ones!
You don't expect "volumes", "smells", etc. at the cinema. You accept
that the screen is flat. You accept easily to have a face, by instance,
filling the screen and the next instant seeing a whole body in the same
screen, or even a multitude or a sky scrapper -if you read the history
of cinema, you'll see how many resistences these (filmic) ideas had at
first...
If you transpose "cinematographic" conventions to theatre (and
viceversa), you're missing the mark and having the wrong expectations.
At the theatre, one accepts easily that the fourth wall of the room is
missing. That's not real, but it's not even "noticeable" because it's a
most basic convention.Opera will never be "realistic" because it's main
convention (singing instead of speaking) has nothing to do with
reality...
Art is like game. It has it rules, and there are many games and each
game with its rules. To play the game, you must play it according to the
rules.And then you can enjoy it. And to play chess (opera), let's
say,it's not playing bridge (cinema). And that's not saying that chess
is better or worse than bridge: they are just different, though both are
"games"
So, if somebody goes to opera considering that "cinematographic" realism
is a MUST, that person is confusing the rules of the game. And most
probably will be disappointed at not having what he expected, while he
may have missed the splendid oportunities that opera -and "only" opera-
can purvey.

[David Meadows]

> > I don't want realism, just a passing acknowledgement of it.
>
> But that's just when opera is the silliest -- when it makes some
> half-hearted gesture in the direction of realism it only serves to
> underline the basic implausibility of the form.

Only if the director is a moron - which, unfortunately many directors
these days are.
Like I said before, even a fantasy has to be believable.

> What makes opera so
> dramatically exciting is the violence it does to reality, warping the flow
> of narrative time with its repetitions, compressions, and moments of
> ecstatic stasis. Surrealist theatre is supposed to be an invention of this
> century, but opera, by the very nature of the form, has been breaking the
> rules all along, showing us not the world we know but the world we feel.

With most of the stories based in something that is supposed to resemble
some kind of a reality.

While I'm not arguing that it all be taken to the furthest extreme of
realistic presentation, I'm saying that the approach for which you argue
should not be an excuse for perpetuating fundamentally absurd ideas -
i.e.: that a performer who is entirely inappropriate for the role can
get away with doing it.

> Well, I think drama and music are equally important, and I don't give a
> damn how zaftig the Butterfly is. You don't scratch your head over the
> fact that a Japanese girl and an American soldier are plighting their troth
> in Italian, do you? No, you accept it as a convention of the style,

In the same way I accept German officers speaking in English in old
American war movies. It's not the same thing, really. In fact, it
supports my point. It's about communication, which for Puccini's Italian
audience meant performing it in Italian (and for me, personally, I would
prefer it in English). If you want to communicate as effectively as
possible, you have to make it as accessible as possible for the target
audience. If today's target audience expects visual realism and central

characters for whom they can feel empathy (ie: who care about their

weight), there should be some attempt to provide it.

> Theatrical enchantment is so powerful not because
> it is successful at duplicating the world (how could it be?) but because
> performer and audience join in giving their consent to the ritual by which
> the subjective is accepted as actual.

Yes, but some acknowledgement must be made of the leap of faith the
audience is asked to make.

D.M.

[Gaelin]

>
>
> Call me a son-of-a-bitch, but that's how I feel.
>
> D.M.

I don't have to call you a son-of-a-bitch or anything else. The words that come out of your
mouth do a far better job of incriminating you.

[Brian Newhouse]

In article <356C3E...@ozemail.com.australia>, n...@home.now wrote:

"> this passion for so-called
"> "visual realism" has gone too far even on stage and in the movies. It
"> assumes, for one thing, that only the gorgeous, the hunky and the
"> fashion-model slender are worthy of our sympathy.
"
"
"You assume. I have no desire to see the 'beautiful people' populating an
"opera, just the 'reasonably believable people'.
"

But you yourself consistently associate "reasonably believable" with
"slim". Not everyone you see in real life is slim. Granted, they're not
necessarily obese, but they're certainly not slim.

"
"
"> If you look at pictures of great stage actors from
"> the days before movies, you'll see that many were not conventionally
"> handsome or beautiful. Granted, none were exceptionally stout, either;
"> but some were, shall we say, big-boned.
"
"
"Yeah, so?! If I want to see Dan & Roseanne Conner, I'll stay at home and
"watch "ROSEANNE", not go to see Heppner & Eaglen waddle about as Tristan
"and Isolde. Give me the recording or the broadcast, you can have the
"visuals!
"

Heppner does not waddle. For that matter, Heppner is not grossly obese.
He is a big man with a large frame; even if he were on the strictest of
diets, he would still look no huskier than many a professional American
football player. This is a common build among larger-voiced male
singers. Sherrill Milnes is a notable example from the previous
generation; and I would never consider Milnes obese, nor for that matter
slim. (Now Samuel Ramey _is_ slim.)

Are you saying, then, that figures like Heppner's and Eaglen's are only
tolerable in low comedy?

More generally, those great stage actors from the days before movies that
so you snappishly dismiss were performing for much the same audiences for
whom the operas of the past were composed. Surely those audiences carried
the same standards of dramatic credibility from one stage to the other.
And before you claim that past audiences _didn't_ appreciate dramatic
credibility on the operatic stage, well, there are more than enough
accounts from those days that praise singers precisely for their acting
abilities to prove you wrong.

"> What counts in the body of a stage performer, whether in opera or in
"> spoken theater, is that the performer be able to move expressively and the
"> appearance of the body not be such as to get in the way. That does tend
"> to exclude the obese
"
"
"Precisely, monsieur!
"
"
"> but in some circumstances, even a stunningly
"> beautiful body can get in the way of dramatic truth.
"
"
"Oh, for a stunningly beautiful body to get in the way of my anything!
"
"D.M.

--
Brian Newhouse
newh...@newton.crisp.net

[FloriaTsca]

Ron,

You said:

>Nevertheless, if something is presented on stage which disrupts the flow of
the drama and, in so doing, distracts me from the music, then there's a
problem. One such disruption, for me, occurs when a performer looks
grotesque<

Please define 'grotesque'.

La Tosca

[RGandel676]

In article <199805291432...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
flori...@aol.com (FloriaTsca) writes:

Something (actually someone) that to ME is ridicuously ugly and thus totally
incongruous with his/her surroundings, that is, the production. A while back I
attended a production of Romeo and Juliet in which the former stood about 5ft 5
in and weighed about 250 lbs while the latter was reed thin and about 6 ft
tall. I was distracted. Yes, I could have closed my eyes and listened - but
that's what I do when I play CD's.

Ron

[Deborah Overes]

>But that's just when opera is the silliest -- when it makes some
>half-hearted gesture in the direction of realism it only serves to
>underline the basic implausibility of the form. What makes opera so
>dramatically exciting is the violence it does to reality, warping the flow
>of narrative time with its repetitions, compressions, and moments of
>ecstatic stasis. Surrealist theatre is supposed to be an invention of this
>century, but opera, by the very nature of the form, has been breaking the
>rules all along, showing us not the world we know but the world we feel.
>When a heart breaks in opera, time stops for our grief. Next to that
>fundamental defiance of physical truth, a rear end too wide for your kimono
>is nothing.
>
>> Now, while this wouldn't matter to those who think that operas should be
>> heard and not seen, those of us who think that both are equally as
>> important as the other are left scratching our heads at the
>> improbability of it all.

<snip of some terrific observations>

>A flawlessly believable visual reality can be had for free on the street,
>and if that's what I'm paying for when I go to the theatre, I'm wasting
>both my time and my money. I go to the theatre to see the world
>illuminated in a new and richer way, not for a shadow-copy of the world I
>already know.
>
>Dylan
>=dbd=

Bravo! Bravo! Archibravo!!! You have expressed my feelings with an
eloquence I could never hope to have. Opera is NOT reality. It's BETTER
than reality. Hey ... reality is for people who can't handle opera :-)

And to those who feel that a fat person would never be a love object,
welcome to a wider world. One of my best friends is heavy. She works out
daily with a personal trainer and runs her own very successful business (ie.
she's NOT lazy) and we can't go out without men hitting on her. She has
been known to juggle several men at a time. There is a much wider world
than Hollywood and the media portray (pun unintentional). One of the
reasons I love British TV is that the people on those shows look like the
real world - imperfect and in varying shapes and sizes.

[Dylan Bryan-Dolman]

David Meadows <dmea...@ozemail.com.australia> wrote:
> > Are you saying, then, that figures like Heppner's and Eaglen's are only
> > tolerable in low comedy?
>

> When have you seen them used otherwise? Anywhere. Anytime.

Gee, I dunno. Could it be maybe IN OPERA? IN EVERY COUNTRY AND AT EVERY
LEVEL? SINCE TIME IMMEMORIAL?

Fer pete's sake.

Dylan
=dbd=

[Dylan Bryan-Dolman]

David Meadows <dmea...@ozemail.com.australia> wrote:
> > > If today's target audience expects [...] central

> > > characters for whom they can feel empathy (ie: who care about their

> > > weight) [...]
> >
> > Well. I really can't think of anything more antithetical to my
conception
> > of the purpose and value of art than this sentence.
>

> Art by whose definition?

"Well. I really can't think of anything more antithetical to [here it
comes] _my_ conception of the value and purpose of art..."

Sic.

Dylan
=dbd=

[David Meadows]

> A while back I
> attended a production of Romeo and Juliet in which the former stood about 5ft 5
> in and weighed about 250 lbs while the latter was reed thin and about 6 ft
> tall. I was distracted. Yes, I could have closed my eyes and listened - but
> that's what I do when I play CD's.
>
> Ron

BINGO!!!! Are we learning yet?!

D.M.

[David Meadows]

> > "You assume. I have no desire to see the 'beautiful people' populating an
> > "opera, just the 'reasonably believable people'.

> But you yourself consistently associate "reasonably believable" with
> "slim".

Quote me. I've always said "not fat" or words to that specific effect.
Never have I said "slim".

> Heppner does not waddle. For that matter, Heppner is not grossly obese.

It was a JOKE!!!!!! I love Heppner. No really, I do!

> He is a big man with a large frame; even if he were on the strictest of
> diets, he would still look no huskier than many a professional American
> football player.

My mistake. His photos (promo shots and in-performance shots) always
show him to be - and I use this word deliberately - FAT. As I've stated
before in this thread, I have no problem with burly, just with fat. If
he's just burly, then that's cool (like he really gives a shit about
what I think!).

Being burly, he would actually be ideal for Tristan... yeees, believe it
or not, I would actually prefer to see a burly Tristan. Just not fat.

> Are you saying, then, that figures like Heppner's and Eaglen's are only
> tolerable in low comedy?

When have you seen them used otherwise? Anywhere. Anytime. Chris Farley,
John Candy, John Goodman, Falstaff, Sir Toby Belch, Mr Roly-Poly, and so
on.

I'm not saying that it's right, I'm saying that that's the way it is in
popular and (so-called) high culture.

> More generally, those great stage actors from the days before movies that
> so you snappishly dismiss were performing for much the same audiences for
> whom the operas of the past were composed. Surely those audiences carried
> the same standards of dramatic credibility from one stage to the other.

Precisely. Why do you think they laughed out loud at the rather large
figure of Fanny Salvini-Donatelli as Violetta in the first "LA TRAVIATA"
(1853).

D.M.

[David Meadows]

> > If today's target audience expects [...] central
> > characters for whom they can feel empathy (ie: who care about their
> > weight) [...]
>
> Well. I really can't think of anything more antithetical to my conception
> of the purpose and value of art than this sentence.

Art by whose definition?

D.M.

[Brian Newhouse]

Well, there _is_ something a bit dubious about the idea that the point of
presenting a story to an audience is to present characters that will evoke
our empathy simply because of how they look, rather than those characters
earning our empathy throught their actions and reactions. Otherwise, why
bother with a story in the first place?

Not to mention the notion that people are so easily disgusted with
anything approaching obesity that they will lose all empathy with a
character if the performer looks as if s/he "doesn't care about [his/her]
weight". As if most stories were about caring about one's weight!...

--
Brian Newhouse
newh...@newton.crisp.net

[FloriaTsca]

Ron (or should I say, Dr. Perfect),

Perhaps you should spend less time at the computer keyboard and more time out
in the REAL world looking at REAL people, who come in all shapes and sizes,
each having his/her own unique looks and characteristics. While beauty is in
the eye of the beholder, we all need to be accepting and tolerant of other
people regardless of physical beauty. Are you suggesting that opera singers
MUST all look like models and hunks? That would surely limit the number of
people who would qualify based on both looks and talent. We could solve this
problem by putting talent-less models on stage, doing pantomime, while the
'ugly' (as you say) singers are singing from backstage. Would this suit you?
There are, after all, couples who love each other very much, who fit your
description of the Romeo and Juliet that you found to be 'grotesque'. Isn't
part of what we all love about opera that it IS NOT Hollywood?

I'm very surprised that a person with your education and position has this
attitude about people's looks. I hope that you don't give grades on this basis.
Perhaps YOU could use some therapy to help you get over this problem.

From: rgand...@aol.com (RGandel676)
>>Nevertheless, if something is presented on stage which disrupts the flow of
the drama and, in so doing, distracts me from the music, then there's a
problem. One such disruption, for me, occurs when a performer looks
grotesque<<

Then I asked:
>>Please define 'grotesque'.<<

rgand...@aol.com (RGandel676) responded:

>
>Something (actually someone) that to ME is ridicuously ugly and thus totally

incongruous with his/her surroundings, that is, the production. A while back I

attended a production of Romeo and Juliet in which the former stood about 5ft

5in and weighed about 250 lbs while the latter was reed thin and about 6 ft

tall. I was distracted. Yes, I could have closed my eyes and listened - but
that's what I do when I play CD's. >
>Ron<

La Tosca

[RGandel676]

In article <199805301702...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
flori...@aol.com (FloriaTsca) writes:

>Are you suggesting that opera singers
MUST all look like models and hunks?

No, no, no - a thousand times no! But on occasion, those that resemble oil
tankers can be rather disconcerting. If you have no problem with physical
appearance on stage, that's great for you - and perhaps you're a better person
than I.

I'm very surprised that a person with your education
>and position has this
attitude about people's looks. I hope that you don't
>give grades on this basis.

How do you know what my education is and whether or not I give grades to
anybody. You might consider sticking to discussions of opera, not me.

Ron

------------------- Headers --------------------

Path:
>lobby03.news.aol.com!newstf02.news.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From:
>flori...@aol.com (FloriaTsca)
Newsgroups: rec.music.opera

[Donald Rice]

Gae...@nycnet.com wrote:

> I would bet are most of her family--though it doesn't necessarily follow. Obesity of that
> sort is an inborn error of metabolism not unlike diabetes. Hyperinsulinemia contributes to
> fat formation even in the presence of very ordinary eating.

<snip the stuff about opera>Obesity - fat - causes hyperinsulinemia not visa versa. Weght loss
in a hyperinsulinemic person reverses the hyperinsulinemia.
D. Rice

[David Meadows]

You're an idiot, and indicative of the stupidity of most of the people
who've responded to my posts in this thread.

You've all missed the point entirely and I'm sick of the thread. See you
in another one.

[David Meadows]

> Well, there _is_ something a bit dubious about the idea that the point of
> presenting a story to an audience is to present characters that will evoke
> our empathy simply because of how they look, rather than those characters
> earning our empathy throught their actions and reactions.

Oh, for fuck's sake! If they gave college degrees in stupidity and
defiant ignorance, you'd qualify for a bloody doctorate!

I'm NOT saying that it's all there is, you moron. I'm saying that the
appearance of the singer (actor, performer, artist... whatever you want
to call them) is as valid a part of the entire experience as the voice,
the acting, the movement etc., and when it's not regarded as such, you
have a fundamentally flawed performance because, by definition, ALL
aspects of the exchange are not being looked after.

> Not to mention the notion that people are so easily disgusted with
> anything approaching obesity that they will lose all empathy with a
> character if the performer looks as if s/he "doesn't care about [his/her]
> weight".

Ah, that lovely all-purpose expression 'people'. Can I introduce you to
a word... 'some'.

D.M.

[David Meadows]

> > > Are you saying, then, that figures like Heppner's and Eaglen's are only
> > > tolerable in low comedy?
> >
> > When have you seen them used otherwise? Anywhere. Anytime.
>

> Gee, I dunno. Could it be maybe IN OPERA? IN EVERY COUNTRY AND AT EVERY
> LEVEL? SINCE TIME IMMEMORIAL?

Okay, one last time. I meant APART FROM IN OPERA, you retard.

D.M.

[Brian Newhouse]

Well, some people do object to overweight singers--just as some people
object to singers with too much vibrato, and some people object to
classically trained unmiked women's voices (too "screechy"), and some
people object to modern-dress productions, and some people object to
period instruments, and some people object to florid singing...individual
taste _does_ vary, after all, and many of us have highly personal
aversions, or know those who have highly personal aversions, that go way
beyond any sort of objective or intersubjective or otherwise external
judgements to the contrary.

But I haven't seen that word or concept used in any of your postings on
the subject. You write of "today's target audience", and insist that
"that's the way it is in today's popular (and 'so-called' high) culture";
doesn't sound to me like just "some" people. You write as if the audience
were a group of people of more or less uniform taste, strictly bound by
the limits of Hollywood practice. And in terms of acceptably empathic
body types, Hollywood practice really is a lot more limiting than simply
"not obese"; it excludes or marginalizes many socially and medically
acceptable body types we find on the street and in our opera houses.
There are those for whom even Kate Winslet in *Titanic* was unacceptably
pudgy. But how high a proportion of the Hollywood movie audience could
they have been if it didn't prevent *Titanic* from breaking all box-office
records for weeks on end? So I doubt the audience is quite as monolithic
in that respect as you presume. You write as if these days the first
thing people in general (not just some people) look for in a performer is
whether s/he cares enough about their weight; but you haven't even
established that physical bulk is in itself an immediate turnoff to any
sense of empathy for anyone but yourself.

More important, Hollywood practice generally doesn't expect much in the
way of voice; it's possible to get by as a Hollywood star without much of
a speaking voice at all, let alone the sort of declamatory ability
generally regarded as essential in the spoken theater. But what kind of
audience would apply such expectations unmodified in a situation in which
the singing voice _is_ the center of attention? Even in pop music, people
accept a surprisingly wide range of body types if the singer is any good.
(Please, this is not the thread to go into the question of whether there
is such a thing as "good pop singing" or "good rock singing".) I remember
once grumbling to someone about being too short and skinny to qualify as
properly macho or even worthy of romantic attention by Hollywood
standards, only to hear him reply, "sounds like your typical rock
guitarist to me". Granted, the singers aren't generally portraying
characters; but if the audience isn't revolted with their appearance when
it sees them in concert, it's hard to imagine that seeing them in a
dramatic context would make that much difference. (And Hollywood
convention is as likely to relegate short skinny men like me to nerd, wimp
and/or psycho status as to relegate those more than mildly stout to low
comedy.) On the contrary, it's quite conceivable that in many cases,
sheer singing ability would compensate for many a deficiency in physique,
just as in certain movies physical grace and good looks can make even the
silliest voice (e.g. Arnold Schwarzenneger's) dwindle to at worst an
object of affectionate fun.

I agree that there are certain operatic roles in which external sex appeal
is dramatically important enought to be essential (e.g. Violetta,
Turandot, Lulu, Billy Budd), and that a singer deficient in that respect
is giving as fundamentally flawed a performance as if s/he had no high
notes to speak of or couldn't stay on pitch to save her/his life. But not
that many roles really require that, just as not all leading roles require
brilliant high notes or a mastery of florid singing or even precise
musicianship. Indeed, there are certain operatic roles written so that a
singer with imperfect vocal technique or equipment can negotiate and even
triumph in. We don't expect a great Adriana Lecouvreur will have or need
the vocal prowess of a great Constanze, or that a great Melisande will
have or need the size of voice or vocal endurance of either. But that
doesn't mean voice doesn't matter; it just means vocal perfection (over
and above basic competence) isn't everything, and that given dramatically
essential compensating factors we can shift our expectations with the
role.

"Looking young", "looking old", "looking noble" and the like is really a
matter of "acting young/old/noble/etc."; in the real world, particularly
in the middle distance at which we generally view performers in the
theater, we're at least as likely to ascribe such attributes to people
based on how they move, how they speak, or what they wear. (That's how
fifty-something Elisabeth Soederstrom convinced the San Francisco audience
she was the teenage Jenufa.) The problem some overweight opera singers
have--not all!--is that their bulk limits the extent to which they can
master the movement necessary to maintain such illusions. (Generally,
it's the ones with relatively small facial features that have the most
trouble; the physical bulk hinders the small facial features from
projecting beyond the first few rows of the orchestra.) But then there
are physically gorgeous performers who don't even bother to try; are their
performances any the less fundamentally flawed?

--
Brian Newhouse
newh...@newton.crisp.net

[Beth Garfinkel]

In <356C3E...@ozemail.com.australia> David Meadows <dmea...@ozemail.com.australia> writes:

>> And these days, our
>> standards of physical beauty as regards weight are exceptionally
>> stringent.

>And rightly so, too. For health reasons rather than aesthetic ones.

Not so. There is actually little proof of a *causal* relationship
between the presence of by fat and any of the illnesse associated with
it Meanwhile, it is possible to watch movies from the 50's and see
women who are about size 14s and 16s being cast as chorus girls, whereas
I would be suprised if Kate Winslet in _Titanic_ wore more than a size
10. For those of you unacquainted with the American dress sizing
system, that's 36-28-38 (inches, and there are 2.54 centimeters in an
inch), and for this she was criticized for being too fat. Also,
whenever I watch TV from the early 70's, I am struck by the fact that
the bodies routinely put in display then would be considered fat now. .
.

Beth
.
--
"Under the green wood tree/Who loves to lie with me/And tune his merry
note/Unto the sweet bird's throat/Come hither, come hither, come hither/
Here he shall see/No enemy/But winter and rough weather."
--William Shakespeare

[Beth Garfinkel]

In <356C48...@ozemail.com.australia> David Meadows <dmea...@ozemail.com.australia> writes:

>> The critical issue is not whether Eaglen's obesity is indicative of laziness
>> but to what extent it limits her effectiveness onstage. I have seen her
>> perform Turandot and all three Brunnhildes. On each occasion, she looked
>> distinctly insecure with her movements, communicating a profound sense of
>> discomfort with her own body image.

>Precisely. And until such time as she becomes aware of the need for a
>commitment to the totality of the performance, and takes the steps
>necessary for her to be a viable practiser of those very noble ideals,
>she will be regarded by those of us with those ideals at heart as a
>liability to those kinds of performances.

Yes, but "discomfort with her own body image" is not a *physical*
function of being fat. It is a *mental* consequence. Therefore, the
remedy for it is to learn to be at ease with one's body image and
physical entity. Losing weight, which is the remedy that you no doubt
have in mind, is neither necessary nor sufficient for this process.

Beth

[Beth Garfinkel]

In <199805272051...@ladder03.news.aol.com> opera...@aol.com (OperaGrrrl) writes:

>Does weight have any effect on a singer's voice? If a singer gains or loses a
>significant amount of weight, will there be a (noticeable) change in the voice?

Losing weight often will affect a singer's voice, for the simple reason
that most singers lose weight by dieting, which means they lose a lot of
muscle in the process, and this definitely affects a singer's ability to
project sound.

[Beth Garfinkel]

In <6kih5f$9j5$1...@talia.mad.ibernet.es> "Enrique Eskenazi" <eske...@mail.sendanet.es> writes:

>To me, the "visual" part of the opera is "illustrative", in such a way I
>try to "see" with the ears and "listen" with the eyes. I'm not trying to
>change your views, David and I respect your opinions and choices. I only
>consider that those opinions and choices will make difficult for you to
>enjoy opera and that this form of art might be completely enjoyable and
>fully satisfactory even having a fat, middle-age soprano who is able to
>sing with artistry and engagement the role of Salome, by instance.

And of course, let us not forget, being fat does not necesarily equate
with being "heavy on one's feet". Look at Jackie Gleason, star of "The
Honeymooners", which seems to be considered classic television these
days.

[Nancy Lebovitz]

In article <356981...@ozemail.com.australia>,
David Meadows <n...@home.now> wrote:
>
>To explain: As a director, I want the audience to be able to identify
>with, and fell empathy for, the characters I am guiding into life on the
>stage. In order for this to happen, the singers must be - at the very
>least - vaguely appealing physically.
>
>My thinking is that if the singers care so little for their own physical
>well-being (we all know that being that fat isn't healthy), how can we
>care for the characters they are portraying? That is simply death for
>anyone who cares one jot for the theatrical reality of opera.
>
Fat people live, love, and die, and are therefore presumably worthy
of empathy. And, while I don't grant your point that being fat is
a sign of not caring about one's health, surely there are a few
self-destructive opera characters who audiances care about?

--
Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)

May '98 calligraphic button catalogue available by email!

[Nancy Lebovitz]

In article <356C39...@ozemail.com.australia>,
David Meadows <n...@home.now> wrote:
>
>Pavarotti was thin when he started, so was Eaglen. Both are now fat.
>
>Ramey was thin, too. So were Te Kanawa, Kraus, Meier etc. They are all
>still thin. How come?
>
>Looks, smells and sounds like laziness to me.

We should all be as lazy as Pavarotti. He accomplishes a lot more
than the vast majority of thin people.

[David Meadows]

Thank you, Brian. A salient and reasonable response at last, which is
why I am re-entering this thread once again.

> some people do object to overweight singers

> some people object to singers with too much vibrato

> some people object to classically trained unmiked women's voices

> some people object to modern-dress productions

> some people object to period instruments

> some people object to florid singing...

> But I haven't seen that word or concept used in any of your postings on
> the subject.

True. My fault. I assumed that my posts would read as 'from my
perspective and that of my associates'. I should have listened to my
mother when she told me that I shouldn't assume anything.

> You write of "today's target audience"

Quote me.

> strictly bound by the limits of Hollywood practice.

Nothing to do with Hollywood, or the fashion industry... it has to do
with common sense in purely theatrical terms. I am a director and a
designer with some very high - and totally altruistic - theatrical
ideals, and I expect each facet of my productions to be equally
maintained... acting, music, visuals etc.

What this means is that I expect my performers to possess and maintain a
credible physical presence for the kinds of roles they are regularly
required to play. This does not cancel out any physical type - just as
long as it's appropriate to the role.

Obviously there have to be exceptions to this rule when it comes to
certain vocal writing, but I haven't come to that yet. So far I guess
I've been cruising.

> There are those for whom even Kate Winslet in *Titanic* was unacceptably
> pudgy.

Namely her director, who lost all of my respect for him after his 'Kate
Weighs-alot' quip.

Ah, Kate! Shall I compare thee to a..... sorry.

(lots of really good stuff about physical stereotypes in Hollywood
snipped)

> I agree that there are certain operatic roles in which external sex appeal

> is dramatically important enough to be essential (e.g. Violetta,

> Turandot, Lulu, Billy Budd), and that a singer deficient in that respect
> is giving as fundamentally flawed a performance as if s/he had no high
> notes to speak of or couldn't stay on pitch to save her/his life.

Precisamente - and THIS ladies and gentlemen was my entire point from
day one!

> There are certain operatic roles written so that a

> singer with imperfect vocal technique or equipment can negotiate and even
> triumph in. We don't expect a great Adriana Lecouvreur will have or need
> the vocal prowess of a great Constanze, or that a great Melisande will
> have or need the size of voice or vocal endurance of either. But that

> doesn't mean voice doesn't matter.

Of course not.

> The problem some overweight opera singers
> have--not all!--is that their bulk limits the extent to which they can
> master the movement necessary to maintain such illusions.

And I count the Eaglens and Pavarottis of the world among them - despite
the more than considerable vocal dividends offered by both (hence the
amount of recordings I own of each of these two).

> But then there
> are physically gorgeous performers who don't even bother to try; are their
> performances any the less fundamentally flawed?

Of course.

Bad acting, bad singing, bad physical discipline, inappropriate
appearance for the role... they all contribute to a fundamentally flawed
performance.

And there's a lot of them going on, isn't there?

D.M.

[Gae...@hotmail.com]

Just curious, Mr Meadows, whenever I see the high mindedness of someone's
ideals mentioned so loudly I wonder just how old a person I am hearing. The
anonymity of the screen makes me lose the feel for age you get in conversation.
You mention being a director and most of them are people who began as actors and
found their metier later. How old is the person to whose opinions we have all
responded to with such vigor? Ballpark is good enough within say 5-10 years you
needn't disclose deathbed secrets.

David Meadows wrote:

> Thank you, Brian. A salient and reasonable response at last, which is
> why I am re-entering this thread once again.
>

> > some people do object to overweight singers

> > some people object to singers with too much vibrato

> > some people object to classically trained unmiked women's voices

> > some people object to modern-dress productions

> > some people object to period instruments

> > some people object to florid singing...
>

> > But I haven't seen that word or concept used in any of your postings on
> > the subject.
>

> True. My fault. I assumed that my posts would read as 'from my
> perspective and that of my associates'. I should have listened to my
> mother when she told me that I shouldn't assume anything.
>

> > You write of "today's target audience"
>

> Quote me.

>
> > strictly bound by the limits of Hollywood practice.
>

> Nothing to do with Hollywood, or the fashion industry... it has to do
> with common sense in purely theatrical terms. I am a director and a
> designer with some very high - and totally altruistic - theatrical
> ideals, and I expect each facet of my productions to be equally
> maintained... acting, music, visuals etc.
>
> What this means is that I expect my performers to possess and maintain a
> credible physical presence for the kinds of roles they are regularly
> required to play. This does not cancel out any physical type - just as
> long as it's appropriate to the role.
>
> Obviously there have to be exceptions to this rule when it comes to
> certain vocal writing, but I haven't come to that yet. So far I guess
> I've been cruising.
>

> > There are those for whom even Kate Winslet in *Titanic* was unacceptably
> > pudgy.
>

> Namely her director, who lost all of my respect for him after his 'Kate
> Weighs-alot' quip.
>
> Ah, Kate! Shall I compare thee to a..... sorry.
>
> (lots of really good stuff about physical stereotypes in Hollywood
> snipped)
>

> > I agree that there are certain operatic roles in which external sex appeal

> > is dramatically important enough to be essential (e.g. Violetta,

> > Turandot, Lulu, Billy Budd), and that a singer deficient in that respect
> > is giving as fundamentally flawed a performance as if s/he had no high
> > notes to speak of or couldn't stay on pitch to save her/his life.
>

> Precisamente - and THIS ladies and gentlemen was my entire point from
> day one!
>

> > There are certain operatic roles written so that a

> > singer with imperfect vocal technique or equipment can negotiate and even
> > triumph in. We don't expect a great Adriana Lecouvreur will have or need
> > the vocal prowess of a great Constanze, or that a great Melisande will
> > have or need the size of voice or vocal endurance of either. But that

> > doesn't mean voice doesn't matter.
>
> Of course not.

>
> > The problem some overweight opera singers
> > have--not all!--is that their bulk limits the extent to which they can
> > master the movement necessary to maintain such illusions.
>

> And I count the Eaglens and Pavarottis of the world among them - despite
> the more than considerable vocal dividends offered by both (hence the
> amount of recordings I own of each of these two).
>

> > But then there
> > are physically gorgeous performers who don't even bother to try; are their
> > performances any the less fundamentally flawed?
>

[Dylan Bryan-Dolman]

David Meadows wrote:

Brian (who?) wrote:
> > I agree that there are certain operatic roles in which external sex
appeal

> > is dramatically important enough to be essential (e.g. Violetta,

> > Turandot, Lulu, Billy Budd), and that a singer deficient in that
respect
> > is giving as fundamentally flawed a performance as if s/he had no high
> > notes to speak of or couldn't stay on pitch to save her/his life.
>

> Precisamente - and THIS ladies and gentlemen was my entire point from
> day one!

Yeah, I guess that's why saggy-chinned Thomas Allen is so unconvincing as
Billy Budd.

(irony, folks)

Dylan
=dbd=

[debbie scuderi]

Nancy Lebovitz <nan...@universe.digex.net> wrote in article
<6ku9s6$a...@universe.digex.net>...

>Greetings,

I really just wanted to take Vincent's name off of this thread if we could.
Believe me, Vincent is very aware of his physique. He is human just like
you and I. I imagine that it is very hard to be away from home for month's
on end(sometimes without kitchens). He is always trying to find ways to
drop his weight to healthier levels.
I saw him in May and he looked great.

Debbie

[David Meadows]

Gae...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Just curious, Mr Meadows, whenever I see the high mindedness of someone's
> ideals mentioned so loudly I wonder just how old a person I am hearing. The
> anonymity of the screen makes me lose the feel for age you get in conversation.
> You mention being a director and most of them are people who began as actors and
> found their metier later. How old is the person to whose opinions we have all
> responded to with such vigor?

Rapidly closing in on 30 and wondering what all the fuss is about.

D.M.

[Luis Angel Catoni]

Jack Johnson wrote:

> >This is a very good point, and it's done with other races too -- Banderas,
> >a European, playing Cubans and Mexicans (my sister's Cuban boyfriend
> >*hates* him for this); the Italian John Turturro playing one nasty Jewish
> >stereotype after another just because he has the misfortune to have been
> >born with the face of a Nazi caricature, and so on. But it doesn't really
> >support your argument -- these are not examples of anti-realistic
> >cross-casting, but attempts at realism marred by a racist indifference to
> >real cultural distinctions.
>
> While appreciating the intelligence of most everything said in this post, I
> believe this
> is absurd.
>
> First, European or Spanish is not a "race"; it is a nationality. In any
> event, why on *earth* would you presume the casting decision to be the
> result of "racist indifference to real cultural distinctions"? That's a
> cavalier charge.

Please tell the powers that be. Why in the chapter race or ethnicity in every
form you fill in this country is there one "Hispanic"? Curiously, people from
Spain don't fit the type. And Spanish America is bigger than the U.S.A. and
allows for a multiplicity of cultures as different as those in the Continental
U.S.A. before the "Hispanics" came here. I was born in Puerto Rico, and lived
most of my life in Europe. When that comes, if something must be put, I put
white. Even if it is to my disadvantage, as then I am not considered member of a
minority. Irish, Italians or Polish are not asked that. QWhy should people of
Latin American origin be?

>
>
> It's as though you're saying that to cast a Spaniard to play a Cuban is
> "racist" but to cast an American, a Frenchman, or a fat Swiss diva is not.
> Or maybe you're saying that only Cubans should be cast to play Cubans? (I
> can't believe you mean that, as it would undermine the entire thesis of your
> post.) Next, we'll be hearing that trouser roles are sexist because they
> are anti-realistic cross-gender-casting.

--
HAPPY LISTENING / FELIZ ESCUCHA / FELICE ASCOLTO / FELIZ ASCOLTAR!!!
Luis Angel Catoni
barb...@bellsouth.net
Ho da fare un dramma buffo e non trovo l'argomento.

[Luis Angel Catoni]

RGandel676 wrote:

> In article <199805291432...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,

> flori...@aol.com (FloriaTsca) writes:
>
> >
> >
> >> One such disruption, for me, occurs when a performer looks
> >grotesque<
> >

> >Please define 'grotesque'.

> >
>
> Something (actually someone) that to ME is ridicuously ugly and thus totally
> incongruous with his/her surroundings, that is, the production. A while back I
> attended a production of Romeo and Juliet in which the former stood about 5ft 5
> in and weighed about 250 lbs while the latter was reed thin and about 6 ft
> tall. I was distracted. Yes, I could have closed my eyes and listened - but
> that's what I do when I play CD's.

That is a problem of your particular perception of aesthetics. Don't you realized
we are driven in our tastes by other people's choices? Once the Miss Twiggy look
was considered the ultimate beauty. Now it is seen as unhealthy. Many classic
painters have their women fat. Some cultures consder beautiful introducing and
inseerting wooden objects in the skin, lips, etc. Piercing and tattooing is
considered beautuiful by some. I must say it turns me off. So your perception of
beauty maybe and is probably different from mine. What you find grotesque I may
find excitingly beautiful. I don't have a problem Many times have I preceived the
beauty of things I began considering grotesque. But it seems in our image dominated
society, where only certain images are acceptable, that may be impossible.

Luckily, for me opera is sound over anything. The rest is welcome, but just a plus.

[Luis Angel Catoni]

David Meadows wrote:

. If today's target audience expects visual realism and central

> characters for whom they can feel empathy (ie: who care about their

> weight), there should be some attempt to provide it.

It is curious how one of today's most famous tenors, who has made himself quite a
reputation... and a few millions (give ot take a few doze) has never had the
looks of a hunk. Yet audiences still fill the theater whenever he performs.

[RGandel676]

In article <357C98ED...@bellsouth.net>, Luis Angel Catoni
<barb...@bellsouth.net> writes:

>So your perception of
>beauty maybe and is probably different from mine. What you find grotesque I
>may
>find excitingly beautiful. I don't have a problem Many times have I preceived
>the
>beauty of things I began considering grotesque. But it seems in our image
>dominated
>society, where only certain images are acceptable, that may be impossible.
>
>Luckily, for me opera is sound over anything. The rest is welcome, but just a
>plus.

You obviously are a better person than I, Luis.

Ron

[Luis Angel Catoni]

RGandel676 wrote:

> In article <357C98ED...@bellsouth.net>, Luis Angel Catoni
> <barb...@bellsouth.net> writes:
>
> >So your perception of

> >beauty maybe and is probably different from mine.....

>
> You obviously are a better person than I, Luis.

Not necessarily. But I bet I have much more fun at the opera.

[CTaylor886]

Benjamin Franklin said it best: "Our limited perspective, our hopes and fears
become our measure of life, and when circumstances don't fit our ideas, they
become our difficulties."

Carol
***********************
email: CTMa...@aol.com

[RGandel676]

In article <357DCD4A...@bellsouth.net>, Luis Angel Catoni
<barb...@bellsouth.net> writes:

>But I bet I have much more fun at the opera.
>

What do you want to bet?

Ron

[Luis Angel Catoni]

RGandel676 wrote:

I can enjoy a big round Romeo and a big-hipped Juliet (well as mucho as
slim ones, as it is not my favorite opera). But apparently that prevents
you from taking delight in the performance.

Point for me.