parterre box

116 comments

• armerjacquino says:

  Interesting that you should mention L. Price, CF. I have this theory that all Fleming’s mannerisms are an attempt at Priceisms.

  For what it’s worth, I remain a little baffled at all the criticism Fleming attracts. Yeah, she does a few irritating things, but what she mainly does is sing wonderfully.

  on March 13, 2010 at 7:51 PM
• CerquettiFarrell says:

  AJ, it all depends on what your definition of Wonderful Singing basically is. And reg LP, I think you are very right. I think in most great operas (as musico-dramatic masterpieces) the composers wrote characters they believed in. Why pile upon it any amount of sobs or whatever else? Presenting the music in the best possible light (there comes in tradition and style) is enough.

  on March 13, 2010 at 7:57 PM
• CerquettiFarrell says:

  Ohh I have to re-phrase. By the first sentence I didn’t mean to belittle your set of values, just to point out that maybe we have it slightly re-arranged between us. For myself, in opera, a beautiful voice and technical perfection count less than stylistic awareness / adherence and ability / willingness to fashion an honest character portrayal via singing. It’s just my own personal thing.

  on March 13, 2010 at 8:04 PM
• armerjacquino says:

  CF- I guess what I mean is that Fleming has been gifted with one of the most extraordinarily beautiful and secure voices I have ever been privileged to hear live (and I say that as no kind of Renee-flapper) and on the two occasions I’ve seen her (Violetta and the Marschallin) I have been very aware of that fact.

  Yes, she makes choices that I dislike, from time to time. But I think intention is important here- I have no doubt that she makes those choices out of a desire to give the best performance she can give. When she does things I consider tasteless, I can forgive them because I don’t think there’s any vanity involved, just a serious, committed, if sometimes misguided, artistic choice.

  That still doesn’t mean I want to hear her do Mercury Rev, by the way…

  on March 13, 2010 at 8:10 PM
• nachdover says:

  Alto at 1, 13, and countless other entires-
  You are a gifted writer, and your entries are thought-provoking. At #87, when you turn your gimlet eye to an evasion, it is impressive. But I have to take issue with a fairly sweeping charge you level at Ms. Fleming: “Young singers are necessarily and properly affected by the current standards and audience expectations. R.F. has played a part in debasing these.” While you get some cover from “played a part,” I find the essential principle flawed. Part of learning is figuring out what lessons to take from which singers. Fleming’s technique, regardless of what people think of her stylistic choices, is sterling, and worthy of study. Every singer, including the great voices of the past, did some things better than others. I don’t think that Callas, with her flawed technique and unique, unforgettable set of gifts, contributed to debasing standards of technique. I would never say that Sutherland debased standards of diction. I would not say that Tebaldi, singing so often under the pitch at the top, contributed to a debasement of standards or expectations regarding intonation. Each of these artists had strengths which compensated for other weaknesses. This is a major reason that each of us responds differently to different artists. But, whatever standards or audience expectations exist, when I have seen Ms. Fleming perform, I have seen a standard of vocal technique demonstrated that any young singer would do well to emulate. This is an instrument that was studiously crafted, exercised, and shepherded to produce some of the most beautiful sounds I have ever heard. I just have a problem with that swipe about “debasing” standards.

  on March 13, 2010 at 9:28 PM
• Alto says:

  Ah, but you are comparing the apple to the orange. Bad technique and bad diction are evils in themselves. The effects that Fleming allegedly overuses are not — and, in the right places and to the right degree, they are virtues.

  So, in a sense, there is no argument between us. In another sense, you have made a specious one. Sorry.

  The singing of hers that some find repellent scares some discriminating young singers away from legitimate vocal devices. That was my original statement, and I did specify extremely, unusually fine singers who were working with one of the acknowledged leaders in today’s vocal arts — one everyone here would probably defer to.

  on March 13, 2010 at 9:44 PM
• rapt says:

  The degree of annoyance that Fleming can rouse–and I mean in my humble self–is a puzzle to me, too. I’ve tried to figure out why a serious and hardworking singer, with a beautiful voice and what seems to my untutored ears a mastery of technique has the capacity to fill me with something like rage; still more difficult, I’ve tried to figure out how to explain this disproportionate reaction to others. Many explanations offered on this thread ring true to my experience (e.g., the concern with local effects to the detriment of the longer line–aggravated by the dubious [imho] taste of those effects; disappointment with some of her role choices; etc.). I’ll try the tack of analogy: knowing what she is capable of, having been knocked out by her in, e.g., Mozart and Strauss, I feel cheated in some way (disappointed is a fairer word, of course–she’s not a criminal for failing to fulfill my wishes) when she makes stylistic choices that keep her from fulfilling the potential of the music as I’m dead certain she could, just as I’d feel cheated (disappointed) if she were marking the music rather than singing it. Another analogy: there’s a picture in (the insufferable) John Culshaw’s Ring Resounding showing Crespin re-enacting a moment in the studio when, James King having been given permission by the producer to skip a phrase in the Sieglinde-Siegmund love scene of which a satisfactory version was in the can, she walked over to mock-strangle him in her fury that he had (as she thought, not knowing about the arrangement) by his silence ruined what could have been the finished product. That fury–we had it, and you let it slip through your fingers, you fool!–is the feeling evoked in me by Fleming’s occasional choices not to deploy her talents as she might.

  on March 13, 2010 at 9:55 PM
• mrmyster says:

  Yes, rapt, but on the other hand there were all those many times
  of very lovely vocal and visual moments that RF has created
  over the years, oodles of them. I have a little theory here;
  want to hear it? Fleming is/was, au fond, an insecure perhaps
  depressed person; early on all was fresh and exciting, then
  routine set in and she did less than her best. And seemed to be
  compensating in veery odd ways, “mannerisms.” But as time went
  by, she had success, lots of money and gained confidence. Now,
  nearer the end, and still healthy and beautiful in every way, she
  has become much more confident and her performances have
  become more reliable and — just better! You may mock the
  opera (I don’t), but that Thais in NY last year was about as
  good as you are going to get – superior. THAT is where her
  voice wants to be and she now knows it. I hope she has many
  more such seasons. Yes, I have disdained some of the silly
  things, but it seems to me she’s very well balanced now.
  [Your arm-chair analyst reports in! For which, apologies before
  you trash me. ]

  on March 13, 2010 at 10:53 PM
• BETSY_ANN_BOBOLINK says:

  To Alto @96. Not quite. In Post#1 (the first one out of the gate, I notice) you specified “the best very young singers” I now recognize this as a syntactical error but it did create a picture of veritable youngsters. Be that as it may, by the time post #96 rolls in, scarcely one day later, they have become — quote — extremely, unusually fine singers — en quote. Surely with students that intelligent “one of the acknowledged leaders in today’s vocal arts” would have been able to correct those misconceptions and to point out that good technique need not result in cookie-cutter vocalism. Or perhaps you would like to suggest that these young singers look elsewhere for their instruction? Surely not, I would think.

  But there is something else running through all your posts that nags at me.

  May I be honest? i suspect a passing comment from a friend provided you with more anti-Flem, and in order to share it you notified La Cieca of the website changes (an act which you admit), and then waited for your chance. In short, I think this whole thread has been a troll of your construction. Moreover, in posting #87 you profess to have presented “facts”, but in the interchanges between you and “operadunce,” specifically #77, 79, 82, and 87, I see only intimidation and name-calling.

  By my lights, you’ve struck out.

  on March 13, 2010 at 10:56 PM
• Alto says:

  Dear Betsy,

  Feel free to give that verdict. To strike out, however, I would have had to have entered a competition.

  But I don’t get what you’re going on about, honestly. The distinction between how I characterized these singers yesterday and today escapes me. And I never even MENTIONED technique, so far as I remember, which is the subject of your rebuttal.

  And as for your reading of my brain. It never even occurred to me to set La Cieca up in such a way. Only after I saw her post did I start thinking about what I had heard that very morning, in very striking circumstances, about these students’ pervasive — and, I’d assert still, unfortunate — Flemingphobia. The fact that I got a e-mailing trumpeting the fab new Web site after I got back home was a mere coincidence. My control of the universe is still imperfect, so I can’t quite arrange things so neatly. And I do often strike out. But not this time and not in the way you invent.

  on March 13, 2010 at 11:24 PM