Into the woods
“…by any standard, Meade’s is a very fine Norma — and, as a first attempt at this Mount Everest of a role, it’s simply a miracle.” [New York Post]
Cher Public
- brunettino: You beat me to it, too, Lucy re AC – I didn’t see your wise analysis and better till after... 5:50 PM
- Quanto Painy Fakor: So far, less than 400 people have watched this video that got Russian cellist Oleg Vedernikov,... 5:45 PM
- La Valkyrietta: I guess HD DVDs are a good thing, otherwise performances are forgotten entirely when people that... 5:35 PM
- erica: Actually, that’s kind of weirdly convincing. 5:19 PM
- La Valkyrietta: Voigt ain’t Fanciulla, period. I loved her the last time I was happy seeing her live in that... 5:14 PM
- brunettino: Shucks — AC was my guess too based partly on the French used in the clue, but I got here too... 5:10 PM
- Camille: Gee, that is bizarre—R 11;I was thinking of you a while back and wanting to let you know I HAD... 4:02 PM
- kashania: I also checked out the second act finale and agree completely. It’s rare that a moment of hysteria... 3:59 PM
colleagues
- A Liberal's Libretto
- AndrewAndJoshua
- Barihunks
- Cafeteria Rusticana
- Capital New York
- Civic Center
- Counter Critic
- Daniel Stephen Johnson
- Family Circle
- Handelmania
- Hugo Alvarez Domínguez
- Intermezzo
- ionarts
- Iron Tongue of Midnight
- Jumping Clapping Man
- Likely Impossibilites
- Mass Culture Mozart
- My Favorite Intermissions
- New York Post
- Opera Arts
- Opera Bouffe
- Opera Cake
- Opera Fresh
- Opera Rocks
- Opera Tales
- Opera Teen
- Operacast
- Operavision
- Out West Arts
- pArts
- Poison Ivy's Wall of Text
- Sandow
- SFCV
- Superconductor
- The Classical Beat
- The Classical Review
- The Opera Tattler
- Una butaca en el paraiso
- Vilane fille
- Wenarto
- Willy or Won’t He?
- Wo bleibt Elektra?
- WQX-Aria
- Yankeediva
- Zachary Woolfe
102 comments
Today's Events
Upcoming Events
Chats
- May 19 at 1:00 PM: I Capuleti e i Montecchi (webcast from Bavarian State Opera)
La Casa della Cieca →
Topics
- anna anna anna
- barihunk
- bel canto
- blind item
- blog bloggity blog
- broadcast
- camp
- cancellation
- chat
- cher public
- contest
- critic
- diva
- dvd
- filth
- gala
- gay gay gay gay gay
- happy birthday
- hd
- jj
- l'evasiva
- la cieca ci guarda
- la scoopenda
- maestro levine
- man of steel
- mp3
- need you ask?
- new york post
- new york times
- nyco
- our own
- our own jj
- peter gelb is...
- regie
- review
- sad
- the met
- unnatural acts of opera
- wagner
- youtube
Having gto immensely intrigued by the Meade Norma postings, I hurriedly managed to fish out this:
I will probably get stoned to death for this, but I liked the tenor, Michael Fabiano, infinitely more than I did Meade’s Lucia. Yes, judging by the clips here she seems to have a ocnsiderable instrument and a way of ‘cutting’ the orchestral fabric. She seems well-rehearsed in knowing when to soften etc. But besides her rather wooden stage appearance, her singing brought back something that John Culshaw wrote in “Ring Resounding” :
“It is a very curious thing that although America has produced a large number of distinguished singers whose presence has enriched the European operatic scene since the end of the war, they all seem to share a particular trait. It is a strange sort of inhibition concerning details of breathing and the correct ‘placement’ of the voice which can become an obsession in some cases, and which at an extreme divests the performance of dramatic intensity. It may be something to do with having to work in a foreign language, and therefore not ‘feeling’ the language as one would a native tongue.”
[Ring Resounding, 1967, pp. 230-231]
While this being an extremely chauvinistic remark and puzzingly directed at James King, whose performances always strike me as extremely passionate and committed, I cannot help but feel that somehow Culshaw has touched a nerve. While many of the past century’s uniquely great singers were American (Ponselle, Tibbett, Callas, Horne, Sills, Norman, Verrett, Milo, Varnay, Bumbry, DiDonato, von Stade, Polaski, Hunt, the list goes infinitely on), there are some who seem to me so completely obsessed with voice-production values that the art of singing goes awry. This is solely about voice-enhancement, not about preserving the contour of the voice, or producing an intelligent, responsive, intense musical line. And working the text into the sound. Too few examples :
Sweet, Vanness, Blythe and (so help me God, kill me now) Zajick. While I admit that these are big, well-produced voices, I always fail to hear something personal, particular, in their vocal response. The sound can be thrilling when heard live (I heard Sweet and Zajick), but there’s not much to it besides sound and a general level of intensity.
Judged (perhaps unfairly) on the basis of the clips cited above, I fear that for me Meade seems to be following the steps of the second group. Still, she might develop into something else, more exciting for these ears.
One might add Voight (experienced ‘live’ upon several occasions) to the second group and (sorry all), Mariella Devia, the queen of uncommitted vocal pyrothecnics. I simply do not ‘get’ these singers.
I could not disagree more with either the original sentiment nor your gloss, at least with that portion which is not admittedly subjective (“I always fail to hear something personal . . .”)
Firstly, I can think of no reason why American singers should be singled out for a criticism of this type. Why not British singers? Or German singers when singing italian or french music? Etc.
In fact, when I look back over the last century, it seems to me that American-born and or -trained singers contributed mightily to the resurrection in singing which was so necessary after the Italians abandoned themselves to the ecstasy and agony of the verismo style. Callas, Horne, Price, Milnes, MacNeil, Merrill, Tucker, Steber, Arroyo, Verrett, Bumbry, were all singers of tremendous technical and musical accomplishment. (Hint while all had significant international careers singing Verdi and Puccini, they were also distinguished Mozartians (with the exception of Callas who was the most international of the lot – though even she idolized Ponselle rather than Cigna or Caniglia). I would note that with the possible exceptions of Steber (who had personal issues) and Callas, all of these singers had LONG careers at the top of the operatic profession. A sure sign to me that they were all technically proficient in a way that many Italian singers since WWI were NOT.
I expect that you would respond that your criticism does not relate to technical or musical proficiency. I understand that, but if so then what is your criticism? That American singers don’t speak to your personally, don’t seem sufficiently conversational (or text-oriented)? To which I would again ask, what is your point? That American’s are not culturally in tune with European linguistic values? That American singers lack linguistic facility?
Otherwise, you are simply expressing a dislike for certain singers in which case nationality seems entirely superfluous.
Sorry, but I get really frustrated by musical criticism that focuses on cultural or nationalistic issues. Music is universal. Either a singer gets it or he does not. Race, ethnic origin, nationality, have no place in discussion of musical performers.
I accept you criticism luvtennis and understand your disdain from my tendency to categorize singers on a cultural basis. Please remember that most of the singers brought up by yourself have featured on my post as wonderful examples of individualists. Yet I have seen quite a few American teachers working with students and I’m sorry to say, the obsession for technique seems paramount in their pedagogical armoury. I’ve heard singers whose pure, instrumental sound was boosted and pushed into unrecognizable vocal machines, with the sole intention of producing a larger sound, with better integrated registers. Well, the registers were so well integrated now that the actual pitch was sumberged in walls of vibrato.
It is no coincidence that Americans tend to disregard and despise the optional way of vocal production that slowly emerged during the late 70s up to the early 90s, meaning baroque singing. Some even consider the leaders in this particular field as amateurs (i.e. Kirkby). What’s wrong about a singer not being able to project in a 2000 seat monster hall? Most of the 17th to middle 19th century repertoire was conceived for much, much smaller halls. Europe has re-thought most of its attitude regarding this rep, and maybe it’s high time the North American muscial world follows in its steps. The baroque revolution has brought about a considerable re-assessment of vocal aptitude and attitude. And by all means, pure, instrumental singing does not have to be bland. People such as Nancy Argenta (Canadian), Julianne Baird (American), Arlenn Auger (also American) and Magdalena Kozena have shown us that it is possible. For a performance of Nozze, I’d rather hear a limpid toned, instrumental, legato-limbed countess (such as Malin Hartelius), than big wodges of sound, a la Vanness (who is considered a great Mozartean in the States, I wreck my brains to understand why), with legato and niceties of dynamics sacrificed on the altar of carrying-power. I trust that Hartelius will be completely inaudible in such a role at the Met, yet I care not one jot.
No one would agree more than myself regarding the decline of singing in Europe (especially in Italy) after the onslaught of Verismo, and the critical role American singers have played in the revival of opera in Europe after WWII. But many many singers coming from the States now are displaying one thing : volume, volume and more volume. Italy, of course, on the other hand of the scale, produces vocal disasters totally devoid of individuality, able to cope with such venues as the Arena di Verona. The only really significant and interesting 19th century reo OPERA singer (as opposed to baroque or salon-singing a-la Bartoli) that has emerged from Italy during the past 20 years or so is Anna Bonitatibus. The list goes on. The really interesting young singers which I have heard lately tend to come from Canada or Scandinavia. Certainly, miracles occur, such as Kaufmann. But the craft is slowly evaporating, and in its place emerge boredom, sameness and quantity instead of quality.
Also, forgot to mention the remarkable re-emergence of singing in France due to the Christie revolution, followed by Minkowski and Rousset. The only vaguely important French singers to emerge during the 70s were Michele Command and Nadine Denize (van Dam is Belgian). Yet during the past 20 years or so we have had (in varying degrees of success) Dessay, Delunsch, Piau, Petibon, Naouri, Dran, Massis, D’Oustrac, Stutzmann, Jaroussky, Courtis, Uria-Monzon, there are certainly more. All very individual as voices and artists. The Russian gang are also quite formidable, in the heavier rep.
I also agree that it is unfair to judge a singer by a clip. I have heard Carmela Remigio as Donna Anna, for example, and she was formidable live. Yet on video and audio she sounds miserable. You can’t have an inkling of how a voice SOUNDS live by hearing a recording. But you CAN judge a singer’s personality and artistic judgement, based on a recording. And judging by Meade’s Lucia duet, I hear only a very good student, obediently performing what she has been tought. There’s no streak of individual response to the text or the music, IMHO. But maybe it is early in the day and Norma is a different challenge than Lucia.
Chacun a son gout.
I don’t consider any of the singers that you mention to be of the first rank, except for Kaufmann and Auger. The rest are valuable artists who would likely be almost entirely unknown but for the early music revival. And still they are widely known mostly through recordings. Few have sung consistently at the great houses.
But I think your mention of Kirkby is most telling.
I used to adore her singing. I collected everything and attended the few appearances that she made in the states when I was very young. I loved the purity of her sound. I felt that she was a virtuoso of the first rank based on her recordings of Handel and Purcell.
Then, I heard her attempt to sing Mozart and the truth hit me. Kirkby is NOT a great singer. Nor would Handel have considered her a great singer. Mostly what she is a great mimic of style. Singing in a manner that she (or someone) believed at some point was stylistically apt for the music of that period.
Hogwash. No one can convince me that Handel expected one dimensional chirping from his singers. And for me, at least, most of the sopranos mentioned in your email fall into that category.
I would trade the vast majority of them for one dragged out, over portamentoed, phrase from La Fleming who IS a great singer, no matter how wayward she can often be.
For all the claims made about the Russian school, I think that Borodina is the only female singer of the first rank with a Russian surname to emerge in the last two decades that I can think of.
The rest were competition winners who burnt out quickly.
Now that I think about it American singers are looking pretty damn good to me.
Sorry, but I failed to include my assessments of some of your other singers (I know your are waiting with feverish anxiety):
Remigio – I have heard her records and live. I was not impressed. At best, she was a competent actress with a flexible voice. I heard nothing from her that would make me ever want to hear her again. I demand more from a singer singing one of the greatest operatic heroines.
Jaroussky – An abomination. As a rule, the only counter tenor that I can stomach is David Daniels, who is at least a real singer. If you doubt me, listen to his Nuits d’ete. Despite the madness of having him sing that piece, it’s actually pretty good. More sensual, more truly sung than anything that Ms. Delunsch has offered.
Dessay, Piau, Petibon – Dessay had an important voice and destroyed it. Piau is agile and that’s about it. Petibon should have stayed in the conservatoire where her eccentricities of demeanor and vocal production would be considered tres charmante.
Uria Monzon – I heard her sing Eboli in Houston, I think. The acting was adequate. The voice was ugly. Not acceptable. If there is one mezzo role that DEMANDS a glamorous voice, it’s Eboli.
Indeed, chacun a son gout and we seem to be partly on opposing ends of taste. Which is fine, because although no on side can convince the other, the arguments are interesting for their own sake.
I seem to be treading on quite a few people’s sympathies so maybe I should stop anyway
But just a few more things :
I don’t think Emma Kirkby is a good singer. She is perfect for most 17th century English music which is fine by me. And I DO love her Exsultate. Because it’s refreshing and straightforward. I like Handel sung with ‘full’ opera-size voices. Maybe it’s an anachronism, but that’s the way I like it, i.e. Inga Kalna singing Armida in Jacobs’ Rinaldo. Or JDD as Alcina. I think Handel’s dramatic writing requires many gradations of tone and declamatory power for which most real early 17th century singers are inappropriate. A good Poppea will be, at the most, a good Morgana, never a good Alcina or Ginevra etc. Likewise Cleopatra, although basically a ‘coloratura’ role, demands a vast palette of vocal colours and a full dramatic range. So no, Emma Kirkby was never fit for this.
I think the Russian school has produced quite a large number of really good to excellent singers, beside Borodina, never mind their vocal longevity – the grand Diadkova (a competetion winner? indeed?), Galouzin, Putilin, Grigorian, Larin, Rautio, Gorchakova(one of the grandest voices of the past 30 years, although sadly finished), Chernov, Hvorostovsky, Siurina, Netrebko, Leiferkus. I have heard quite a few of them live and they were fabulous.
Fleming… I will wisely abstain from re-opening THAT subject.
Incidentally, I HAVE heard Daniels’ Nuits d’Ete. I loved all his earlier forays (the Handel opera arias CD is one of the greatest vocal recitals ever commited to disc IMHO, fully on a par with Sutherland’s Prima Donna and Callas’ Lyrica and Coloratura arias. His Nuits d’Ete I registered as a vocal ‘stunt’. It certainly works on a purely technical level, but he seems to work so hard to surmount this vocal challenge that everything else is left unattended : individuality of phrasing, attention to [Berlioz's original] dynamics, and acute responsiveness to the text. This from a singer who has particularly impressed me with his declamatory power and responsiveness to the dramatic situation. No, I did not think his Berlioz was a success. I am in agony that I will never be able to hear LHL in this music.
I usually loathe whatever Petibon does but sometimes she can be thrilling. It’s not a small sound and when ‘on fire’ she can really deliver. But that doesn’t happen very often, I must admit. Most times she gets on my nerves.
sorry 2 posts above I meant “I do not think that Kirkby is a good HANDEL singer”.
As for Nuits d’ete, an example. I’d gladly exchange most performances I’ve experienced of Berlioz’ cycle live or on record for one word in Crespin’s version – the wistful, reaffirming smile in the voice at “souffler”, at the very end of L’ile inconnue. It always makes me think of the last shot in Queen Christina.
Maybe I’m asking for too much, but this is EXACTLY the kind of individual touch I think Berlioz demands and rarely gets. Daniels is very, very far from achieving that kind of individuality.
“Sorry, but I get really frustrated by musical criticism that focuses on cultural or nationalistic issues. Music is universal. Either a singer gets it or he does not. Race, ethnic origin, nationality, have no place in discussion of musical performers.”
Sorry, I am not getting it, I must be rather slow. After the above statement you go on and demolish (in 11.2.2.1) every non-American contemporary singer with the exception of Kaufmann and Borodina (no French, Italians or East Europeans need apply). Does it mean that “music is universal” and “a singer gets it” as long as they fit American tastes?
No. I was simply responding to CF’s list. I am not biased in the favor of American singers. But understand, I am rarely willing to trade vocal security, purity of tone, fine legato and good musicianship for good histrionics.
So while I recognize that Nina Stemme is a superb and important Brunnhilde, I prefer Jennifer Wilson, whose voice is more beautiful and technically complete, even though Wilson is at best a “sincere” actress while Stemme is a stunning tragedienne. But I Dame Anne Evans is a special favorite of mine in this rep. Brewer would be too if she showed up to sing it.
BTW, my favorite soprano of the last 20 years is Organosova. I think that Dmitra Theodossiu (sp?) had it in her to be a GREAT soprano, but sadly appears to have sung herself out at far too early an age. Miriciou seems to me to have been a truly great singer.
Anja Herteros also seems to be on the verge of becoming an important soprano.
In the end, I really enjoy singers whose joy in singing, in their craft, in the BEAUTY of the operatic voice. Listen to Organosova, although she made her name in early music and Mozart, those genres don’t define. What defines her singing is her love for the music and her intense desire to make the audience love her singing of that music. That’s why her singing in the Verdi Reqiuem is so glorious despite the fact that she is no Verdian. Why her Agathe is simply sublime – the most poised legato in this music since Rethberg and Lemnitz.
Luba loves to sing. Dessay? I never get the since that she loves to sing. I get the sense that she loves to perform. More power to her, of course.
There are so many typos in my last post. . . . I hate my proofreading.
Thanks for this, luvtennis. I think Harteros is a mightly impressive artist, stunningly successful in both Italian and German rep.
I love Wilson AND Stemme for different reasons. Why not enjoy both? And be glad that in such a poor age for late 19th century rep we have such two good Brunnhildes?
I agree that Orgonasova is one of the creamiest, purest voices to emerge during that past 30 years or so. I thought her Donna Anna and Amina were particularly successful, and her arias CD on NAXOS was a gem. But for me she lacks the necessary warmth and ability to communicate through the text, so much needed in the German rep. So no, I did not enjoy her Agathe. Her Konstanze was technically ravishing yet something essential was missing. I can’t really explain why she doesn’t sound to me to be a ‘natural’ in the German-language rep, except perhaps in the context of detailed comparative listening. Rethberg, Lemnitz (and I add Reining and Helletsgruber)? I don’t know. Maybe the vocal quality is comparabel in some way, but there is so much more in these sopranos’ achievements. A conviction perhaps, an ability to paint the text and ‘warm’ the phrases, built upon intimate knowledge with the Lieder rep, which is essentially the bread-and-butter of any German singer since the late 19th century.
OI, typos, proof reading etc. Basta. I’m going to bed.
CF–Remember, she hasn’t yet even embarked on her professional career at the time of these clips. I’d also ask you to go back and listen to the crescendo/decrescendo she takes on the word “ardenti” in the first statement of “Verrano a te.” Aided by a sympathetic rubato from the conductor, her phrasing at this moment makes the whole phrase soar.
I guess I’m saying that I know exactly what you’re talking about when you describe “American-itis” in singers, and it was exactly what I expected to hear at Caramoor the other night. But indeed, Meade exceeded my expectations considerably. So I would urge you to keep listening.
From those clips I don’t hear a Norma voice, but maybe I am wrong. I always love to hear that a new Norma has emerged. I am suspicious though, because Meade’s Lucia clips do not make me think she would impress me as Norma. I think she is the “underdog” du jour, and people are willing to love her Norma right now, because she is new and up-and-coming. I remember how the majority of the cognoscenti did the same with Jane Eaglen when she appeared as Norma in Seattle taking over for Vaness, and when Hasmik Papian started singing Norma at all the regional houses. Nothing but raves. But as soon as Eaglen and Papian sang this role at the Met, the claws suddenly came out and they were considered horrible in the role, despite their singing not being that much different from the available recordings that everyone raved about or thought were “okay.” I suspect Meade’s Caramoor Norma will be raved about, but if she ever dares to sing it at the Met, the tide will turn and the claws will come out.
Is JJ going to Chautauqua this weekend to hear Barbara Quintilliani in Norma and compare her to Meade?
I’m fascinated that so many people who have never heard Ms. Meade in person, and, depending solely on either youtube clips or a radio studio recording with piano of ONE aria, feel eminently qualified to make such long and detailed pronouncements about her voice, role suitability, future, weight, career guidance, etc., etc. while at the same time dismissing the views of those who have actually heard/seen her in person.
Indeed. Hell, I HAVE seen her live (Ernani at the Met) and while I thought she was very good and has a big future of some sort in front of her, I don’t feel qualified to make such pronouncements.
Exactly. Especially when critics who are paid to write about music and attended Meade’s Norma in person have been uniformally enthusiastic about what they heard.
JJ’s review is linked at the top of this post. Here are reviews from Alex Ross (The New Yorker), Mike Silverman (The AP) and Tony T. (NYT).
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/alexross/
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jdxjwk8Qu4QcPzDvBYCQYsoEAAawD9GSVGKO0
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/arts/music/13norma.html
yes, let’s leave it to the critics.
obviously they speak for all of us
You’re entitled to your own opinion, rommie, but to keep dismissing Angela Meade without having heard her just makes you look like a fool.
http://www.operanews.com/operanews/templates/content.aspx?id=16335
I think Meade needs to be heard live to be properly appreciated (I’ve not yet heard her live myself). I’ve also read that her voice has developed quite a bit in the last few years.
We should also remember that she is at the beginning of her career, which means that she is going to be less consistent than more established singers and that her voice is still developing. So, judging her based on a clip heard here or there is even more dubious than usual.
From what I’ve heard of Meade on the internet, I can say that I would rather listen to her than Fleming, Netrebko, Gheorghiu, Urmana and Voigt. But what we really need are voices of the sort that existed in the era of Ponselle, Rethberg, Flagstad, Martinelli, Gigli, Melchior, etc. And such voices don’t exist anymore. It’s a sad situation.
enzo,
to make the kind of statement you must compare live performances of all of the above singers, I mean you must have heard all recently to be able to compare.
All those people stopped singing before I was born. Most (all?) of them died before I was born (I say “most” because I didn’t look them up). But I guess I should stop enjoying myself at the opera and go be sad at home.
Don’t worry, one day us youngsters will be able to turn to the whippersnappers and wax rhapsodic about the divine Renee and Trebs and how nobody really knows how to sing Armida/Bolena today…
Perhaps we all should.
C/F @ 11.2.1 “Yet I have seen quite a few American teachers working with students and I’m sorry to say, the obsession for technique seems paramount in their pedagogical armoury.”
I would respond that the voice teachers are doing their job. Teaching technique is what they are there for. It’s the responsibility of coaches, not voice teachers, to teach style and draw out the individuality of each artist. If singers emerge from conservatories merely as singing machines, it’s either the fault of the coaches or a system which does not provide for sufficient coaching, not the fault of voice teachers for doing their job in teaching technique.
Also, I would argue that a solid technique is the foundation of a great career. We’ve seen too many artist reach heights and crash before they are 40 because of technical weakness (Rolando Villazon anyone).
And Suliotis, and Cura, and Susan Dunn, and Jane Eaglen, and Sylvia Sass, and Moffo, and Carreras and the list goes on and on and on…
I have to agree with Arianna here, we are talking about 2 different things here (at least as I see them):
1. is the actual technique, which in the case of many American-trained singers is some of the best to be had anywhere.
2. is the ability of said singer to use his/her technique to produce a performance that goes beyond the mechanics of singing and into the realm of art.
While I certainly can see how there is a certain emphasis in technique in a voice studio, Arianna is right in saying that the studio is the right place for that kind of talk.
Unfortunately, many singers do not see the benefit of a coach, or simply can not afford one. That is the reality of the situation. At the same time, we have teachers who are actually discouraging their students from taking chances (saw it with mine owne eyes) and insisting that they all do it the same way, making them all sound the same.
I think part of the problem with several of the singers (specially in America) is the fact that they lack many of the opportunities some of their European colleagues had, either for lack of opportunities or for lack of encouragement.
Let’s not forget that being (or wanting to be) an opera singer is still a matter of ridicule in many places here in the USA. Kids grow thinking that Il Divo, The Irish Thunder and Andrea Bocelli are high culture/art. Music education and encouraging people to learn languages is discouraged in too many households (Why do I need to learn another language, I’m never going anywhere?)and this kind of education (or lack thereof) shows.
By the time many European kids come out of high school and college they speak several languages with various degrees of fluency; how many young American singers can you name that could speak more than one language when they go to and out of College? I remember many years ago watching a Miss Universe where the lady who won spoke 5 languages and she was barely 25 if that much! That kind of education brings a different level of thinking and performing, something that many American singers lack when they start their training.
I agree, there is a lack of individuality in the way the current crop of singers coming from the USA show. To say that it is too much emphasis on technique is too broad a statement that does not take into consideration several things in said singer’s background; as well as the state of the education system in this country.
Just saying…
Let me add that I would also put some of the blame squarely at the feet of several composers who stopped being collaborators and developed a God complex. Thanks to their behavior, many more thought it was acceptable for conductors who had never taken a voice lesson in their lives to actually think they were experts in singing.
This situation brought a homogenization of the performing style that is now, finally, being pushed away. Singers were labeled as difficult if they had an opinion, or expressed it, or even if they actually had the balls of doing research and come to the table as well prepared, or better than the conductor. Again, this is not a charge that I throw freely, as I saw it with “mine owne eyes”.
In that kind of environment, how else do you expect singers to behave, then the people getting the contracts and the adulation are not necessarily the most talented but the best cock suckers of the ones who say as they are told and do not express an opinion under any circumstance?
Which composers? I assume you’re talking about the late 19th century, in which case its a bit long to be holding a grudge, no?
I can’t think of one living composer- except perhaps Boulez, who has probably earnt it- who could be accused of a ‘god complex’.
Singers also need to recognise that they necessarily aren’t the expert in the room on tempo or staging.
Also, the increasingly truncated rehearsal periods don’t exactly encourage experimentation and group-think.
I’m an idiot, conductors, some composers too, but that is a different story.
I agree Lindoro.
I think today’s orchestras are just TOO DAMN LOUD. There are too many conductors who don’t seem to understand that it is THEIR responsibility to ensure that singers can be heard without having to strain and push for volume. I suspect that you can place a good deal of the blame for the pervasive lack of vocal security among today’s larger-voiced singers squarely on the shoulders of our conductors.
Audiences are also to blame of course. Loud equals good for far to many classical music goers.
Oh sob, how very sad it is that Bocelli is now thought to be “high culture”–I’m going to an ash pit and cry!!
Have to challenge you, Lindoro.
I think the lack of VOCAL individuality is a global thing at this point.
The European artists cited by CF may have all sorts of quirky interesting characters, and several are exciting dramatic performers.
But VOCAL distinctiveness. No.
It can never be said too often how fortunate we are that the Post has seen fit to give La Cieca’s friend and protégé J.J. a platform. Had I not already been planning to attend the NORMA this Friday, my confidence in his opinion would have led me to the woods for this one. I hope by now that the newspaper recognizes him as their chief intellectual ornament.
(I understand that La Cieca has now taught him everything she knows, formidable as that claim must be. I hope she respects him as a mind and is not just using him for his manly frame.)
I hope by now that the newspaper recognizes him as their chief intellectual ornament.
“Intellectual ornament?” Ah, so that’s what they mean when they call me “feigele schmuck!”
Angela Meade -- Casta diva -- Norma -- 2010
Angela Meade -- Ah! bello a me ritorna -- Norma -- 2010
Angela Meade -- Keri Alkema -- Emmanuel di Villarosa -- Norma act I finale -- 2010
Why the usual cut in the canonic section? It changes the perception of Adalgisa’s character. I admire Crutchfield’s imagination and musicality with ornamentation, but, if you’re going for a “period” feel on this front, why then play a version of the score that has little to do with Bellini’s period?
A little odd to say that it has “little to do with Bellini’s period” when Bellini himself made the cut – in fact tore the omitted repetition out of his autograph score, so that those who put it back can only do so from sources copied before the premiere.
Thank you so much for these clips. This is seriously good singing by any measure. From these clips alone, I’d say that the raves about Meade’s Norma are justified.
Am I the only one who is puzzled that there were so many comments about Meade’s Norma before these clips went up but very few since?
I share your puzzlement, Kashania–or at least, I’d love to read further commentary from listeners more knowledgeable than myself. On the other hand, I’m also hesitant to speak about a Norma from a few excerpts, since the role is so various and, I think, draws its impact from the singer’s capacity for encompassing that variety. The excitement in the reviews of those who actually heard the whole thing suggests that Meade’s performance did produce that impact. The excerpts alone give me primarily that satisfaction one feels when a singer seems at home in a role–it’s so great not to have to worry, and to be able to enjoy what the music offers. My main response to the Act I finale was that I’d forgotten what a terrific finale it is–which is surely at least in part a tribute to Meade’s accomplishment. And I won’t soon forget that high D!
Eman–I don’t have the Caramoor program notes in front of me, but in them Crutchfield explains that Bellini systematically went through the score and crossed out all passages that repeated melodic material for a third time. I think that the “canonic section” you refer to is in fact the third statement of the main strain of the trio.
Crutchfield also says that Bonynge got a hold of manuscript materials that he used as the basis for his Norma, performances. Again, I don’t have the source in front of me, but if memory serves me right, the first Sutherland/Bonynge Norma recording (at least) includes a further stanza in the trio. Is this your reason for asserting that the version above “has little to do with Bellini’s period”?
This was originally posted on opera-l – postscript below
I’m going to be a lone dissenting voice here.
Here is Angela Meade’s “Casta diva” and the cabaletta, now on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QMwJgWZSh0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_RzcBHIE6M
Meade’s voice is a real find: big, solid and impressively even. The voice flames
out pretty amazingly on the topmost part of her range – Do I hear an Empress
in FroSch??
But her accounts of these two pieces sounds heavy, many vowels covered,
and sustained or pushed tones are slightly tremulous; consonants are dropped
here and there. In the “Casta diva,” where are the shadings, the smoothly
tapered legatos, the hushed veneration? In the cabaletta, the voice is just
too heavy – or too heavily produced – where are the fleet, sinuous, sensual
cascades of pearl-like scales? They are bumpy, slightly aspirated here.
I don’t like the variations, especially at “tempra o diva” ; I don’t care if
they’re ‘Crutchfield correct,’ the alterations sound too self-conscious an
attempt to be different. The original is so much more beautiful and elegant.
My take: this voice is too vibrant, the vibrato too prominent for this music. It
needs a silkier, more liquid and straighter tone, one capable of all range of
shadings (Meade tries here but it sounds pulled back, slightly congested, self-
conscious rather than organically applied). Technically, the vocal production
itself sounds to me to be produced too far back in the throat…I’d like more of
a laryngeal float or a more frontal resonance: if she brought it up higher and
more forward, there would not be so much excessive tremolo on some of the
sustained tones. The way she sings, or was trained, it DOES give a bigger,
meatier, darker sound that fills the house, but Norma needs a real toning down
of heavy, ripe vibratos. The tonal, orchestral tapestry is almost Classical: it
needs the sort of fine-hewn mastery of vocal shadings of Lilli Lehmann and
Callas at her best: their way of dropping in the magical phrase-taperings, are
essentials to singing Bellini. And you can say Gruberova is the wrong voice for
Norma till the cows jump over the moon, but she sings it with the required
dynamism and sensitivity: it’s the *existence of choice* in her training. I
easily allow the opinion of a personal choice that Gruberova’s is wrong – *for
them* : but that does not remove her factual capabilities of mastering the
essentials of bel canto.
Meade, with her large, thoroughbred voice, has not mastered these
essentials. Not blaming her for it: she hasn’t trained or maybe hasn’t reached
the point of knowing how to exploit placement, and vocal effects as a result:
she may be content with just honing what she has in the only way she knows
how.
But the real litmus test will be whether she can undertake Bellini’s other roles
= Amina, Elvira, Beatrice and Imogene. A real bel canto singer can undertake
the majority of Bellini’s roles. The practice of assigning Norma to a singer
simply because bad tradition has caused a conditioned assumption – has got
to stop.
True, Meade sings Norma better than (LEAGUES better) than what we heard
at the MET in recent years…and I’m thrilled it was enjoyed, thrilled that
Meade did so well with it…but it’s not for me.
But this is an opera that I’ve studied for the better part of a decade, starting
with the score: and it is still the most miscast role and opera ever. Thing is,
Norma isn’t that difficult a role. It sounds it because the effort produced by
unsuitable voices and techniques makes it sound terrifyingly unsingable. What
rot! Bellini’s score is one of the most singable ever. It’s a sobering reality:
there simply aren’t that many voices that have techniques good enough to
handle it.
As for Meade – she deserves applause for tackling this role, and I mean it
sincerely. The fact that I disagree with her suitability for the role and how she
sings it means no disrespect or besmirching of her artistry or of her.
*****
I realize my statement that the role “isn’t that difficult” is, ahem, a bit hazardous…an O-lister made the point:
“Lilli Lehmann said it was easier to sing three Bruennhildes than one
Norma. Rosa Ponselle said “I had a peculiar voice, there were roles
others found hard that I found easy and roles others found easy that I
found hard. Then there are roles like Norma, they are hard no matter
who sings them.” Maria Callas said Norma was harder than Isolde. So if Lehmann, Ponselle and Callas all say it is hard, I would think
there must be something to it.”
My response:
yes: but Lehmann wasn’t trained for bel canto and had to learn – she sang 3
Bruennhildes first: Ponselle had problems with her upper register (she had to
transpose what – a third of the score? it goes very high at times) – and I’m
not that enamored of her casta diva -dee-hee-hee -hee va and her
bumpy ‘ah, bello’ – and Callas had vocal problems that exposed parts of her
voice in Norma that Isolde doesn’t. (or didn’t, rather…there goes my tenses again…)
*****
I think Lehmann found Norma so difficult because Bellinian cantilena and coloratura is, really, a pinnacle in itself; Ponselle was scared of anything above an A, and Norma goes there frequently; Callas simply could not get her voice to cooperate as she might, and NORMA, with its transparent orchestration, exposed her constantly: Isolde is awash in a sea of sound. And here’s the point: NORMA’s score is not at all heavy, in fact it is amazingly diaphanous and meant to accompany the vocal line rather than be in tandem – or in competition with it. This tells me that it was not written for the dramatic soprano as WE know it: I think voices in Bellini’s time were not so pushed, were lighter, straighter-toned and more slender in quality in order to handle the line and fioriture. Giuditta Pasta sang both Amina and Norma.
I think that Pasta, like Callas, knew how to sing both these roles – lightening th voice for one, applying more “strength’ to the other. When I heard the live 1978 Norma from Houston, I was surprised to hear how well Renata Scotto handled the transition. To be sure, she weighted the voice very forcefully at times, but she showed, effectively, I thought, how to contrast her approach with that of Amina. In 1978 Scotto still had enough vocal poise to make a statement in the role, and most importantly, she showed more affinity for coloring the text than anyone else at the time. Bottom line, too: Scotto’s Norma, at least from this time, was not nearly the disaster it was painted to be. Actually, f you look back on it, her assumption of the role was a brave, brave one, but it needed to be done: Norma became the domain of NON-bel canto singers, and this is the problem, why it BECAME a problem.
First I want to thank you for this post – it’s fascinating! But I have some questions: What has transpired to make people think that the “dramatic” soprano sound is right for Norma, if I am reading you right. Is the word “dramatic” how you characterize the too “vibrant vibrato” and the too far back in the throat, covered sound that you hear? and if you would rather point towards a source for my answers, I would gladly appreciate it!
This is all very interesting and thought-provoking. It makes me wonder, though, about the comparable silence regarding C. Bartoli’s recent assumption of the role. From the one review I saw (a few days ago), it sounds like she may have taken the part in this direction (lighter, to be simple), and may have done so to good effect.
LPR
the long post says all the right things but it’s nuts as applied to Meade – except possibly about the vibrato being a little prominent on a few notes. Not on others. Maybe nerves. But the rest – well, different strokes….there ARE shadings, there IS tapering of phrases and variety of sound (compare the Casta Diva to the start of the fast part of the terzetto, “Vanne si”). This is not “heavy” singing, not by a long stretch.
okok. i admit, i may have been too hard on meade. for judging her before hearing her live, i apologize for such foolery. but i probably do not still buy her as the new Norma. at least not yet.
but thank you for a great academic essay regarding Norma. it is my favorite opera that i have never heard justified live: the times ive heard and seen it live at the met i fell asleep…