Since I began to study singing as a student, I've heard, read, listened, pondered, argued, and quietly spoken about what makes up great singing. And I have been forever puzzled and bemused (and occasionally horrified) by the myriad opinions on what "great singing" means. From a technique stand point, most students and teachers worth their salt will say they strive for singing from lowest note to highest note that is all of a piece--no discernible breaks, no "weaknesses" in one register or another, fluidity between all of them. Singing should be free of strain, free of a wobbly, uncontrolled vibrato, free of pitch problems, free of a breathy, unsubstantial "core" sound. Dynamics should be possible high or low, leaps should be reached easily, words should be heard and understood (except, perhaps, at the highest notes), "coloring" the voice to express emotions should be one of the ultimate goals.
So why do so many "famous" singers, or, hell, even EMERGING singers lack so many of these technical accomplishments? And why do so many people "worship" these singers and "despise" singers who DO have great technique and great expression? Why do so many opera "fans" have a litany of "great" singers from the past that they use to "prove" singers of today are so inferior? When did "loud" become synonymous with "emotional"? Why can so many "experts" lack the skills to hear poor pitch, differentiate between "coloring" the voice rather than having problems with certain registers which force a different sound, understand "technique"?
I have no idea. But the MET roster is filled with singers with what are (to me obvious) vocal deficiencies. The MET seems unable or unwilling to find performers for the more taxing roles that are not ridden with vocal "faults" (Domingo being the exception that proves the rule.) Of the roster of returning singers performing the heavier works, only Violetta Urmana can be said to be vocal proficient for the works she sings--but even she can strain at climaxes. NO ONE ELSE SINGING THE HEAVIER REP AT THE MET HAS ANY BUSINESS DOING IT. Yes, I just said it and I mean it. And, yes, I know that many popular singers are singing these roles anyway. That doesn't mean they should be. Not if the definition of "great" singing is in those attributes students and teachers strive to instill. But this does not just extend to the most extremely difficult works. I find it hard to believe that some singers who have careers in Europe like, say, Anne Schwanewilms, who sing medium weight roles, have no place at The MET just because they do not command a high enough public profile. (Or of a previous generation, Inga Nielsen, or Hillevi Martinpelto.) Where is baritone Roderick Williams? Why is a singer with such a beautiful, well-trained , expressive voice not being heard regularly here? He's singing constantly in Europe. Or why was Robert Brubaker only used in "one-off" roles occasionally when he was in his prime? He could easily handle medium weight tenor roles and did so (and probably still is doing so) in other parts of the world. Or why was Bruce Ford not a household name in Rossini and Donizetti? He is as good a singer of these roles as we have had on records. But he is now singing a small tenor role in Armida. Hardly a way to treat such an artist, even if he is in the latter part of his career. All of these singers have left audio and / or video proof of their worth. All these recordings were readily available (and some still are.) So they are (or were) hardly unknown. But they were infrequent (and certainly unheralded) performers here, if at all.
And who is filling these roles instead? A well-recorded (but why?) and well-received soprano of wobbly, strained, forced but certainly loud singing who is being acclaimed as the last in a long line of "great" Strauss / Wagner singers. A once well-recorded tenor whose once-lovely lyrical voice is now thread-bare and shrill through singing roles he has no business singing. Not one but TWO "new" very lyric sopranos whose hype (and lavish applause and recording contracts) have put them into a limelight they cannot bear up under. (Ten years or less and they will be gone.) An American singing "actress" of more emotive skills than singing ones who sings all the mid-weight Italian--esp. Puccini--works (but shouldn't be.) And her American "cousin" who made her name in rarer Verdi and has now moved into even heavier Verdi roles where her lack of beautiful tone, limited facility and little to no beauty in her top fifth or so, and obvious "breaks" between registers will now become even more apparent. (At least that she is not showcased the way she once was...at least not at the MET.) An Italian tenor whose "skill" is singing loudly and with a noticeable legato. Subtlety and characterization and individuality are completely missing. And this is but a short list. (I did not name names because that would be impolite and unbecoming a fellow singer. But if you are aware of who is singing at the MET...and around America...you can probably guess who I am writing about.)
My big question is "WHY?" If no one can sing Turandot...don't do Turandot. If you can't cast The Ring Cycle with appropriate singers, don't mount it. Is ticket selling all, artistry beside the point? It's such a cynical way to think, but I fall into cynicism. Of course, Fleming, Dessay, Hampson, Flores, Graham, Blythe, Di Donato, Gheorghiu, the ever-young Domingo, even such elder statesmen as (Thomas) Allen, Opie, Langridge, and Tomlinson, (just to name male British singers) can still be heard. And they are the reasons I go.
No comments:
Post a Comment