Hi Julia, I know you are requesting comments (I am also an opera singer! ) Unfortunately the truth of the matter is that this is a heated topic that most people are scared to comment on. There was a “controversial” (by reputation) channel called “this is opera” which also had a Facebook page about 7-8 years ago or so. This particular channel’s purpose was to promote the “old school” method of singing. The admins had to remain anonymous, supposedly receiving threats from people in power saying they would never gig again if a name was found out. Some of their original videos were saved by a fan, Re-uploaded, and can be viewed on the “this is opera archive” RUclips channel, which compares directly historical videos with modern singing, if you are curious about the content. There are other resources in addition to the current video you are reacting to, with many primary resources: books entitled “we sang better” and “how we sang” by James Anderson. I will say that there are singers out there with the “old school” sound, and they are gigging. Especially in Europe, where that sound is more familiar to audiences.
What was done to This is opera was insane, especially one of the people who most hated and harassed as well as slandered they person behind the account turned out to be a child molestor
@@carlpacheco2058 Who are you talking about? Philippe or Silver? Also TiO was a large group of people, not one person. I would know since I was in that circle.
Early recordings show the singers displaying clearer, far more solid and easy registers than we’ve become used to, that’s for sure, even singers from the 1950’s sound so much clearer and solid compared to most contemporary operatic singers who distort every vowel and artificially lower the larynx or sing with undeveloped or uncoordinated registers
Something Christa Ludwig mentioned in one of her late interviews was that it's now very hard to tell one singer apart from another. She says that you used to be able to tell who the singer was after only hearing a few notes. You know immediately that it was Domingo, or Pavarotti, or Callas, or Price, or Tebaldi, etc. Another thing I have noticed is the epidemic of the shaking jaw in singers, where they look like they're chewing when they sustain a note. Even Lise Davidsen cannot sustain a note without chewing. Also, singers have become terrified of the chest register, where even mezzos can no longer produce the sepulchral low notes we used to hear from the great mezzos and even some sopranos of the past. Also, apart form Lisette Oropesa, nobody seems to be able to sing coloratura legato and without gargling and aspirating, and again apart from her, nobody seems to be able to truly trill, but they bray like a goat and call it a trill.
Speaking from experience, she really does know her stuff, and all that the bel canto technique does is try and make singing as easy and economical as possible while training the voice to be flexible and accurate. I know I like the approach.
Regarding the old school vs new school examples shown here, I would advocate for the golden mean between the two. Netrebko, like many modern singers, has a vibrato that is so wide that the pitch is obscured. The early 20th Century singers seem to have very little tone. The sweet spot for me is about 1950. Tebaldi and Callas were at there prime. Corelli would soon rise. And Rae Woodland herself (the voice teacher of Phantoms of the Opera) would have fit into this period. By the way, Rae Woodland sounded FANTASTIC here! She was great. To me, that is the sound that today's opera singers should emulate.
My name is Eugen, and while I am not a singer-though I truly wish I were-I come from a different realm of music. I am a historically informed violinist, dedicating the last decade to the research and performance of repertoire spanning from the second half of the 18th century to the early 20th century. My work delves into understanding the stylistic evolution during this time, especially how performance practices shifted, and how these shifts impacted the music we hear today. The historically informed performance (HIP) movement, in which I am deeply involved, does not seek to dismiss or invalidate the developments of the 20th century, nor the practices of today’s musicians. Rather, it strives to enrich our collective musical taste by uncovering what occurred historically, and why certain changes took place. In many ways, we are asking questions about the why-why were certain traditions lost or replaced? What were the driving forces behind these transformations? The results of this research are often striking. Prior to the 20th century, musicians were not just interpreters-they were improvisers, composers, and actors. They followed traditions that spanned from the 17th through the 19th centuries, traditions that were later forgotten or sidelined. Much of this shift is attributed to the modernist perspective, which emerged prominently in the late 19th century with figures like Wagner. However, this modernist viewpoint, while impactful, was not immediately universal. It wasn’t until a couple of generations later that certain pedagogical approaches-such as those popularized by Carl Flesch and Ivan Galamian in violin-ushered in a stricter adherence to new interpretive norms. One of the most profound changes, in my view, is the loss of improvisation among classical musicians. The interpretive traditions that arose in the 20th century, while valuable, often encourage musicians to follow the interpretations of their teachers or the critiques of the press. In doing so, we lose a vital aspect of music’s original intent: its spontaneity. Regarding the content of this video, where the discussion focuses on where opera went wrong, I believe the presenter touches on crucial points. The way we perform music by composers such as Bellini, Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Meyerbeer, Puccini, and others today differs significantly from how it was originally conceived. The 20th century brought with it a new approach, which in many ways is positive, yet also limiting in certain respects. One of the major shifts we see today is the rise of massive music education programs, which, while expanding access, also raise questions about the homogenization of performance styles. Should we return to singing opera in its historical style? I don’t believe we should confine ourselves exclusively to these historical methods. As artists, we have the responsibility to bring our own creative interpretations to the table. That said, I do believe we should embrace the freedom to experiment-improvisation, in particular, should be a part of our exploration. Why, for instance, should portamento-an expressive device so integral to legato-be discarded? Why not use the full range of techniques, like real legato or true staccato, or experiment with different kinds of trills? A significant reason for these omissions stems from technical concerns. Many modern performers avoid portamento and other nuanced techniques because they present difficulties in post-production, especially when editing recordings. Top-level producers and engineers often discourage their use for these practical reasons. Vibrato, too, is employed frequently to mask minor intonation issues, which, in a world of recordings that are played thousands of times, can draw criticism. Not every musician today has the same confidence in their technical foundation, and vibrato can serve as a way to smooth over these imperfections. Furthermore, we must consider the context of today’s opera houses. Modern theaters are often larger than those of the past, and many singers today do not possess the powerful voices that characterized the elite performers of the 19th century. It’s important to remember that during the 19th century, music education was highly exclusive. Only the top few were allowed the opportunity to study music seriously, and from that elite group, only the very best made it to the stage. This selectiveness resulted in an incredibly high standard of performance. In conclusion, while I agree that the modern approach has brought many benefits, I believe we should also look back to history and incorporate the rich, forgotten traditions of the past.
Art and singing is subjective, so its hard to say whether there is a right answer; and this topic is very touchy for modern singers as it threatens anyone who calls themself a singer nowadays. That being said, as someone who started their operatic singing training only listening to "modern singers" (1970's and onward), and now only really listens to singers from before 1970, I can say there is a huge difference in how it has affected my singing and my sense of style. All I would say is: listen to everything. Build your own opinions. There's a lot of teachers and information out there, and it can be easy to let others tell you how to make your music because they have more degrees than you and claim to be more learned. I know the process of listening to those old recordings can be difficult due to the alien nature of the sound and poor recording quality (especially the ones from beginning of recorded history to around the 1950's and 60's, which in my opinion hold the finest operatic singing ever recorded) but the benefits of becoming familiar with these voices and what they have to teach us are monumental. As a young operatic tenor who is working at one of the major opera companies in the United States and is in the midst of building a "modern" career, I can say confidently that I would not be where I am without these "ghosts of the past" to help light the way. Not all old opera singing is good, and not all modern singing is bad, but the power lies in our ability to build our own opinions about how we want to use our voices, and one cannot do that effectively without first educating oneself on all there is to listen to. Then you decide who you want to be.
even speech sounds different today, so much fry in voices.. no wonder when they sing you hear so much buzz. Just listen to some interviews how Joan Sutherland or Brigitte Nilsson sounded when they spoke. Maybe not exactly like they’re singing, but their voice sounds extremely clear and pure even when they are speaking. Due to the prevalence of pop singing we have lost the taste for proper vocal sound, and so audiences are not discriminating
I can agree with much of this, but the point can be made without knocking commercial vocals. Commercial is it's own technique and sensibility that when someone trained more classically does it, you can likely tell pretty quickly and it doesn't sound quite like it should. I can say this from experience. Same goes for when commercial singers attempt a more classical/legit sound. Though I pivoted to commercial for my current job, digging into it has actually helped open my classical sound back up and in many ways, commercial is freeing in a way that classical sometimes isn't. Classical and commercial musicians can learn a lot from each other if each is willing to do so, and I love bouncing back and forth between the camps, it certainly keeps boredom at bay!
I am not a fan of many modern day opera singers, but people who say all modern opera singers are trash always use some of the worst examples of old singers to back up their point. I prefer listening to the Melocchi school singers (Corelli, Del Monaco) to get my fix of drama (I'm a tenor).
The modern generation is pathetic. They despise the knowledge accumulated over centuries, their voices are thin, guttural, and their high notes sound more like squeaks. A generation that thinks it is very intelligent but that will eventually disappear from the history of opera. They lack refinement, an understanding of the complexity of opera, and good interpretations. It is rare to find a singer who conveys truth in his or her interpretations. Compare any aria sung today with the good singers of the past and the difference becomes obvious.
What's the point of singing 'the old way' if no opera houses will hire you. Opera has evolved just like every other art form. Thats not good or bad. It's just the way it is
I think both modern opera and "old school" and HIP singers all sound goo in their own right. But I do love the older sound of less vibrato, and connecting the runs. But we must bever say that one singer sounds bad. It is fact that some voices are not to our liking, but that is our own taste. I, personally, don't like Flemming's voice, or Pavarotti's, but they put in way more hours than I ever would, so I can't say they're bad. I like her historically informed videos, and perhaps the composers of old would agree, but every century and generation will make changes. I love baroque music but it fell out of fashion, and now we have Taylor Swift. Oh well, can't do much about it
I have watched her in the past and it is good to hear other thoughts on it. I am a lover of singing and learning. I watched all the "this is opera" videos, and I really feel they have a point. I think that to say Anna Nebreko is always bad is incorrect though. The live voice has good days and bad days. I think some of her songs are really beautiful. The thing that I have been trying to figure out for a while is the middle range with opera. Some famous sopranos sound great on the high notes, but try to bring the head down so far they loose power and clarity. Here is a video that illustrates that. ruclips.net/video/0eHvmdAhQzQ/видео.htmlsi=9r7dBqHgnxWc2UQG My favorite lately is Nacqui all'affanno... Non più mesta: sung by Frederica von Stade. ruclips.net/video/J67vh5DRURY/видео.htmlsi=ODd-7WLTPhmvt4Xi Her upper and lower voice is smooth and even and she sings all the runs and ornaments like they are just part of the conversation instead of moving around or contorting her face with the music. She just sounds natural and amazing. I have seen some videos on original pronunciation in Shakespeare. They are so interesting because they show that Shakespeare was spoken in a brogue much more common to the average people of the time instead of the received pronunciation- or the accent that we identify with a Shakespearian actor today. ruclips.net/video/y2QYGEwM1Sk/видео.htmlsi=uD4v8PtHiRhdUcpO It brings it down to earth, allows it to flow much better, and even brings out many rhymes and puns that don't work with modern English. My point is, I think opera turned into something that doesn't resonate as well with the masses as it used to.
"Some famous sopranos sound great on the high notes, but try to bring the head down so far they loose power and clarity" That's possibly because their high notes are not really correctly produced either. They are produced through constriction. If they were not, then there would be much more connection and consistency with the lower sounds too. Constriction can sound 'pretty' (arguably) if not pushed too much. The problems and ugliness begins when they have to overpower an orchestra on those high notes with that kind of approach. Recordings may also hide this problem because of microphone placement (closer to or over the stage).
I love singers but cannot appreciate opera. Been trying to learn more about it, like some pieces but generally still dislike. Wobble makes it sound terrible to my ears and I tend to agree with Phantoms of the Opera and like some of the older ways of singing that This is Opera also pointed out. When I hear that such and such is famous and renowned then I just resign myself to fact that I still don’t get it. I’ll probably get roasted but would prefer to hear Whitney Houston, Josh Groban or Celine Dion instead. Modern opera has to accept that accept that something is wrong if more and more people fail to get engaged. I guess that’s where musical theater has taken over.
Cierto. La ópera hoy en día, no se reconoce. Siento decirlo, pero es la verdad. La técnica se ha confundido, falta expresividad, emotividad…y lo peor de todo es escuchar cantantes, que no cantan toda la partitura, omiten notas porque no pueden sostener una línea de canto,! Una ausencia de legato, forte, core….y la gente ni se entera¡ En fin vamos muy mal. Saludos cordiales
This is the precise point of Phantoms of the Opera and This Is Opera: we are not being given a proper demonstration of what opera is SUPPOSED TO sound like (or what it CAN sound like!); only ensured that what we are hearing the last 30 years MUST be correct because the person is “famous”. Yet, when your ear grows tired of a sound, that’s a red flag! Thanks for your comment!
@@brianlandrytenor This. So much. Just because Anna is famous doesn't mean that Ziazan was wrong. She is 100% right. The excessively wobbly vibratos are only disguising being out of tune, I can't make out the text, etc. That isn't opinion, that's fact. I'm honestly shocked that Anna, and anyone who sings like this, has a voice at all, it's SO heavy sounding and I wonder how any of them hasn't had a major vocal injury yet. That's also related to how almost everyone in current opera sounds like this and it got homogenous. Back before this shift, this wasn't the case. There was no where near the level of homogenous sound that there is now. My voice hasn't been welcome on opera stages in a very long time, and it's saddening. If I tried to sing how the industry currently expects people to sound, my voice would die within a few days, likely less.
11:37 "the fact that he was saying that was trash". Actually, he was making very specific points and it's disappointing that you, as a clearly schooled singer, don't seem to address any of this. You're making lots of faces when listening to that 1908 Meyerbeer recording. Do you have an argument that you can verbalize?
Just because Netrebko is famous doesn't mean she's good. This video isnt meant to be funny in the way you think it is. There's a whole load of truth in it. If you want wobble, unclear vowels, Baroque "specialists" who can't trill, you're very welcome.
I love opera nowadays. The historical recordings often sound weird (and I'm not talking about the quality of the recording itself which of course doesn''t help).
I kind of agree. They sound out of tune to me but I can't tell if that's the quality of the recording or not. I will say that their voices do sound healthier as many of the recordings are older performers from the 19th century which is impressive. Many 20th century singers blow out their voices so quickly so there's something to be said about older singing techniques I guess.
Thanks for your video! Opera fan here, from Monteverdi to Britten I stumbled on this ridiculous Phantoms by chance. I love Netbrenko! ( well, I preferred her when younger as a stupendous lirico, but she still delivers shivers!) And frankly, Lezheneva is one of the best in baroque repertoire nowadays. That there are divergent opinions on what constitutes ‘good opera singing’…well it is not a modern phenomenon! ( as everybody who ever read the comments on that subject from travelers in the XVIIITH knows)… however, criticizing artists while pretending to be the last heir of THE belcanto ‘tradition dating back to the XVIIth’…and claiming to have a sort of direct access to how music was performed centuries ago….that is rather pathetic,isn’t it?
You can't even hear anything Netbrenko is singing about.I think she made a lot of good points.I dont know if you have to develop an ear for this or something but the examples she showed of older operatic voices clearly showcased better diction.
I have a bigger problem with the delivery of her video than the content of it. The smugness was totally unnecessary, and is what drives people who are not classical musicians, themselves, further away from the genre. And performance quality or style aside, none of us have jobs without an audience.
Hi Julia, I know you are requesting comments (I am also an opera singer! ) Unfortunately the truth of the matter is that this is a heated topic that most people are scared to comment on. There was a “controversial” (by reputation) channel called “this is opera” which also had a Facebook page about 7-8 years ago or so. This particular channel’s purpose was to promote the “old school” method of singing. The admins had to remain anonymous, supposedly receiving threats from people in power saying they would never gig again if a name was found out. Some of their original videos were saved by a fan, Re-uploaded, and can be viewed on the “this is opera archive” RUclips channel, which compares directly historical videos with modern singing, if you are curious about the content. There are other resources in addition to the current video you are reacting to, with many primary resources: books entitled “we sang better” and “how we sang” by James Anderson. I will say that there are singers out there with the “old school” sound, and they are gigging. Especially in Europe, where that sound is more familiar to audiences.
wow, thank you so much for that!
What was done to This is opera was insane, especially one of the people who most hated and harassed as well as slandered they person behind the account turned out to be a child molestor
@@carlpacheco2058 Who are you talking about? Philippe or Silver? Also TiO was a large group of people, not one person. I would know since I was in that circle.
@@KajiVocals The guy who tried to take down This is Opera claiming he had abused someone or whatever, when he's the one who is a known pedophile
Early recordings show the singers displaying clearer, far more solid and easy registers than we’ve become used to, that’s for sure, even singers from the 1950’s sound so much clearer and solid compared to most contemporary operatic singers who distort every vowel and artificially lower the larynx or sing with undeveloped or uncoordinated registers
Something Christa Ludwig mentioned in one of her late interviews was that it's now very hard to tell one singer apart from another. She says that you used to be able to tell who the singer was after only hearing a few notes. You know immediately that it was Domingo, or Pavarotti, or Callas, or Price, or Tebaldi, etc. Another thing I have noticed is the epidemic of the shaking jaw in singers, where they look like they're chewing when they sustain a note. Even Lise Davidsen cannot sustain a note without chewing. Also, singers have become terrified of the chest register, where even mezzos can no longer produce the sepulchral low notes we used to hear from the great mezzos and even some sopranos of the past. Also, apart form Lisette Oropesa, nobody seems to be able to sing coloratura legato and without gargling and aspirating, and again apart from her, nobody seems to be able to truly trill, but they bray like a goat and call it a trill.
Thank you. That was well stated.
Speaking from experience, she really does know her stuff, and all that the bel canto technique does is try and make singing as easy and economical as possible while training the voice to be flexible and accurate. I know I like the approach.
Regarding the old school vs new school examples shown here, I would advocate for the golden mean between the two. Netrebko, like many modern singers, has a vibrato that is so wide that the pitch is obscured. The early 20th Century singers seem to have very little tone. The sweet spot for me is about 1950. Tebaldi and Callas were at there prime. Corelli would soon rise. And Rae Woodland herself (the voice teacher of Phantoms of the Opera) would have fit into this period. By the way, Rae Woodland sounded FANTASTIC here! She was great. To me, that is the sound that today's opera singers should emulate.
Old isn't always gold. Holding a note without vibrato is as good as screaming.
My name is Eugen, and while I am not a singer-though I truly wish I were-I come from a different realm of music. I am a historically informed violinist, dedicating the last decade to the research and performance of repertoire spanning from the second half of the 18th century to the early 20th century. My work delves into understanding the stylistic evolution during this time, especially how performance practices shifted, and how these shifts impacted the music we hear today.
The historically informed performance (HIP) movement, in which I am deeply involved, does not seek to dismiss or invalidate the developments of the 20th century, nor the practices of today’s musicians. Rather, it strives to enrich our collective musical taste by uncovering what occurred historically, and why certain changes took place. In many ways, we are asking questions about the why-why were certain traditions lost or replaced? What were the driving forces behind these transformations?
The results of this research are often striking. Prior to the 20th century, musicians were not just interpreters-they were improvisers, composers, and actors. They followed traditions that spanned from the 17th through the 19th centuries, traditions that were later forgotten or sidelined. Much of this shift is attributed to the modernist perspective, which emerged prominently in the late 19th century with figures like Wagner. However, this modernist viewpoint, while impactful, was not immediately universal. It wasn’t until a couple of generations later that certain pedagogical approaches-such as those popularized by Carl Flesch and Ivan Galamian in violin-ushered in a stricter adherence to new interpretive norms.
One of the most profound changes, in my view, is the loss of improvisation among classical musicians. The interpretive traditions that arose in the 20th century, while valuable, often encourage musicians to follow the interpretations of their teachers or the critiques of the press. In doing so, we lose a vital aspect of music’s original intent: its spontaneity.
Regarding the content of this video, where the discussion focuses on where opera went wrong, I believe the presenter touches on crucial points. The way we perform music by composers such as Bellini, Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Meyerbeer, Puccini, and others today differs significantly from how it was originally conceived. The 20th century brought with it a new approach, which in many ways is positive, yet also limiting in certain respects. One of the major shifts we see today is the rise of massive music education programs, which, while expanding access, also raise questions about the homogenization of performance styles.
Should we return to singing opera in its historical style? I don’t believe we should confine ourselves exclusively to these historical methods. As artists, we have the responsibility to bring our own creative interpretations to the table. That said, I do believe we should embrace the freedom to experiment-improvisation, in particular, should be a part of our exploration. Why, for instance, should portamento-an expressive device so integral to legato-be discarded? Why not use the full range of techniques, like real legato or true staccato, or experiment with different kinds of trills?
A significant reason for these omissions stems from technical concerns. Many modern performers avoid portamento and other nuanced techniques because they present difficulties in post-production, especially when editing recordings. Top-level producers and engineers often discourage their use for these practical reasons. Vibrato, too, is employed frequently to mask minor intonation issues, which, in a world of recordings that are played thousands of times, can draw criticism. Not every musician today has the same confidence in their technical foundation, and vibrato can serve as a way to smooth over these imperfections.
Furthermore, we must consider the context of today’s opera houses. Modern theaters are often larger than those of the past, and many singers today do not possess the powerful voices that characterized the elite performers of the 19th century. It’s important to remember that during the 19th century, music education was highly exclusive. Only the top few were allowed the opportunity to study music seriously, and from that elite group, only the very best made it to the stage. This selectiveness resulted in an incredibly high standard of performance.
In conclusion, while I agree that the modern approach has brought many benefits, I believe we should also look back to history and incorporate the rich, forgotten traditions of the past.
Art and singing is subjective, so its hard to say whether there is a right answer; and this topic is very touchy for modern singers as it threatens anyone who calls themself a singer nowadays.
That being said, as someone who started their operatic singing training only listening to "modern singers" (1970's and onward), and now only really listens to singers from before 1970, I can say there is a huge difference in how it has affected my singing and my sense of style.
All I would say is: listen to everything. Build your own opinions. There's a lot of teachers and information out there, and it can be easy to let others tell you how to make your music because they have more degrees than you and claim to be more learned. I know the process of listening to those old recordings can be difficult due to the alien nature of the sound and poor recording quality (especially the ones from beginning of recorded history to around the 1950's and 60's, which in my opinion hold the finest operatic singing ever recorded) but the benefits of becoming familiar with these voices and what they have to teach us are monumental.
As a young operatic tenor who is working at one of the major opera companies in the United States and is in the midst of building a "modern" career, I can say confidently that I would not be where I am without these "ghosts of the past" to help light the way.
Not all old opera singing is good, and not all modern singing is bad, but the power lies in our ability to build our own opinions about how we want to use our voices, and one cannot do that effectively without first educating oneself on all there is to listen to.
Then you decide who you want to be.
even speech sounds different today, so much fry in voices.. no wonder when they sing you hear so much buzz. Just listen to some interviews how Joan Sutherland or Brigitte Nilsson sounded when they spoke. Maybe not exactly like they’re singing, but their voice sounds extremely clear and pure even when they are speaking. Due to the prevalence of pop singing we have lost the taste for proper vocal sound, and so audiences are not discriminating
I can agree with much of this, but the point can be made without knocking commercial vocals. Commercial is it's own technique and sensibility that when someone trained more classically does it, you can likely tell pretty quickly and it doesn't sound quite like it should. I can say this from experience.
Same goes for when commercial singers attempt a more classical/legit sound. Though I pivoted to commercial for my current job, digging into it has actually helped open my classical sound back up and in many ways, commercial is freeing in a way that classical sometimes isn't. Classical and commercial musicians can learn a lot from each other if each is willing to do so, and I love bouncing back and forth between the camps, it certainly keeps boredom at bay!
I am not a fan of many modern day opera singers, but people who say all modern opera singers are trash always use some of the worst examples of old singers to back up their point. I prefer listening to the Melocchi school singers (Corelli, Del Monaco) to get my fix of drama (I'm a tenor).
your video is really awesome
Thank you so much 😀
The Handel was ok because of the legato but the first one was umm....
The modern generation is pathetic. They despise the knowledge accumulated over centuries, their voices are thin, guttural, and their high notes sound more like squeaks. A generation that thinks it is very intelligent but that will eventually disappear from the history of opera. They lack refinement, an understanding of the complexity of opera, and good interpretations. It is rare to find a singer who conveys truth in his or her interpretations. Compare any aria sung today with the good singers of the past and the difference becomes obvious.
What's the point of singing 'the old way' if no opera houses will hire you. Opera has evolved just like every other art form. Thats not good or bad. It's just the way it is
I think both modern opera and "old school" and HIP singers all sound goo in their own right. But I do love the older sound of less vibrato, and connecting the runs.
But we must bever say that one singer sounds bad. It is fact that some voices are not to our liking, but that is our own taste. I, personally, don't like Flemming's voice, or Pavarotti's, but they put in way more hours than I ever would, so I can't say they're bad.
I like her historically informed videos, and perhaps the composers of old would agree, but every century and generation will make changes.
I love baroque music but it fell out of fashion, and now we have Taylor Swift. Oh well, can't do much about it
I have watched her in the past and it is good to hear other thoughts on it. I am a lover of singing and learning. I watched all the "this is opera" videos, and I really feel they have a point. I think that to say Anna Nebreko is always bad is incorrect though. The live voice has good days and bad days. I think some of her songs are really beautiful. The thing that I have been trying to figure out for a while is the middle range with opera. Some famous sopranos sound great on the high notes, but try to bring the head down so far they loose power and clarity. Here is a video that illustrates that. ruclips.net/video/0eHvmdAhQzQ/видео.htmlsi=9r7dBqHgnxWc2UQG My favorite lately is Nacqui all'affanno... Non più mesta: sung by Frederica von Stade. ruclips.net/video/J67vh5DRURY/видео.htmlsi=ODd-7WLTPhmvt4Xi Her upper and lower voice is smooth and even and she sings all the runs and ornaments like they are just part of the conversation instead of moving around or contorting her face with the music. She just sounds natural and amazing. I have seen some videos on original pronunciation in Shakespeare. They are so interesting because they show that Shakespeare was spoken in a brogue much more common to the average people of the time instead of the received pronunciation- or the accent that we identify with a Shakespearian actor today. ruclips.net/video/y2QYGEwM1Sk/видео.htmlsi=uD4v8PtHiRhdUcpO It brings it down to earth, allows it to flow much better, and even brings out many rhymes and puns that don't work with modern English. My point is, I think opera turned into something that doesn't resonate as well with the masses as it used to.
"Some famous sopranos sound great on the high notes, but try to bring the head down so far they loose power and clarity" That's possibly because their high notes are not really correctly produced either. They are produced through constriction. If they were not, then there would be much more connection and consistency with the lower sounds too. Constriction can sound 'pretty' (arguably) if not pushed too much. The problems and ugliness begins when they have to overpower an orchestra on those high notes with that kind of approach. Recordings may also hide this problem because of microphone placement (closer to or over the stage).
Anna Netrebko is not good…that’s all I will say
I love singers but cannot appreciate opera. Been trying to learn more about it, like some pieces but generally still dislike. Wobble makes it sound terrible to my ears and I tend to agree with Phantoms of the Opera and like some of the older ways of singing that This is Opera also pointed out. When I hear that such and such is famous and renowned then I just resign myself to fact that I still don’t get it. I’ll probably get roasted but would prefer to hear Whitney Houston, Josh Groban or Celine Dion instead. Modern opera has to accept that accept that something is wrong if more and more people fail to get engaged. I guess that’s where musical theater has taken over.
Cierto. La ópera hoy en día, no se reconoce. Siento decirlo, pero es la verdad. La técnica se ha confundido, falta expresividad, emotividad…y lo peor de todo es escuchar cantantes, que no cantan toda la partitura, omiten notas porque no pueden sostener una línea de canto,! Una ausencia de legato, forte, core….y la gente ni se entera¡ En fin vamos muy mal. Saludos cordiales
@@LaPrimadonna164De Acuerdo!
This is the precise point of Phantoms of the Opera and This Is Opera: we are not being given a proper demonstration of what opera is SUPPOSED TO sound like (or what it CAN sound like!); only ensured that what we are hearing the last 30 years MUST be correct because the person is “famous”. Yet, when your ear grows tired of a sound, that’s a red flag! Thanks for your comment!
Maria Callas, Montserrat Caballe, Jessye Norman might change your mind about Opera. 😊
@@brianlandrytenor This. So much. Just because Anna is famous doesn't mean that Ziazan was wrong. She is 100% right. The excessively wobbly vibratos are only disguising being out of tune, I can't make out the text, etc. That isn't opinion, that's fact. I'm honestly shocked that Anna, and anyone who sings like this, has a voice at all, it's SO heavy sounding and I wonder how any of them hasn't had a major vocal injury yet. That's also related to how almost everyone in current opera sounds like this and it got homogenous. Back before this shift, this wasn't the case. There was no where near the level of homogenous sound that there is now. My voice hasn't been welcome on opera stages in a very long time, and it's saddening. If I tried to sing how the industry currently expects people to sound, my voice would die within a few days, likely less.
11:37 "the fact that he was saying that was trash". Actually, he was making very specific points and it's disappointing that you, as a clearly schooled singer, don't seem to address any of this. You're making lots of faces when listening to that 1908 Meyerbeer recording. Do you have an argument that you can verbalize?
Just because Netrebko is famous doesn't mean she's good. This video isnt meant to be funny in the way you think it is. There's a whole load of truth in it. If you want wobble, unclear vowels, Baroque "specialists" who can't trill, you're very welcome.
I love opera nowadays. The historical recordings often sound weird (and I'm not talking about the quality of the recording itself which of course doesn''t help).
I kind of agree. They sound out of tune to me but I can't tell if that's the quality of the recording or not. I will say that their voices do sound healthier as many of the recordings are older performers from the 19th century which is impressive. Many 20th century singers blow out their voices so quickly so there's something to be said about older singing techniques I guess.
Anna is not good
Squeezy, shrill
Thanks for your video!
Opera fan here, from Monteverdi to Britten
I stumbled on this ridiculous Phantoms by chance.
I love Netbrenko! ( well, I preferred her when younger as a stupendous lirico, but she still delivers shivers!)
And frankly, Lezheneva is one of the best in baroque repertoire nowadays. That there are divergent opinions on what constitutes ‘good opera singing’…well it is not a modern phenomenon! ( as everybody who ever read the comments on that subject from travelers in the XVIIITH knows)… however, criticizing artists while pretending to be the last heir of THE belcanto ‘tradition dating back to the XVIIth’…and claiming to have a sort of direct access to how music was performed centuries ago….that is rather pathetic,isn’t it?
You can't even hear anything Netbrenko is singing about.I think she made a lot of good points.I dont know if you have to develop an ear for this or something but the examples she showed of older operatic voices clearly showcased better diction.
Have you ever listened to this youtuber? Ziazan Is the best opera singer alive
I have a bigger problem with the delivery of her video than the content of it. The smugness was totally unnecessary, and is what drives people who are not classical musicians, themselves, further away from the genre. And performance quality or style aside, none of us have jobs without an audience.
At 7:12 I'm not watching any more because you cackle, you drawl and you use vocal fry. Bye.
I like phantom’s page and watched her videos but watching you watching her 😂 She has a very unique page.
itistureoperasingersneadbettertraining