Hot Opera Singers

[pierrot]

THere is another very hot opera singer who does small roles at the Met named Keith Miller. He's a real muscle bound guy, shaved head, former athlete, and very sexy. He had a small role in the Met's Macbeth recently.

BTW, who is Nmon Ford, named in the first post? Is that a mistake?

I totally agree with whipped guy about Sutherland. Complaining about her diction is overlooking the fact that she was one of the most amazing singers of the century with a magnificent timbre throughout a large range, and facility rarely heard in such a large voice. No singer is perfect, even the great Callas. Neither Sutherland nor Callas, nor Caballe currently have any successors in the category of dramatic coloratura soprano.

Florez is quite a wonderful singer in his own way, and he is cute as button -- not hunky, but a just a cute little thing you'd like to fuck silly.

Hvorostovsky is amazingly sexy too. He showed some skin in the Met's Eugene Onegin last year, when he briefly took off his shirt -- nicely defined smooth chest, not as pumped as Gunn, but very handsome.

[whipped guy]

RE: Neither Sutherland nor Callas, nor Caballe currently have any successors...

 

Yes, the "Blessed Trinity" still rules unabated...

[ariadne1880]

I don't find Florez "deficient" in any way whatsover. I find him the total package in an opera singer. He just really does it for me. I don't find his voice monochromatic at all. I hope he gets more opportunities to sing things like Elisir which show off how beautiful and sweet his sound is when he is singing quietly and softly.

 

As for Sutherland, I heard her often at the MET in the 1960s through the 1980s and she just couldn't act her way out of a wet paper bag. She was all voice and even that could be problematic since she seemed to think that the alphabet only involved her buying vowels and forgetting about consonants. I know this was a conscious choice but I often felt she sacrificed drama and words for pure sound. But what a sound! I never felt "cheated" but I always wanted more in the opera house. On records, it works a bit better but in the house it was never a complete performance for me especially in roles like Lucia, Violetta, or Norma. Semiramide was another matter. She was spectacular in that.

 

I've heard Lawrence Brownlee a number of times -- mostly recent at the MET as Almaviva in Barber -- and it's a nice voice. Unfortunately, he must be compared with Florez today and there he is lacking. While it's a lovely voice, he is also short and stout and the acting is limited. With my eyes closed, it wasn't bad, but opera is visual and he seems like a black Richard Tucker to me and I don't find that all appealing.

 

Mark

[ariadne1880]

It isn't "complaining" about Sutherland. She had an amazing voice but, for me (and many others), she was not a "complete" opera singer because she often lacked drama. It wasn't just about her diction. The words are important. If they weren't, then singers would just sing gibberish.

 

I often felt that Sutherland would have been a far greater artist if she had gotten away from that gay husband of hers. She did her most interesting work for OTHER conductors. Her finest studio recording, of course, is Puccini's Turandot, something she never sang on stage. The diction, the drama, the voice -- it all comes together in a way it rarely if ever did on stage. Of course, hubby didn't conduct it. And that's the rub.

 

Bonynge was a terrible conductor and his methods show in a lot of Sutherland's singing from the mid-60s on when she almost exclusively with him. Just think what she might have achieved -- at the MET -- if she had worked with a genius like Levine ... but, no, it never happened.

 

It was a great career and a great sound but when one thinks how much greater it might have been ....

 

No, Callas wasn't perfect but she was a far more complete artist than Sutherland was ugly voice and all ...

 

Mark

[ariadne1880]

Nmon Ford is a young black baritone. He recently sang Giovanni -- shirtless -- at the Spoleto Festival in Charleston. There are some nice photos of him at the barihunk blog ....

 

He's quite good-looking and has a knock-out physique.

 

What role did Keith Miller sing at the MET? I saw the Macbeth twice and don't recall him .... he is listed on the MET roster as a bass.

 

Mark

[whipped guy]

RE: I often felt that Sutherland would have been a far greater artist if she had gotten away from that gay husband of hers. She did her most interesting work for OTHER conductors... Bonynge was a terrible conductor and his methods show in a lot of Sutherland's singing from the mid-60s on when she almost exclusively with him. Just think what she might have achieved... It was a great career and a great sound but when one thinks how much greater it might have been...

 

Bonynge was essentially an amateur… he was basically trained as a pianist… and due to his wife’s fame picked up a stick and began waving it in front of an orchestra. So I agree entirely about his lack of basic talent and what might have been. Certainly Sutherland was a more complete artist earlier in her career under such knowledgeable conductors as Serafin and Gui… and even under some lesser ones such as Prichard and Varviso.

 

As an example, Sutherland’s best Lucia’s were under Serafin (at Covent Garden) and Varviso (at the MET)… she also sang some great ones under other Italian conductors as well… However, the minute Bonynge got total control, her interpretation took a turn for the worse… it was still probably better than what some others had to offer, but never on the exalted plane of those earliest years.

 

Furthermore, Sutherland was always better live… the diction was crisper and there was a better sense of drama… not on the scale of a Callas… but better than she ever seemed to accomplish in the studio where she seemed to be holding back with a microphone in her face.

 

So a great voice, a great career, but still with the undeniable feeling that even greater heights could have been achieved… so ultimately I think were are in basic agreement.

 

PS: I had no idea that Bonynge was gay... or did I miss something over the years...

 

 

 

RE: No, Callas wasn't perfect but she was a far more complete artist than Sutherland was ugly voice and all ...

 

Callas was a complete artist in the sense that she could turn her shortcomings into assets... and shortcomings she certainly had... but what assets were created from those shortcomings! Of course that fact that her art was based on a sound technique certainly helped matters.

 

It was a short meteoric career that was dramatic, spectacular and theatrical in the extreme… but what a way to go!

 

I fear that there will never be an artist as complete as she in my lifetime... or possibly for lifetimes to come.

[ariadne1880]

I mean no offense but Bonynge makes Clay Aiken look straight.

 

Mark

[whipped guy]

Richard Bonynge? Clay Aiken? Shoot! The next thing you are going to spring on me is that even Liberace was gay!!!!!!!!!

[ariadne1880]

And Mr. Cruise and Mr. Travolta, too!

 

Heck, I've even heard that Liza's husband was a 'mo, too!

 

:7

 

Mark

[Epigonos]

When all is said and done I was NOT a great fan a Maria Callas. I know sin of sin. I just wish she had spent as much time caring for her voice as she did caring about playing the role of the gran diva 24/7. For me, at least, she was to the operatic world what Salvador Dali was to the art world. They were both so damn talented and yet, in the end, they both elected to abuse their talent in the constant quest for celebrity-hood.

[pierrot]

RE: Sutherland and Callas, I agree with what both Ariadne and Whipped Guy say. Bonynge's rather limp conducting did not help Joan become more incisive either with text or rhythm. In theory she could have been even better -- but one could say that about any singer. It's also true that her mushy diction and rhythmic slackness are exaggerated in recordings. Also, in live performance, the sheer size and beauty of the voice was so impressive that perhaps we were listening differently.

Callas was a phenomenon of almost unparalleled importance. Some roles (I think particularly of Medea and Norma) will bear her mark forever.

Bonynge was, is, definitely gay. He was also extraordinarily handsome, and not a flaming queen either. I don't think he was a terrible conductor, but he was not on the high level his wife should have had. On the other hand, he was a wonderful stylist and was responsible for the excellent taste Joan always showed in ornamenting the music. He was also responsible for taking steps in restoring bel canto music more completely, including repeats and ornaments. So we do owe him plenty as a musician, in addition to his re-training Joannie's fab instrument.

Keith Miller was one of the murderers in Macbeth. He's been in several Met productions in small roles. And I googled Nmon Ford, and yes he is a hottie.

I also thought of another very hot opera singer no one has mentioned: German tenor Jonas Kaufmann. He's not only extremely sexy, but has a wonderful, warm tenor voice with enough weight to allow him to sing a few dramatic roles in small houses (he's done Parsifal and Florestan in Europe).

[uwsman2]

Nathan Gunn in An American Tragedy at the Met was the ultimate hunk, especially in his topless bedroom scene.

 

But there is a sexy young French countertenor out there. I haven't seen him live in opera, but his voice enchants and there are wonderful clips of him on youtube - Philippe Jaroussky. The young man is absolutely gorgeous, and more handsome on the film clips than in the still photos with his albums. And the voice is enthralling. He can float a long high soft note like nobody's business.

[whipped guy]

[fonnt color=blue]RE: Bonynge... was a wonderful stylist and was responsible for the excellent taste Joan always showed in ornamenting the music. He was also responsible for taking steps in restoring bel canto music more completely, including repeats and ornaments. So we do owe him plenty as a musician, in addition to his re-training Joannie's fab instrument.[/font]

 

Here I must agree as well… Bonynge certainly was a key contributor to the Bel Canto revival, and even if I wish he were a somewhat better conductor I am grateful to the research he did regarding the Bel Canto traditions. Callas, Serafin, and company might have been the trailblazers, but Bonynge and Sutherland picked up the baton where they left off and ran with it… albeit in a slightly different direction, but in such a manner that revealed that there was indeed a different way to approach what were in those then dusty scores.

 

In addition, I wholeheartedly agree that Bonynge certainly knew how to compose ornaments for Bel Canto operas. As an example, he deftly prepared the ornamentation Sutherland used in her performances of Semiramide. If one did not have the score in hand, one might think that that is exactly how Rossini originally conceived the part… such is the taste, naturalness, and spontaneity embodied in the embellishments where everything seems to be respectful ot the dramatic, harmonic, and structural aspects of the score. This being in stark contrast to the type of insipid over-ornamentation often used by Beverly Sills (which can be witnessed this coming Saturday during the MET’s rebroadcast of Sills’ 1975 performance of Rossini’s L’Assedio di Corinto) where the main intent was to showcase the voice without much regard for stylistic considerations.

 

So a nod of thanks to “Mr. Sutherland” as well…

[ariadne1880]

I simply cannot find countertenors "sexy." The voice alone kills in for me. The phony and artificial vocal production is often not the only phony thing about them .... x(

 

And seeing David Daniels backstage at the MET greeting well-wishers with a full hard-on as if he were at a gay bar didn't help.

 

Mark

[whipped guy]

While it has nothing to do with sex or being sexy (or commenting on personalities), I don’t find the countertenor voice very sensuous... and unless someone out there is willing to experiment we will never know if that is how the castrati (ouch!) that they are attempting to emulate actually sounded… I rather doubt it. Still, it is an interesting concept… though the fact that composers readily began composing “trouser roles” for female singers after the demise of the castrati (and even during the reign of the castrati) probably indicates that their sound was more akin to the sound of a female voice than the modern countertenor.

 

Still, we don’t know for sure and having a male actually sing a male role (albeit in a female register) does enhance the visual effect even if the concept can be a bit foreign to modern sensibilities. Also, the best of the modern countertenors can at times give the illusion of sounding female… but still at its best it is close but no cigar.

 

While, I respect the countertenor concept, and have even enjoyed some of their performances, in the final analysis I’ll take Marilyn Horne (or someone contemporary such as Daniela Barcellona) wearing a breastplate and wielding a sword any day…

[+ Charlie]

The problem with castrati is that they have to be castrated before puberty to produce that sound (definitely child abuse), and then one has to train them for years before discovering whether it was worth the trouble.

 

I must agree with pierrot about Jonas Kaufmann, whom I saw as Alfredo at the Met last year--I'd volunteer to be his Violetta any day.

[ariadne1880]

Jonas Kaufmann is a very handsome young man but he has no business singing at the MET or any other large opera house (that's why he's the house tenor at houses like Zurich -- small, small, small) because his voice is too small. Nice sound, but too small.

 

I also saw a number of those Alfredos at the MET and he blew the high C in Act 2 every time. Better he not sing it. Not a very good top. And now you may insert all the jokes you want!

 

As for countertenors vs. castrati. The castrati was at least a natural sound (after the castration obviously). The countertenor is not. It's the only faked voice type. They don't really sound like that -- unlike a baritone or a soprano -- which is partially what makes the thing so displeasing to my ears. The other thing is that since they have to make such a conscious effort to produce that sound the emotional connection to the music is often lost. Interpretation becomes a matter of survival.

 

I can appreciate a good countertenor but often they are used in a very campy way which makes the whole thing even worse. Recently, Lyric Opera of Chicago put on Handel's Giulio Cesare with 3 countertenors (which the woman singing next to me said was "2 1/2 too many") who pranced around the stage like a bunch of fairies striking bent knee poses and looking like either little twinky boys or chubby chaser types. It was grotesque.

 

I agree with others who say that I often prefer the sound of a rich mezzo -- which sounds far more masculine -- than one of these high-pitched squeaky counter tenors.

 

There is a rather handsome counter tenor -- Andreas Scholl -- who appears to be the only straight one in the bunch. His PR people always manage to put in every single thing written about him that he was married and is straight. It's fairly comical.

 

But comical seems to be the operative word when discussing counter tenors.

 

Mark

[+ Charlie]

As for Kaufmann's top, my notes to myself on the performance question whether he might be a pushed up baritone.

 

All the countertenors whom I have known personally were gay (but then, most of the tenors, baritones and basses I have known were gay, too, which says more about my relationships than about the voice categories).

[whipped guy]

RE:I agree with others who say that I often prefer the sound of a rich mezzo -- which sounds far more masculine -- than one of these high-pitched squeaky counter tenors.

 

Just think of Marylin Horne intoning Arscae's opening line in Semiramide, "Eccome alfine in Babilonia", and you will never want to hear a countertenor ever again. Now the role was originally composed for a contralto, but David Daniels has expressed a desire to tackle some of Rossini's "pants parts" such as Tancredi. I think any mezzo would sound better singing "Di tanti palpiti" as well!

[+ Charlie]

Apparently Anna Netrebko also slobbered over the shirtless Erwin Schrott. She has just announced that she is pregnant by him, and they are getting married.

[whipped guy]

Yes, I just heard about that myself...and Schrott got the prize Russian jewel.

 

Now I am not familiar with Schrott, but if if ariadne's remark about him is true regarding "the voice is uneventful and a bit of a mess", then the two deserve each other... because that is how I would describe Netrebko as well... lovely to look at... and she can act, but the voice is not overly exceptional, plus she can't trill and ultimately does not thrill.

[Guest alanm]

"..... that is how I would describe Netrebko as well... lovely to look at... and she can act, but the voice is not overly exceptional, plus she can't trill and ultimately does not thrill."

 

I've seen Netrebko on stage in four operas, Florez in three. I would give higher marks to Florez as a singer, Netrebko as a actor. For all the complements given to Florez's once-in-a-generation voice, no one has mentioned that he's no more than an adequate actor.

[ariadne1880]

I disagree about Florez' acting ability. I think he's a fine actor if given a good staging and a director who knows what they are doing. His Almaviva last season at the MET was a brilliant, comic creation.

 

As for Netrebko's acting. I think it's all gimmickry ... it basically consists of exposing her breasts and hanging over the orchestra pit with her hair draped over the harps. Once you seen that 3 or 4 times you've basically seen what she can do.

 

She's also dumber than a rock. She showed up at the MET last season for Puritani -- a role she was engaged for 4 years prior -- completely unprepared not having learned the role. She had to learn it during the run. I don't think that's professional.

 

As for Schrott, he's another great looking guy who probably can sing but relies on gimmicks as well.

 

They do deserve each other, it's just too bad it had to come at the expense of the current Mrs. Schrott and their family.

 

Mark

[whipped guy]

Regarding Florez, his acting was indeed fine in last season's Barbiere. In addition, I recall it being up to snuff as well in L'Italiana in Algeri from several seasons back where he was even more athletic on stage.

 

Incredibly, Netrebko who came unprepared for Puritani, and sang a lackluster Norina in Don Pasquale now wants to tackle the title role in Anna Bolena!!!... the opera that concludes with that dramatic cabaletta containing those devilish ascending trills which she will no doubt skip entirely because she never passed "trills 101" in the conservatory.

 

Perhaps Schrott can sing Henry VIII… as Henry and Ann did bring that “vil bastarda" Elizabeth into the world… so art can mirror life once again.

[ariadne1880]

Ah, whipped guy, you are right. Why she insists on singing bel canto and coloratura roles is beyond me. They are beyond her ability. She's clearly a lyrical spinto. She should be singing Butterfly. She'd be spectacular.

 

Anna Bolena in 2010/11 at the MET -- at least that give her 2 1/2 years to think about learning the role.

 

Mark