The quality of these recordings are all poor. It is impossible to judge the quality of the singers based on these. To compare the great singers the way people have always done is natural but does not honour the art as all great singers themselves do. To say Gruberova is anything less than very great is ignorant (but perhaps that was not what you intended). Some singers are born with great instruments but must nevertheless work harder than they sometimes pretend.
I'd have to agree with Midlochblidloch in saying that Gruberova's technique is FAR more than just "good". That instrument is something special and just because the Germanic production she has (which I'm not a huge fan of) is a little harsh doesn't take away that her natural instrument is right up there with Sutherland.
(Continued) Since we cannot agree about whether good technique is, to a certain extent, a matter of opinion, what about beautiful tone, which is certainly linked to technique. Is beauty of tone also a fixed standard, or is it a matter of opinion? I think it is the latter (within limits).
:)) don't be ridiculous, don't even try to tell me that measuring technique is a matter of OPINION. well, 40 years of listening opera may give you a good image about great singers during a big period of time but
it doesn't give you much information about singer's technique unless you study it more deeply. and of course you have to be educated in music. let's go back to gruberova. the fact you don't appreciate her art of breathing is the saddest thing. well you don't appreciate any of her technicall skills when you say her technique is average;) well whatever. I don't need to persuade you forever;) thank's for the discussion.
It seems you're defining technique according to the method of vocal production rather than the results alone. Perhaps, but there is more than one way to achieve beautiful sounds and expressive singing; Sutherland mentions this in her autobiography, so does Galli-Curci, although both have definite beliefs about what is beautiful and what is not. Of course, I guess if the method is too effortful, the tone will not be so pleasant.
You seem to agree that whether one likes or dislikes Gruberova (or Callas) is a matter of personal opinion, although you insist one's preference involves style, not technique. In this we disagree. The use of portamenti is stylistic but excessive use can become a technical device, similar to carrying the chest voice too far into the upper register. I'm not sure a natural tone means a perfect technique. Doesn't technique require training
and practice, provided the raw material is present?
I said absolutely natural creation of the tone in any registeres, and that's a bit different. If you see somebody pushing too much on the larynx and breathing, does he have a great technique even though he produces nice coloratura and everything?
As we all know, gruberova can easily produce high e in pianissimo without "scooping or sliding" (you can listen it in the bell song). Her use of portamenti is simply stylistical. she herself said this.
and btw of course I agree, if you don't like callas's or gruberova's style, that ur opinion, but you cannot judge somebody's technique ON THE BASIS of your opinion. btw do u have msn?
There are many factors which go into making a good technique, and virtually no singer has them all in the same degree. These include a pure legato with no aspirates or sliding or scooping or excessive portamenti, evenness of registers with no noticeable breaks or gear shifts, evenness of tone, a degree of agility in ornamentation, correct staccato singing, an honest trill, the ability to vary dynamics and color tones, precise rhythmic control, correct breathing and breath control, etc.
using portamenti is not a matter of technique, it's a matter of style. gruberova's got everything you wrote, I don't agree that she's scooping, this is her personal touch, if she didn't want to, she would not "scoop". and yeah, she is controversal, like callas, many people hate her, many people like her. and I like that.
I think when a singer is able to create a tone without an effort, naturally, this means a perfect technique.
There is a whole world of great singers in the history of singing, both those who recorded and those who sang before the era of the phonograph. To limit oneself only to singers of the present is, I believe, to miss out on some great voices and singing. On the other hand, neither should one be confined only to the achievements of the past, although I personally believe that on the whole the singers of yesteryear were superior technically to those of today.
The sopranos of the past that have superior techniques to that of Gruberova IMO include many famous recorded singers such as Galli-Curci, Tetrazzini, Melba, Eames, Nordica, Lilli Lehmann, Ponselle, Rethberg, Flagstad, Muzio, Boninsegna, Sayao, Verlet, and several lesser known names.
And of the more recent past, there are Sutherland, Nilsson, L. Price, and the mezzo Marilyn Horne, among several others.
I'm glad Gruberova is still singing, and very well at that. And some of her performances I think are incredible, such as her "Vien, diletto" excerpt from the Puritani contest. I have never said she is a bad singer or even mediocre. But I insist that compared to certain other great sopranos of the past, she falls slightly short. This is my opinion based on 40 years of opera listening. You may not agree, and I respect that.
??? it seems you watch her only here on youtube. ?!?! that's impossible. have you ever seen a whole opera with her? I'd like to know what sopranos of the past do you exactly mean?! btw we were talking about her technique, but it does not matter now. mr. opera listener;P
I agree that Sutherland's technique is exceptional, but she has been criticized for mushy diction, scooping, lack of dynamics, no messe di voce, etc. My point again is that no singer is perfect, and therefore any singer is vulnerable to criticism regarding specific weaknesses in her vocal equipment. The relative focus on strengths and weaknesses is a matter of opinion.
It seems as if the comment I typed yesterday did not post, so I'll repeat it. I do not think Callas' technique is all bad. Parts of it are, such as unevenness of registers and shrill or wobbly high notes. Parts of it are not, such as great descending scales and pure legato. And Callas' singing goes well beyond technique.
callas's technique was bad(is a voice-destroying techniqueOK?!what the hell!)but she did miracles with her voice. anyway we are talking about gruberova's technique. even though you don't like her style, whatever, but criticising her techqnie or saying her technique is average, that's at least ridiculous! Messa di voce, pianissimi on the highest notes, fluid coloratura,FANTASTICbreath-control..
...gruberova is still singing and amazingly!!!If you wanna judge someone's technique, you have to know something about it, this is not the same as judging musical STYLE. gruberova's the best technician after Sutherland and you can do nothing about that.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I do think that, to a certain extent, the merits of any given singer are a matter of personal taste and opinion. I can sing somewhat, but I'm not a professional singer, certainly not at the level of a Gruberova. But I don't think that means I or anyone else is not entitled to express their opinions. That would be like saying there should be no literary criticism unless the critic is a writer, no art criticism unless the critic is an artist, etc.
technique is not a matter of an opinion, I'll keep on telling that to you. if gruberova didn't have a great technique, she wouldn't be singing martern aller arten next year in prague or ZERBINETTA. art of breathing? listen to lucio silla, to those unbelievably long phrases. this is an art of breathing.
btw I didn't want to say that only a singer can judge other singers.. it was just a personal question. cago bello.
I agree about Gruberova's pianissimi: they are very good, but are they as good as those of Caballe, Milanov, and Ponselle? I think your reference to Gruberova's "art of breathing" is not well supported (pardon the pun) as she sometimes indulges in noticeable gulps of air. I do love her "Vien, diletto" performance from the Puritani ccntest, however, as I admire other performances of hers. Chacun a son gout!
I think her pianissimi are as good as caballes etc.. good technique is not a matter of opinion or an attitudinal apprehension. and she has a great technique, like sutherland.
(Continued) Don't get me wrong. I didn't say Gruberova is a bad singer; in fact, if you re-read my post, I said that compared to present-day singers, her technique is very good or excellent. However, as I mentioned, compared to certain singers of the recent and more distant past, I don't believe her technique is exceptional.
In music, as in other disciplines, almost everything about performance is a matter of opinion. There are those who deny Sutherland has a great technique, those who say Callas' voice is intrinsically beautiful but her technique is sloppy (and the reverse), those who despise Toscanini's conducting, those who love Mado Robin's technique, etc. And I'm talking about informed listeners.
callas' techniqe was bad... you have to agree with that. it is not possible to agree with self-destructive technique. nobody can deny sutherland's technique and I think nobody can deny gruberova's technique either.
I think it depends on what your point of reference is in measuring technique. By today's standards, you're probably right: Gruberova's technique is more than just good, it's very good, even excellent. However, compared to Sutherland, Horne, Galli-Curci, Ponselle, Flagstad, all of whom I grew up listening to (either live or on records), Gruberova's technique is IMO just good.
do u think just good? her pianissimi on the highest notes? best trill after sutherland? her art of breathing? her technique is superb, not only good. there's no question about opinios, this is a simple fact. by today's standards there's nobody she could be compared with, maybe elena mosuc.
Um, EXCUSE ME, non-score readers...those PIANI are in the SCORE...she follows them scrupulously, which is more than I can say for the others...she sings these piani because she CAN.
As is the case with so many of these singers (Devia is a notable exception), the livelier cabaletta is better sung than the more intense cavatina. Overuse of pianissimi perhaps, but generally good technique and feeling throughout. 4/5
This is a great recording...not the quality, but the singing none the less is still superb. Her high pianissimi are always Great.
arturo8402 2 years ago
Reminds me of Sutherland.
orson15 2 years ago
The quality of these recordings are all poor. It is impossible to judge the quality of the singers based on these. To compare the great singers the way people have always done is natural but does not honour the art as all great singers themselves do. To say Gruberova is anything less than very great is ignorant (but perhaps that was not what you intended). Some singers are born with great instruments but must nevertheless work harder than they sometimes pretend.
SVENSKSOPRAN 3 years ago
I'd have to agree with Midlochblidloch in saying that Gruberova's technique is FAR more than just "good". That instrument is something special and just because the Germanic production she has (which I'm not a huge fan of) is a little harsh doesn't take away that her natural instrument is right up there with Sutherland.
Iareto 3 years ago 6
Non mi toccate la gruberova che vi infilzo con i ferri da calza eeeh!!! :)
grubiforever 3 years ago
(Continued) Since we cannot agree about whether good technique is, to a certain extent, a matter of opinion, what about beautiful tone, which is certainly linked to technique. Is beauty of tone also a fixed standard, or is it a matter of opinion? I think it is the latter (within limits).
No, I don't have MSN.
meltzerboy 4 years ago
:)) don't be ridiculous, don't even try to tell me that measuring technique is a matter of OPINION. well, 40 years of listening opera may give you a good image about great singers during a big period of time but
midlochblidloch 4 years ago 3
it doesn't give you much information about singer's technique unless you study it more deeply. and of course you have to be educated in music. let's go back to gruberova. the fact you don't appreciate her art of breathing is the saddest thing. well you don't appreciate any of her technicall skills when you say her technique is average;) well whatever. I don't need to persuade you forever;) thank's for the discussion.
midlochblidloch 4 years ago 2
It seems you're defining technique according to the method of vocal production rather than the results alone. Perhaps, but there is more than one way to achieve beautiful sounds and expressive singing; Sutherland mentions this in her autobiography, so does Galli-Curci, although both have definite beliefs about what is beautiful and what is not. Of course, I guess if the method is too effortful, the tone will not be so pleasant.
meltzerboy 4 years ago
You seem to agree that whether one likes or dislikes Gruberova (or Callas) is a matter of personal opinion, although you insist one's preference involves style, not technique. In this we disagree. The use of portamenti is stylistic but excessive use can become a technical device, similar to carrying the chest voice too far into the upper register. I'm not sure a natural tone means a perfect technique. Doesn't technique require training
and practice, provided the raw material is present?
meltzerboy 4 years ago
I said absolutely natural creation of the tone in any registeres, and that's a bit different. If you see somebody pushing too much on the larynx and breathing, does he have a great technique even though he produces nice coloratura and everything?
midlochblidloch 4 years ago 2
As we all know, gruberova can easily produce high e in pianissimo without "scooping or sliding" (you can listen it in the bell song). Her use of portamenti is simply stylistical. she herself said this.
and btw of course I agree, if you don't like callas's or gruberova's style, that ur opinion, but you cannot judge somebody's technique ON THE BASIS of your opinion. btw do u have msn?
midlochblidloch 4 years ago 3
There are many factors which go into making a good technique, and virtually no singer has them all in the same degree. These include a pure legato with no aspirates or sliding or scooping or excessive portamenti, evenness of registers with no noticeable breaks or gear shifts, evenness of tone, a degree of agility in ornamentation, correct staccato singing, an honest trill, the ability to vary dynamics and color tones, precise rhythmic control, correct breathing and breath control, etc.
meltzerboy 4 years ago
using portamenti is not a matter of technique, it's a matter of style. gruberova's got everything you wrote, I don't agree that she's scooping, this is her personal touch, if she didn't want to, she would not "scoop". and yeah, she is controversal, like callas, many people hate her, many people like her. and I like that.
I think when a singer is able to create a tone without an effort, naturally, this means a perfect technique.
midlochblidloch 4 years ago
There is a whole world of great singers in the history of singing, both those who recorded and those who sang before the era of the phonograph. To limit oneself only to singers of the present is, I believe, to miss out on some great voices and singing. On the other hand, neither should one be confined only to the achievements of the past, although I personally believe that on the whole the singers of yesteryear were superior technically to those of today.
meltzerboy 4 years ago
can I ask you how do you recognise a good technique? that'd really interest me.
midlochblidloch 4 years ago
The sopranos of the past that have superior techniques to that of Gruberova IMO include many famous recorded singers such as Galli-Curci, Tetrazzini, Melba, Eames, Nordica, Lilli Lehmann, Ponselle, Rethberg, Flagstad, Muzio, Boninsegna, Sayao, Verlet, and several lesser known names.
And of the more recent past, there are Sutherland, Nilsson, L. Price, and the mezzo Marilyn Horne, among several others.
meltzerboy 4 years ago
I'm glad Gruberova is still singing, and very well at that. And some of her performances I think are incredible, such as her "Vien, diletto" excerpt from the Puritani contest. I have never said she is a bad singer or even mediocre. But I insist that compared to certain other great sopranos of the past, she falls slightly short. This is my opinion based on 40 years of opera listening. You may not agree, and I respect that.
meltzerboy 4 years ago
??? it seems you watch her only here on youtube. ?!?! that's impossible. have you ever seen a whole opera with her? I'd like to know what sopranos of the past do you exactly mean?! btw we were talking about her technique, but it does not matter now. mr. opera listener;P
midlochblidloch 4 years ago
I agree that Sutherland's technique is exceptional, but she has been criticized for mushy diction, scooping, lack of dynamics, no messe di voce, etc. My point again is that no singer is perfect, and therefore any singer is vulnerable to criticism regarding specific weaknesses in her vocal equipment. The relative focus on strengths and weaknesses is a matter of opinion.
meltzerboy 4 years ago
It seems as if the comment I typed yesterday did not post, so I'll repeat it. I do not think Callas' technique is all bad. Parts of it are, such as unevenness of registers and shrill or wobbly high notes. Parts of it are not, such as great descending scales and pure legato. And Callas' singing goes well beyond technique.
meltzerboy 4 years ago
callas's technique was bad(is a voice-destroying techniqueOK?!what the hell!)but she did miracles with her voice. anyway we are talking about gruberova's technique. even though you don't like her style, whatever, but criticising her techqnie or saying her technique is average, that's at least ridiculous! Messa di voce, pianissimi on the highest notes, fluid coloratura,FANTASTICbreath-control..
midlochblidloch 4 years ago 2
...gruberova is still singing and amazingly!!!If you wanna judge someone's technique, you have to know something about it, this is not the same as judging musical STYLE. gruberova's the best technician after Sutherland and you can do nothing about that.
midlochblidloch 4 years ago 2
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I do think that, to a certain extent, the merits of any given singer are a matter of personal taste and opinion. I can sing somewhat, but I'm not a professional singer, certainly not at the level of a Gruberova. But I don't think that means I or anyone else is not entitled to express their opinions. That would be like saying there should be no literary criticism unless the critic is a writer, no art criticism unless the critic is an artist, etc.
meltzerboy 4 years ago
technique is not a matter of an opinion, I'll keep on telling that to you. if gruberova didn't have a great technique, she wouldn't be singing martern aller arten next year in prague or ZERBINETTA. art of breathing? listen to lucio silla, to those unbelievably long phrases. this is an art of breathing.
btw I didn't want to say that only a singer can judge other singers.. it was just a personal question. cago bello.
midlochblidloch 4 years ago
I agree about Gruberova's pianissimi: they are very good, but are they as good as those of Caballe, Milanov, and Ponselle? I think your reference to Gruberova's "art of breathing" is not well supported (pardon the pun) as she sometimes indulges in noticeable gulps of air. I do love her "Vien, diletto" performance from the Puritani ccntest, however, as I admire other performances of hers. Chacun a son gout!
meltzerboy 4 years ago
I think her pianissimi are as good as caballes etc.. good technique is not a matter of opinion or an attitudinal apprehension. and she has a great technique, like sutherland.
just one question, can u sing?:P
midlochblidloch 4 years ago
(Continued) Don't get me wrong. I didn't say Gruberova is a bad singer; in fact, if you re-read my post, I said that compared to present-day singers, her technique is very good or excellent. However, as I mentioned, compared to certain singers of the recent and more distant past, I don't believe her technique is exceptional.
meltzerboy 4 years ago
In music, as in other disciplines, almost everything about performance is a matter of opinion. There are those who deny Sutherland has a great technique, those who say Callas' voice is intrinsically beautiful but her technique is sloppy (and the reverse), those who despise Toscanini's conducting, those who love Mado Robin's technique, etc. And I'm talking about informed listeners.
meltzerboy 4 years ago
callas' techniqe was bad... you have to agree with that. it is not possible to agree with self-destructive technique. nobody can deny sutherland's technique and I think nobody can deny gruberova's technique either.
midlochblidloch 4 years ago
2/2
Orombello 4 years ago
Brava I love her.
5/4.5
operajk 4 years ago
I think it depends on what your point of reference is in measuring technique. By today's standards, you're probably right: Gruberova's technique is more than just good, it's very good, even excellent. However, compared to Sutherland, Horne, Galli-Curci, Ponselle, Flagstad, all of whom I grew up listening to (either live or on records), Gruberova's technique is IMO just good.
meltzerboy 4 years ago
do u think just good? her pianissimi on the highest notes? best trill after sutherland? her art of breathing? her technique is superb, not only good. there's no question about opinios, this is a simple fact. by today's standards there's nobody she could be compared with, maybe elena mosuc.
midlochblidloch 4 years ago
5/4
midlochblidloch 4 years ago
4.5/4.5
sottoipini 4 years ago
!Brava!,está el drama,la actuación,todo,me encantó.5/5.
olgamarga 4 years ago
She has no rivals 5/5
sediziosevoci 4 years ago
Um, EXCUSE ME, non-score readers...those PIANI are in the SCORE...she follows them scrupulously, which is more than I can say for the others...she sings these piani because she CAN.
operamusicbuff 4 years ago
Forgive me for the tease: but aren't the low notes also in the score? Just a friendly pun ;)
tinyvoicedgheorghiu 4 years ago
The low notes are not strong, but I can hear them.
operamusicbuff 4 years ago
the audio quality is poor, she had low notes in 1995.
midlochblidloch 4 years ago
As is the case with so many of these singers (Devia is a notable exception), the livelier cabaletta is better sung than the more intense cavatina. Overuse of pianissimi perhaps, but generally good technique and feeling throughout. 4/5
meltzerboy 4 years ago
i don't think her technique is just good.
midlochblidloch 4 years ago
3.5/2
robbyjarrett 4 years ago
She is ok... 4.5/3.5
iosonmedea 4 years ago
3/4
nickbigd 4 years ago
al dilà della leziosaggine...è una bomba di perfezione...5/5
lyside1 4 years ago 2
Overall a delightful performance. Gruberova can indulge in the music sometimes but this is very nice. 5/5
hotazzoperastud 4 years ago
Some vocal effects, like indulging in certain sounds and overdoing with the pianissimo, really alter the musical lines. 4/2
sevoflurane 4 years ago
what do you mean by altering the musical lines??!
midlochblidloch 4 years ago
3.5/4.5
patjan92 4 years ago
Where are the low notes? I can't hear them. By 1995, Gruberova already had them. 3/5.
tinyvoicedgheorghiu 4 years ago