Great Artists

Chloe and I have been hammering you on bringing meaning to the words you sing. Let's look at the great singers as distinct from the great voices.

We'll look at the great voices first.

In this category, I place Sutherland, Merrill, Corena, Pons, Del Monaco, Tebaldi. All had voices that carried well in an opera house or concert hall. None of them were sought-after concert artists. Why not? They were boring and any promoter or entrepreneur would know that they could not hold a crowd for 2 hours. Why? They had nothing to say. One gets tired of hearing a wonderful vocal instrument that does not emote or communicate any message. For instance, a Steinway Grand, a wonderful instrument, is wasted when good technician plays it without any feeling. But that same Steinway comes alive and actually starts to duplicate an orchestra under the hands of a Horowitz or a Rachmaninov. Having a great instrument does not mean that you are a good artist.

Next we'll look at phenomenal voices that were at home on the opera stage and the concert hall.

Gigli and Caruso were in this category. Their voices were unique in size, resonance, the range of dynamics and very individual quality but even so, if they had not been able to emote or communicate they would have stayed in the first category of just great voices. Such unique voices come along only once or twice in a century. Such Artists come more often. Such combinations of great artistry with great vocal equipment comes seldom in a lifetime.

So let's look at the third category, the voices that were far from perfect, but were firm favorites of the public, whether they were singing opera or singing in concert.

An example of some of those voices were: Mafalda Favero, Galli-Curci, Janette Baker, Tauber, Tibbett, Schipa, Gerard Souzé, Alexander Kipniss, Chaliapin, Tito Gobbi, Todd Duncan, Thomas Hampson, Vittoria de los Angeles, etc. Any promoter would know he could fill a concert hall with audience for any one of those artists. Many times their concerts would go well over the customary 2 hours. I can remember on several occasions, the audience still calling for more from de Los Angeles after she had been singing for 2 hours more than her scheduled time. The Munich audience locked Tibbet in the town hall till 3.00 a.m., determined to enjoy that artist's vast repertoire coupled with his acting and interpretive skills.

So let's just analyse a couple of those artists. Schipa had a small voice that carried well in any situation. Certainly he could not and should not have played Otello or any other heavy tenor role. His genius was that he used the tiny voice he had with the greatest of skill. He infused meaning into every word so that the listener sat there spellbound as he wove a scene for them. My first impression of Schipa was that I had been to the cinema and seen and heard 20 wonderful and vastly different movies in the one session. But it was much more than the scene he painted, or described, or conveyed, it was the voice that lingered in your ear, even after the last note of singer and piano had died away. So what about the voice itself? Frankly, his voice was no better and in many cases not as good as the tenors in our group. So why aren't we sitting there spellbound by our tenors? Well they're not doing what Schipa did. Not yet anyway? Will they? That's up to them. But the right place to start is to remember that you are a performing artist just as Schipa was. Your first duty is to paint the scene so vividly that your audience is drawn like a willing participant into the scene. It becomes believable for your audience, because you are making it believable. Remember, I said not long ago, and this applies to the tenors very much, that you need to be able to love someone for five minutes. It might mean that you put a face on a lover as you sing "O del mio amato ben" by Donaudy and you might even place that lover somewhere in the audience, but, you'll love her with all your heart. If you don't, your audience will certainly never know what the song is about. Sometimes, in opera, for instance, "la Bohème", your lover might be in front of you, and even if she is the last person you would choose to love in your private life, you will sincerely love her in that scene even if you have to see her in a new light. You have to love for five minutes or else your audience will not believe you. They will not believe the opera. They will be totally dissatisfied but might console themselves with Puccini's melodies. If that is the case, you are unfairly letting the composer do the work and you are failing in your duties to the composer. Therefore, think about what you are saying and how you are going to say it to the love of your life. You will never have another chance if you let that moment pass you by. That is the sad reality of the lover's life. Love is in the moment. Don't let it pass you by. Be ready to speak your heart. That is all Puccini asks of you. It is all any composer asks of you and it is certainly the only thing that the public really asks of you.

Give them what they ask for and you join the ranks of the great singers of the third category.

Again, disassociate the voice of Vittoria de Los Angeles from her artistry. It is rather a sexless voice almost like a boy soprano's. If she was just singing a scale, you would choose almost any one of the singers in our group over her. They all have better voices. Therefore they should all have better potential. But do they? Again, that's up to them. I watched de Los Angeles many times. She was a singer who could recompose her feelings and mood within a space of a few seconds and you could see her do that between each number. For that reason she was a superb concert artist but she was not such a great opera singer because she could not have that time to recompose herself in opera. Opera is a sustained role encompassing mood swings and a range of emotions whereas the songs she chose for the concert platform were short bursts of color and emotion. However, the one thing Schipa, de Los Angeles and all the singers of this category had in common was, that through their artistry, you felt you had experienced a human heart reaching out to you. Their words, their inflexion and their clarity never left you in doubt. In fact, whether you knew the language or not, you could actually sit at the very back of the concert hall and write the script just by listening to them. If those singers had not spent their time measuring each word, wondering how they were going to say such words in such and such a circumstance, they could not have made that impression. Obviously, they were never thinking of technique while they were performing but rather were thinking of the the message they wanted to share with their audience. The really great artists such as Tauber and Tibbett could sustain that message throughout an opera just as well as they could sustain the short bursts required of the concert platform.

My advice to all of you is to think of the ensembles you are singing. Each one is a perfect vignette. Something has brought your character to this point. How would you say what you are going to say to the person who will hear those words. What is your character feeling as you say those words. What is being said to you. Are the words you are hearing producing a response? What feelings are they awakening in you. Are you expressing those feelings as you utter your response? Until you infuse your words with meaning, you are not communicating and then you must ask yourself, "if I am not communicating, can I compete with Tebaldi or Merrill or Del Monaco on voice?" The answer in most cases is "no!" Well De Los Angeles and Schipa certainly could not compete with Tebaldi and Del Monaco on voice but who does the promoter use to fill the concert hall? Therein lies your answer. Get to work on your words.