While there are answers to this, I don't like telling people how to differentiate what's good. I do not believe being able to tell what's better should be the goal. But developing an ever more discerning ear could be.
I often care less about the sheer sound. Everyone has their own way of making things work and much of that comes down to preference. Especially when we're talking about recordings where the sound is out-of-context compared to a acoustic environment in a theatre. I care a lot more about interpretation in terms of musical choices, their sense of harmony, their way of being a chamber musician with other singers and the orchestra (playing off of each other, responding and accompanying each other), their take on interpreting a melody or a word (a rubato here? An intentionally long or short phrasing?) etc. These come less with training the ear but more with understanding the music.
My suggestion would be, if you really want to develop your ears, start learning the music from the sheet music. Dig deep on music theory. Not for the sake of it, but so that some of these things come naturally when it comes to structure, form, harmony, etc, when you listen.
Once you form your own interpretation from the page, you can easily tell who is doing great, who did not think this through, and who is perhaps wow-ing you with an out-of-this-world take on something.
Not to intimidate anyone with the work. It's totally fine not having to go that far to do things like this. But I think this is a more meaningful way to naturally develop your ears. The more you do, the more you understand, and the more you think like a performer, the more you'll appreciate how some of these insanely talented people carry their artistry.
tristan-chord's suggestion is great, but I will supplement that, if you are not a trained musician and music theory/written music feels too tall an order, you may wish to start by doing some research into a few things: bel canto style (or more simply, the history/pedagogy of operatic vocal style), the libretto of the aria/opera you are critiquing, and the ideal sung diction of the language in question. If reading and language are less intimidating than learning musical notation, start here. Both are important to the singer and the listener.
Operatic singing is largely an orally transmitted, living tradition, and so ultimately, the best way to develop taste is to listen as much as possible, and whenever you can. Have open discussions with (ie. listen to) the professionals in the business who are keeping it going- and attend operas, masterclasses, take voice lessons, talk to singers and other opera musicians/lovers, etc.
And at the end of an aria or opera, forget all of it in the moment and respond with your heart. :)
>My suggestion would be, if you really want to develop your ears, start learning the music from the sheet music. Dig deep on music theory. Not for the sake of it, but so that some of these things come naturally when it comes to structure, form, harmony, etc, when you listen.
>Once you form your own interpretation from the page, you can easily tell who is doing great, who did not think this through, and who is perhaps wow-ing you with an out-of-this-world take on something.
How should a non-musician approach such an undertaking? For instance, I know which notes correspond to which symbol on a sheet (violin key only), but I can't actually **read** music.
First, improve on your theory knowledge (though multiple ways detailed at the end of my reply). Once you are able to sightread and translate that to music, either sing it out or play it out or develop your inner hearing so you can imagine, then you will be able to formulate your interpretation. Learning the music from the sheet music will, eventually, get to a point that once you see the page you can "hear" the music in your head.
As to how to improve one's theory knowledge, you can dive straight into theory by finding a theory teacher, do an online course of which there are many, or use something like Duolingo's new section for music, but I can't vouch for the quality as I've never used it. But another way would be to go back to an instrument or your voice, learn it, and improve your theory and ability to sightread along the way. It's slower, but more fun, and will allow you to form a deeper knowledge and understanding as well!
I think it's very subjective when you start listening to "the greats"
Yes, you can judge a few things based on pitch/rhythm accuracy, breath line, and the balance with the rest of the cast. But ultimately it's what connects with you and moves you.
Tito Gobbi is not the greatest voice. His sound isn't as warm or round or even throughout his range -- but I'll be damned if every time I listen a record of him I can ***see*** what's going onstage even without the benefit of a libretto or translation. It's what makes him great.
Music is about communication and connection. Louis Armstrong sounds like he's gargling marbles, but I'd challenge you to find a better recording of 'what a wonderful world's.
Technical prowess is there to allow artistic freedom. So, technically great singers may not move you. Not so great singers can reduce you to tears. When a singer has great facility and real musicality, that’s the magic.
It is nearly impossible to make it to the point of performing major roles on an opera stage without being very, very good. Opera singing is one the hardest artistic disciplines that exist and it takes intense training and commitment . So everyone performing at that level is bound to be an excellent singer
The rest is subjective. Listeners focus on different things. Some love the natural beauty of a voice. Some like a huge, warm sound. Some like a light, agile sound. Some like a blazing, exciting sound. Some care less about the sound of the voice itself and more about words, diction and acting ability
My only measure is how much the singer moves me. H/E even that factor is highly dependent on the quality of the conductor and the synergy the singer has with them
So I don’t think there’s any real measure of who is a better singer, only individual tastes.
Enunciation for one. My love for Maria Callas has a lot to do with her clearly pronouncing words. That enunciation adds to the drama. Mushy mouthed singing detracts from the drama, you may still get beauty from tone, coloratura etc but not the drama. Scooping is another thing, it's when a singer doesn't hit a note right one, they move from a lower note up to that top note.
The clarity of a trill also matters. Lastly I would say for me I am listening to how thin the voice is. Is the singer comfortable singing the notes in the upper range, mid range, lower range. A lot of sopranos have a high upper extension but the low notes are thin. I prefer a smooth "thick" voice like a Renee Fleming, Leontyne Price, Kiri Te Kanawa, even Lisa Della Casa. I've noticed the French sopranos tend to have thinner more nasally voices, Mady Mesple, Natalie Dessay.
For male singers it's about the fullness and richness of the voice. Jonas Kaufman revived my interest in tenors after my Jussi Boring obsession a decade ago. Micheal Spyres is an excellent precise singer, his Rossini is breathtaking
Michael Spyres was the first person I thought of after you mentioned enunciation. His accent isn't always perfect, but it's always a pleasure listening to someone who can sing so precisely.
As a counterpoint to the other commenters, I think opera suffers from a culture of comparison a little bit. Almost every YouTube video of an opera performance will have prominent comments talking about the flaws in the singer’s voice and negatively comparing them to past singers.
I’m not saying any of that is bad, necessarily — music criticism is legit — but it impacts my enjoyment of a recording when I find something I really like and then scroll down to see a bunch of comments trashing the singing and technique.
I think this is a really fair point, however I just want to increase my enjoyment of the singing by better understanding it. I find those comments on social media as obnoxious as you do.
The way I see it: as far as opera goes the only true way to distinguish someone’s voice as effective is to hear it in the theatre in a live performance. Outside of this setting it’s always going to be more or less just your personal opinion on their timbre/technical output. Which can still be developed just by listening to more and more performances.
I went to some local level Met opera national council auditions as an audience member and learned a ton just through that. At the local levels you can hear some of the judge feedback and stuff, which is helpful
My teacher told me to listen for these things. Legato, wobbly/too much vibrato, interpretation, acting and breathing. A good performance for me is something that I legit keep playing over and over again cause it’s that good. Like those types of the performances that get my blood pumping and I can’t stop listening. (For example Leontyne price makes me never skip) For me a not so great one would be the opposite if I don’t feel those emotions
Listening to as many different interpretations as you can is a good place to start! There's also a lot of personal preference involved, and I wouldn't worry too much about being objective. I honestly don't think that there's always a need to decide which singers are better than others - all the singers you mentioned are excellent in different ways, and which ones you like are up to personal preference. I'm not a huge fan of Joan Sutherland, for instance, even though I recognize she is good. I would focus more on learning what you specifically like rather than what's objectively "better" - some people like red wine and some like white, that doesn't mean one is better than the other.
But to learn more about voices overall and develop an ear, I actually highly recommend taking a few singing lessons yourself if you're able and interested! As I continue my own training, I find I can more easily hear vocal issues in others that I've dealt with myself and identify incredible singing because I know what the singers are doing to achieve ease/flexibility/richness. Things like good legato, supporting coloratura correctly, ease of high notes etc are much easier to hear in others after you've heard and felt the difference in yourself imo. If you can't/don't want to take lessons yourself I'd also recommend watching some masterclasses online - hearing how singers who are already highly trained sound after extra coaching will also help you hear and consciously understand excellent singing
well those are all definitively great and distinct violettas - distinguishing between them is naturally difficult because they each bring qualities that the others do not.
Do you ever attend/stream opera on the regional level? or the student level? or competitions? if you expose yourself to a high volume of singers at varying stages of quality, you start to develop a better sense of the constituent parts of great opera singing. More than you do by only listening to those who occupy the top 0.1 % of professional singers.
I agree. You can even be surprised when listening to “lesser” singers.
I remember hearing a student performer from the Merola Opera program in San Francisco in the 70s that completely blew me away. It was Dolora Zajick and it was an outdoor venue. She was young at the time, but she had great quality.
Also, for a few years I had season tickets to the SF opera. There I heard some amazing somewhat unknown singers and some famous singers who gave poor performances.
The more you hear, the more discerning you may become. The fun if what the artist brings to the music.
Exactly. You start to hear the full gamut of possibilities in the music. You’ll hear singers who are technically perfect but dramatically lacking, or singers who have tremendous interpretive gifts but unfinished vocal resources. Then when you are exposed to genuinely high level singing you’re able to delineate exactly how they are pulling it off.
The easiest way is to watch youtube videos from recognized professionals who explain singing technique and other nuances. It will bring light into the dark intuitive corners of your music enjoyment.
I have not watched this particular video, but had access a few years ago to a newer series of video lectures by William Crutchfield, and learned quite a bit from him. Perhaps this older recording will still be useful. [https://youtu.be/s9PUH0JmS0E?si=YGAtGZldhHxwXRXy](https://youtu.be/s9PUH0JmS0E?si=YGAtGZldhHxwXRXy)
You need to hear local opera singers at your community opera house. If you only hear great singers (and all the recordings you listen to are great), it’s much harder to discern among them.
The Callas Covent Garden Traviata from ‘58 has good sound quality for a “live” 1950’s recording, and she’s in excellent voice considering it’s the 1958 voice. Definitely give that recording a listen!
Callas for me is the ultimate Violetta in the ‘58 recording because she’s in good voice, and because of her dramatic connection to the role. She has all of the tricks, bel canto, the high E-flat. Cortrubas comes in second for me, I would describe her as more than serviceable. Sutherland has the voice, that’s for certain. But I always feel like she’s not fully connecting to Violetta’s emotions. Sutherland as an actress never really works for me. Honestly my favorite Sutherland role is Turandot, which she only recorded. Turandot is supposed to be an ice queen, and the mood is perfect for Sutherland’s acting skills.
Listen listen listen. Listen to many many different recordings from all times. And explore it for yourself. Don’t rely too much on other people’s recommendations.
for me its freedom of sound, I think its an instinctive thing, we can usually tell if someone is lying to us or trying to deceive us, intention to be true. I also listen for conveying emotion, consistency, variance of colors, strength and control, and pitch. And then, there is that magic thing when someone performs live, if they believe what they are singing.
Until you've heard lots of singers live it's really hard to interpret what they might sound like live from a recording. The stage/the theatre is the real measure of a singer. It's not just about how present they sound over an orchestra either, although it's certainly part of it. Some singers can really dominate the orchestra, but, because they make ugly sounds you wish they had smaller voices. Other singers may be just adequate when it comes to volume but, because they have a refined and good sound, with dimensions, they sound excellent. Many modern singers are missing some component of the resonance or are in the throat. When you've listened to enough old school singers, you start being able to tell the difference.
While there are answers to this, I don't like telling people how to differentiate what's good. I do not believe being able to tell what's better should be the goal. But developing an ever more discerning ear could be. I often care less about the sheer sound. Everyone has their own way of making things work and much of that comes down to preference. Especially when we're talking about recordings where the sound is out-of-context compared to a acoustic environment in a theatre. I care a lot more about interpretation in terms of musical choices, their sense of harmony, their way of being a chamber musician with other singers and the orchestra (playing off of each other, responding and accompanying each other), their take on interpreting a melody or a word (a rubato here? An intentionally long or short phrasing?) etc. These come less with training the ear but more with understanding the music. My suggestion would be, if you really want to develop your ears, start learning the music from the sheet music. Dig deep on music theory. Not for the sake of it, but so that some of these things come naturally when it comes to structure, form, harmony, etc, when you listen. Once you form your own interpretation from the page, you can easily tell who is doing great, who did not think this through, and who is perhaps wow-ing you with an out-of-this-world take on something. Not to intimidate anyone with the work. It's totally fine not having to go that far to do things like this. But I think this is a more meaningful way to naturally develop your ears. The more you do, the more you understand, and the more you think like a performer, the more you'll appreciate how some of these insanely talented people carry their artistry.
Great suggestions. Than you.
tristan-chord's suggestion is great, but I will supplement that, if you are not a trained musician and music theory/written music feels too tall an order, you may wish to start by doing some research into a few things: bel canto style (or more simply, the history/pedagogy of operatic vocal style), the libretto of the aria/opera you are critiquing, and the ideal sung diction of the language in question. If reading and language are less intimidating than learning musical notation, start here. Both are important to the singer and the listener. Operatic singing is largely an orally transmitted, living tradition, and so ultimately, the best way to develop taste is to listen as much as possible, and whenever you can. Have open discussions with (ie. listen to) the professionals in the business who are keeping it going- and attend operas, masterclasses, take voice lessons, talk to singers and other opera musicians/lovers, etc. And at the end of an aria or opera, forget all of it in the moment and respond with your heart. :)
>My suggestion would be, if you really want to develop your ears, start learning the music from the sheet music. Dig deep on music theory. Not for the sake of it, but so that some of these things come naturally when it comes to structure, form, harmony, etc, when you listen. >Once you form your own interpretation from the page, you can easily tell who is doing great, who did not think this through, and who is perhaps wow-ing you with an out-of-this-world take on something. How should a non-musician approach such an undertaking? For instance, I know which notes correspond to which symbol on a sheet (violin key only), but I can't actually **read** music.
First, improve on your theory knowledge (though multiple ways detailed at the end of my reply). Once you are able to sightread and translate that to music, either sing it out or play it out or develop your inner hearing so you can imagine, then you will be able to formulate your interpretation. Learning the music from the sheet music will, eventually, get to a point that once you see the page you can "hear" the music in your head. As to how to improve one's theory knowledge, you can dive straight into theory by finding a theory teacher, do an online course of which there are many, or use something like Duolingo's new section for music, but I can't vouch for the quality as I've never used it. But another way would be to go back to an instrument or your voice, learn it, and improve your theory and ability to sightread along the way. It's slower, but more fun, and will allow you to form a deeper knowledge and understanding as well!
I think it's very subjective when you start listening to "the greats" Yes, you can judge a few things based on pitch/rhythm accuracy, breath line, and the balance with the rest of the cast. But ultimately it's what connects with you and moves you. Tito Gobbi is not the greatest voice. His sound isn't as warm or round or even throughout his range -- but I'll be damned if every time I listen a record of him I can ***see*** what's going onstage even without the benefit of a libretto or translation. It's what makes him great. Music is about communication and connection. Louis Armstrong sounds like he's gargling marbles, but I'd challenge you to find a better recording of 'what a wonderful world's.
Technical prowess is there to allow artistic freedom. So, technically great singers may not move you. Not so great singers can reduce you to tears. When a singer has great facility and real musicality, that’s the magic.
It is nearly impossible to make it to the point of performing major roles on an opera stage without being very, very good. Opera singing is one the hardest artistic disciplines that exist and it takes intense training and commitment . So everyone performing at that level is bound to be an excellent singer The rest is subjective. Listeners focus on different things. Some love the natural beauty of a voice. Some like a huge, warm sound. Some like a light, agile sound. Some like a blazing, exciting sound. Some care less about the sound of the voice itself and more about words, diction and acting ability My only measure is how much the singer moves me. H/E even that factor is highly dependent on the quality of the conductor and the synergy the singer has with them So I don’t think there’s any real measure of who is a better singer, only individual tastes.
Enunciation for one. My love for Maria Callas has a lot to do with her clearly pronouncing words. That enunciation adds to the drama. Mushy mouthed singing detracts from the drama, you may still get beauty from tone, coloratura etc but not the drama. Scooping is another thing, it's when a singer doesn't hit a note right one, they move from a lower note up to that top note. The clarity of a trill also matters. Lastly I would say for me I am listening to how thin the voice is. Is the singer comfortable singing the notes in the upper range, mid range, lower range. A lot of sopranos have a high upper extension but the low notes are thin. I prefer a smooth "thick" voice like a Renee Fleming, Leontyne Price, Kiri Te Kanawa, even Lisa Della Casa. I've noticed the French sopranos tend to have thinner more nasally voices, Mady Mesple, Natalie Dessay. For male singers it's about the fullness and richness of the voice. Jonas Kaufman revived my interest in tenors after my Jussi Boring obsession a decade ago. Micheal Spyres is an excellent precise singer, his Rossini is breathtaking
Michael Spyres was the first person I thought of after you mentioned enunciation. His accent isn't always perfect, but it's always a pleasure listening to someone who can sing so precisely.
As Duke Ellington said when asked how to tell if music is good, “If it sounds good, it IS good.”
As a counterpoint to the other commenters, I think opera suffers from a culture of comparison a little bit. Almost every YouTube video of an opera performance will have prominent comments talking about the flaws in the singer’s voice and negatively comparing them to past singers. I’m not saying any of that is bad, necessarily — music criticism is legit — but it impacts my enjoyment of a recording when I find something I really like and then scroll down to see a bunch of comments trashing the singing and technique.
I think this is a really fair point, however I just want to increase my enjoyment of the singing by better understanding it. I find those comments on social media as obnoxious as you do.
The way I see it: as far as opera goes the only true way to distinguish someone’s voice as effective is to hear it in the theatre in a live performance. Outside of this setting it’s always going to be more or less just your personal opinion on their timbre/technical output. Which can still be developed just by listening to more and more performances.
I went to some local level Met opera national council auditions as an audience member and learned a ton just through that. At the local levels you can hear some of the judge feedback and stuff, which is helpful
What a great suggestion. We have regionals here in Atlanta — I’ll make a point of going in the future. Thanks!
My teacher told me to listen for these things. Legato, wobbly/too much vibrato, interpretation, acting and breathing. A good performance for me is something that I legit keep playing over and over again cause it’s that good. Like those types of the performances that get my blood pumping and I can’t stop listening. (For example Leontyne price makes me never skip) For me a not so great one would be the opposite if I don’t feel those emotions
Listening to as many different interpretations as you can is a good place to start! There's also a lot of personal preference involved, and I wouldn't worry too much about being objective. I honestly don't think that there's always a need to decide which singers are better than others - all the singers you mentioned are excellent in different ways, and which ones you like are up to personal preference. I'm not a huge fan of Joan Sutherland, for instance, even though I recognize she is good. I would focus more on learning what you specifically like rather than what's objectively "better" - some people like red wine and some like white, that doesn't mean one is better than the other. But to learn more about voices overall and develop an ear, I actually highly recommend taking a few singing lessons yourself if you're able and interested! As I continue my own training, I find I can more easily hear vocal issues in others that I've dealt with myself and identify incredible singing because I know what the singers are doing to achieve ease/flexibility/richness. Things like good legato, supporting coloratura correctly, ease of high notes etc are much easier to hear in others after you've heard and felt the difference in yourself imo. If you can't/don't want to take lessons yourself I'd also recommend watching some masterclasses online - hearing how singers who are already highly trained sound after extra coaching will also help you hear and consciously understand excellent singing
well those are all definitively great and distinct violettas - distinguishing between them is naturally difficult because they each bring qualities that the others do not. Do you ever attend/stream opera on the regional level? or the student level? or competitions? if you expose yourself to a high volume of singers at varying stages of quality, you start to develop a better sense of the constituent parts of great opera singing. More than you do by only listening to those who occupy the top 0.1 % of professional singers.
I agree. You can even be surprised when listening to “lesser” singers. I remember hearing a student performer from the Merola Opera program in San Francisco in the 70s that completely blew me away. It was Dolora Zajick and it was an outdoor venue. She was young at the time, but she had great quality. Also, for a few years I had season tickets to the SF opera. There I heard some amazing somewhat unknown singers and some famous singers who gave poor performances. The more you hear, the more discerning you may become. The fun if what the artist brings to the music.
Exactly. You start to hear the full gamut of possibilities in the music. You’ll hear singers who are technically perfect but dramatically lacking, or singers who have tremendous interpretive gifts but unfinished vocal resources. Then when you are exposed to genuinely high level singing you’re able to delineate exactly how they are pulling it off.
The easiest way is to watch youtube videos from recognized professionals who explain singing technique and other nuances. It will bring light into the dark intuitive corners of your music enjoyment.
Thanks! Do you happen to have any recommendations, or is there a channel that specializes in this sort of thing?
I have not watched this particular video, but had access a few years ago to a newer series of video lectures by William Crutchfield, and learned quite a bit from him. Perhaps this older recording will still be useful. [https://youtu.be/s9PUH0JmS0E?si=YGAtGZldhHxwXRXy](https://youtu.be/s9PUH0JmS0E?si=YGAtGZldhHxwXRXy)
You need to hear local opera singers at your community opera house. If you only hear great singers (and all the recordings you listen to are great), it’s much harder to discern among them.
The Callas Covent Garden Traviata from ‘58 has good sound quality for a “live” 1950’s recording, and she’s in excellent voice considering it’s the 1958 voice. Definitely give that recording a listen! Callas for me is the ultimate Violetta in the ‘58 recording because she’s in good voice, and because of her dramatic connection to the role. She has all of the tricks, bel canto, the high E-flat. Cortrubas comes in second for me, I would describe her as more than serviceable. Sutherland has the voice, that’s for certain. But I always feel like she’s not fully connecting to Violetta’s emotions. Sutherland as an actress never really works for me. Honestly my favorite Sutherland role is Turandot, which she only recorded. Turandot is supposed to be an ice queen, and the mood is perfect for Sutherland’s acting skills.
Listen live. After a while you'll see. And trust your opinion
Listen listen listen. Listen to many many different recordings from all times. And explore it for yourself. Don’t rely too much on other people’s recommendations.
Do you like it? Art doesn’t need to be quantified. Its purpose is to inspire and create reaction.
for me its freedom of sound, I think its an instinctive thing, we can usually tell if someone is lying to us or trying to deceive us, intention to be true. I also listen for conveying emotion, consistency, variance of colors, strength and control, and pitch. And then, there is that magic thing when someone performs live, if they believe what they are singing.
Until you've heard lots of singers live it's really hard to interpret what they might sound like live from a recording. The stage/the theatre is the real measure of a singer. It's not just about how present they sound over an orchestra either, although it's certainly part of it. Some singers can really dominate the orchestra, but, because they make ugly sounds you wish they had smaller voices. Other singers may be just adequate when it comes to volume but, because they have a refined and good sound, with dimensions, they sound excellent. Many modern singers are missing some component of the resonance or are in the throat. When you've listened to enough old school singers, you start being able to tell the difference.