Singer vs. Technique

I don't go to the opera for a voice lesson ( and I am a voice teacher). I go to have an experience. Sometimes a voice is so beautifully produced that the beauty is the experience. Other times it's the artistry that gives me thrills, and there are other times when a voice has such a unique sound that it produces yet another kind of thrill (that's always a "tasters choice issue"). Once in a great while a voice has two of the three above qualities................... well, when that happens it creates something that is so exciting it's difficult to even describe. I might also add that there have been a few singers who have given thrills AND a voice lesson (so great is their gift). In the studio all good teachers work to combine these qualities. You can't have a very long career without some kind of technique: Opera is too demanding to just "ride the train" and see what happens. I know that when I go to the opera or theater to see any singer (even my own students) what I want is to NOT have my "teacher's ears" take over. I want to have an honest experience. I know something's wrong when all I do is sit there and think, "why is she doing that?" or "if only she would just....." That is almost impossible with my own students because I know what we've been working on, etc. But I can say that I have seen quite a few less than perfect performances that were amazing. This is a difficult topic because it's also subjective. A good technique should allow a voice to sing beautifully. Callas could sing beautifully, but many would argue that her voice was in no way beautiful. I love the sound of her voice, but I also love the voices of Tebaldi, Price, Norman, Arroyo, Battle, Bonney, Fassbaender, Popp, Sass, vonStade, Crespin, Nilsson, TeKanawa, Sutherland, and Behrens. It's a very eclectic grouping of ladies and there are tons I have left off (including the tenors and baritones). From this mix you can find some that were technically excellent, some who were interesting artists, and others that were just plain unique (or had voices that had "glory spots"). One could talk about this forever.

Singer vs. Technique

I don't see how you can draw such a conclusion. I don't think he implied that. It's true that beautiful voices are fragile but that's not because they lack technique. There is a huge gap between someone who has a pleasant, beautiful tone and someone who maintains such beauty when singing difficult passages. Caballe for example admitted she had to work hard for her legendary pianissimo. Yet people take it for granted as if it was something she could do since she was five. Pavarotti worked for a long time on his passaggio to make it as even as possible, he perfected one of the most difficult things in singing, yet people often accuse him of just singing beautifully.Beautiful voices are fragile in my opinion because once heard, any blemish can spoil them. So the moment the singer ages, any change in tonal quality is noticeable and immediately compared to the younger voice. Personally I find that "unpleasant" voices have more technical problems and that is why they end up sounding "ugly". Because many singers who have the so called ugly voices, have on certain occasions sounded beautiful to me. But only when they are able to control their voices. The difference is, these singers don't care enough to reach their full potential vocally. So squally notes become their strong points and a few more go unnoticed because they don't walk on thin ice like beautiful voices.Takis