Cheryl Studer

Back in 1996, I directed an hour long Cheryl Studer TV special "Wie es ihr gefaellt" (As She Likes It) for German TV (ZDF). I have fond memories of my time with Cheryl at Interlochen with Irwin Gage, with Solti in Munich, Mehta in Vienna, Sinopoli in Dresden. I am still stunned at the astonishing range of repertoire we filmed with Cheryl all within that one very exciting year, and the ease and calm with which she carried herself, her young family in tow, from challenge to challenge. I am very happy to hear that she has returned to the stage and that a second chapter is under way for this exceptional career.

Michael Bartlett/Portland, Oregon, USA

You are too kind martin-opera. I searched the net for entries on Ms Studer and I am astonished at the sheer volume of roles she had in her repertoire. Her recorded output doesn't come close. I would like to think the roles she undertook were because of a natural curiosity on her part to expand her repertoire but I think it more likely that producers and record company executives had it in their minds this (then) latest singing sensation could sing anything. She certainly burned brightly during the 1980's and 1990's and then seemed to inexplicably disappear from view during the noughties. If there were vocal difficulties to my ear her recordings don't reveal these in the way that warning signs began to show in Ricciarelli's and Moffo's recordings. Her recording of Lucia was for many years my preferred recording of this work and probably still is - outstandingly sung with clear and meaningful diction. That would be my definition of brilliant (pace parla). Without wishing to add to the spats on this forum (fun though they are to read), I am unclear what parla means when he talks about authority to sing a role. I don't think anyone has authority to sing anything in opera unless the role was written with a particular singer in mind such as Barber's Cleopatra which he wrote for Leontyne Price or Benjamin Britten's compositions for Peter Peers. For most works in the operatic repertory we are too far removed from the original composition to declare with authority what a composer had in mind. We can hypothesise but we don't really know and the limitations of early twentienth century recordings at best only give us a glimpse of singing practices of that period.

Sorry for my tardy response. Unfortunately, I often don't have the time to read and respond to the forum.

Caballe, you seem to claim that "brilliance" in a performance of Operatic role is outstanding singing and fine diction. Since when diction is a component of "brilliance"? This kind of definition looks more suitable for "excellence". However, in music what counts is a brilliant performance versus quite a few excellent ones. Brilliance transcends and even defies excellence, going to the core of the matter of the music itself. Sutherland with her incredible voice, amazing vocal stamina and a deep research of how the role  in question should be sung was most of the time brilliant in her performances, even when her "prowess" was not at her prime. Besides, her more than 40 years of consistent first class (if not always brilliant) singing make her establish a legendary name that very few can defy.

Authority to sing means that certain singers manage to study, research, master and command certain roles in a way that make them "authorised" to sing. Hotter has managed to be Wotan, Nilsson "Walkure", Freni "Mimi", etc. So, Sutherland recreated the era of belcanto more than Mrs. Studer could even try. For La Stupenda, Lucia (and not only) was a signature role, as Norma was for Callas. Can we claim that Cheryl managed to make even one role her own, so that she can be identified with that and had, therefore, the authority to sing (it). As you said very well, Caballe, she was outstanding (with good diction as well, despite this not a musical feature). And that's all!

Parla

You've pinpointed, Parla, one of the main reasons I've never had Sutherland in my top ten. Her diction, particularly in her middle period, sucked. She might as well have been singing vocalise.

Brilliance in Art, Caballe, is not defined by dictionaries. It is used by some artists, critics and people in this business to juxtapose an "excellent" (outstanding, by the book, precise) from a "brilliant" (one which transcends the norm and has the unique features and characterized by the spirit of the artist in question) performance. Nowadays, we have plenty of great instrumentalists, soloists, conductors who excel in their art (they are technically impeccable, play very precisely, etc.), but only very few "shine" (their performances become memorable, because of the unique features of their artistry).

I never said diction is not important. I just said it is not a pure musical feature. It is not based in notes, musical training and technique, etc. It's not a part of the actual score. A great voice with solid technique can overcome the problem of diction, but diction  itself cannot save the day, even in the actual theatre. So, it's a "plus", a "must", but not the core of the matter.

As for the "Authority to sing", I never implied that Freni "becomes" Mimi or Callas "Norma". I just try to say that, with the full command of their Art, their deep knowledge of the work, their full dedication in mastering their artistry, the artists in question developed a sense of trust to the audience to listen to them with faith and genuine interest. That's why they created quite a few "signature works" (not only one), while the "outstanding" ones they simply perform very well, but they cannot be identified with the role in question.

For clarification purposes from my side only, Caballe.

Parla

Well I suppose it's up to you, parla, if you choose to discount a dictionary definition and substitute it with a different interpretation of what a word's meaning is. I beg to differ with you on the question of diction. Try singing "La donna e mobile" or Don Giovanni's toungue twister "Finch'han dal vino" without getting your mouth round the words. It's the words which provide the momentum and character. Without them arias, recitative etc simply become a vocalise. Music colleges invest a significant amount of time delivering language training, coaching and preparing pupils for performance using the score and libretto. Without naming names, we can hear from recordings of certain artists some of that training was never mastered, was forgotten or ignored.

Ranking artists in order of merit can either be fascinating or frustrating. Personally I find it fascinating reading what other people think of an artist and their performance. As you said, parla, many artists are technically impeccable but only a few "shine". Who decides this? Critics? Ourselves? Concensus? Ultimately, I would say we are left to our own judgement, which could be fallible, preferences and a word I gather you don't like, taste.

Regards