Bill Fregosi writes:
>>baritone is a baritone by virtue of range, tessitura, and technique, and
>>suitable or unsuitable for a specific role based upon vocal size, vocal
>>color, and stylistic considerations.
>But that could be said of the singers in any vocal range, actually,
>unless I'm failing to get Bill's point.
No, that's exactly right. I'm not a fan of such voice categorization in
>there are some
>particular categories that are in common usage. In French parlance I
>have seen "baryton martin," the male equivalent of "falcon" more or
>less, and "baryton noble." In German, "Kavalierbariton" and
>"Heldenbariton." These categories don't seem particularly
>arbitrary--Guglielmo in COSI would be the former these days
>(originally he was almost a bass), Amfortas the latter.
Right, but these are categorization of ROLES rather than of voices. I
suppose that it makes some sense for opera companies to categorize roles in
this fashion (as I recall, this is the main function of "fach" in European
houses), but it makes little sense to categorize singers in this way. In
fact, the way I most commonly see such categories used is "Oh, singer X
isn't any good in that role, he's not a dramatic baritone (or whatever)",
as though that statement should be sufficient to disqualify a particular
singer for a particular role.
>Do we NEED more categories?
Unless you and I are planning to run an opera house (hmmmm....), I am not
convinced that we need ANY such categories.
William D. Kasimer
[log in to unmask]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
For help on commands, files, pictures, etc., visit the homepage: