Hymn to Apollo

I couldn't even say whether I prefer Sena Jurinac or Christine Schäfer as Cherubino, let alone who's "the greatest singer of all time".

From:

Farinelli? How can you tell he was the best? How could you know:-) ?

From:

I trust Handel's opinion--but your're right its a difficult matter. Still it seems foolish to thing the greatest singer who ever lived would be alive today.

From:

yes, you are right, Farinelli could have been the best of all times, Handel is trustworthy, of course:-))) but he didnt know lets say Caruso:-) or whoever lived after or before Handel. and maybe the technique improves and the singers are better, because of the experience of the centuries... but i am not an expert, i dont know. but Handel didnt know other singers than the ones that sung in his time (and only the ones he heard live), now we have recordings, maybe (if Handel could listen to later singers) he would say: Pavarotti was even better:-) (than Farinelli), or Wunderlich. Corelli. and what about the ladies too. I say it is quite difficult to judge, and you have the voice types, like tenor, baritone, and the light tenor, dramatic tenor, and then compare...
btw.who is your favourite opera singer or singers ?

From:

As you probably figured out I am partial to authentic performances practices, and there really isn't a single singer who stands out as much, say, as the conductors. Bartoli and Kirkby usually pick out interesting repertoire, but I don't like either as singers that well. I rather dislike Jeroussky (or however he spells it), but to hear that music one must often put up with him--to give you an idea, I actually sold his recording of Vivaldi's Orlando in order to buy the old 1970s recording with Horn.

But, since you want a modern standard singer--Jose van Dam stands out--and he's probably retired by now. People like Dormamu, or Flemming--I only know from You Tube videos

From:

who is Dormamu? I dont know him or her.
Fleming i know of course.
do you know this dvd http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jb2TURdBeEQ ?
you dislike Jeroussky.. what about A.Scholl?

From:

Damrau--so see how little I know of these modern singers.

I guess it was Dr. Strange interference.

From:

He says Bartoli's voice is too "wobbly" which I think means her voice can get a little shaky on either end of a note--maybe technically she isn't as good as some, but I think she's a fine, passionate performer.

From:

for me passion in a singer and emotions and also the acting qualities on the stage mean very much.

From:

majolika.livejournal.com

I wouldn't really dare to have an opinion on Farinelli, but I AGREE THAT THE FILM WAS HORRIBLE! URGH!

From:

filialucis

No contest at all. Orpheus. :D

From:

Heard melodies are sweet, but those unheard
are sweeter.

From:

According to Walter Muschg's "Tragische Literaturgeschichte" (1948) there are three primary and three secondary types of poets: "Magier", "Seher" and "Sänger"; "Gaukler", "Priester" and "Poet". In this typology Orpheus is the prototype of the "Magier" (Shakespeare is another example), and the quintessential "Sänger" is Homer.

From:

Can you explain this further? It's kind of fascinating, but I need details. :)

From:

With pleasure. What I remember without rereading is that Muschg believes that there are three main original situations for literature/poetry to be created: He starts with the "Magier", as German literature starts with the "Merseburger Zaubersprüche". This type of poet moves in a world that he magically created himself. His words are powerful in a very real sense to him. The "Seher" is visited by God, and sees himself as a mere tool of inspiration and mostly as a voice in the desert. The "Sänger" is the storyteller at court, very this-worldly, celebrating the values of society. The secondary types are "fallen" forms of these. The "Gaukler" is a kind of bohemian. His magic are entertaining tricks, his songs are subversive. The "Priester" pursues on the tradition of the "Seher", being inspired by his cause rather than by God. The "Poet" is the "man of letters". As far as I remember, Muschg doesn't dismiss the three secondary forms. They do have their merits.

From:

The "Poet" is the "man of letters": To Muschg Homer is a "Sänger", Virgil a "Poet".

From:

A neat typology, but doesn't that leave the Gothic Bible all alone in the corner weeping for itself?

From:

Muschg's "history of literature" isn't organised chronologically and it doesn't try to be in any way "complete". The first part of the book explains the typology and the "tragedy" of a Magier's, Seher's, etc. life. The second part is about topics that all kinds of poets have in common: Armut, Leiden, Entsagung, Schuld, Phantasie, das Wort, Vollendung, Ruhm. It wasn't a very influential work to say the least, because of its perceived "pathos", but I rather like the three categories: magisch, mystisch and mythisch, in addition to the usual lyrisch, episch, dramatisch.

(A correction to the "Priester": "being inspired by ~~his cause~~ a given system of belief rather than directly by God.")

From:

One more addition: "because of its perceived pathos": well, and because of its fantastical nature. Muschg insists that he came to his types in a strictly empirical way, but well... I guess C.G. Jung has used up all the fantastical theories that Switzerland was allowed for the twentieth century.

From:

My own personal choice would be Bartoli but that's only because I have a crush on her.

From:

ah, Bartoli. How about male singers? favourites...?

From:

I guess you're not in on the joke--if its a male icon, its me--the Baroque Opera fanatic--if its a female icon it's my wife who used to own a few Bartoli CDs and Christmas Vespers at King's College Oxford, and a lot of Tom Petty.

From:

Oh, fooey. I had more than that.

If only I could sing Bartoli like I could play Petty.

From: