Giovanni Martinelli - Che Gelida Manina (1926)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 жов 2024
- Yes, after over two years my original account has been unblocked! You might remember my other accounts AmericanCallas, CantStandYaCostanza, and my other currently acctive account SheHadManHands. Hopefully some of you old timers from UA-cam remember this channel!
"Che Gelida Manina"
from Giacomo Puccini's
"La Bohème"
Sung by Giovanni Martinelli
with Orchestra conducted by Josef Pasternack
(March 3, 1926)
Yes, there are two postings already of Martinelli singing this aria but they are both from 1913. This is his electric recording of the aria from 1926
What this selection shows is that spinto tenors of the past sang just like their lyric brothers. They did not overload the voice with color which is the error most modern tenors prefer. Martinelli never sings white but his voice is clear regardless of the volume level. This is a choice. There are no hearable register adjustments. His voice is not sweet like a peach but as a nobility of sound that would fit the spinto rep like a glove.
Try analysing less and feeling more.
@@elcid8889 Can't we do both??
@@MrTrackman100 yes and we should. It’s how these singers achieved greatness.
Caruso said we needed a good ear AND intelligence. And something in the heart.
@@stone301 Agreed!
Vi ringraziamo tanto per questa musica. Essa porta le lacrime agli occhi e mi scalda il vecchio cuore.
Mustang du Furret de l'Asnière
I agree with SHICOFFabout Martinelli whom I happened to meet at the Old Met in 1950 when I was 15 years old. His very long career and the unacccountable number of roles, most of which he performed as good or better than the other wonderful tenors of two generations are a historic evidence of his greatness as a tenor as, thanks to RCA and VITAPHONE mainly. is recorded forever...God Bless the great Giovanni Martinelli, JRT
Jose Turco azul
@Jose Turco How would you know GM was as good or better than the previous two generations of tenors? You didn't even
hear Martinelli live in the house. There are no recordings of entire roles left from the singers before him, just arias, and small excerpts recorded in studio don't say much about how a singer performs an entire role live. He did not have a very long career, just a long one, and did not perform an unaccountable number of roles, only about 40, most of them verismo and some Verdi. He wasn't very versatile, for example Mattia Battistini, Patti, and among
tenors Lauri-Volpi and Gigli, all had longer careers than GM and were more versatile (Patti excepted, she did not
sing verismo roles)
excellent , using the old school technic wonderful
BEAUTIFUL!
Non lo avevo mai sentito,ma è meraviglioso!! Una voce potente e bella!!!
All heart expressed by an incredible voice. Wish we could all express ourselves this way.
Martinelli deserves to be better known to this generation. His performance total at the Met and on tour reached 1,000 performances according to Grove. The legato line is smooth as silk and his upper register was easy and gifted with a clarion ring that made him an ideal Andrea Chenier, Radames, Don Alvaro, etc.
Grandioso Martinelli , Una Voz Unica !!!!
Martinelli sang only 123 Aida's, 39 Boheme 74 Carmen's 56 Faust's, 24 Forza's, 39 Tosca's 69 Trovatore's, 26 Otello's 68I Pagliacci's only 18 Samson's 26 Lucia's 34 Butterfly's 31 LaJuive', and much more. But Patrick Boyle thinks Martinelli would not be good enough to sing with the competition that's around today. He's better than listening to Sebastian Maniscalco
Er hat mich wirklich sehr amüsiert, dieser Disput über Martinelli vor einigen Jahren! Ich bin ja schon etwas älter und sehr froh einige "meiner Sänger/innen" in den 1960/1970ern noch persönlich erlebt zu haben! Ich folge hier Alex Natan, der in lesenswerter Weise auf die ungeheure Bühnenpräsenz und den Totaleinsatz der Stimme der Generation Sänger/innen zwischen 1900 bis etwa 1970, (er verstarb 1971) hingewiesen hatte!
Meiner Meinung nach begann die Gesangs-Misere etwa nach 1995! Durchgedrehte, wichtigtuerische Regisseure und eben solche Bühnenbildner hatten scheinbar ein Ziel: Die Zerstörung der Oper! Nicht vergessen, die neuen Gesanglehrer! Mich hat man erfolgreich vergrault!
Meine These, ausgehend von den Sängern die ich sehr, sehr mag (also wirklich subjektiv) Nicht eine einzige Sängerin oder Sänger von heute kann es mit Ponselle, Rethberg/Muzio/Callas/Tebaldi oder Martinelli, Lauri-Volpi, Pertile, Gigli, del Monaco, Corelli di Stefano usw, usw, usw...... aufnehmen!
Und als Deutscher, bitte: Peter Anders, Anton Dermota, sogar Rudolf Schock und vor allem und über allem Fritz Wunderlich! Bei den Damen fällt mir sofort die unvergleichliche Elisabeth Grümmer ein!
Und heute???!
Ob die Gesangswüste noch irgendwo ein Lebenszeichen hat!
Mein Fazit: Martinelli war ein wirklich großer Sänger, aber ich bin halt doch eher Lauri-Volpi Fan!
uno dei piu grandi tenori di tutti i tempi tra l altro paesano di pertile di montagnana
My mom met Martinelli in the 1920s when he sang at Ravinia Park, in Highland Park, Illinois. At the time she was about 15 years old, and attended a performance with a lady who knew the tenor, and who introduced her to him.
René Pariente: Quel magnifique ténor, aprés tant d'années.
Another wonderful tenor unique voice plus incredible singing, 👏👏👏👏😀😁🇬🇧👍
My favorite Che Gelida Manina.
Lovely singing TY ffor posting
Bravo!!! Edmund StAustell wrote:
"When Martinelli
was a young man, singing in London,
music critic Herman Klein said of him that "he has that rare gift-a
true tenor voice. It remains the finest tenor heard in England for
years." And that is of course
true. Martinelli always sounds like a
true tenor, no matter the role. His particular
kind of open phonation, or as many call it, a white voice, was easily and
healthily produced, and the top was reliable.
In some ways, his essential sound is like that of an Eastern European or
Russian tenor. ...... he certainly is the quintessential Italian tenor, writ
large! The extreme top seems easy for him."
I was just listening, and thought, "Bjorling must have listened a lot to him" . Martinelli with bigger voice, but Bjorling ,(I think) must have learned a bit from him.... (I like both tenors a lot...)
@@karifrid Bjorling is a unique tenor, overall stunning, but more lyric in nature.
Recorder loves his voice, making it sounds so gigantic, no wonder many consider him dramatic voice.
@@道-p2e You are right . Beautiful, but not the "powerhouse" as Martinelli.....
@@karifrid Agree, it is a mis perception, probably due to recording. What a dynamic powerhouse master Martinelli is!
Wenn diese Stimme das beste war was die Engländer je gehört haben es tut mir leid für die Engländer. Nein, eine weiße Stimme ist ganz und gar nicht eine Italienische Stimme, dieser Herman Klein muss ein trauriger Musikkritiker gewesen sein.
Fantastic! Great singing, beautiful mellow dark tone, no shouting and spreading no forced voice like what came after him. The last great tenor!
Like any recording singer, Martinelli has a place in in operatic history, even if the place is due to his being in the right place at the right time. But his place is more akin to a footnote than a dedicated article.
Martinelli had had the good luck of singing at the Met for fifteen years when the Met was flush , and took the massive pay cut after the Met wasn't flush anymore,so he continued to sing there for another fifteen years,the period in which the Met began with the broadcasts ,which contributed to his name recognition at the time . He didn't blaze any new trails in the annals of opera , not even old ones
A small correction .GM had not been the management's choice for the very first broadcasts .He can he heard in the first *surviving* broadcasts . The first two years broadcasts are lost
@alex Nicht eimal Fußnote
@@Nangis123 In the meantime I did some reading about the Met.
He was there, he was young, he had rugged good looks, he could roar, he could produce a good Bb always, and squeeze a C on a good day. No one asked for more in the 1910's and after that he was entrenched, with the clique led by a certain soprano supporting him. What I don't understand is how did he manage to escape conscription in the army? He shouldn't have been at the Met in 1914.
@@alexingresss2420 I don't know but there were only four options :you were unfit ,you bribed the doc to declare you unfit ,you had friends in the party who took care you were exempted , you paid someone else to go in your place .
They did ask for more in the 1910's , or perhaps they didn't but some singers delivered more because it was an artistic necessity to them .Slezak did much more than just roar .but he left the Met at the beginning of the war . There is a long conversation somewhere here in which one of the people posting said the Met went all patriotic and cut the German repertory ,and had to fill in the void with unobjectionable rep like Italian and French ,thus creating more performance opportunities in that rep .Until then GM had been a guest artist getting a couple of performances per year .After the departure of the German singers he got much more .It's an interesting theory ,as good as any , probably better than most .Toscanini was there too ,probably helping him to get a foot in the Met door and possibly arranging things for him in Italy , he was a biggie in the party in those days .In those prewar days apparently you either had friends in high places or you had to pay your way .Schipa said in an interview when he was quite old ,that when he had debuted in 1910 he had to pay for the privilege . A guy came to him and told him the previous tenor didn't "please" ( whatever that meant ) and if Schipa wanted to fill in for the unfortunate tenor,great, money first to the guy and he'll arrange it .The "fee" was more than Schipa was paid for the performances . Schipa wasn't keen on the deal ,who would be? , but he had to agree in the end
My favorite Che gelida manina of all time
what a voice! thaks a lot!
r.
Great rendition. Martinelli was at his peak in the mid-1920's when Victor introduced the "orthophonic" electric recording system. It was somewhat narrow in frequency response, but great for tenors. (His 1927 "No Pagliaccio Non Son," was probably the greatest ever.) RCA/Victor really blew it in the thirties & forties where many of the "Red Seal" recordings were so bassy that they buried the performer.
Victor "Orthophonic" was one of the first electronic recording systems. Although narrow in bandwidth, it was ideally suited for tenors. I've always thought that Marinelli's greatest recordings were from 1926 on through the mid 1930's. Che Gelida Manina is beautiful, but my all time Martinelli classic is "No Pagliaccio Non Son, recordied early 1927.) - Roy Thomas
Потеряна школа....Брависсимо!!!!!!
Thanks for posting! Magnifique!
Not too many people know of this great tenor. He had an amazing voice.
I am afraid you are right.
That is a true high C the great Martinelli sings (3:26) and sings beautifully!
Elide bolognesi
Überzeugt mich überhaupt nicht. Trockene Stimme, zu recht in Vergessenheit geraten.
Whatever the criticisms he could certainly hit the top notes.
Легендарные верхние ноты.
Usually i like and respect your comments,here I think you have gone overboard with the comparisons .He was called the LION at the Met ,because maybe there were no TIGERS at that time at the Met ,but plenty around the world ,as usual of course what one hear and interprets what he or she likes at the end that is the best Singer of them all . Buon Ascolto e saluti GINO
Who was called "lion" at the Met? Martinelli? He stayed 30 years with the Met. Do you have a specific decade in mind or did the Met lack tigers for 30 years?
His early voice had the colour of aged straw, his late voice the colour of parched earth, dryness inclusive in both cases. Add to this his many technical shortcomings and one of the plainest artistry ever.
Tasteless comment
@@jaxhassler9591 You a prick? They seem to live on UA-cam nowadays.
You may like his dry voice and be deaf to his technical faults, I am not.
If your taste in singers is great, I'm glad I don't share it.
If your taste in commenting is great, I'm glad I don't share it. I didn't reply to other users with an opinion different from mine to tell them they're tasteless just because I don't agree with them.
Out of curiosity what do you think of his over exaggerated pronunciation of the R, and a slight sour E at the end of the word ? This has nothing to do with his singing but after a while to an a Italian this can be irritating,Bergonzi also had a similar problem but with the S , Sill they gave us the best singing they could ! can anybody ask for more than that ? Always a pleasure to exchange points of view with you. Regards e Saluti GINO
watch video concerto martinelli 3 songs from films unbelievable never got credit for his talent high notes among best pure gold den sound
I have always been struck by the effusive comments of the few Martinelli fans who seem to believe he was anything special. He was IMO one of the most overrated singers of his period. Nothing original about his style, just imitation, and the wrong imitation at that. A technique full of scooping, rolled 'r', little agility, a lot of vehement parlando, and excellent legato he used mainly to stretch the tempo like chewing gum, thus robbing many pieces of their inner tension and intended drama. A voice only Brits, with their vibrato phobia, can find agreeable. The rest of us appreciate overtones.
Neil Shicoff sings Che Gelida the best ever in my opinion
sono riuscito ad ascoltare, e con sforzo, meno della metà di quest'aria eseguita da questo shicoff ......
ma non mischiamo la lana con la seta!
@Agorante your comments here are among the dumbest I've ever read on UA-cam, the exact opposite is true: none of today's singers would have been hired back in the Golden Era of operatic singing, as a matter of fact there has been a dramatic decline of singing technique after the 1960s: singers like gigli studied for many years before their debut (and kept on studying throughout their careers) + so were able to fill large theaters with their voices, whereas today,singers (like Florez or Grigolo, also Beczala, whom I saw on stage) need microphones in order to be audible at all. Yours comparison between opera and sport is absurd, too: there's no doping in opera ...
I agree 76alexantonio,
But I would not compare, if I must, Martinelli and Pavarotti with Lanza. He, Mario, is the greatest cross over "movie star singer of all time".All I know is that I would have given my eye teeth to hear Pavarotti and Callas from a balcony at La Scala
And I say baloney Patrick, about your saying no one would hire Martinelli today.I would gladly buy a ticket if I had the cash for the prices that they get for performances !.Even Martinelli would be hired today.Always remember the Size of Luciano and Maria.And the sound system speaks for its self in 1926.Like good old "Pipes" Ethyl Merman they did not have the "Mikes"dangling all over them. By the way I am reading a autobiography of Carroll O'Connor and that is the first of Martinelli and he sounds damn good to me.Thank You ...You Tube..It is just about my favorite spot on this vast wasteland our country (TV)Whatever happened to A&E's Breakfast with the Arts ?? I sure in heck miss it!!
No one would ghire Martenelli?!!! Yes, opinioons really are like a**holes,, aren't they though!
I think it is called the "Golden Era" of opera for a reason? No real opera singer, singing in a properly designed opera house, should need a microphone--period. There should be no debate about this. That's what it's all about. By the way, he sounds okay. Solid high note, if not overwhelmingly beautiful.
Not a good fit for him imo, though he has a few good moments, the high C not being one of them. The voice sounds steely and nasal most of the time to me. Don't think lyric or romantic roles were his strong point, just because you have good legato it doesn't follow you also sound lyrical. In his younger years he could make much more of it but after 1925 his lyric arias have little to recommend them imo. His 1915 Carmen recordings are among his best but then Don Jose is a soldier, not a poet. It is worth mentioning neither he nor Ponselle recorded anything after 1929 for the rest of their operatic careers with the exception of a few sides done after retirement , which didn't do them any credit
Voice too dry and wiry for my taste, lacking vibrato to the point it becomes almost white.
As a younger opera fan, I also did not appreciate Martinelli, for forcing and squeezing as his top was fixed at times. There were and still are many other listening option's that we can enjoy more. However, contrary to some poster's on this page like "Boyle" that think singers don't sound any different in the opera house than on recordings are seriously mistaken or misinformed. In My Opinion,The best way to evaluate any singer is live. One day, I was expressing my displeasure about Martinelli with my father, and his response was " He was better ''LIVE'' than on records, where his rigid sound was much less noticeable and his voice was very large in the theater. Rosa Ponselle said, that anyone who bought Richard Tucker's records, should return them & get there money back because He was much better in the opera house than on records. Now that many great singers have passed, we are fortunate to have many of there recording's , but the recording's don't tell us the whole story. Enjoy
@@sugarbist Some voices sound indeed better live, they need the "distance", the closer they are to the mike, the worse. I can hear the difference between live and studio recordings of such voices. Perhaps Martinelli did sound better in the house, I wouldn't know, but he doesn't sound much different in his live recordings, with the mike 10-20 ft away, than in studio with the mike 2-3 ft in front of him. There is only a small difference. I am still inclined to believe the voice lacked vibrato. I would say it was penetrant but not brilliant, "round" or velvety.
@@arepo I think for many people, Martinelli's voice is an acquired taste. He sang about 900 performances at the Met to mostly good reviews, including 123 Aida's. This is a portion of the 1921 review. "The Radamas was a familiar one, of Giovanni Martinelli, who on this occasion, was in ringing good voice" 1927 Boheme review." Giovanni Martinelli was the Rodolfo, and he attached himself ardently to the little flower maker as he did to the top tones of his music.'' 1933 Boheme, "Martinelli was in prodigal voice last night and did not omit or curtail a single high note in the score. What is better, he put a good deal of heart into the 3rd act."
@@sugarbist I have read some reviews myself, a friend told me they are online. I agree his reviews at the Met were mixed but mostly positive, at least those I read were so. For instance, there are good reviews like those you mentioned, and there are negative reviews like these "His was an opportunity of high notes, and these were impaled with confidence and more or less purity, all at the expense, however, of a vocal equipment cruelly forced" (1923), "In melodramatic moments the soprano indulged in what the uneducated would term yelling. So, for that matter, did Mr. Martinelli, who (it simply must be faced) is no longer in the fortunate condition to lend credence to the lyric flights of Cavarodossi" But none of the reviews I read described the voice as being beautiful, and the positive things they have to say are more related to his commitment, than to the quality of his voice. After 1930 I got the impression most of them praised the effort but not necessarily the results, or mostly kept silent about the results if they couldn't say anything positive. Perhaps they didn't want to discourage patrons, the times were hard, the economy shaky, and the Met had lost half of its former stars together with their financial stability.
@@sugarbist It is interesting to read how critics of the period saw him, and compare with reviews of other singers, but I am not going to adopt their opinions, be they positive or negative. We should not forget critics are not immune to partisanship, nor above furthering interests which have nothing to do with art. My friend pointed to me that Henderson never mentioned any voice trouble when reviewing performances of Jean de Reszke's last years (In Dec 1900, 4 months before Jean's last performance, he even went as far as to say "The story that the greatest male singer of our time had reached the end of his career was proved to be untrue"), yet years later while reviewing Leo Slezak the same Henderson wrote "It was as much the personality as the consummate art that enabled de Reszke to triumph *when his voice had been failing for long* " The same phenomenon can be observed in regard to Caruso, very few if any negative reviews at the time, but years after his death you can find mentions of his battered top in other singers' reviews. My friend also told me the Met reviews collection is incomplete in regard to Caruso, with negative reviews missing. I have decided to listen to recordings and trust my own ears instead of trusting critics' ears and wondering about how their personal bias influenced their writing.
@intelegentable My favorite baritone is probably Stracciari. My favorite tenor maybe Björling. Both of whom sound just great on the recording equipment of the day. Gigli and Caruso too. Yet Pertile and Martinelli sound lousy. Some singers like Bergonzi sound better on records than live but it's still the same voice. Ruffo (The God of Voice) certainly had a big sound well captured on disk. Your theory makes no sense.
Patrick Boyle while we are in a critical mode, a 91 year old friend of my father’s told me he saw Bjorling 5 times at the Met and dismissed his voice as being pretty but small. IMO, JB was also cold but seems more emotional in his live performances. JB was a great lyric tenor and an impeccable singer.
If only lanza was able to sing like Martinelli , he may, possibly MAY be entitled to guy
Giovanni
Henry Webb
Lanza was a million and one times better than Martinelli. GM had an ugly voice at best, and a very flawed technique that sound amateurish. You don't like Lanza because of his impression of GM singing M'appri, which was spot on.
@@alvarodecampostabacaria4223 Martinelli had a nasal ugly tone unlike Lanza who had one of the most beautiful tenor voices of all-time. GM also had very poor diction as evidenced in this aria: 2:30 - 2:33
You are welcome to disagree, but your ad hominem comments are childish.
@@operadog2000 it's silly and amateurish to say that Lanza was "one million times better than Martinelli". Opera it's such a complicated and amazing art that a singer can be amazing in some operas and not very good in others (including the gods of opera). Martinelli is clearly a tenore drammatico, his Otello is sublime, so it's his Andrea Chenier, trovatore and other dramatic roles. Lanza is surely a fantastic singer for his repertoire, each to his own. That is, we are comparing 2 of the greatest voices of history, it's not like we are comparing Lanza and Grigolo (one of the most insignificant "tenors" of history), so it's not really rational to say what you said. And another mistake that I was doing as well is to judge a tenor from an aria on UA-cam, tenors should be judged by whole operas. We're here arguing about Martinelli and Lanza and grigolo is playing the met, how sad is this?? Haha.
@@alvarodecampostabacaria4223 what is childish is to accuse someone of drinking because you do not agree with his statement.
Martinelli's voice would not hold up to todays standards as it was very ugly, unpolished, and unrefined. It was a voice that filled an opera house, but did not record well due to the ugly nature of his tone and poor vocal production. I have all of his acoustical recordings, including his Edison's, and he only had a handful of recordings that are attractive. On the other hand, he was one of the nicest men in opera, and his voice filled an important time in the history of opera as he took over all of Caruso's roles after his death in 1921.
As for Grigolo, he's overrated. He had a lot of potential, but sadly, he has pushed his voice to the point of decline like many of todays tenors.
@@operadog2000 80 % of what you said is open to debate. However you are saying he would not be good for "today's standards"?? Today's standards is mere decadence, Martinelli would easily be the king of any stage today. There's no one around with such a powerful voice, such a squillo, extension and many other qualities. You thinking his voice is ugly is merely your opinion, not a state of fact
@intelegentable I was arguing from the sonic evidence. You however are promoting a theory. Let me respond with a theory of my own. There were less than two billion people on earth when Martinelli sang. Today there are at least three times as many people and they are much much richer people too. There are probably ten times as many singers today as back then. In every sport today's athletes are stonger, faster and better. Singers too.
What singers are stronger today and better than singers from the Golden age and through the 1950s to the 1980s? Curious
Patrick Boyle Yes Patrick,10 times as many singers with 10 times less ability.
There is a very interesting recording on UA-cam somewhere of Mario Lanza making fun of Martinelli. It's pretty funny. Lanza IMHO had a much better voice than Martinelli. It's appropriate for a young irreverent tenor to ridicule older over rated tenors. Gigli had left the Met because he wouldn't accept the pay cut. Martinelli would. No one would hire Martinelli today.
Come on Patrick, Who today can sing Chenier, Forza, Turandot, Aida, I Pagiacci, Trovatore and Otello the way Martinelli could? Who today has the stentorian sound Martinelli had? He was more of a theatrical tenor than a recording star. Lanza had a better voice than a lot of tenors, but he wasn't an opera singer.
No one would hire him because (almost) no one knows anything about opera and voice. They know about pseudo intellectualism
Lanza had a much better voice than Martinelli? Opinions.. I think the exact opposite.
You are idior martinelli is in top 10 tenors of all times.
How stupid you are.
@Patrick I don't agree no one would hire Martinelli today .I don't agree no one wouldn't (double negation , I know , but I'm sure you understand why I had to use it ) Today if you have a good agent, good connections , or you are good looking ,you get hired . That was true of GM's time too , to a certain extent .In GM's time there was also being at the right time in the right place that counted . Lucky for him , GM got a short stint at the Met, amounting to a few performances , in 1913 .I'm sure everybody understands the significance of the year . I don't agree it's appropriate for a young irreverent tenor to ridicule older over rated tenor .Why should it be? It's appropriate to criticize any singer regardless of age or gender , *if criticism is warranted* , and this can be done by anyone , not only by young tenors .It is NOT appropriate to ridicule singers just because .
Martinelli had an unattractive voice as this selection demonstrates. In general today's singers are much better. There are exception like Björling and Gigli but most of these famouse singers of the thirties would not be accepeted today - not nearly good enough. Currently Piort Beczala sings this at the Met. A smaller, lighter voice but a much better voice.
Wtf
ARE YOU SERIOUS??? You are completely insane or dumb, or both!! Your ears are not working properly, get cured seriously!! How can you say such an idiot thing??
I would say that today's top spinto tenor is Jonas Kaufman, who in my opinion is a sincere artist but with an extremely peculiar middle voice, who has had a pretty remarkable career. I think Martinelli would do just fine in today's lackluster group of tenor voice's and would possibly eclipse Mr. Kaufman.
Martinelli sang 123 Aida's at the Met. Whether you like his voice or not, it's an amazing accomplishment to sing 123 Aida's to mostly good reviews. We should also take into account that hearing a tenor on records and in the opera house are 2 different experiences.Today's tenor's would probably be singing in secondary and tertiary opera houses during the Golden age of opera, or in the chorus. Rosa Ponselle said that anyone who bought Richard Tucker's records should get their money back because He sounded much better in the opera house. I'm paraphrasing this statement from Jim Drake's book on Ponselle.
@@sugarbist
You're telling me that hearing a voice live is not the same as hearing it on records? That's a little arrogant don't you think?
I'm pretty old. I heard an average of nearly five live opera performances a week when I first came to San Francisco. (Things were different then). I had season tickets to the SFO for forty years. I went to Glyndeborne, Covent Garden, the Maggio Muscicale Fiorentino, and other houses in Europe. I had regular attendance at maybe a dozen different little opera companies on the East Coast and the West. I was on the board of several small local companies. I had my own opera company for a while ( I sort of discovered Kent Nagano). I toured Northern California bringing opera to the boonies. I sang thirty different roles to stage before paying customers - all the Mozart, some of the Verdi and Wagner parts and many, many modern operas - most of which are little known. (Hindimith, Kalmanoff, etc)
Trust me - I have heard a lot of live opera. I know you have had some listening experience too but lets not get into a "who's dick is better contest" here. I have many musical weaknesses but not having heard opera singers isn't one of them.