The incredible shrinking diva

September 16, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
"Traditionally, it isn't over until the fat lady sings. But it seems it will soon be over for the singing fat lady."

So opens a piece in The London newspaper The Independent concerning the slimmer and fitter brand of opera star now on the rise. The slenderizing of opera talent is the result--claims the article--of a younger audience expecting more than the static stand-and-deliver quality of old school tenors and sopranos.

So are we heading toward a world of supermodel Mimis? Are Pavarotti-sized powerhouses on the outs? 

"I hope we don't see that," the article quotes John Allison, editor of Opera Magazine. "I hope we don't see the end of the phrase 'before the fat lady sings' either, because there are some pieces that require singers to have a huge set of lungs and a big frame to go with it. If glamour and looks are hired before vocal ability, then you are heading for trouble."

So what are your expectations when you go to an opera? Is it all about the voice? Or should opera have the same casting demands as musical theater? Is all of this a form of size-ism?

Your thoughts?
  • It is nice to see singers being more active on the stage, and there certainly is nothing wrong with singers losing weight if they feel they really need/want to for whatever personal reasons they may have. But people who care more about what singers look like than the music are not real music lovers. Plain and simple. If they were, they wouldn't care what the musician looked like.
  • You know it just really angers me that people give some much weight to what a person looks like, especially women. It shouldn't matter what size they are so long as they can sing! The obsession with looks is dangerous. Why are so many girls fighting anorexia and bulimia? Because societey is always telling them it's not ok to be over a size 6! If some Opera fans are so shallow as to expect the singers to be thin then I just don't know what the world is coming to, but it's not good!
  • Poppycock I say! Let's focus on the voice and talent -the size and looks of the singer should be irrelevant.
  • Wait a minute...if you are a plus-sized singer, are your lungs really bigger than a slimmer vocalist's, as the Opera Magazine editor suggests? I'm no doctor, but that sounds absurd.
  • If looks didn't totally matter, then why the attention to the sets, costumes and lighting? Just sling everyone onto the bare stage in their sweatclothes. Of course, if the cast is going to sing badly there is no need for any of it, but in the case of creating a mood and a place - to a certain extent - appearance is everything.
  • Sue B,

    I think the looks that don't matter are in regards to the weight of the singers. I do think the look of the set is important, because as you say, it creates moods, places, etc. But I don't think a fan of opera cares whether the costume, which also helps with moods, places, etc, is a 4, 14, or 24, as long as the singer in it sounds great and tells their story well.
  • The era of plant and sing is over. And that's a good thing. Opera is a full spectrum experience, and just focusing on the greatest singers, whether they look the part or can act, takes away from the total.

    I don't think it just a matter of looks, but a matter of acting and looking like the person actually belongs in the role. Right or wrong, much opera is about good looking people, and it requires an incredible suspension of disbelief if the person singing doesn't look the part. It's hard to believe that the person playing the eponymous La Giocondo is for real when she is 300 pounds, for example.

    If you get a chance, see a production at the Chicago Opera Theater. They use up and coming singers who are young and good looking, but more importantly look the part of the role they are playing and actually act. The result is a revelation. And their baroque and modern repertoire is really inspired too.

Post a comment to this blog

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
  1. Gay marriage is coming, whether or not these bigots and zealots like it or not. We must work to ensure future generations remember the likes of Greg Zoeller like they do the racists of our shame.

  2. Perhaps a diagram of all the network connections of all politicians to their supporters and those who are elite/wealthy and how they have voted on bills that may have benefited their supporters. The truth may hurt, but there are no non-disclosures in government.

  3. I'm sure these lawyers were having problems coming up with any non-religious reason to ban same-sex marriage. I've asked proponents of this ban the question many times and the only answers I have received were religious reasons. Quite often the reason had to do with marriage to a pet or marriage between a group even though those have nothing at all to do with this. I'm looking forward to less discrimination in our state soon!

  4. They never let go of the "make babies" argument. It fails instantaneously because a considerable percentage of heterosexual marriages don't produce any children either. Although if someone wants to pass a law that any couple, heterosexual or homosexual, cannot be legally married (and therefore not utilize all legal, financial, and tax benefits that come with it) until they have produced a biological child, that would be fun to see as a spectator. "All this is a reflection of biology," Fisher answered. "Men and women make babies, same-sex couples do not... we have to have a mechanism to regulate that, and marriage is that mechanism." The civil contract called marriage does NOTHING to regulate babymaking, whether purposefully or accidental. These conservatives really need to understand that sex education and access to birth control do far more to regulate babymaking in this country. Moreover, last I checked, same-sex couples can make babies in a variety of ways, and none of them are by accident. Same-sex couples often foster and adopt the children produced by the many accidental pregnancies from mixed-sex couples who have failed at self-regulating their babymaking capabilities.

  5. Every parent I know with kids from 6 -12 has 98.3 on its car radio all the time!! Even when my daughter isn't in the car I sometimes forget to change stations. Not everybody wants to pay for satellite radio. This will be a huge disappointment to my 9 year old. And to me - there's so many songs on the radio that I don't want her listening to.