u/HuckleberryUsual885

To the best of my knowledge, the system of classifying roles based on opera singers' natural vocal timbres originated in Austria and Germany during the 19th century. The theaters there signed exclusive contracts with singers and staged various productions every day. Still, they began classifying roles based on vocal timbre for reasons such as making it easier to find replacements when a performer was unable to appear. It was not for the artistic development of the opera singers. That spread to other countries like Italy. I think there are many problems with this, and there are several reasons.

First of all, the limitations on opera singers' roles are determined by their natural vocal timbre, and casting is done accordingly, depriving them of opportunities even though their vocals are good enough to take on various roles. For example, if someone has a naturally thin voice, they may not be assigned dramatic roles even if their vocalization is good enough to cut through a large orchestra (cutting through an orchestra is about high-frequency vocal skill, not thickness. Lauri Volpi and Magda Olivero have proven this.)

Secondly, by unconditionally associating innate timbre thickness with sound intensity, it leads to the misconception that a naturally thin tone automatically implies a weak voice, and conversely, that a naturally thick tone automatically allows one to cut through a large orchestra even with weak vocal technique. In reality, people with naturally thick timbres but weak vocal technique cannot cut through a large orchestra. There are also many cases where people strain their necks to try to break through, damaging their vocal cords. That wouldn't be the case if your vocalization were solid.

Thirdly, the range of expressiveness is also limited. Many legendary opera singers have criticized this as I have, or overcome its limitations (such as Lili Lehmann, who took on roles ranging from the Queen of the Night to Wagnerian operas, and Gregory Kunde).

Also, the singers who premiered Wagner and Verdi's dramatic works (Aida, Otello, the Ring series, etc.) (Francesco Tamagno, Victor Morel, etc.) did not have naturally deep voices. By today's classification, they would have been on the lyric side. However, thanks to their solid vocal technique, they also took on dramatic roles.

I believe that as long as one has solid vocal technique and isn't bound by their natural vocal tone, they can fully take on a variety of roles. What do you all think?

To the best of my knowledge, the system of classifying roles based on opera singers' natural vocal timbres originated in Austria and Germany during the 19th century. The theaters there signed exclusive contracts with singers and staged various productions every day. Still, they began classifying roles based on vocal timbre for reasons such as making it easier to find replacements when a performer was unable to appear. It was not for the artistic development of the opera singers. That spread to other countries like Italy. I think there are many problems with this, and there are several reasons.

First of all, the limitations on opera singers' roles are determined by their natural vocal timbre, and casting is done accordingly, depriving them of opportunities even though their vocals are good enough to take on various roles. For example, if someone has a naturally thin voice, they may not be assigned dramatic roles even if their vocalization is good enough to cut through a large orchestra (cutting through an orchestra is about high-frequency vocal skill, not thickness. Lauri Volpi and Magda Olivero have proven this.)

Secondly, by unconditionally associating innate timbre thickness with sound intensity, it leads to the misconception that a naturally thin tone automatically implies a weak voice, and conversely, that a naturally thick tone automatically allows one to cut through a large orchestra even with weak vocal technique. In reality, people with naturally thick timbres but weak vocal technique cannot cut through a large orchestra. There are also many cases where people strain their necks to try to break through, damaging their vocal cords. That wouldn't be the case if your vocalization were solid.

Thirdly, the range of expressiveness is also limited. Many legendary opera singers have criticized this as I have, or overcome its limitations (such as Lili Lehmann, who took on roles ranging from the Queen of the Night to Wagnerian operas, and Gregory Kunde).

Also, the singers who premiered Wagner and Verdi's dramatic works (Aida, Otello, the Ring series, etc.) (Francesco Tamagno, Victor Morel, etc.) did not have naturally deep voices. By today's classification, they would have been on the lyric side. However, thanks to their solid vocal technique, they also took on dramatic roles.

I believe that as long as one has solid vocal technique and isn't bound by their natural vocal tone, they can fully take on a variety of roles. What do you all think?

I'm Korean, and the middle and high schools I attended allowed casual wear and freedom with my hair. So I dressed comfortably and had long hair. (I still do.) Student rights ordinances were enacted in Seoul and other regions, which is why we were able to attend school freely. Of course, most people in those areas still wear uniforms. However, I heard that in the past, if you didn't wear your uniform properly or had long hair, the student disciplinary committee or teachers would take action, such as cutting your hair, administering corporal punishment, or issuing demerit points. I hear that even now, some schools without student rights ordinances still enforce these rules. What are Japanese middle and high schools like? I only know that most of them wear uniforms.

To the best of my knowledge, the system of classifying roles based on opera singers' natural vocal timbres originated in Austria and Germany during the 19th century. The theaters there signed exclusive contracts with singers and staged various productions every day. Still, they began classifying roles based on vocal timbre for reasons such as making it easier to find replacements when a performer was unable to appear. It was not for the artistic development of the opera singers. That spread to other countries like Italy. I think there are many problems with this, and there are several reasons.

First of all, the limitations on opera singers' roles are determined by their natural vocal timbre, and casting is done accordingly, depriving them of opportunities even though their vocals are good enough to take on various roles. For example, if someone has a naturally thin voice, they may not be assigned dramatic roles even if their vocalization is good enough to cut through a large orchestra (cutting through an orchestra is about high-frequency vocal skill, not thickness. Lauri Volpi and Magda Olivero have proven this.)

Secondly, by unconditionally associating innate timbre thickness with sound intensity, it leads to the misconception that a naturally thin tone automatically implies a weak voice, and conversely, that a naturally thick tone automatically allows one to cut through a large orchestra even with weak vocal technique. In reality, people with naturally thick timbres but weak vocal technique cannot cut through a large orchestra. There are also many cases where people strain their necks to try to break through, damaging their vocal cords. That wouldn't be the case if your vocalization were solid.

Thirdly, the range of expressiveness is also limited. Many legendary opera singers have criticized this as I have, or overcome its limitations (such as Lili Lehmann, who took on roles ranging from the Queen of the Night to Wagnerian operas, and Gregory Kunde).

Also, the singers who premiered Wagner and Verdi's dramatic works (Aida, Otello, the Ring series, etc.) (Francesco Tamagno, Victor Morel, etc.) did not have naturally deep voices. By today's classification, they would have been on the lyric side. However, thanks to their solid vocal technique, they also took on dramatic roles.

I believe that as long as one has solid vocal technique and isn't bound by their natural vocal tone, they can fully take on a variety of roles. What do you all think?

To the best of my knowledge, the system of classifying roles based on opera singers' natural vocal timbres originated in Austria and Germany during the 19th century. The theaters there signed exclusive contracts with singers and staged various productions every day. Still, they began classifying roles based on vocal timbre for reasons such as making it easier to find replacements when a performer was unable to appear. It was not for the artistic development of the opera singers. That spread to other countries like Italy. I think there are many problems with this, and there are several reasons.

First of all, the limitations on opera singers' roles are determined by their natural vocal timbre, and casting is done accordingly, depriving them of opportunities even though their vocals are good enough to take on various roles. For example, if someone has a naturally thin voice, they may not be assigned dramatic roles even if their vocalization is good enough to cut through a large orchestra (cutting through an orchestra is about high-frequency vocal skill, not thickness. Lauri Volpi and Magda Olivero have proven this.)

Secondly, by unconditionally associating innate timbre thickness with sound intensity, it leads to the misconception that a naturally thin tone automatically implies a weak voice, and conversely, that a naturally thick tone automatically allows one to cut through a large orchestra even with weak vocal technique. In reality, people with naturally thick timbres but weak vocal technique cannot cut through a large orchestra. There are also many cases where people strain their necks to try to break through, damaging their vocal cords. That wouldn't be the case if your vocalization were solid.

Thirdly, the range of expressiveness is also limited. Many legendary opera singers have criticized this as I have, or overcome its limitations (such as Lili Lehmann, who took on roles ranging from the Queen of the Night to Wagnerian operas, and Gregory Kunde).

Also, the singers who premiered Wagner and Verdi's dramatic works (Aida, Otello, the Ring series, etc.) (Francesco Tamagno, Victor Morel, etc.) did not have naturally deep voices. By today's classification, they would have been on the lyric side. However, thanks to their solid vocal technique, they also took on dramatic roles.

I believe that as long as one has solid vocal technique and isn't bound by their natural vocal tone, they can fully take on a variety of roles. What do you all think?

I'm Korean, and the middle and high schools I attended allowed casual wear and freedom with my hair. So I dressed comfortably and had long hair. (I still do.) Student rights ordinances were enacted in Seoul and other regions, which is why we were able to attend school freely. Of course, most people in those areas still wear uniforms. However, I heard that in the past, if you didn't wear your uniform properly or had long hair, the student disciplinary committee or teachers would take action, such as cutting your hair, administering corporal punishment, or issuing demerit points. I hear that even now, some schools without student rights ordinances still enforce these rules. What are Japanese middle and high schools like? I only know that most of them wear uniforms.