Love potions & winter storms in the blissful moon

This means that my voice moves naturally in the overlap between baritone and tenor. I started out as a baritone - with a dark, warm low register and good resonance in the lower notes - but have also effortlessly developed access to the tenor range, up to a solid high C and even beyond when needed. So it's not a question of changing the subject; it's more like being at home on a whole spectrum. Most voices are not pure tenors or pure basses without fail - we are all somewhere in between - the timbres and techniques of both sides need to blend to create a bari tenor technique. I have learned and practiced to bring baritonal weight and timbre to tenor roles. Conversely, I have learned to float and caress the voice with a lighter, more tenor-like line when the music calls for it. Decades of practicing and performing have given me a lot of flexibility, but this also means that I have to be technically very precise so that the voice doesn't drift too much into, shall we say, "unhealthy" singing in any role.

Yes, it feels logical to me and is something I had always imagined in my twenties. The baritonal timbre and volume that I've always had in the middle and low register developed into that heroic quality that many Wagner roles require. Many of the great Wagner tenors, as you rightly say, did indeed come from the baritone range, and the reason why this is reflected in the sound of a "Wagner tenor" is that Wagner's vocal technique was based on the more baroque tenor technique. This baroque and early heroic-romantic technique is more often sung by today's baritones or lower second tenors: the deeper center of the vocal core that baritones possess gives one the natural advantage of a grounded yet ringing tone that carries across an orchestra. The reason why Wagner composed for the voice in this way is because he wanted the purest and most natural human voice - and as I said before, the most common male voice is the bari tenor anyway, not the pure tenor or the pure bass. Incidentally, the transition to Wagner was not a sudden leap for me. It came quite naturally from my more than 20 years of experience with baroque singing, French grand opéra and more demanding bel canto roles. In my early 40s, my voice felt ready for this larger orchestration with a longer vocal line, and roles such as Lohengrin and now Siegmund lie precisely in that youthful, heroic range between pure lyric tenor and full heroic tenor.

Wagner was steeped in bel canto - he adored Bellini and conducted many Italian operas from an early age. There are essays in which he explicitly mentions Italian melody as a model, and he later praised Bellini's melodies as "more beautiful than dreams". The "great line" is therefore absolutely central to his music. In my opinion, the Sprechgesang of the interwar period was more of a fad, often characterized by more powerful voices or theotrical trends. I think this approach was more of a necessity to find singers in times when most able-bodied men were in the military. Moreover, historical singing was not so much in the foreground, because knowledge of the art of singing was marginalized in order to portray an almost propagandistic singer instead, who appeared mythical in stature and voice, as it were. But I don't think that was what Wagner wanted. It was not for nothing that he once literally wrote: "Today one hardly ever hears a truly beautiful and perfect trill; very rarely a perfect mordent; very rarely a rounded coloratura, a genuine, unaffected portamento that touches the soul, a complete harmonization of the vocal register and a perfect maintenance of intonation through the changing nuances of volume increase and decrease." Does this sound like the Wagner singing of the last 100 years?

Unfortunately, there have been few exceptions to the "park-and-bark" style of Wagner singing, i.e. pure ramp singing, over the past century, but there are currently active efforts to produce a more versatile Wagner singer who actually respects Wagner's wishes. Wagner composed for voices that can sustain beautiful, flowing phrasing, and my bel canto background helps me enormously with all the challenges Wagner presents. You can apply this to the whole role: shaping phrases, using portamento tastefully, letting the voice glide over the orchestra rather than fighting it. Wagner stops being purely bel canto where the drama requires more declamatory power or the orchestration becomes incredibly dense, so you need real stamina and punch to "get over it". But even then, the basis is still the vocal line. In any case, Wagner himself demanded a well-projected, clear diction that was at the service of the singing. He never wanted a veristic style of declamatory singing! In other words: if you lose the bel canto technique, you are not adhering to Wagner's wishes.

I would say there is more of the heroic Bellini tenor in Siegmund - think Orombello or Pollione - than the pure lyricism of a Nemorino. Siegmund has that soaring, passionate line and emotional directness that feels closer to Bellini's long-winded melodies. Donizetti can be more dramatic and requires a true mastery of technique, but Bellini's purity of line, mixed with a heroic tessitura à la Handel, is what I hear in Wagner's early and mid-period heroes.

Rossini? Yes and yes - there is a connection in the coloratura and the need for precise articulation even in heavier music, plus the sheer athleticism of the voice. Rossini wrote the most vocally demanding music ever composed. Mastering Rossini's demands helped singers enormously on their way into the Wagner era. Many people mistakenly associate Rossini only with his greatest hits such as Barbiere and Cenerentola, but his dramatic operas influenced everyone who came after him - whether they wanted to or not. Rossini trains you to be agile and precise under pressure, which helps later when Wagner confronts you with those long, exposed phrases. The technique carries over more than you would expect: Breath control, clarity of onset and the ability to keep the voice flexible even with a large orchestra. It is fascinating how deeply rooted the early Wagner singers were in the traditions of bel canto and classical music. Take Ludwig Schnorr von Carolsfeld, the very first Tristan in 1865: just a few weeks after this legendary premiere, he was rehearsing for his debut as Don Ottavio in Mozart's Don Giovanni when, tragically, he fell ill and died. Many of the tenors Wagner admired or worked with had a similar background: they gained their first experience in Mozart roles, the agile melodic lines of Rossini and Bellini and the large, dramatic tenor roles in Meyerbeer's French grand operas.

Rossini's Otello, with its demanding, heroic title role written for a powerful yet flexible voice, trained singers in both vocal power and expressive beauty. Donizetti's and Meyerbeer's spectacular works pushed this even further with their scope and intensity. Wagner himself learned an enormous amount from all the bel canto giants, even if he later played this down. Heinrich Vogl, who sang the role of Siegmund at the Munich premiere of Die Walküre in 1870, was a renowned Don Ottavio, but the formative Siegmund was Albert Niemann, who sang this role in the first complete Ring cycle in Bayreuth in 1876. Niemann began with Meyerbeer and French grand opéra and studied with the great French tenor Duprez (a giant of bel canto), bringing this heroic yet lyrical foundation to Wagner. These pioneering voices were not "Wagner tenors" in the modern sense of Heldentenor from the start - they possessed the agility, legato and dramatic authenticity they had learned from Mozart, Rossini, Bellini and Meyerbeer. It was precisely this older technique that enabled them to sustain the long, grand line and still sound human and expressive, rather than simply drowning out the orchestra.

If you listen to a lot of fans, it can sometimes seem that way! These "Wälse! Wälse!" calls are legendary and lie precisely in that passaggio range where you need real power and sound without forcing it. Tenors are known for turning this into a kind of singing Olympics - who can hold the note longer or make it louder - but I honestly believe that this distracts from Wagner's intentions and becomes a kind of circus act if you only think about how long you have to hold the notes. For me, it's not about competition, it's about telling a story. These calls are Siegmund's desperate appeal to his father -
they have to sound heroic, but also vulnerable and almost wild. If it's all about length or volume, you lose the drama and the human core of this moment.

To be honest, Wagner is much more organic than most other composers if you simply sing the dynamics and the intentions that he wrote and clearly notated. Wagner did his homework, and the performer's job is to sing according to the principles of bel canto. Siegmund can seem difficult if you haven't sung French grand opéra or long and demanding roles like Tristan, but I have to say that Wagner understood and studied very well what a singer is capable of. The problem is that the first act, with all the narrative, the big outbursts and the emotional extremes, is actually the most exposed and relentless. You have to pace yourself carefully and not allow the emotions of the drama to override the technique. The problem that occurs all too often is that in the longer, more dialog-like moments in Wagner, singers tend to forget the support they use when singing. As singers, we must always remember to use the orchestra as a support and not misunderstand it as an energy to be fought against. The second act is actually quite short compared to the first, and you're already warmed up from the first act. The key is to rehearse wisely and trust your technique so that you don't use up everything in the first twenty minutes. If you sing the role of Siegmund with pure power, you will take your revenge later in the evening. In principle, however, all Wagner roles must be sung organically and intelligently.

Lohengrin is more about purity, nobility and this floating, almost unearthly legato with very exposed high passages and a kind of mystical restraint. Lohengrin moves between the human and the divine, while Siegmund is more earthbound, more passionate and more human. As a fighter, lover and son in crisis, Siegmund walks the fine line between animal and human.

Vocally, Siegmund is significantly lower and requires more baritonal color and stamina in the middle voice, while Lohengrin demands a more even brilliance in the high notes and an overall higher tessitura. Dramatically, Siegmund strikes me as more raw and immediate; Lohengrin is a knight of the Grail who always has one foot outside the human world, while Siegmund is fully immersed in its mud and blood.

I haven't sung Parsifal yet, but my colleagues who have interpreted the role have told me that it feels easier in some ways, as it is more lyrical and inward for long stretches and was composed in such a way that the voice can come to rest in some places. However, I have also heard it said that Parsifal really cannot be underestimated if it is to be performed credibly, due to the enormous length of the opera, the huge emotional arc of tension and the final act, which requires real vocal and mental maturity.

Many start with Lohengrin because it is more straightforwardly heroic, the tessitura suits younger dramatic or youthful heroic tenor voices well and it is a great "calling card" role. She brings out the ringing high notes and noble lines without the same philosophical depth and sustained stillness as Parsifal, which can make it much harder to remain convincing when you are very young. This is the apparent paradox of Wagner's characters, for one must have the youthful agility and mastery of one's instrument while possessing the maturity of a sage and seasoned veteran of the craft.

Not as much as you might think, because the technical basics are similar - good legato, breath support, text clarity. But mentally and dramatically it's a big change: from Nemorino's easy, sunny charm to Siegmund's brooding intensity.

I try to take a few days to adjust to this: light technical work on the different timbres, then I immerse myself in the character and the text. The overlap is indeed a challenge, but that's opera life. If the technique is right, it's all about where you put your energy and imagination on any given day. Fortunately, I've been doing this kind of switching back and forth my whole career, so it comes naturally to me now.

Honestly? Probably the singer in Der Rosenkavalier. The role is short, but very exposed - you come out of nowhere, have to perform this glamorous, pseudo-Mozartean showpiece with perfect style, ease and charm, and then you're done. You don't have time to rehearse or build up dramatically.

Nemorino is very close to my heart and comes very easily to me, and Siegmund is a role that also suits my natural personality with its mixture of wild child and sensitive romanticism. I have to say that the singer's performance in Rosenkavalier highlights every little technical or stylistic flaw and every bar is an all-or-nothing moment. You either win the audience over or leave them with a bitter aftertaste. It's a bit like a business card that you present and then immediately disappear again.

Partly it's because the dates harmonized well with the other Viennese performances, but I also really enjoy it. It's just a gem of a role - short, but it requires real elegance, style and a touch of humor. It allows me to play in a Strauss context with the lighter, more Mozartian side of my voice.

And it's fun to get into such a perfect ensemble work at the State Opera. Sometimes a five-minute performance can be just as challenging and satisfying as a whole act, precisely because there's nowhere to hide.

It is Mozartian in spirit, with the graceful phrasing and the need for clear coloratura with panache, but it is filtered through Strauss's late-Romantic glasses, so that there is a slightly ironic layer on top. Strauss is not pure Mozart; it is Strauss playfully imitating the 18th century style, just as the whole opera does with its pseudo-Rococo world. You have to sing it with Mozartian elegance, but with a little more warmth and shimmer in the tone. If you slip too far into parody, it loses its beauty; if you sing it as if it were Mitridate, on the other hand, you miss the wink Strauss intended. The balance between artful singing and tasteful parody is where all the fun lies.

Because it's my home. Ozarks Lyric Opera is right in my home region of Missouri - Springfield, where I grew up. As artistic director, I can give back to the community that raised me and gave me my first real opportunities on stage. I can help build something meaningful: bringing high caliber opera productions to the region, nurturing young singers from the Ozarks, and creating opportunities that I wish I'd had more of when I was taking my first steps in this challenging profession. It's quite exhausting at times, to be honest, balancing this job with a busy concert schedule, my role as a father and as a husband - but it also keeps me grounded. Singing is my passion, but shaping the future of an opera company in my hometown feels like a greater calling. Making sure that this art form stays alive and accessible right here where I come from is a real responsibility, because it's incredibly rewarding when someone from my area has a life-changing experience through music, too. My goal is simple: to prove that you don't have to live in Vienna or New York for serious opera to be part of your life.