Unpopular because unpopular?
Or unpopular because esoteric?

I wonder... are you referring to his bel canto style or his dramatic writing

Well-- both, I suppose?

While the music can be immaculately pretty like nobody else can goddamn do-- He can be so goddamn boring an immaculately beautiful musically that the opera-as-a-drama suffers greatly and it can come off as over-elegant fluff.

(That said, the trio and Norma/Adalgisa duets of Norma are perfect-- as is the quintet and act-1-finale of I Capuleti E Montecchi-- seems he was good at the exact middle of stories).

Then again-- Perhaps I'm just traumatized by that my main experience with him is being the bass-chorus or Norma and I Capuleti E Montecchi-- which are set uncomfortably high all the way through, and anything not for the soprano or mezzo of the opera seem like they're composed just to get it over with (but sometimes the tenor gets a bone thrown his way...).
I really ought to look into his other works though (at least he's not Donizetti in that regard).

This was just something I was thinking about, considering statements some more opera-literate friends of mine have made in general. It also just sounded sort of funny in my head-- so I felt like posting the thought somewhere.

What do you think of Bellini, then?

ALSO thanks for the watch. Your "Diegetic lizard" review-things are adorable and neat as hell-- and I never would have known about In Treatment otherwise. Thanks.

First off, I must apologize for the late response... FA has been having trouble with itself lately.

Anyways, I must admit I'm not incredibly opera literate. Honestly my education in the aural arts is strictly limited to classical solo instrumental works. Since my adolescence I've shifted my focus to screen fiction (as you can tell by my fursona ) But I still love classical music and come back to it from time to time. Thus... in that case I'm afraid I'm too uneducated about opera specifically to really have an opinion. I was just surprised to find a comment about Bellini here on FA and thought I'd ask for some clarification.

Personally I actually can see how his work has some fluff that can come across as self indulgent. If you're interested in chatting about classical music on something more efficient (like an IM) I'd welcome it ^^ I don't have many fur friends who are into the fine arts.

Also thanks for the watch back. I'm glad you found the little snippets of my thoughts enjoyable.

ALL THAT SAID-- Norma seems like it can be accurately said to be a test for the acting of a soprano, even moreso than the already difficult feat of being able to get through the role at all and meet its technical demands.
If a performer can make Norma's wrath and disquiet palpable, even in the most serene music, that's something.

As far as I know, the only folks who really pass that test very well are Maria Callas, Monsterrat Caballe, and Renata Scotto.
A lot of people sing it more technically immaculate-- but the score itself, the composition is already as technically immaculate as one can get, and nothing is terribly added by just putting more of that on top-- something else is required.

As a baritone, I will say he's like Verdi, uncomfortably high in the throat. Wagner is, for once, easier on his baritones.

But Bellini suffers greatly from coloratura, you're right, but with such fluffy melody over so long a time... Norma can thrill me in the hands of a great soprano, but "Capuletti" leaves me bored as hell. The melodies slide over one another over the course of a complete opera, nothing jars, nothing grates, and it's just a syrup of music that you can't get off your hands. Personal taste.

Wagner doesn't really need an editor, since his longeurs are usually necessary to the plot. And they were fewer and fewer in his mature operas, as he knew how to add little details to the orchestration to keep your attention, until you get to "Parsifal," which is either the longest longeur or the most tantalizing stretch of music ever, depending who you ask and whether they know how to listen. (It was very polite of him, however, to give us eight minutes of boring-ass rule-laying monologue in "Tannhäuser," so we'd have time to look at the costumes and scenery before they sing XD)

!

I actually find Verdi, compared to Bellini, a lot less stressful for bass-chorus (and the handful of Verdi bass compromarios I've done). At least the things I've done are set at a more reasonable bass-ish range.
But all the baritone folks I know who swear by Verdi 100% are more like "baritenors"-- Verdi seemed to like to push baritones. Not sure about basses, though.

Capuleti is really really awkward for 90% of it-- As I said in another comment here, the last ten minutes or so of the first act is goddamn perfect. It suffers for a lot of reasons though, one especially is that it's a mishmash of parts/references from Bellini's previous opera, as well "Giulietta E Romeo" by Vaccai, which provided the original libretto (updated for Bellini), so nothing is very whole in it.
If you haven't heard the Vaccai opera (of which I think there is exactly one recording), it's pretty damn interesting. It's not the most amazing thing, but it has a lot of startlingly dramatic music that makes characters more nuanced, is a more consistent ensemble piece, and at least is not written solely as an excuse to get to more arias/duets for the soprano and mezzo stars. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbUHQWkCrvI
A fun thing from a facsimile score I found: there was an introduction by some music professor that made a hilarious statement comparing Capuleti and Giulietta E Romeo: "Vaccai can never quite reach the heights of Bellini (however, with that said, neither can Bellini most of the time)". Completely on the money!

I made that comment just thinking about what most of the people who don't like Wagner seem to say "it would be good with editing", or like Rossini "he has some great moments and some insufferable quarterhours".
I'm not as familiar with a lot of Wagner as I ought to be, honestly. I've only got a fair handle on the Ring cycle, and a passing one at best with Tristan Und Isolde. But I've just always felt like what I do know-- even the low points, where little of real explicit note is going on, it feels still completely necessary. I never really get that from the bulk of Bellini's lowpoints, and that was the dopily bitchy point of this journal that all of two people on FA seem to have got!

So thank you for this fun thoughtful response.