Legendary Historical Singers

[Harry Powell]

As for Stracciari, you must listen to his rendition of "O de'verd'anni miei".

http://www.box.net/shared/rs42v5dxd3

If wonder if it could be considered one of the ten greatest "soloist" opera recordings ever made. Simply perfect.

[Florestan]

You've raised an interesting point here, although it's not exactly so. We are all too used to the excessive use of chest resonance of modern singers from lower strings. Then, when we listen to a baritone use the mask as it must be used by all strings, we tend to think "Stracciari invaded the tenor range... Galeffi had a clear voice... Pinza was a baritonal bass...". And as a matter of fact it's rather on the contrary: singers like Bastianini, Christoff and the like were wrong! Delivery, I mean, emission must be always clear and light to sing the upper range. A timbre will be clear or dark by nature. Many singers thought they must darken their voices to become more dramatic: in fact it's the power and squillo in the high notes what makes a singer dramatic. And this is only achieved by means of the high "impostazione" (I don't know if there's an English word for that) that Stracciari mastered.

Interesting. Can you please point me to some examples of contemporary artists who fit this bill? Is there any Stracciari or Pinza today? (Obviously, the question is not about voice, but about technique).

As an aside, what do you think of Nicola Monti?

As for Stracciari, you must listen to his rendition of "O de'verd'anni miei".

http://www.box.net/shared/rs42v5dxd3

If wonder if it could be considered one of the ten greatest "soloist" opera recordings ever made. Simply perfect.

Splendid indeed, thanks for posting.

[Harry Powell]

Hi Signor Conte,

Nobody like those names in the low strings for the last 70 years. Not even MacNeil, Bruson, Ghiaurov or Cappuccilli. I'm of the opinion that baritones and basses have lost the true technique since WWII.

In the upper strings (tenors and women) many singers retook that technique during the Sixties but nowadays just Flórez among tenors and a handful of sopranos sing like that. Unfortunately, Flórez has a very humble voice and you never get the impression of a Primo Tenore from him.

I'm very pessimistic about current singing. The public doesn't care a damn about technique and cannot recognise if a singer is doing the "passaggio" correctly. Then they marvel at the early decline of people like Villazón.

[Florestan]

Hi Signor Conte,

Nobody like those names in the low strings for the last 70 years. Not even MacNeil, Bruson, Ghiaurov or Cappuccilli. I'm of the opinion that baritones and basses have lost the true technique since WWII.

In the upper strings (tenors and women) many singers retook that technique during the Sixties but nowadays just Flórez among tenors and a handful of sopranos sing like that. Unfortunately, Flórez has a very humble voice and you never get the impression of a Primo Tenore from him.

I'm very pessimistic about current singing. The public doesn't care a damn about technique and cannot recognise if a singer is doing the "passaggio" correctly. Then they marvel at the early decline of people like Villazón.

Thanks.

Florez is awful, IMHO.

Comparing him: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4Q0qiPq6uA&feature=related , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0DVSatYlNU

with Tito Schippa: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TL5heFfYQDE

or Enzo de Muro Lomanto: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HLVh8AzJAE&feature=related

is almost like a blasphemy. 

[Florestan]

Speaking of Tito Schipa, is there anyone today who can better these?

http://www.youtube.com/user/Addiobelpassato#p/c/70A21D2C118DE4A4/11/j3hl6WaK9yw

http://www.youtube.com/user/Addiobelpassato#p/c/70A21D2C118DE4A4/12/G5azOKSLuqY

[Harry Powell]

I respect Flórez because he uses an excellent technique and knows something about style. I don't care for his voice but I'd never say he's awful since he gets the best from it. You cannot compare him with Schipa, who's one of the best singers ever. De Muro Lomanto had a beautiful voice, but his performance's a little bit arbitrary. Check this Tube to listen to an impeccable Flórez as Elvino.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jz58sT7KbLw

[Florestan]

De Muro Lomanto had a beautiful voice, but his performance's a little bit arbitrary.

Speaking of arbitrary performance, what do you think of Dino Borgioli's?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrxFAv0Lp0c

In certain moments it sounds like a mockery of a love song. 

Check this Tube to listen to an impeccable Flórez as Elvino.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jz58sT7KbLw

I don't know, there is something in his voice that doesn't appeal to me at all. It sounds... how to put it?... rather strangled, boxed... as if something hampers him to use it fully...  but maybe it's just me.

[Harry Powell]

I didn't know that recording, but it's his usual manner. Borgioli had some charm, but fell into too many archaisms and resorted usually to falsetto. 

As for the Florez issue, you've set me difficult homework for I'd be at pains to explain my view even in Spanish. Let's see if I deserve my Proficiency Certificate... When a well-schooled singer goes up the tessitura, you can compare his/her voice with the mental image of an inverted cone: the higher the note, the more it gains sheen, intensity and (the fatal word) volume as it exploits the "amplification cavities" in the head. To my ears, Flórez does everything to fit this model but something is missing, as his voice doesn't expand as one might expect (I was shocked to discover this when I heard him in a small theatre). He never strains, he uses the right gentle shading in the passaggio and places his delivery in the mask, but his voice resembles a cylinder rather than the cone. There are some options to explain this. He may be reserving too much out of fear of spreading the tone. But I think that Nature has been mean to Flórez and his cranium might lack enough room to produce the "amplification" that I miss. In my opinion, except for his less-than-becoming vibrato, Flórez is exemplary in his technique but has a tenorino voice which only fits a few contraltino roles.

I hope I made some sense.

[Guido]

I am almost completely ignorant of pre LP singers, so I'm going to enjoy to picking through this thread. I must read to The Grand Tradition.

[Florestan]

As for the Florez issue, you've set me difficult homework for I'd be at pains to explain my view even in Spanish. Let's see if I deserve my Proficiency Certificate... When a well-schooled singer goes up the tessitura, you can compare his/her voice with the mental image of an inverted cone: the higher the note, the more it gains sheen, intensity and (the fatal word) volume as it exploits the "amplification cavities" in the head. To my ears, Flórez does everything to fit this model but something is missing, as his voice doesn't expand as one might expect (I was shocked to discover this when I heard him in a small theatre). He never strains, he uses the right gentle shading in the passaggio and places his delivery in the mask, but his voice resembles a cylinder rather than the cone. There are some options to explain this. He may be reserving too much out of fear of spreading the tone. But I think that Nature has been mean to Flórez and his cranium might lack enough room to produce the "amplification" that I miss. In my opinion, except for his less-than-becoming vibrato, Flórez is exemplary in his technique but has a tenorino voice which only fits a few contraltino roles.

I hope I made some sense.

Thank you. It makes a lot of sense (in an impeccable English) and it is in complete agreement with my own reservations about his voice.

[Harry Powell]

Thank you, that's very kind of you. It's some years I have been writing about voices on boards and sometimes I feel I end up explaining my views to myself.

[knight66]

With Florez I like everything about his singing except the actual sound of his voice; to my ears thin and uningratiating. But I think he has an excellent technique and makes good use of what is there. I hope he is not tempted into any of the heavier roles.

I am currently enjoying the duet linked to above that involves Tito Schipa. The voice is beautifully forward. I think this trend to use chest resonance is about pushing out increased sound, partly to combat the orchestra. But in fact, when the technique so intelligently utilises the mask and forward projection, the voice will penetrate the orchestral textures.

Mike

[Harry Powell]

With Florez I like everything about his singing except the actual sound of his voice; to my ears thin and uningratiating. But I think he has an excellent technique and makes good use of what is there. I hope he is not tempted into any of the heavier roles.

I am currently enjoying the duet linked to above that involves Tito Schipa. The voice is beautifully forward. I think this trend to use chest resonance is about pushing out increased sound, partly to combat the orchestra. But in fact, when the technique so intelligently utilises the mask and forward projection, the voice will penetrate the orchestral textures.

Mike

Hi Mike,
I'm of a similar opinion. I'd add that when you listen to his voice in a theater, he makes an utterly insignificant impression (at least in vocal terms). Some months ago Martin Bernheimer described his voice as "tenorino" (he was singing Elvino at the Met). I remember his (Florez's) fans were so infuriated.

BTW, it was dead or decrepit singers I compared him to and found him severely wanting. Mind you some of the conducting on the older performances was sedate; to put it nicely.

Mike

In which roles and to which singers did you compare him?

[knight66]

Hi Mike,
In which roles and to which singers did you compare him?

In the Mozart, Pinza...very lively indeed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZM_80gcfRQ

Christoff; I have another and earlier recording of him that is less hectic. But he gets round it. I know you don't entirely like his voice production, but I love his voice a lot. Mind you, I don't see any Don actually standing up to such an authoritative Leporello. Like Jessye Norman trying to 'do' submissive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHK16PCsr6Q

Yesterday I accidentally encountered a 1950s recording of him singing an aria from Boheme, it was magical and delicate. A pity he was not more encouraged in the less 'grand' roles. I cannot now get Youtube to disgorge the track.

Erich Kuntz, I like his singing a lot, but the pace in the orchestra is too much the other way, too slow and the rhythms slack then plodding.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8MTAEAXLIQ

Really Schrott sounds rough and ready up against any of them.

In the Carmen; well the concert version I heard was just awful. Really there is so much less excuse for bad singing when there is no production and other singers to worry about.

Mike

[Harry Powell]

Thank you. As a matter of fact, I questioned because I thought you were referring to Flórez.
IMO Schrott's a product of marketing: just a barihunk who takes advantage of being married to a record company's Star.

[Florestan]

With Florez I like everything about his singing except the actual sound of his voice; to my ears thin and uningratiating. But I think he has an excellent technique and makes good use of what is there. I hope he is not tempted into any of the heavier roles.

But Mike, isn't exactly the sound of the voice that is the most important in the end? What's the use of an excellent technique if the voice is not good in the first place?

I am currently enjoying the duet linked to above that involves Tito Schipa.

Which one of them? Or both?

The voice is beautifully forward. I think this trend to use chest resonance is about pushing out increased sound, partly to combat the orchestra. But in fact, when the technique so intelligently utilises the mask and forward projection, the voice will penetrate the orchestral textures.

Now there's an interesting issue: can a flawless technique make a voice sound better than it is? Judging by Florez, the answer is not. Schipa had a native voice quality (or perhaps, as Harry put it, a native physical  constitution of the cranium, throat and chest) which Florez lacks completely.

Really Schrott sounds rough and ready up against any of them.

In the Carmen; well the concert version I heard was just awful. Really there is so much less excuse for bad singing when there is no production and other singers to worry about.

IMO Schrott's a product of marketing: just a barihunk who takes advantage of being married to a record company's Star.

I can't help quoting a Youtube comment on him:

stonato, poca voce, tecnica vocale inesistente, poco gusto = star del 21 secolo.

[Harry Powell]

But Mike, isn't exactly the sound of the voice that is the most important in the end? What's the use of an excellent technique if the voice is not good in the first place?


Now there's an interesting issue: can a flawless technique make a voice sound better than it is? Judging by Florez, the answer is not. Schipa had a native voice quality (or perhaps, as Harry put it, a native physical  constitution of the cranium, throat and chest) which Florez lacks completely.

Hi Count,

Well, I'm a great lover of beautiful voices, but I wouldn't dismiss singers like Scotto, Vickers, Varnay, Rysanek and the like just because of their timbres. Pertile had one of the most uningratiating voices ever recorded and he's perhaps the greatest tenor ever.

Of course it can, technique is the beginning of every singing resort, but up to a certain point. Pertile could even produce beauty when singing mezzavoce.  When Flórez sings coloratura in a small theatre he's a great singer. If he didn't have his technique he would be singing as comprimario.

The exact contrary is also true: an incomplete technique will ruin even the most magnificent voice. Di Stefano's example testifies to that.

[Florestan]

¡Hola, don Harry!

Well, I'm a great lover of beautiful voices, but I wouldn't dismiss singers like Scotto, Vickers, Varnay, Rysanek and the like just because of their timbres. Pertile had one of the most uningratiating voices ever recorded and he's perhaps the greatest tenor ever.

Now I'm really confused. What's wrong with Scotto or Pertile? 

Of course it can, technique is the beginning of every singing resort, but up to a certain point.

I did not mean that technique is not important, just that all the technique in the world will not make a voice that naturally, physically lacks the capacity of sounding "full" actually sound "full", with Florez a case in point.

Take Caruso, or Schipa, or Gigli (to limit ourselves to historical singers) : they had an impeccable technique, of course --- but I'm interested in what you think of the pure sound of their voice: was it a product of the technique or was it a natural gift which technique cultivated and helped to fully blossom?

I ask that because you and Mike (both of you being infinitely more knowledgeable than me in the technicalities of singing) seem to agree about Florez having both a perfect technique and a thin voice.

When Flórez sings coloratura in a small theatre he's a great singer.

Well, perhaps hearing him live does more justice to his voice than the recordings.

The exact contrary is also true: an incomplete technique will ruin even the most magnificent voice.

Oh, I have no doubt about that.

[Harry Powell]

Hi again

Scotto always had a sharp edge about her delivery: it enabled her to cut through but wasn't very agreeable. Then there was that strident quality in her color which became accentuated very quickly. She was a true master of her voice in every respect except these ones.

I know we'll agree that, as pure sound, Caruso and Gigli were freaks of Nature. Italian critic Rodolfo Celletti wrote they were born singers. They had a fantastic natural placement of the medium range. In fact there are just a few other tenors of similar gifted voices: di Stefano, Domingo, Pavarotti, Aragall, Fleta and Björling. I think this wasn't Pertile's case. The poor man had to toil to achieve his technique. You can notice his wasn't a natural voice. His timbre had a distinct throaty overtone and could sound somewhat nasal on the high notes. There were certain dull notes and an ugly vibrato. I remember a friend told me: "Yesterday I listened on the car radio to that Pertile you like so much. I nearly drove into the Italian Embassy". Schipa hadn't got a privileged voice either. It lacked a solid upper range and was limited in volume. Neither Pertile's nor Schipa's voices would have ensured them their legendary statuses, to put it shortly. It was through technical mastery that they became great singers. But it was also relying on technique that Gigli could sing for forty years.

The only thing technique won't achieve is changing a voice's size (but mind: small voices can carry as well when properly produced).

[Florestan]

Gracias, amigo!

Well, as I said, I'm no expert on the technicalities of singing --- I judge a singer by how pleasant (to my ears) he sings. I trust you saying that Schipa had to hardly work his way through --- although he never pushed his limits and kept strictly in the range of "tenore di grazia" and his voice sounds as natural as it gets to me.

So I performed a little experiment: I played Florez vs Schipa in "Com'e gentil", Florez vs Gigli in "Una furtiva lagrima" and Florez & Netrebko vs Schipa & Toti dal Monte in "Tornami a dir che m'ami" to my wife --- she's as musically illiterate and uneducated as it gets in respect to eras, genres and technique. Yet, she was able to recognize Florez's as the most recent recording while in the same time prefering Schipa's by a wide margin in respect to voice and overall musicality.