# BARITONE TOURNAMENT (Round 1, Match #2): Bastianini v Kelsey



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

Ettore Bastianini, Italy, 1922-1967






Quinn Kelsey, USA, 1978-






Who's singing did you prefer and why?


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

I didn't find Bastianini's interpretation quite as moving as I would like, but I didn't find it overtly bland. I think he has a richer, stronger voice than Kelsey though. Kelsey seemed to overdo the softness and smoothness. To me that doesn't make it a better interpretation but gives me the impression he's trying too hard to make it beautiful instead of actually feeling the emotion of the character. I'll pick Bastianini.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Well here I have another dilemma. Bastianini has a magnificent voice but, as so often, I find him rather expressionless. If you didn't know the aria, you wouldn't necessarily guess this was a love song. He also aspirates the semi-quavers, which is a bit of a no-no in my book.

I agree with adriesba that Kelsey possibly overdoes the softness, and I'd lilke him to be a bit more urgent when he sings about his ardour (I like my Di Lunas to have a bit of crazed passion about them) but he does at least make me believe he is singing about love.

Ultimately I opted for Kelsey, but, of the ones we've discussed so far, we haven't heard my ideal yet.


----------



## Azol (Jan 25, 2015)

Kelsey at around 0:54 starts approximating the notes, that's about the moment I stopped the video and voted for Bastianini.


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

Bastianini, not even close. There are some flaws, as Tsaraslondon notes, in the aspiration and relatively even dynamics throughout the piece, but the voice is far superior to Kelsey's as is the sense of line. The first half of Bastianini's rendition was wonderfully phrased. Kelsey does dynamics but he does dynamics completely wrong. He is not singing a proper piano but is constricting, and it sounds extremely effortful. His whole rendition is pretty flat because he has little steel in the voice and though Bastianini might not execute every facet of the aria perfectly, he's at least playing the right instrument. Though the reaction is cut off the second video, I can't imagine the audience going crazy for Kelsey's performance as they did for Bastianini's. Opera isn't just about vocal thrills, certainly (though if there were an opera that were, _Il Trovatore_ would be a good candidate), but that's better than blandness, which is what Kelsey offers.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Azol said:


> Kelsey at around 0:54 starts approximating the notes, that's about the moment I stopped the video and voted for Bastianini.


I listened again and you're right. Bastianini does articulate the notes better there. I just wish he varied his tone more. A slight softening from mezzo-forte would have helped.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

I don't like either, can I have my money back?

I agree with much that has been already said. Bastianini almost has it all, the strong, sturdy voice, the perfect diction (you can hear that he is singing with his natural voice) and a mostly effortless emission of sound. He can cope with the demands of the piece and above all he gives the impression that he is in control. The downside (as already pointed out) is that he doesn't sound like a man in love.

Kelsey is more expressive at the start of the aria and I really like his soft singing there. However, as the music picks up I would want more intensity, I would like the light of dreamy love contrasted with strong ardor in the second part of each verse. I stopped listening when Kelsey curdled the high note towards the end. There's more expression in his version, but not enough to make up for his shortcomings, therefore Bastianini wins this one.

N.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Sorry! Not all the excuses in the world of not passionate enough singing for a man in love (said one poster) when that man is no more in love than the man in the moon. What he is is sexually attracted to her and more importantly wants to win over his rival. Otherwise, why would he give her such a cruel ultimatum?
Bastianini all the way because (IMO) there is no greater baritone sound in my book. All others pale next to him.


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

nina foresti said:


> Sorry! Not all the excuses in the world of not passionate enough singing for a man in love (said one poster) when that man is no more in love than the man in the moon. What he is is sexually attracted to her and more importantly wants to win over his rival. Otherwise, why would he give her such a cruel ultimatum?


I vey much agree. There's more than one way to be in love, and I don't think De Luna's love is anything particularly refined. I see the vocal refinements in the score as an expression of the aristocratic veneer that covers his very conventional sentiments of love, which spring from lust rather than anything noble, and not as an indication that he's feeling any real tenderness towards her. Looked at that way, Bastianini's faults put him closer than Kelsey's.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

nina foresti said:


> Sorry! Not all the excuses in the world of not passionate enough singing for a man in love (said one poster) when that man is no more in love than the man in the moon. What he is is sexually attracted to her and more importantly wants to win over his rival. Otherwise, why would he give her such a cruel ultimatum?
> Bastianini all the way because (IMO) there is no greater baritone sound in my book. All others pale next to him.


I think that poster was me. I agree Bastianini has a magnificent voice, but, as I often find with him, it's all one level. I long for a little musical finesse, even just an indication that he has taken note of Verdi's copious markings, but I don't get it from him. There is more to singing than just voice.

That said, I may have preferred Kelsey's rendition, but, like Le conte, I don't really like either.


----------



## Barelytenor (Nov 19, 2011)

Bastianini to me is shouty and shows no characterization. Kelsey is a bit bland but at least shows some legato and character. Not crazy about either one but in musicianship terms I prefer him.


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

Bastianini for me.

Tempo might be a factor - Bastianini's version in Tokyo is very quick (c.2m49) while Kelsey's version is on the slower side (c.3m21)

In some ways they are complementary.

Bastianini's version here is rather brusque and lacking affection. I suppose there is the virtue that it is not swoony or indulgent but for me it lacks some elegance and poetry. The timbre of his voice is a gorgeous rich sound and it remains exciting, straightforward singing.

Kelsey's version is more detailed but fragmentary: after that quiet start he really needed to generate something akin to the tension and excitement of Bastianini's singing to keep it interesting but his voice sounded a bit gritty at the end. Maybe the performances before audiences gelled better?

PS Most of Bastianini's live recordings of this aria are on the speedy side, I prefer the slightly more measure speed of Serafin's studio set (3m05).


----------



## Sieglinde (Oct 25, 2009)

This is a joke question, right? It's like comparing Pinwheel to Sword Saint Isshin.


----------



## SanyiKocka (May 6, 2020)

Bastianini has much better versions of this aria. When this version was performed, he was ill for almost one year.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Bastianini is the Ethel Merman of baritones. My eyes wide with horror at the unseemly roaring and aspirating, I exclaimed "Holy crap!" and shut him down before he had a chance to bludgeon the cadenza to death. Now in a terrible mood, I put on Kelsey and was soon rending my garments over the current state of singing.

I have some buttons to sew back on and will not be voting.


----------

