# TENOR TOURNAMENT (Round 1, Match #2): Pavarotti vs Martinelli



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

Luciano Pavarotti, Italy, 1935-2007






Giovanni Martinelli, Italy, 1885-1969






Who's singing did you prefer and why?


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

Pavarotti for me: the voice is more attractive to me than Martinelli's. I don't like the way the latter sings his high notes - is this late Martinelli? Pavarotti is thrilling.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Agree with MAS. How do you beat perfection? What more is there to say?


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

MAS said:


> Pavarotti for me: the voice is more attractive to me than Martinelli's. I don't like the way the latter sings his high notes - is this late Martinelli? Pavarotti is thrilling.


If the date on the recording is correct (1915), it's early Martinelli. Here's a 1939 recording that I considered. Do you think it's a better option? I can swap it out if so...


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

Bonetan said:


> If the date on the recording is correct (1915), it's early Martinelli. Here's a 1939 recording that I considered. Do you think it's a better option? I can swap it out if so...


Thanks, Bonetan. I think it's certainly kinder to Martinelli's voice, though it obscures it in the final measures. I have little knowledge of Martinelli so I can't say which is more representative of his qualities. I believe you chose well, it presents his voice clearly.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

The issue here is that those Nimbus Prima Voce transfers were appalling. They somehow managed to accentuate background noise whilst obscuring the singing voice and presenting it in an ugly echoey accoustic. I love both these tenors and would have said I preferred Martinelli in this particular aria. However, Martinelli doesn't sing all the notes (like Kaufmann in the other example) and so Pavarotti wins.

I have a 'thing' about the fioriture in this cabaletta and so I can see myself prioritising those who sing them or at least attempt them over those who miss them totally or only give a nod in their direction.

N.


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

Bonetan said:


> Luciano Pavarotti, Italy, 1935-2007
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In this case, I prefer Martinelli.

Pavarotti's singing is more detail-orientated here than from his complete sets with either Bonynge or Mehta. That high note at 0:45 is terrific - the way he attacks it is an eye-opener. The focus of his voice is what is entirely missing from that Kaufmann recording. Hear how rhythmically on-point he is at 1:39-1:50. Clear vowels and if you are going to go for the high C you pray that you nail it like Pavarotti does here. It is a light-sounding voice and I wouldn't guess it would be an overwhelmingly large sound in the hall? Anyways, excellent.

I love the weight of Martinelli's voice here, his diction is crystal clear. I prefer how Martinelli manages the slightly more inward and remorseful 0:41-0:51. I love the clarity of his voice at 1:29 and how he leans into the phrase at 1:43. The deciding factor for me is the softening at 1:55-2:08 - it adds a dimension, I think. I like how Martinelli maintains the terse phrasing from 2:15-the end. It is striking, to me, that Martinelli makes a more expansive and interesting thing of the aria despite the technical limitations than Pavarotti with all the advantages of modern recording. That was startling the way that he takes the high note at the end and the clarity on that vowel.


----------



## Handelian (Nov 18, 2020)

The question is who sang it better. Pavorotti obviously.


----------



## Azol (Jan 25, 2015)

Hmm.... I'm generally not a fan of Pavarotti (don't throw tomatoes at me) but his version is very good indeed.
Considering fiorituri, in _Di quella pira_ tenors mostly go either for "Di quella p-e-e-eh-ah-ra l'orrendo fo-o-oh-ah-oh-co" clucking fest (Corelli in the previous video) or ignoring it all the way (Martinelli). Pavarotti seems to find the sweet spot, thrilling and controlled at the same time. The high notes are there (of course) and Pavarotti is in his element here (conductor was clearly unsure when it's actually going to end at ~0:50).


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Pavarotti for his attention to musical detail and stunning high notes, Martinelli for his more expressive way with the quieter bits. I never have liked Martinelli's almost vibrato-free high notes, which to me sound more like yelling on pitch than singing (a quality that got worse as he aged; he isn't too bad here). His hit-and-miss approach to the fioriture is another minus, so I'll go with Pavarotti.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

I'm not qualified to get into technical details, but I choose the Pavarotti as the one that makes me want to leap up go rescue my captive mother.


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

amfortas said:


> I'm not qualified to get into technical details, but I choose the Pavarotti as the one that makes me want to leap up go rescue my captive mother.


That's brilliant :lol:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

amfortas said:


> I'm not qualified to get into technical details, but I choose the Pavarotti as the one that makes me want to leap up go rescue my captive mother.


Corelli made me wish the right baby had been barbecued.


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

Have to go with Pavarotti, though both were enjoyable to me. Pavarotti's performance strikes me as more human and emotional whereas Martinelli's seemed like just going through the motions. Plus, Pavarotti's high notes were amazing!


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> I never have liked Martinelli's almost vibrato-free high notes, which to me sound more like yelling on pitch than singing


Yes, that's what I thought while listening to the recording. That sound makes me uncomfortable.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

I'm going with Pavarotti if only because he's better at articulating all the semi-quavers. Martinelli manages them better in the second recording but pretty much ignores them in the earlier one.


----------

