# Round 3: Tenor. A Te O Cara- Corelli, Alvarez, Florez



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)




----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Before choosing out of these three it might be instructive to remember that the role of Arturo was written for Rubini, who was renowned for the sweetness and ease of his coloratura in the upper register, which went right up to a high F. Pollione was written with a different, more robust tenor in mind, Domenico Donzelli, who had a much more robust instrument, but less facility in coloratura. He was followed by Gilbert Duprez, who is credited with being the first practitioner of the top C from the chest.

I know there are many for whom Corelli can do no wrong, but I'm not one of them. He was well known for his Pollione and, aside from some clumsiness in the coloratura, I really like him in the role, but a light, lyrical coloratura he was not and I would never consider him right for the role of Arturo. Admittedly the voice is absolutely splendid, the top notes glorious, but his singing is altogether to muscular and efforful for this delicate melody and he aspirates quite a few of his upward intervals. I'll admit that it's quite exciting, but I'm pretty sure it's not what Bellini had in mind.

That leaves me with the two younger tenors, neither of whom I enjoyed as much as Camarena in the previous round. Florez has a reedy sound that won't be to everyone's taste. Still, he sings the music elegantly and styishly, his top notes, though not delivered in the falsetto we are told Rubini employed, ring out securely. Alvarez is not so technically assured but I prefer the sound he makes.

I'm a bit stumped to be honest. I'm tempted to vote for Corelli just because of the sheer splendour of his voice, but really I should take into account that this is not how the music should sound. At this moment I really don't know who to choose.


----------



## Aerobat (Dec 31, 2018)

I can't deny that the moment I saw Corelli for this role, my immediate reaction was "No!". Much as he had a magnificent voice, he doesn't convey this character for me. It doesn't take much time for me to feel that Florez portrays the character more effectively. I'd add that I've seen Florez a few times in different roles, and find that he's very adaptable and excellent at portraying each character that he takes on - I'd class him as a singing actor rather than just a 'Park & Bark' style singer.


----------



## ColdGenius (9 mo ago)

With all my respect to "old masters", Corelli seems to sing belcanto as if he sings verismo. Of two modern tenors Florez is the only one I've heard live and liked despite of peculiar timbre. Alvarez unfortunately came to my city when I had vacation. But of course, my ear for music is underdeveloped, to do it mildly.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Aerobat said:


> I can't deny that the moment I saw Corelli for this role, my immediate reaction was "No!". Much as he had a magnificent voice, he doesn't convey this character for me. It doesn't take much time for me to feel that Florez portrays the character more effectively. I'd add that I've seen Florez a few times in different roles, and find that he's very adaptable and excellent at portraying each character that he takes on - I'd class him as a singing actor rather than just a 'Park & Bark' style singer.


I've only seen him once live, as Werther at Covent Garden, and I thought he was underpowered, both as a singer and actor. You felt throughout he was conserving his resources for the last two acts, but even then the performance was just a bit too low key. I've also seen him on video in *La Fille du Régiment *with Natalie Dessay and, in repetoire and a role more suited to him, he was terrific. 

I think that he's the best of the three here, but I actually prefer the timbre of Alvarez's voice. That said, I'm going to give this one to Florez.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

This was a piece of cake for me. As wonderful as Corelli's voice is, it is all wrong IMO (running for cover) because it's like singing a nursery rhyme loud and robustly.
So I am left with two and as much as Alvarez did a lovely job, I just love Florez' sound despite the choral help in the background which seemed unfair to the other two but I guess we can wean stuff like that out.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

ColdGenius said:


> With all my respect to "old masters", Corelli seems to sing belcanto as if he sings verismo. Of two modern tenors Florez is the only one I've heard live and liked despite of peculiar timbre. Alvarez unfortunately came to my city when I had vacation. But of course, my ear for music is underdeveloped, to do it mildly.


You may feel your ear is undeveloped, but you're right. He is out of his depth here. On the other hand he is an excellent Pollione, especially on the second Callas *Norma* when he has Serafin to keep him in check, but, as I pointed out in my first post. Pollione is a very different kind of role from Arturo and the two roles were written for very different singers.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

ColdGenius said:


> With all my respect to "old masters", Corelli seems to sing belcanto as if he sings verismo. Of two modern tenors Florez is the only one I've heard live and liked despite of peculiar timbre. Alvarez unfortunately came to my city when I had vacation. But of course, my ear for music is underdeveloped, to do it mildly.


This is a great place to develop your ear. I've found this to be a kind place to learn how to voice your opinions as a developing forum member. There are a number of people here who greatly out class my knowledge but who don't lord it all over me with their knowledge. I knew little of male singers when I started but am now able to create contests for male singers that aren't embarassing and people seem to enjoy;-)


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Tsaraslondon said:


> Before choosing out of these three it might be instructive to remember that the role of Arturo was written for Rubini, who was renowned for the sweetness and ease of his coloratura in the upper register, which went right up to a high F. Pollione was written with a different, more robust tenor in mind, Domenico Donzelli, who had a much more robust instrument, but less facility in coloratura. He was followed by Gilbert Duprez, who is credited with being the first practitioner of the top C from the chest.
> 
> I know there are many for whom Corelli can do no wrong, but I'm not one of them. He was well known for his Pollione and, aside from some clumsiness in the coloratura, I really like him in the role, but a light, lyrical coloratura he was not and I would never consider him right for the role of Arturo. Admittedly the voice is absolutely splendid, the top notes glorious, but his singing is altogether to muscular and efforful for this delicate melody and he aspirates quite a few of his upward intervals. I'll admit that it's quite exciting, but I'm pretty sure it's not what Bellini had in mind.
> 
> ...


 I thought this round would stump people. Yes Corelli is wrong, but he sparks debate certainly. I think Florez is best in video where you can see him looking so good and the voice is amplified.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

Three tenors, an Argentinian, a Peruvian, and an Italian wandered into an English china shop…which would cause the least damage? All three use aspirates to help negotiate the gentle vocal line, to a greater or lesser extent. 

Corelli, of course, trained in a era in which these were used liberally, especially among male singers. Both Alvarez and Florez sing most sensitively, the former to a remarkable degree given his robust repertoire - he makes very smooth and beautiful sounds. Florez is, of course well known in his _leggero _repertoire. His voice, though, is not as ingratiating to me as the other two.

To my ears, Corelli has the most sheerly glamorous sound and the most spectacular high D (?) of the three. To be sure, his traversal of the aria might be called inelegant, however much he tries not to be. Our modern ears and our knowledge of how the aria should be sung demand the choice be one of his competitors. 

But i cannot do that! I’ll take my lumps!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

A good legato is essential in this music, and everyone who sings it seems clear enough about that. The more pronounced effect of portamento is also very much in order here and there. But "here and there" doesn't mean "here, there and everywhere." Good taste requires that even in the most melting cantilena, some notes - probably the greater proportion - need to be attacked directly on the written pitch, without a lot of sliding and slithering around.

You know where I'm going with this, don't you? Think initials "F. C." His wallowing quite literally makes me think of someone crying while drunk, and I consider it unmusical.

Pleasantly remote from this treacly lugubriousness is the natural, elegant phrasing of Florez, whose shallow tone isn't my favorite tenor sound but who does nothing to annoy. Based on timbre alone, I prefer Alvarez to Florez, but there is distinct tightness and strain throughout that keeps my mind constantly on his effort in sustaining the music. I haven't listened much to Alvarez, but I suspect his voice was freer at an earlier date.

There's no great singing here, but all things considered I'm most comfortable with Florez. Only he is able to keep the music front and center and not distract me with some vocal or musical quirk.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> A good legato is essential in this music, and everyone who sings it seems clear enough about that. The more pronounced effect of portamento is also very much in order here and there. But "here and there" doesn't mean "here, there and everywhere." Good taste requires that even in the most melting cantilena, some notes - probably the greater proportion - need to be attacked directly on the written pitch, without a lot of sliding and slithering around.
> 
> You know where I'm going with this, don't you? *Think initials "F. C." His wallowing quite literally makes me think of someone crying while drunk, and I consider it unmusical.*
> 
> ...


I do relate to your phrase because similarly, when I first heard his voice my comment was,"he sounds like a guy who just woke up in the morning."


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

Corelli, while not ideal here, at least has a voice. The small, squeezed, constricted voices of the other two put them out of the running despite any greater sense of style. I might be alone in this but it is truly sad that these are now considered true operatic voices.


----------



## kappablanca (9 mo ago)

I really can’t pick one out of these three, because Lauri-Volpi has me spoiled with his rendition: the only version that doesn’t feel over-repetitive to me. A powerful voice, yet used with a heartbreaking tenderness that captures the essence of the aria. A bit like a bel canto Corelli in this version (which makes sense…considering LV coached Corelli).
(This is an excerpt, starting after “al brillar..”)


----------



## kappablanca (9 mo ago)

kappablanca said:


> I really can’t pick one out of these three, because Lauri-Volpi has me spoiled with his rendition: the only version that doesn’t feel over-repetitive to me. A powerful voice, yet used with a heartbreaking tenderness that captures the essence of the aria. A bit like a bel canto Corelli in this version (which makes sense…considering LV coached Corelli).
> (This is an excerpt, starting after “al brillar..”)


Sorry if this post is considered off-topic or rude. I am new to these forums, and meant no disrespect.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

Op.123 said:


> Corelli, while not ideal here, at least has a voice. The small, squeezed, constricted voices of the other two put them out of the running despite any greater sense of style. I might be alone in this but it is truly sad that these are now considered true operatic voices.


(portentously) You are not alone!


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

I don't call Marcelo Alvarez and Juan Diego Florez' voices in any way squeezed or constricted.


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

nina foresti said:


> I don't call Marcelo Alvarez and Juan Diego Florez' voices in any way squeezed or constricted.


There is no release, no proper resonance, no fullness of tone/richness of overtones. You might not call them constricted as such but even if they sound natural and "pretty" to you they are still technically singing with a constrictive technique. Certainly it's less obvious when comparing recordings and the difference would be much larger live, but I still cringe at the sound of Alvarez and Florez where nothing sounds particularly natural even if it's not overbearingly unpleasant.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Op.123 said:


> There is no release, no proper resonance, no fullness of tone/richness of overtones. You might not call them constricted as such but even if they sound natural and "pretty" to you they are still technically singing with a restrictive technique. Certainly it's less obvious when comparing recordings and the difference would be much larger live, but I still cringe at the sound of Alvarez and Florez where nothing sounds particularly natural even if it's not overbearingly unpleasant.


I agree with you that Corelli's voice is glorious, but _in this particular piece _I'd rather listen to Alvarez or Florez, constricted or not. Neither would be my first choice and we have already heard others who do the piece more justice, Fleta and Lauri-Volpi, to name two, but Corelli literally murders the music. Poor Bellini gets completely lost and all we hear is Corelli.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Tsaraslondon said:


> I agree with you that Corelli's voice is glorious, but _in this particular piece _I'd rather listen to Alvarez or Florez, constricted or not. Neither would be my first choice and we have already heard others who do the piece more justice, Fleta and Lauri-Volpi, to name two, but Corelli literally murders the music. Poor Bellini gets completely lost and all we hear is Corelli.


Speaking as a musician, I have to say that opera seems to me uniquely problematic in that most of what I hear is in some way unsatisfactory. Opera is complex, and I can't think of another area of classical music where the peculiar sound of the instrument on which the music is "played" weighs so heavily. How much the sheer sound of a voice, or even valid considerations of vocal technique, counts for us against the elements of musicianship, style and interpretive imagination differs from person to person and even for the very same person, depending on the singer. For someone who's an all-around musician, a great deal of singing that's vocally "beautiful" or "exciting" but otherwise fails to do justice to the music or drama can be uninteresting or even offensive.


----------



## ColdGenius (9 mo ago)

Than more I go to the opera or listen to the musik, than more I'm glad that I'm not a musician, can't read a score and have enough weak ear for music. Even for an amateur like me it becomes harder to hear some performances in years.


----------



## IgorS (Jan 7, 2018)

Florez above Corelli? I can't understand this. But that probably is my problem )))


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

IgorS said:


> Florez above Corelli? I can't understand this. But that probably is my problem )))


Most of the people voting have given their reasons above. Nobody disputes the splendour of Corelli's voice. What I and others have objected to, is the way he mangles poor Bellini. I don't much like Florez's somewhat whiney sound, but at least he knows how the music should be sung.


----------



## IgorS (Jan 7, 2018)

Tsaraslondon said:


> Most of the people voting have given their reasons above. Nobody disputes the splendour of Corelli's voice. What I and others have objected to, is the way he mangles poor Bellini. I don't much like Florez's somewhat whiney sound, but at least he knows how the music should be sung.


Those two are not even in the same universe. Florez may be a good crossover singer but he has no voice for opera.


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

IgorS said:


> Those two are not even in the same universe. Florez may be a good crossover singer but he has no voice for opera.


Unfortunately a voice for Opera no longer means a big, free, natural voice. For many people, small, restricted voices and woofy, poorly projected, ingolata voices are what Opera is. I have no problem with it in modern opera because you can write for a different sound, amplify singers, etc. But when singing Verdi, Wagner, Bellini I just find the sound so totally unsuited that it destroys the music, and of course pieces are conducted with such light temperament when voices can't sustain a large sound. Just listen to how Panizza and Bodanzky conducted their Met performances in the 30s. If only we could have that level of energy and excitement again but unfortunately singers would just be completely consumed by the orchestra now. I would prefer it if theatres focused on modern works which could cater to these voices properly and save the romantic operas for the odd occasion they could be performed successfully but despite our lack of reverence for proper singing technique people only want to hear the operas of previous generations. Thus we are stuck with Opera as a decaying artform, far more so than concert music, which is slowly having all life sucked from it by poorly trained singers, placcid conductors and directors who've never studied a single piece of music and only understand theatre in cinematic terms.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Op.123 said:


> Unfortunately a voice for Opera no longer means a big, free, natural voice. For many people, small, restricted voices and woofy, poorly projected, ingolata voices are what Opera is. I have no problem with it in modern opera because you can write for a different sound, amplify singers, etc. But when singing Verdi, Wagner, Bellini I just find the sound so totally unsuited that it destroys the music, and of course pieces are conducted with such light temperament when voices can't sustain a large sound. Just listen to how Panizza and Bodanzky conducted their Met performances in the 30s. If only we could have that level of energy and excitement again but unfortunately singers would just be completely consumed by the orchestra now. I would prefer it if theatres focused on modern works which could cater to these voices properly and save the romantic operas for the odd occasion they could be performed successfully but despite our lack of reverence for proper singing technique people only want to hear the operas of previous generations. Thus we are stuck with Opera as a decaying artform, far more so than concert music, which is slowly having all life sucked from it by poorly trained singers, placcid conductors and directors who've never studied a single piece of music and only understand theatre in cinematic terms.


But a big voice might not be quite what Bellini had in mind of this aria and I think it's pretty safe to assume that what Corelli does here is quite a long way from what Bellini would have expected. We can't know what the first Arturo, Rubini, sounded like, but clearly he had a different kind of voice from Donzelli, who was the first Pollione. Even Donzelli's top C was sung in head voice, and it was actually Gilbert Duprez who first sang a top C from the chest, Rossini famously comparing it to the squawk of a capon.


----------



## IgorS (Jan 7, 2018)

Tsaraslondon said:


> But a big voice might not be quite what Bellini had in mind of this aria and I think it's pretty safe to assume that what Corelli does here is quite a long way from what Bellini would have expected. We can't know what the first Arturo, Rubini, sounded like, but clearly he had a different kind of voice from Donzelli, who was the first Pollione. Even Donzelli's top C was sung in head voice, and it was actually Gilbert Duprez who first sang a top C from the chest, Rossini famously comparing it to the squawk of a capon.


I'm pretty sure that Bellini would expect bel canto singing for any aria. And nothing is more contradicting to bel canto than "small, restricted voices and woofy, poorly projected, ingolata voices".


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

Tsaraslondon said:


> But a big voice might not be quite what Bellini had in mind of this aria and I think it's pretty safe to assume that what Corelli does here is quite a long way from what Bellini would have expected. We can't know what the first Arturo, Rubini, sounded like, but clearly he had a different kind of voice from Donzelli, who was the first Pollione. Even Donzelli's top C was sung in head voice, and it was actually Gilbert Duprez who first sang a top C from the chest, Rossini famously comparing it to the squawk of a capon.


When I say 'big' voices I don't necessarily mean one the size of Corelli's but a resonant and 'open' voice the likes of which the singers he wrote for undoubtedly possessed. Constricted or ingolata singing is, I agree, the antithesis of bel canto and does not come close to producing the sound that Bellini would have been used to. I agree, Corelli is not very satisfactory in this music but Flrorez sounds bland and anaemic and this music really needs more than that to be effective.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

IgorS said:


> I'm pretty sure that Bellini would expect bel canto singing for any aria. And nothing is more contradicting to bel canto than "small, restricted voices and woofy, poorly projected, ingolata voices".


Yes, _bel canto _not _verismo_, which is what we get from Corelli here.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Considering that we have no recorded evidence of what singers sounded like in Bellini's day, and in fact have no entirely faithful recordings of any singer prior to the introduction of electrical recording in the interwar 20th century, I take all statements and judgments about the sounds of voices we can't hear advisedly. I'd also point out that much of the language we use to describe voices is metaphorical. I was thinking just this morning of what I said yesterday about the late recordings of Ferdinand Frantz; I referred to his sound as "heavy and opaque," and even as I wrote that I was asking myself how a sound can be either of those things. Literally, of course, it can't. 

No doubt Florez makes a sound that's more "shallow" and "constricted" than Corelli's. I'm not sure what he should do to "correct" that, but it seems not to have led to any sort of breakdown in his ability to perform opera, and I find assertions to the effect that he doesn't have a voice for opera more expressions of taste than anything else. Corelli's "open and resonant" sound may be admirably loud and sensually exciting to some people (though it's never done much for me), but it didn't ensure that he wouldn't make hash out of quite a bit of music. For some musicians like me, what a singer does with a phrase can matter more than whether his voice is impressive physically. 

The sort of sound considered desirable for any kind of music, and the vocal manipulations required to produce it, differ greatly among the many styles of music. What sort of sound we favor is determined as much by taste and tradition as by its adequacy in sustaining and projecting music in a given style. If an opera singer has the range, flexibility, and dynamic control to make good music in some operatic repertoire, more power to him.

As my mother used to say, "Name your poison."


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Considering that we have no recorded evidence of what singers sounded like in Bellini's day, and in fact have no entirely faithful recordings of any singer prior to the introduction of electrical recording in the interwar 20th century, I take all statements and judgments about the sounds of voices we can't hear advisedly. I'd also point out that much of the language we use to describe voices is metaphorical. I was thinking just this morning of what I said yesterday about the late recordings of Ferdinand Frantz; I referred to his sound as "heavy and opaque," and even as I wrote that I was asking myself how a sound can be either of those things. Literally, of course, it can't.
> 
> No doubt Florez makes a sound that's more "shallow" and "constricted" than Corelli's. I'm not sure what he should do to "correct" that, but it seems not to have led to any sort of breakdown in his ability to perform opera, and I find assertions to the effect that he doesn't have a voice for opera more expressions of taste than anything else. Corelli's "open and resonant" sound may be admirably loud and sensually exciting to some people (though it's never done much for me), but it didn't ensure that he wouldn't make hash out of quite a bit of music. For some musicians like me, what a singer does with a phrase can matter more than whether his voice is impressive physically.
> 
> ...


We may not have any physical records but we do have many writings on vocal technique which seem to suggest that, from even earlier than the romantic era, voices were taught to be produced through a method of proper resonance and openness. An operatic sound should always sound natural as opposed to excessively cultivated and 'placed'. We see many aspects of this singing in the folk music of other countries world wide and I have no reason to believe that restriction and 'placement' were a feature of pre-twentieth century opera. I agree, that musicality is of utmost importance, but I am someone who would assert that, without a solid technique, without tones that will carry with a natural body of resonance, you can not be musical. You can have faults, at least for me I can overlook them, Callas's occasionally stridency, Tebaldi's flat Cs etc. but those singers at least have opened voices. And it doesn't have to be a large voice, I adore Bidu Sayao in lighter repertoire, but her small instrument would sound ten times more immediate in a concert hall than Florez because there is no restriction, no held back air. For me Florez's style of singing is like someone playing a cello concerto on a recorder, and while Corelli's is not a performance I would turn to to hear the music in its best light, at least his instrument is correctly built.


----------



## IgorS (Jan 7, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> Considering that we have no recorded evidence of what singers sounded like in Bellini's day, and in fact have no entirely faithful recordings of any singer prior to the introduction of electrical recording in the interwar 20th century, I take all statements and judgments about the sounds of voices we can't hear advisedly.


There is enough evidence to extrapolate. No reason to think that nowadays singers are closer to the real bel canto than golden era singers.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

IgorS said:


> There is enough evidence to extrapolate. No reason to think that nowadays singers are closer to the real bel canto than golden era singers.


To extrapolate what? Can we extrapolate what Bellini and his audiences would have thought of what Franco Corelli does with this music? Is there evidence to indicate how much they would have liked the intense, even strenuous, sound he makes, so wanting in light and shade, or whether they would have thought that his ways of attacking notes and putting them together, his scooping and sliding, were musical or stylish? Can we extrapolate answers from accounts of the tenors of the day?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Op.123 said:


> For me Florez's style of singing is like someone playing a cello concerto on a recorder, and while Corelli's is not a performance I would turn to to hear the music in its best light, at least his instrument is correctly built.


One can make appalling music on a correctly built cello.


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> To extrapolate what? Can we extrapolate what Bellini and his audiences would have thought of what Franco Corelli does with this music? Is there evidence to indicate how much they would have liked the intense, even strenuous, sound he makes, so wanting in light and shade, or whether they would have thought that his ways of attacking notes and putting them together, his scooping and sliding, were musical or stylish? Can we extrapolate answers from accounts of the tenors of the day?


I assume Corelli would have been seen as crude and vulgar and Florez as completely incompetent. I suspect neither would have held a candle to the singers he was used to.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Op.123 said:


> I assume Corelli would have been seen as crude and vulgar and Florez as completely incompetent. I suspect neither would have held a candle to the singers he was used to.


Maybe.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Op.123 said:


> For me Florez's style of singing is like someone playing a cello concerto on a recorder


Is that necessarily a bad thing? Look at this example of of a cello concerto transcribed as a flute/recorder concerto:


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> Is that necessarily a bad thing? Look at this example of of a cello concerto transcribed as a flute/recorder concerto:


Well it was supposed to be a bad thing so maybe it was a bad analogy. Maybe more like using a toy cello instead of a real one.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> One can make appalling music on a correctly built cello.


As I do every week in orchestra rehearsal....


----------

