# TENOR TOURNAMENT (Quarterfinal #4): Di Stefano vs Caruso



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

Giuseppe Di Stefano, Italy, 1921-2008 (defeated Pertile 16-4)






Enrico Caruso, Italy, 1873-1921 (defeated Tucker 15-5)






Who's singing did you prefer and why?


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

How dare you put two of the top greats together and ask me to pick one over the other 
DiStefano was just perfect in his rendition and sang it exactly as it is always normally sung by tenors today, but Caruso included such special and creative touches and delicacies of sound that despite it being overall too slow for me, I was completely mesmerized by his incredible performance. That was truly art.
Enrico it is! (sorry Pippo! Forgive me!)


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

I listened to DiStefano first, and thought it was great. Then I listened to Caruso, and heard what had been missing from DiStefano.

Caruso's singing, even on that ancient acoustic recording, has a liquid beauty that GdS really lacks, and a greater willingness to use rubato for expression; in comparison, GdS sounds somewhat metronomic. To be fair, that may be in part due to the accompaniment.

DiStefano might have fared better on an earlier recording, but I still would have chosen Caruso:


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

wkasimer said:


> I listened to DiStefano first, and thought it was great. Then I listened to Caruso, and heard what had been missing from DiStefano.
> 
> Caruso's singing, even on that ancient acoustic recording, has a liquid beauty that GdS really lacks, and a greater willingness to use rubato for expression; in comparison, GdS sounds somewhat metronomic. To be fair, that may be in part due to the accompaniment.
> 
> DiStefano might have fared better on an earlier recording, but I still would have chosen Caruso:


This was an undeniably better recording by a country mile. Had this been the contender, I swear I would not have been able to cast a vote.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

nina foresti said:


> This was an undeniably better recording by a country mile. Had this been the contender, I swear I would not have been able to cast a vote.


DiStefano after 1950 or so was a fine singer. Before 1950 he was legendary.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

wkasimer said:


> DiStefano after 1950 or so was a fine singer. Before 1950 he was legendary.


What was the reason for his decline?


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Bonetan said:


> What was the reason for his decline?


He tried to push his voice. Period!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Di Stefano is better looking. Otherwise, Caruso has it. 

In most contexts I'd be pretty happy with Di Stefano despite his usual scooping attacks; his singing is heartfelt as always, and a few passing technical faults don't really bother me. But Caruso's 1904 recording is absolutely unique in its musical creativity and in the technical virtuosity that makes all his vocal effects possible. It's a reminder that Caruso is the tenor who bridges the transition from 19th-century bel canto to 20th-century verismo. His later recordings of this aria are musically simpler and less improvisatory.


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

Basically agree with what has been said. Di Stefano is very good but this particular Caruso recording is one of the top ten best vocal recordings ever made. "Cielo si puo si puo morir" at 4:15 is heartbreaking. "_This_ is opera" as they say.


----------



## Azol (Jan 25, 2015)

Now I probably have to be consistent: I voted open vs elaborate in Schipa vs Wunderlich poll, so I kinda follow the same logic here.
Caruso is elaborate and Di Stefano open and plain. Both have a bit of a rough start, I think, but then it goes on splendingly. In my opinion Caruso goes over the top (well, kinda) with rubato and embellishments which makes me think he is savouring and enjoying every moment of this aria.
So, to sum this up, when I listen to Caruso I think about the singer and all the awesome things he does here and there. When I listen to Di Stefano I think about the character he is portraying and the circumstances Nemorino got himself into.
Maybe I am wrong in a sense that, initially, no one cared for the action and the play, everyone in the audience was looking for the next big aria showcase, which Caruso definitely delivers here.

P.S. Well, sometimes I find myself clearly outnumbered :lol: No ice-cream after dinner for me this time.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

I think Caruso is showing off, but I voted for him anyway. Di Stefano is outclassed, as Caruso’s technique is leagues better.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Di Stefano is better looking. Otherwise, Caruso has it.
> 
> In most contexts I'd be pretty happy with Di Stefano despite his usual scooping attacks; his singing is heartfelt as always, and a few passing technical faults don't really bother me. But Caruso's 1904 recording is absolutely unique in its musical creativity and in the technical virtuosity that makes all his vocal effects possible. It's a reminder that Caruso is the tenor who bridges the transition from 19th-century bel canto to 20th-century verismo. His later recordings of this aria are musically simpler and less improvisatory.


What he said.

I mean I really like Di Stefano in this aria, but Caruso's version is a miracle. I think it woud beat anybody else's.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

wkasimer said:


> I listened to DiStefano first, and thought it was great. Then I listened to Caruso, and heard what had been missing from DiStefano.
> 
> Caruso's singing, even on that ancient acoustic recording, has a liquid beauty that GdS really lacks, and a greater willingness to use rubato for expression; in comparison, GdS sounds somewhat metronomic. To be fair, that may be in part due to the accompaniment.
> 
> DiStefano might have fared better on an earlier recording, but I still would have chosen Caruso:


Di Stefano is in his early twenties here. What a gorgeous, lyric tenor voice he had.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

I'm writing this before I read. I didn't see how it would be possible for anyone to sing this aria more beautifully than diStefano. Such a glorious tone, such style and such emotion. Then Caruso was up to bat. As fabulous as diStefano was, Caruso bettered him on all fronts. Stylistically, vocal beauty and just the right emotional tone plus his coloratura was done better. OMG!!!!!!!!!!! What is it about this simple aria that is such a revealer of talent I wonder, aside from it's incredible beauty????? I wish someone would suggest what you consider Caruso's very best arias and if you like the recordings with modern orchestras backing him up. This aria makes me want to explore him further.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Tsaraslondon said:


> Di Stefano is in his early twenties here. What a gorgeous, lyric tenor voice he had.


Glorious. His relaxed vibrato was just perfect. I see he smoked. That could have factored in his vocal decline as well, although it didn't seem to effect Caruso.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Seattleoperafan said:


> I'm writing this before I read. I didn't see how it would be possible for anyone to sing this aria more beautifully than diStefano. Such a glorious tone, such style and such emotion. Then Caruso was up to bat. As fabulous as diStefano was, Caruso bettered him on all fronts. Stylistically, vocal beauty and just the right emotional tone plus his coloratura was done better. OMG!!!!!!!!!!! What is it about this simple aria that is such a revealer of talent I wonder, aside from it's incredible beauty????? I wish someone would suggest what you consider Caruso's very best arias and *if you like the recordings with modern orchestras backing him up.* This aria makes me want to explore him further.


Replacing the original accompaniments with new ones was an interesting idea, but those recordings have the effect of making the singer sound as if he's behind a curtain or in an adjoining room. Whoever made them should at least have given the voice a little more presence and added a hint of reverb to match the acoustics of the accompaniments. In every case I'd rather listen to the original, which paradoxically give a more realistic sense of the amplitude and resonance of Caruso's incomparable sound.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Seattleoperafan said:


> Glorious. His relaxed vibrato was just perfect. I see he smoked. That could have factored in his vocal decline as well, although it didn't seem to effect Caruso.


Unfortunately, in Caruso's case it probably affected more than his voice. Pneumonia led to pleurisy, abscesses in the lungs, and a series of unsuccessful surgeries, resulting in death at age 48.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Seattleoperafan said:


> Glorious. His relaxed vibrato was just perfect. I see he smoked. That could have factored in his vocal decline as well, although it didn't seem to effect Caruso.


Plenty of great singers were heavy smokers - Tauber and Fischer-Dieskau immediately spring to mind - and then there's this famous photo. I think that many will recognize the singers:


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

Seattleoperafan said:


> Glorious. His relaxed vibrato was just perfect. I see he smoked. That could have factored in his vocal decline as well, although it didn't seem to effect Caruso.


You would probably be surprised that many opera singers smoke, especially those who had careers in the 1950s and '60s. Callas was one, and as recently as the 1980s and '90s, Helga Dernesch, who should've known better. Singers in the '50s and '60s did not know that smoking caused all sorts of problems - to think that as a singer, you're drawing smoke into your lungs!


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

MAS said:


> You would probably be surprised that many opera singers smoke, especially those who had careers in the 1950s and '60s. Callas was one, and as recently as the 1980s and '90s, Helga Dernesch, who should've known better. Singers in the '50s and '60s did not know that smoking caused all sorts of problems - to think that as a singer, you're drawing smoke into your lungs!


Callas was photographed once with a cigarette. That's not quite the same as saying she smoked. I'm pretty sure she didn't - not regularly anyway.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

Tsaraslondon said:


> Callas was photographed once with a cigarette. That's not quite the same as saying she smoked. I'm pretty sure she didn't - not regularly anyway.


*And you know this how?*


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

MAS said:


> *And you know this how?*
> 
> View attachment 150233
> View attachment 150234
> View attachment 150235


Being photographed smoking, especially in those days when it was considered quite cool, is not the same as being a smoker. None of the biographies I've read have ever alluded to Callas being a smoker, whereas it is well known that Caruso was a smoker. That is why I have always believed Callas may have had the occasional cigarette but wasn't a smoker. I remember a televised debate in which Visconti smokes pretty much all the way through. Callas doesn't smoke at all.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Hvorostovsky, Pape


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

Tsaraslondon said:


> Being photographed smoking, especially in those days when it was considered quite cool, is not the same as being a smoker. None of the biographies I've read have ever alluded to Callas being a smoker, whereas it is well known that Caruso was a smoker. That is why I have always believed Callas may have had the occasional cigarette but wasn't a smoker. I remember a televised debate in which Visconti smokes pretty much all the way through. Callas doesn't smoke at all.


I said Callas smoked, not that she was "a smoker." The evidence (photographs) show she smoked. The first two photos are from the late 1950s or 1960s, the last from the Pasolini film *Medea* 1969. She was also photographed more that "once," as you claimed.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

MAS said:


> I said Callas smoked, not that she was "a smoker."


That's just splitting hairs.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

Tsaraslondon said:


> That's just splitting hairs.


Get over yourself, Tsaras! You need not "defend" Callas at all costs. Because she smoked once, twice, every day, weekly, monthly, or 2 packs a day, or whatever, makes no difference to anybody. 
She's not bad because she smoked, nor is she less of a singer, nor is being attacked because someone said she smoked but was not a smoker. She smoked! So what?


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

MAS said:


> Get over yourself, Tsaras! You need not "defend" Callas at all costs. Because she smoked once, twice, every day, weekly, monthly, or 2 packs a day, or whatever, makes no difference to anybody.
> She's not bad because she smoked, nor is she less of a singer, nor is being attacked because someone said she smoked but was not a smoker. She smoked! So what?


Somebody got out on the wrong side of the bed today.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

Tsaraslondon said:


> Somebody got out on the wrong side of the bed today.


:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

In light of the above debate over smoking terminology I feel fortunate that no one photographed me having my first and only cigarette in 1968. Those in the know (which now includes everyone here) will be able to say "Woodduck smoked," but in the history books I will sit beside George Washington, who may have lied once or twice despite his father's cherry tree (which probably died of natural causes), and Bill Clinton, who didn't inhale, didn't have sex with that woman, and found cigars much more interesting when not smoked.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

My first cigarette was a terrible experience, full of coughing and choking and gagging. Not one to learn my lessons in those days, I went on to smoke for another 20 years. One of two packs per day. Then there was a movement in the late 1970s against smoking and I stopped. I was never photographed smoking...


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

MAS said:


> My first cigarette was a terrible experience, full of coughing and chocking and gagging. Not one to learn my lessons in those days, I went on to smoke for another 20 years. One of two packs per day. Then there was a movement in the late 1970s against smoking and I stopped. I was never photographed smoking...


I didn't get as far as the coughing. I was merely curious - "why do people do this?" - it tasted bad, and that was that.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

I did it to keep up with my peers in high school but being that I used my voice in my business (radio and tv voice-overs) I dared not mess with my voice so I only smoked a pack a week (and then only in the evening when I played Bridge.)
I stopped completely in 1984.
Still play Bridge but do miss the "inhaling".


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> I didn't get as far as the coughing. I was merely curious - "why do people do this?" - it tasted bad, and that was that.


You must be a sensible man!


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> I didn't get as far as the coughing. I was merely curious - "why do people do this?" - it tasted bad, and that was that.


I was married a thousand years ago( before I figured out the lay of the land LOL) and the nicest thing my ex did for me was to tell me when I tried smoking that I smoked like Bette Davis. It should have been a sign of my future LOL. It did stop me for good LOL


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

Seattleoperafan said:


> I was married a thousand years ago( before I figured out the lay of the land LOL) and the nicest thing my ex did for me was to tell me when I tried smoking that I smoked like Bette Davis. It should have been a sign of my future LOL. It did stop me for good LOL


Oh dear! That should've encourage you to continue! :lol: Of course you'd have needed better lighting! :lol:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

MAS said:


> Oh dear! That should've encourage you to continue! :lol: Of course you'd have needed better lighting! :lol:


Better lighting?! He may smoke like Bette Davis, but he certainly doesn't _look_ like her. (No offense, SOF.)


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Better lighting?! He may smoke like Bette Davis, but he certainly doesn't _look_ like her. (No offense, SOF.)


Lighting to highlight the _smoke_, silly! :lol:


----------

