# Verdi baritones



## Sieglinde

(If there is a thread about this already, please merge!) 

So, as someone who is a wee bit obsessed with Verdi (understatement), I thought it would be fun to discuss baritones, past and present, who tackled these roles.

Nowadays many baritones more on the lyric side try their luck - some roles work better than others. I'd say Rodrigo is a fairly safe gambit, but in most cases a lyric baritone trying Verdi is like a dps character trying to solo a powerful boss. Doable if they are very careful, but it's easily to get one-hit killed by something a more tanky voice could endure easily.


----------



## vivalagentenuova

I admit to not being a huge fan of Verdi for a long time, but rediscovering his works through the great old singers has recently increased my appreciation of his work substantially.

I've become a big fan of Gino Bechi. He kind of defines the "Verdi baritone" voice to me. Very rich voice, and strong declamation, but lovely phrasing. He displays all these qualities in this aria.





Amazing Lawrence Tibbett. He knocks every aspect of this aria out of the park. Powerful cry of "Cortigiani, vil razza" (what really gets to me is the way he sounds like he is yelling, but it's still beautiful sound), but his "Ebbene... piango" is melting, and the rest of the aria is sensitive. This kind of singing has really made me realize how wonderfully dramatic and full of character Verdi's music is.





A touch more lyrical and less well known, but I have always warmed to Mario Sereni's warm and smooth timbre.


----------



## Woodduck

Large, thrilling, dramatic baritone voices with extended tops and plenty of squillo as well as firm legato seem either scarce as hens' teeth or extinct as hens with teeth (archaeopteryx, for example). Who, I wonder, is a current representative of the species? When I was young (in the 50s and 60s) we had Warren, Merrill, MacNeil, Gobbi, Panerai, Bastianini, Cappuccilli and Herlea, just to name those who come immediately to mind. The real golden age of the Verdi baritone seems to have been earlier, before WW I, when Italy was producing a superabundance of great singers: there were Kaschmann, Magini-Coletti, Pacini, Campanari, Ancona, Bellantoni, Sammarco, Battistini, Amato, Scotti, Ruffo, Stracciari, Viglione-Borghese...whew! Those are just the Italians, and all of them were superb compared to anyone I know of currently on the scene, as their recordings will attest. 

I really don't know what to say about the current crop of baritones singing the big fat Verdi roles. Hvorostovsky is gone, Keenleyside may not be huge-voiced but he sounds almost as good as he looks )), Mattei is a lyric who can do certain roles well, Finley likewise. Kelsey seems to have the basic equipment; don't know what he's doing with it. Whose Rigoletto is knockin' 'em dead in the provinces? It hasn't been happening at the Met, if my radio doesn't lie.


----------



## nina foresti

To fill in some missed above: Hvorostovsky/Pape/Ramey/London/Quilico/Lucic/Kweicen/Owens/Van Horn


----------



## BalalaikaBoy

Woodduck said:


> Large, thrilling, dramatic baritone voices with extended tops and plenty of squillo as well as firm legato seem either scarce *as hens' teeth or extinct as hens with teeth (archaeopteryx, for example)*. Who, I wonder, is a current representative of the species? When I was young (in the 50s and 60s) we had Warren, Merrill, MacNeil, Gobbi, Panerai, Bastianini, Cappuccilli and Herlea, just to name those who come immediately to mind. The real golden age of the Verdi baritone seems to have been earlier, before WW I, when Italy was producing a superabundance of great singers: there were Kaschmann, Magini-Coletti, Pacini, Campanari, Ancona, Bellantoni, Sammarco, Battistini, Amato, Scotti, Ruffo, Stracciari, Viglione-Borghese...whew! Those are just the Italians, and all of them were superb compared to anyone I know of currently on the scene, as their recordings will attest.
> 
> I really don't know what to say about the current crop of baritones singing the big fat Verdi roles. Hvorostovsky is gone, Keenleyside may not be huge-voiced but he sounds almost as good as he looks )), Mattei is a lyric who can do certain roles well, Finley likewise. Kelsey seems to have the basic equipment; don't know what he's doing with it. Whose Rigoletto is knockin' 'em dead in the provinces? It hasn't been happening at the Met, if my radio doesn't lie.


I thought I was the only person to make this reference :lol:


----------



## Woodduck

BalalaikaBoy said:


> I thought I was the only person to make this reference :lol:


Are you a paleontologist?


----------



## Woodduck

nina foresti said:


> To fill in some missed above: Hvorostovsky/Pape/Ramey/London/Quilico/Lucic/Kweicen/Owens/Van Horn


Hvorostovsky was mentioned. Pape, Ramey, London, Owens and Van Horn were/are all basses or bass-baritones. Lucic and Kweicen are the right vocal category but neither of them is among the greats (I don't know what they sounded like at the beginning of their careers). I'd put only Quilico, of the singers you mention, in the company of Warren, Merrill, and others of his time. Thank you for reminding me of him. Sherrill Milnes came along in the late 60s and was first-rate for a while till his high notes went weird.

My question still stands: who is a first-class "Verdi baritone" right now?


----------



## millionrainbows

I wasn't wearing my glasses, and I thought this thread was called "Verdi ringtones."


----------



## nina foresti

Woodduck said:


> Hvorostovsky was mentioned. Pape, Ramey, London, Owens and Van Horn were/are all basses or bass-baritones. Lucic and Kweicen are the right vocal category but neither of them is among the greats (I don't know what they sounded like at the beginning of their careers). I'd put only Quilico, of the singers you mention, in the company of Warren, Merrill, and others of his time. Thank you for reminding me of him. Sherrill Milnes came along in the late 60s and was first-rate for a while till his high notes went weird.
> 
> My question still stands: who is a first-class "Verdi baritone" right now?


I do agree. I admit I was stretching it a bit. 
True answer: Dere ain't one! (is this PC?)


----------



## The Conte

millionrainbows said:


> I wasn't wearing my glasses, and I thought this thread was called "Verdi ringtones."


Great idea for a thread!

N.


----------



## DavidA

OK let me just take you through the Rigolettos I have:

Gobbi - not such a wonderful voice but what an actor. And singing with the best Duke (Di Stefano) and Callas' Gilda
McNeil - get his first recording with Sutherland to hear his superb voice at his best despite some lethargic conducting.
Merrill - Absolutely first rate with Solti. Can't understand anyone saying he was 'faceless' - he is superb despite Solti's haste.
Bruson - yes he can roar with the best
Zancanaro - absolutely superb on Muti's flawed set. Worth having for him alone. Great Verdi baritone.
Milnes - outstanding in every way - wounded, roaring, spitting
Cappuccilli - just listening as only just acquired the set - but sounds good from what I hear
D F-D - acquired taste but highly intelligent. Whether that is appropriate for Verdi's jester a matter of opinion.
Warren - haven't got round to hearing him with Cellini yet so the pleasure awaits but have heard the excerpts with Toscanini so nuff said! :lol:
So take your pick! Why go to the ancient and crackling recordings when we have such riches decently recorded? Like the excerpt with Tibbett - gives one an idea of the great singer - really outstanding he was but oh how one longs for a more modern recording to do it justice. Thanks for posting it anyway. One of the greats!


----------



## Sieglinde

For fun: Tibbett vs. Warren curse scene!

For today, I'd say Ludovic Tézier is probably the best Verdi baritone - his voice really matured into it, his legato is fantastic, and he has that noble beauty in his sound.






I'd also link his Rodrigue because it's something ethereal when he does it in French, but that Paris staging makes me aggro XD Let Carlos hold him you [email protected]!

Carlos Álvarez is also a great one, and Artur Ruciński is growing into Verdi.

Of course, Alexandru Agache is also still active, but he settled in Hungary (we are lucky in that department) so you don't see him abroad that often.


----------



## Sieglinde

Keenlyside, Kwiecien and Hampson, despite being more lyric, make up for it with excellent acting. Haven't heard Mattei in Verdi yet, but his Amfortas was a revelation and left me crying. 

Kelsey has a pretty sound but lacks the bite or the charisma. Seen him as Paolo where he was luxury casting, however.

A singer friend in the UK says Maltman has matured into Verdi surprisingly well (he's seen him in the recent Forza). Wish they filmed him in something because I'm curious.


----------



## wkasimer

Sieglinde said:


> Haven't heard Mattei in Verdi yet, but his Amfortas was a revelation and left me crying.


I don't think that he's sung much Verdi, but he did record a superb Posa:


----------



## wkasimer

DavidA said:


> OK let me just take you through the Rigolettos I have:


You're missing a couple of great ones - Nicolae Herlea and Hugo Hasslo. Andrei Ivanov, in Russian, is a bit bland, but it's an impressive voice. It's a shame that neither Pavel Lisitsian or Matteo Manuguerra made a complete recording of the role.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> Why go to the ancient and crackling recordings when we have such riches decently recorded?


To discover the possibilities of singing technique and style, and often a standard of comparison. Of course you have to understand what you're hearing in imperfect sound. In the case of baritones, whose voices recorded rather well even on acoustic recordings, that's relatively easy.


----------



## DavidA

wkasimer said:


> You're missing a couple of great ones - Nicolae Herlea and Hugo Hasslo. Andrei Ivanov, in Russian, is a bit bland, but it's an impressive voice. It's a shame that neither Pavel Lisitsian or Matteo Manuguerra made a complete recording of the role.


Must confess I've never heard of any of these guys. Did Herlea and Hasslo make complete recordings?


----------



## Woodduck

wkasimer said:


> You're missing a couple of great ones - Nicolae Herlea and Hugo Hasslo. Andrei Ivanov, in Russian, is a bit bland, but it's an impressive voice. It's a shame that neither Pavel Lisitsian or Matteo Manuguerra made a complete recording of the role.


Stracciari in the 1930 recording with Capsir and Borgioli. Too ancient for DavidA, no doubt, but indispensable for baritone lovers.


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> To discover the possibilities of singing technique and style, and often a standard of comparison. Of course you have to understand what you're hearing in imperfect sound. In the case of *baritones, whose voices recorded rather well even on acoustic recordings*, that's relatively easy.


Ah yes, I remember the voice of Peter Dawson booming out the 'Covered Wagon lullaby' and 'Empty Saddles' on my grandfather's old windup gramophone!


----------



## wkasimer

DavidA said:


> Must confess I've never heard of any of these guys. Did Herlea and Hasslo make complete recordings?


Yes - Herlea on a Romanian recording issued on CD by Vox, and Hasslo on BIS with Ehrling, Gedda, and Margareta Hallin. Both fairly easy to find on Amazon.

There's also a fine recording, auf Deutsch, with Metternich, Schock, and Streich - issued on Audite in pretty good sound.


----------



## DavidA

wkasimer said:


> Yes - Herlea on a Romanian recording issued on CD by Vox, and Hasslo on BIS with Ehrling, Gedda, and Margareta Hallin. Both fairly easy to find on Amazon.
> 
> There's also a fine recording, *auf Deutsch*, with Metternich, Schock, and Streich - issued on Audite in pretty good sound.


Verdi in German - no thanks!


----------



## Sieglinde

For Rigoletto, I grew up on the Gobbi recording, so I'm used to every little mannerism and colour he had XD There were certainly more plush and beautiful voices than his, but he was one hella expressive singer.

I also had a lot of recordings with Milnes, so he was my gold standard for a long time. What a passionate and noble Rodrigo! Also love his Boccanegra - I have never seen anyone else so frightening in the curse scene. He rolled a nat 20 on Intimidation there. 

Of course, in Hungary, we also have (and had) some excellent baritones, like György Melis, Imre Palló, Lajos Miller. Nowadays, Mihály Kálmándi and Zoltán Kelemen (plus we adopted Anatoly Fokanov).


----------



## wkasimer

DavidA said:


> Verdi in German - no thanks!


Well, suit yourself. If you insist upon opera in the original language, you're missing out on some terrific performances on records.


----------



## nina foresti

For today's lot Finley comes close. (I have to hear more.)


----------



## schigolch

There is a long tradition of singing Verdi in German, that produced some of the finest Verdian singing ever.

As an example, just listen to Danish tenor Helge Rosvaenge singing "Celeste Aida" (well, "Holde Aida", really), the way it's written on the score:


----------



## Tsaraslondon

DavidA said:


> Verdi in German - no thanks!


I doubt Verdi would have onjected so why should you?

Most of Fritz Wunderlich's recording of Italian opera excerpts are in German, but, regardless of language, it is some of the most golden toned, _italianate_ tenor singing you will ever hear.






Hermann Prey doesn't do badly either.


----------



## DavidA

wkasimer said:


> Well, suit yourself. If you insist upon opera in the original language, you're missing out on some terrific performances on records.


I don't doubt you but to me Verdi in English is a step far enough


----------



## DavidA

Tsaraslondon said:


> I doubt Verdi would have onjected so why should you?
> 
> Most of Fritz Wunderlich's recording of Italian opera excerpts are in German, but, regardless of language, it is some of the most golden toned, _italianate_ tenor singing you will ever hear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hermann Prey doesn't do badly either.


Never feel Verdi sounds right in German. On what authority have you have said that Verdi would have given the OK for performances in German to English speaking Audiences? I have Wunderlicht's singing Verdi too. Just doesn't sound right.


----------



## Tsaraslondon

DavidA said:


> Never feel Verdi sounds right in German. On what authority have you have said that Verdi would have given the OK for performances in German to English speaking Audiences? I have Wunderlicht's singing Verdi too. Just doesn't sound right.


Who has been giving performances of Verdi in German to English speaking audiences? I don't think I've come across any. However, as far as I'm aware, it was common practice for opera to be performed in the vernacular (ie German) in Germany, just as it was common (and still is) to hear opera in English here in the UK.


----------



## Woodduck

schigolch said:


> There is a long tradition of singing Verdi in German, that produced some of the finest Verdian singing ever.
> 
> As an example, just listen to Danish tenor Helge Rosvaenge singing "Celeste Aida" (well, "Holde Aida", really), the way it's written on the score:


I've heard very few performances in Italian as convincing as this! It's extraordinary to hear Rosvaenge's heroic voice filed down to a pianissimo in the final bars.

Back to baritones, Germany produced at least one great "Verdi baritone," the marvelous Joseph Schwarz (1880-1926). Here he gives, in 1919, as vocally splendid and heart-rending a performance of Rigoletto's "Cortigiani, vil razza dannata" as you will ever hear:






Just as fine is Lauritz Melchior as Otello. I'll include him here since he began his career as a baritone and since, like Roswaenge and Schwarz, he can compete with anyone singing Verdi in Italian:






If we had any singer equal to any of these three performing this music today, I would happily listen to Verdi in Tagalog or Swahili.


----------



## schigolch

Heinrich Schlusnus, singing Verdi:


----------



## DavidA

Tsaraslondon said:


> Who has been giving performances of Verdi in German to English speaking audiences? I don't think I've come across any. However, as far as I'm aware, it was common practice for opera to be performed in the vernacular (ie German) in Germany, just as it was common (and still is) to hear opera in English here in the UK.


Yes but I was speaking as an Englishman who doesn't speak German! :lol:


----------



## Bonetan

The leading Verdi baritones of today are Lucic, Kelsey, Claudio Sgura, Luca Salsi, George Gagnidze, Marco Vratogna, Roberto Frontali etc. I've only heard Kelsey & Gagnidze live.


----------



## DavidA

Let's have a look at the Falstaffs I have in my collection:
Valengo for Toscanini - good reliable
Gobbi - lacks somewhat the vocal fat but incomparable as an actor
Evans - has the fat and character
Panerai - an incomparable Ford and a great Falstaff for Colin Davis
Lafont - a Frenchman (as for Verdi originally I believe) for Gardiner
Taddei - Karajan 2 - great performance that should have been recorded 20 years earlier
D F-D - different but full of character - Bernstein's conducting is the focus of this set
Terfel - keeping the great tradition going for Abaddo in a well sung rather untheatrical set lacking the last ounce of grease paint
Every one of these is never less than good.


----------



## Revitalized Classics

There are a few more historic examples - I don't think these names have been mentioned yet

Mario Basiola in Trovatore





Carlo Tagliabue in Ballo





Paolo Silveri in Traviata





Giangiacomo Guelfi in Attila


----------



## wkasimer

Igor Gorin may have been more of the lyric persuasion, but no one else has ever sung this aria as well as this:


----------



## Revitalized Classics

I think these might be my favourite examples re Verdi baritones

Tibbett in Boccanegra (with Pinza)





Warren in Rigoletto





Bechi in Nabucco (with Callas)





Taddei in Aida (with Callas)





Merrill in Forza (with Tucker)


----------



## Woodduck

wkasimer said:


> Igor Gorin may have been more of the lyric persuasion, but no one else has ever sung this aria as well as this:


Beautiful, warm, sympathetic timbre. It occurs to me he'd have been a fine Germont, and sure enough:


----------



## aussiebushman

DavidA said:


> Verdi in German - no thanks!


I do understand your point. Not a baritone but a tenor, also singing in German - Franz Volker was at his wonderful best as a Wagnerian and Strauss exponent but his recordings of extracts from Italian opera, Including Verdi, are certainly worth hearing:










And schigolch - you do know your baritones. Heinrich Schlusnus - another of my favorites, regardless of the language

Wood Duck - why do I keep agreeing with you? Yes, Stracciari was superb, as was Dino Borgoli - the tenor on the recording you mention


----------



## vivalagentenuova

> Why go to the ancient and crackling recordings when we have such riches decently recorded? Like the excerpt with Tibbett - gives one an idea of the great singer - really outstanding he was but oh how one longs for a more modern recording to do it justice.


Oh, I've heard this kind of thing before and I know what it is. It's just a fad, really. "it's modern so it's better." Acoustic recordings and digital recordings just as good, and it's just a fascination with all things "new" and "modern" and "hip" to say that there are any real differences between them. Maybe you can provide examples of how modern recordings capture sound better, or don't have extraneous noise, but that's just cherry picking. If you did a fair comparison you'd see that acoustic recordings and modern recordings are the same, and it's just a bunch of prejudice towards the past and sour-grapes griping to say otherwise.


----------



## DavidA

vivalagentenuova said:


> Oh, I've heard this kind of thing before and I know what it is. It's just a fad, really. "it's modern so it's better." Acoustic recordings and digital recordings just as good, and *it's just a fascination with all things "new" and "modern" and "hip" to say that there are any real differences between them*. Maybe you can provide examples of how modern recordings capture sound better, or don't have extraneous noise, but that's just cherry picking. If you did a fair comparison you'd see that acoustic recordings and modern recordings are the same, and it's just a bunch of prejudice towards the past and sour-grapes griping to say otherwise.


Yes like I've heard the hoary old tale about the crackling old 78s where you can hear some thin piping sound supposedly being better than the modern singers. I just can't believe how you make that out when you say there's no difference between them. We have got ears you know! And I have a fascination with things 'new' and 'modern' and 'hip' when many of the recordings I have mentioned are well into their dotage being more than 50 years old by now? :lol: The Gobbi Rigoletto was made in the 1950s which makes it over 60 years old. Is that 'modern' to you? Maybe if we put some frying bacon and eggs in the background it would be more acceptable? In any case, you haven't answered my question: Why go to the ancient and crackling recordings when we have such riches decently recorded? Especially if we want complete recordings? Or is it my fascination with the 'new fangled' technology of 50 years ago?


----------



## vivalagentenuova

> I just can't believe how you make that out when you say there's no difference between them. We have got ears you know!


Are you some kind of expert in acoustics, recording, physics? I'm not sure why I should listen to your opinion on recording quality.


----------



## DavidA

OK let's have a go at the Iagos I have collected over the years:

Valengo / Toscanini - good. The problem is that he and the baritonal Vinay sound too much alike on the recording

Protti / Karajan - was a substitute when Bastianini failed to learn the part - reliable but not remarkable - but he can sure sing

Gobbi / Serafin - the absolute master at work. Greatest of them all imo

Milnes / Levine - terrific if not quite up to Gobbi

Glossop / Karajan 2 - a bit rough and ready but makes a good foil for Vickers

Leiferkus / Chung - not a 'standard' Italian sound but creates an epitome of evil if you can take the voice

Nucci / Solti - pretty disastrous as the voice was by then in tatters. I can't believe Decca couldn't find someone else to sing opposite Pav for a prestigious recording.

So all have something to say apart from dear old Leo.


----------



## DavidA

vivalagentenuova said:


> Are you some kind of expert in acoustics, recording, physics? I'm not sure why I should listen to your opinion on recording quality.


I have a degree in physics if you must know. But I have two ears more importantly! :lol:


----------



## vivalagentenuova

David, I'm applying your own standards to your comments, and you think the standards are ridiculous. Well, they're your standards.

Of course I don't believe modern recordings are equal with acoustics. But when we said older singers were better, you responded with idea that it was just nostalgia. So I fired the same baseless accusation at you, but reversed: "It's just hype for modern stuff" You naturally thought it was silly. Don't you then see why we thought your nostalgia argument was so silly?

Of course you don't need to be an expert to hear the differences between modern and acoustic recordings. But when we said old singers were better and that we could hear the differences, since "We have got ears you know!", you said it didn't matter because we didn't have expertise (ie, credentials, by your definition). So I applied the same standard to you, and asked if you were an expert with a credential. You naturally thought that was a ridiculous question. Don't you then see why we thought it was ridiculous to ask what This Is Opera's credentials were?

So if old recordings are worse quality, why listen to them? Because of precisely what you won't accept: the singing is better. But according to you, your claim to know that the quality of old recordings is worse is clearly true based on empirical evidence; but my claim that old singers were better, which I've based on empirical evidence, is mere nostalgia (for a time when I was never alive, interestingly enough). This is a double standard, as we tried to say many times in the other thread.

In any case, Umberto Urbano: great Verdi baritone. Rich, warm tone and power.


----------



## DavidA

vivalagentenuova said:


> David, I'm applying your own standards to your comments, and you think the standards are ridiculous. Well, they're your standards.
> 
> Of course I don't believe modern recordings are equal with acoustics. But when we said older singers were better, you responded with idea that it was just nostalgia. So I fired the same baseless accusation at you, but reversed: "It's just hype for modern stuff" You naturally thought it was silly. Don't you then see why we thought your nostalgia argument was so silly?
> 
> Of course you don't need to be an expert to hear the differences between modern and acoustic recordings. But when we said old singers were better and that we could hear the differences, since "We have got ears you know!", you said it didn't matter because we didn't have expertise (ie, credentials, by your definition). So I applied the same standard to you, and asked if you were an expert with a credential. You naturally thought that was a ridiculous question. Don't you then see why we thought it was ridiculous to ask what This Is Opera's credentials were?
> 
> So if old recordings are worse quality, why listen to them? Because of precisely what you won't accept: the singing is better. But according to you, your claim to know that the quality of old recordings is worse is clearly true based on empirical evidence; but my claim that old singers were better, which I've based on empirical evidence, is mere nostalgia (for a time when I was never alive, interestingly enough). This is a double standard, as we tried to say many times in the other thread.
> 
> In any case, Umberto Urbano: great Verdi baritone. Rich, warm tone and power.


Not a double standard at all. Opera is made up of orchestra and singers. So where is the orchestra? And the rest of the opera? Some of us listen to opera not just singers! Listen, I'm not complaining about you listening to this stuff. If you want to listen to it then do so. Just don't come on and condemn others who prefer at least sound which is tolerable. I have just heard Turandot in HD so why would I want to listen to a dated recording apart from historical interest? I don't ride a penny farthing bike or heat the house with a coal fire anymore or drive a 1920s car. So please don't look down your nose when I say I prefer a recording where you can hear the orchestra.


----------



## vivalagentenuova

It's pretty rich that you find me condescending, since I am only reflecting back to you things you have said to me. If you find it condescending when I say it (and I don't say it earnestly), imagine how I and Woodduck and others felt when you said it. Yet I haven't reflected back to you the worst thing you said to me, which is when you said that I'm a bitter failure because I have criticisms of society. Unlike anything I have said to you, that was "condemning" someone. In any case, we don't seem to be able to communicate, so why don't we give it a rest? 

As for historic recordings, there are a number of virtues. I, for one, actually like a slight crackle in a good electric recording taken from an LP. It adds a coziness to the listening experience that HD can't give you. Acoustic recordings are more trouble, but they can't be quite pleasant to listen to with voices that recorded especially well. The orchestral experience is limited, it is true. But to me opera requires singing. It's not opera without singing. Of course, there are many recordings in good sound that are very well done. But for the best singing, historic recordings are the place to look.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> Why go to the ancient and crackling recordings when we have such riches decently recorded?





> *Woodduck:* To discover the possibilities of singing technique and style, and often a standard of comparison.





> *DavidA:* In any case, you haven't answered my question: Why go to the ancient and crackling recordings when we have such riches decently recorded?





> *vivalagentenuova:* So if old recordings are worse quality, why listen to them? Because of precisely what you won't accept: the singing is better.





> *DavidA:* I have just heard Turandot in HD so why would I want to listen to a dated recording apart from historical interest? I don't ride a penny farthing bike or heat the house with a coal fire anymore or drive a 1920s car.





> *vivalagentenuova:* But for the best singing, historic recordings are the place to look.


Next question...?  ............


----------



## DavidA

vivalagentenuova said:


> It's pretty rich that you find me condescending, since I am only reflecting back to you things you have said to me. If you find it condescending when I say it (and I don't say it earnestly), imagine how I and Woodduck and others felt when you said it. Yet I haven't reflected back to you the worst thing you said to me, which is when you said that I'm a bitter failure because I have criticisms of society. Unlike anything I have said to you, that was "condemning" someone. In any case, we don't seem to be able to communicate, so why don't we give it a rest?
> 
> As for historic recordings, there are a number of virtues. I, for one, actually like a slight crackle in a good electric recording taken from an LP. It adds a coziness to the listening experience that HD can't give you. Acoustic recordings are more trouble, but they can't be quite pleasant to listen to with voices that recorded especially well. The orchestral experience is limited, it is true. But to me opera requires singing. It's not opera without singing. Of course, there are many recordings in good sound that are very well done. But for the best singing, historic recordings are the place to look.


You're a bitter failure because you have criticisms of society? I never said that. We're talking about recorded music not society. You appear to have a talent for misreading what I said. I was the one being condemned apparently because (at the age of over 70) I am into the 'hip' phase of 'modern' recordings most of which were about 50 years old or more! Thank goodness I can laugh at it. :lol: 
As to your other point, I have a friend who likes vintage cars. He rolled up in his vintage sports car and was showing me. He must have seen the look on my face when he told me how he payed a small fortune for this thing which is actually quite uncomfortable to travel in. But then he laughed and said, "But I'm a petrol head!" Now I am not going to deny him the pleasure of his vintage car even though it does seem to me amazing to me when you can travel in a modern one. Neither am I going to deny you the pleasure of listening to your 78s which you insist the poor sound gives you a coziness and the lack of orchestral sound of HD and modern recording. That is fine for you. But please allow me the eccentricity of allowing me to listen to opera in decent sound without the irritation of cracking and without me having to imagine that these piping sounds that I hear are really the best singing. I can't honestly tell because many of them are so poorly recorded and that's being honest. My friend loves his vintage car but at least he wouldn't pretend it's up to the standard of a modern car. Neither are these cracking acoustic recordings of bits and bobs like the real thing of a complete operatic experience to me. But enjoy my friend! But don't look down on others as some second rate people!


----------



## Barelytenor

Love that baritone Umberto Urbano! I may have to adopt that cadenza to "Il balen," love that! Never heard it sung quite that way.

Otherwise, way too much friction going on around here.

Kind regards, :tiphat:

George


----------



## DavidA

OK guys, make way for THE master!


----------



## DavidA

Or this? Creaky old film I know:


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> Or this? Creaky old film I know:


We should have more such creaky old films. Our current singers and directors need reminders of how it used to be.

I'll point out that Gobbi qualifies as a "historical" singer, having made his debut in 1935.


----------



## vivalagentenuova

I'm not going to continue beyond this comment, because I don't like to derail discussions. In the "The Met's Music Director, Vocal "Expert"" thread, I said I was suspicious of social institutions. You responded with the following quote (page 9): 


> 'Never speak disrespectfully of society, Algernon. Only people who can't get into it do that.'
> (Lady Bracknell in 'Importance of Being Ernest' - Oscar Wilde)


The only implication that makes any sense of quoting something saying that people who criticize social institutions are just people who have failed to succeed in them to someone who has just questioned social institutions is that you think I have failed to succeed in society and that's where my criticism comes from. What else could you quoting that possibly have meant?



> We should have more such creaky old films. Our current singers and directors need reminders of how it used to be.
> 
> I'll point out that Gobbi qualifies as a "historical" singer, having made his debut in 1935.


Indeed. The RAI films from the 50s are a treasure trove that puts to shame the HD broadcasts, in both singing and respect for the composers' intentions regarding staging etc..


----------



## DavidA

vivalagentenuova said:


> I'm not going to continue beyond this comment, because I don't like to derail discussions. In the "The Met's Music Director, Vocal "Expert"" thread, I said I was suspicious of social institutions. You responded with the following quote (page 9):
> 
> The only implication that makes any sense of quoting something saying that people who criticize social institutions are just people who have failed to succeed in them to someone who has just questioned social institutions is that you think I have failed to succeed in society and that's where my criticism comes from. What else could you quoting that possibly have meant?
> 
> Indeed. The RAI films from the 50s are a treasure trove that puts to shame the HD broadcasts, in both singing and respect for the composers' intentions regarding staging etc..


Oh for goodness sake, haven't you any sense of humour or context? If you actually look at the context the comment quoted wasn't about social institutions at all but people criticising qualifications! I thought people would have the sense to realise that without further comment from me. Obviously not. Why on earth do you think a guy like me from a working class background would be quoting Lady Bracknell in anything but an ironic way?

I do know about Gobbi that is why your going on that I have a fascination with things 'new' and 'modern' and 'hip' which struck me as frankly laughable, especially as I began in each case my list of baritones with Valengo who sang for Toscanini! What I have is a requirement that the opera on disc I listen to should be (for me) in listenable sound. Toscanini just about makes it. Of course it appears you have not read or grasped what I meant. 
As for the Gobbi films I love Gobbi's part but the acting is dated and there are thankfully HD films which do justice to Verdi's intentions with a rather more up to date staging and technical production. Just that Gobbi was the complete master of that part.


----------



## DavidA

One Falstaff I have failed to mention: Maestri is the reigning Falstaff of our generation with both the looks and voice for the part. I believe he is only available on HD but he is well worth seeking out. I had one of my most enjoyable evening at the opera watching this scintillating production.


----------



## wkasimer

DavidA said:


> Listen, I'm not complaining about you listening to this stuff. If you want to listen to it then do so. Just don't come on and condemn others who prefer at least sound which is tolerable.


I guess it depends upon what one considers "tolerable". For me, anything better than the Mapleson cylinders is tolerable. I'm certainly not going to eschew recording quality that you find "intolerable" and avoid listening to great singers.



> I have just heard Turandot in HD so why would I want to listen to a dated recording apart from historical interest?


Because -

a)the "historical interest" should not be discounted. If a singer was closely associated with a work and/or a composer, I want to hear them, in whatever sound is available.

b)there's a lot of Turandot on old records that features singnig that is vastly superior to what the Met put on stage.


----------



## schigolch

This is a magnificent "Turandot":


----------



## DavidA

wkasimer said:


> I guess it depends upon what one considers "tolerable". For me, anything better than the Mapleson cylinders is tolerable. I'm certainly not going to eschew recording quality that you find "intolerable" and avoid listening to great singers.
> 
> Because -
> 
> a)the "historical interest" should not be discounted. If a singer was closely associated with a work and/or a composer, I want to hear them, in whatever sound is available.
> 
> b)there's a lot of Turandot on old records that features singnig that is vastly superior to what the Met put on stage.


I'm not telling anyone what they should or should not discount. People can listen to wax cylinders through ear trumpets if they want! I'm talking about what works for me. I do need a reasonable amount of recording quality. I realise you are more forgiving in that area. Obviously one has to trade the virtues of a great performance against the lack of recording quality. eg is Callas' Lady Macbeth so good as to make the pretty awful recoding worth bearing with? I have the recording btw. When we come to eg the famous Rigoletto we might say 'Yes we put up with the cuts and the dull mono sound' for three of the greatest performances ever.
I agree about the historical association. For example, we all want to hear how Rachmaninov played his works even with the primitive recording. I'm sure we would be delighted to hear how Liszt or Beethoven played if maybe a little shocked! I count anything electrically recorded as reasonable. 
I wonder did you hear the latest Met production? Of course, if you are going over the best that has gone down on records over the past century you will obviously find something better. I went without any great hopes but actually I did something remarkable - I enjoyed it thoroughly! Good singing, great production, fine conducting. :lol:


----------



## DavidA

schigolch said:


> This is a magnificent "Turandot":


Yes it's good what I hear. Of course, you can get the really fine Decca recording in excellent sound (and you can hear Puccini's orchestration too) but then because it's not as old it can't be as good obviously! And btw how did Turandot recordings find their way into a thread on Verdi baritones?


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> And btw how did Turandot recordings find their way into a thread on Verdi baritones?


It found its way because in post #11 you asked "Why go to the ancient and crackling recordings when we have such riches decently recorded?" At least 3 people have given concise answers to that question.

You've also accused others of "condemning" you for "preferring sound which is tolerable." I've seen no condemnation, and I believe we all prefer sound which is tolerable. But your constant denigration of old recordings, not only on this thread but wherever on the forum the subject arises, gives others the distinct impression that you want the right to determine what ought to be considered tolerable.

A simple suggestion which applies here and elsewhere: when other people are expressing enthusiasm for something, restrain the impulse to jump up, wave your arms about, and say that it's awful, that you can't understand what anyone gets out of it, that "we" shouldn't take it so seriously, that there are more important things in life, and so forth.


----------



## wkasimer

DavidA said:


> Yes it's good what I hear. Of course, you can get the really fine Decca recording in excellent sound


You mean the Mehta recording, with the woefully underpowered Calaf and a Turandot who never actually sang the role on any stage?

Context matters.


----------



## Revitalized Classics

I've been checking through the discographies and I think that Renato Bruson has recorded the most Verdi baritone parts - over twenty as far as I can tell. Giuseppe Taddei was another versatile artist who performed many roles including rarely performed works such as _Un giorno di regno [aka Il finto Stanislao]_ and _La battaglia di Legnano_.

I'm not sure where this leaves my idea of a "Verdi baritone"... Both their voices have a lower centre-of-gravity than, say, Gobbi or Nucci, Panerai or Sereni who you might argue are more suited to Ford than Falstaff.

No sooner would you conclude that Taddei and Bruson provide a useful 'stereotype' - along with, say, Manuguerra's lovely timbre - than I realise that Milnes has performed almost as many Verdi parts and his voice is so different and used so differently...

I think that Ambrogio Maestri probably belongs to the same baritone-with-a-hint-of-bass range as Taddei and - when he is not pigeonholed as Falstaff - he sings Rigoletto, Ballo, Otello etc rather well. 





PS It is lamentable how many videos of Maestri's singing have poor sound. This seems to have been a decent modern version but it is hard to tell even though it is so-called HD. 




Between that and videos recorded by mobile phone, if the poor man retired tomorrow we could hardly muster a decent album to commemorate his hard work.


----------



## howlingfantods

wkasimer said:


> You mean the Mehta recording, with the woefully underpowered Calaf and a Turandot who never actually sang the role on any stage?
> 
> Context matters.


Not a fan of the Mehta, but I'd take the Nilsson/Bjorling/Tebaldi over the Cigna/Merli/Olivero recording any day, regardless of sound quality. I find Olivero pretty unpleasant on that recording actually--I don't know why but she came back from her retirement a much finer singer than what we hear on that Turandot.

just listened to the end of act 1 of the Ghione since it's been awhile, I forgot about the unintentional comedy of the gong that Timur bangs on this one. Sounds like a very dainty xylophone, hardly the impressive crashes we're used to.

Oof, just relistened to Cigna's In questa reggia, this is not good, guys. Edgy, thin and hard, very unpleasant top notes, flat much of the time. I can entertain an argument for the Borkh/Del Monaco/Tebaldi if you insist on a pre-stereo recording (although I strongly dislike Del Monaco in this role), but the Cigna/Ghione/Olivero has mediocre performances across the board.


----------



## Woodduck

Revitalized Classics said:


> It is lamentable how many videos of Maestri's singing have poor sound. This seems to have been a decent modern version but it is hard to tell even though it is so-called HD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Between that and videos recorded by mobile phone, if the poor man retired tomorrow we could hardly muster a decent album to commemorate his hard work.


Judging by that "Cortigiani," I would say Maestri is working a bit _too_ hard.


----------



## DavidA

wkasimer said:


> You mean the Mehta recording, with the woefully underpowered Calaf and a Turandot who never actually sang the role on any stage?
> 
> Context matters.


Yes and the context happens to be an audio recording not a stage performance. The Calaf is not actually woefully underpowered unless you like a bawler in the role - and don't forget more people have heard him in the role than anyone else ! As for Sutherland she is pretty remarkable and who can question Caballe's singing as Lui? It's interesting that people say this about this Turandot then go on to rave about certain Carmens who never sang the role on stage. And as I say why are we discussing this in a thread on Verdi baritones? Wouldn't it be better to start a thread?


----------



## DavidA

Revitalized Classics said:


> I've been checking through the discographies and I think that Renato Bruson has recorded the most Verdi baritone parts - over twenty as far as I can tell. Giuseppe Taddei was another versatile artist who performed many roles including rarely performed works such as _Un giorno di regno [aka Il finto Stanislao]_ and _La battaglia di Legnano_.
> 
> I'm not sure where this leaves my idea of a "Verdi baritone"... Both their voices have a lower centre-of-gravity than, say, Gobbi or Nucci, Panerai or Sereni who you might argue are more suited to Ford than Falstaff.
> 
> No sooner would you conclude that Taddei and Bruson provide a useful 'stereotype' - along with, say, Manuguerra's lovely timbre - than I realise that Milnes has performed almost as many Verdi parts and his voice is so different and used so differently...
> 
> I think that Ambrogio Maestri probably belongs to the same baritone-with-a-hint-of-bass range as Taddei and - when he is not pigeonholed as Falstaff - he sings Rigoletto, Ballo, Otello etc rather well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PS It is lamentable how many videos of Maestri's singing have poor sound. This seems to have been a decent modern version but it is hard to tell even though it is so-called HD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Between that and videos recorded by mobile phone, if the poor man retired tomorrow we could hardly muster a decent album to commemorate his hard work.


 The problem today of course is that record companies are simply not making records in the quantities they used to and therefore Maestri has come in the wrong end at least to have his word aurally recorded for posterity. I have known him in other roles but he is the best Falstaff I've ever seen on stage


----------



## wkasimer

DavidA said:


> The problem today of course is that record companies are simply not making records in the quantities they used to


Companies are making plenty of records, more than ever before - it's just not the so-called "major" labels making them, and most of them don't feel the need to record standard repertoire operas that have been recorded umpteen times before.


----------



## howlingfantods

DavidA said:


> And as I say why are we discussing this in a thread on Verdi baritones? Wouldn't it be better to start a thread?


As with most threads in this opera forum, this quickly switched focus from the topic of good Verdi baritones of the past and present to become yet another thread where people argue "old things good, new things bad".

As such, I found it interesting that someone brought up the very mediocre Ghione recording, since that's actually a pretty good counterexample of the "OTG, NTB" talking point that folks in the opera forum love to argue.


----------



## Revitalized Classics

howlingfantods said:


> As with most threads in this opera forum, this quickly switched focus from the topic of good Verdi baritones of the past and present to become yet another thread where people argue "old things good, new things bad".
> 
> As such, I found it interesting that someone brought up the very mediocre Ghione recording, since that's actually a pretty good counterexample of the "OTG, NTB" talking point that folks in the opera forum love to argue.


Is it not also interesting that you are recommending a 59-year-old recording (Leinsdorf) and a 64-year-old recording (Erede) while criticising other people who think "old things good, new things bad"?


----------



## howlingfantods

Revitalized Classics said:


> Is it not also interesting that you are recommending a 59-year-old recording (Leinsdorf) and a 64-year-old recording (Erede) while criticising other people who think "old things good, new things bad"?


I like recordings from the 1920s and recordings from the 1950s and recordings from the 1980s and recordings from the 2010s. Thus I don't think it's remotely contradictory to recommend 60 year old recordings since I often recommend recordings from many eras.

The funny thing about the "old things good, new things bad" trope around here is that the "old" and the "new" are extremely fluid categories depending on whatever the argument happens to be about. I do think it's pretty funny in this particular thread that the "new" that yall are attacking DavidA for liking includes the 50 year old Mehta recording. I gather that since David also recommended Toscanini and Gobbi recordings that the "new" for the purposes of this particular thread includes the early mono magnetic era, which is pretty amusing.


----------



## DavidA

howlingfantods said:


> I like recordings from the 1920s and recordings from the 1950s and recordings from the 1980s and recordings from the 2010s. Thus I don't think it's remotely contradictory to recommend 60 year old recordings since I often recommend recordings from many eras.
> 
> The funny thing about the "old things good, new things bad" trope around here is that the "old" and the "new" are extremely fluid categories depending on whatever the argument happens to be about. I do think it's pretty funny in this particular thread that the "new" that yall are attacking DavidA for liking includes the 50 year old Mehta recording. I gather that since David also recommended Toscanini and Gobbi recordings that *the "new" for the purposes of this particular thread includes the early mono magnetic era, which is pretty amusing*.


Anything post-Deluvian is 'new' to some people apparently! :lol:


----------



## DavidA

wkasimer said:


> Companies are making plenty of records, more than ever before - it's just not the so-called "major" labels making them, and most of them don't feel the need to record standard repertoire operas that have been recorded umpteen times before.


And of course many opera recordings are now DVD


----------



## Revitalized Classics

howlingfantods said:


> I like recordings from the 1920s and recordings from the 1950s and recordings from the 1980s and recordings from the 2010s. Thus I don't think it's remotely contradictory to recommend 60 year old recordings *since I often recommend recordings from many eras*.


Well what was stopping you? Provide your suggestions, including modern recordings you would recommend. If you do indeed cast a benevolent eye over ninety years of recording then you will have lots of suggestions of good modern singing.

This has been a thread where posters simply suggest that we listen to _all_ available recordings. You'll understand that since you already appreciate recordings of any age.

The alternative is, as you pointed out, cherrypicking an arbitrary time somewhere around "the early mono magnetic era" and starting from there.


----------



## Azol

Cappuccilli - the very first reaction when I saw this thread's title.

And here's why:






P.S. Of course he overplays the last "Ah!" but who don't? It would be interesting to compare just this "Ah!" coming from different studio and live versions and to have a public poll on the best croak ever!


----------



## howlingfantods

Revitalized Classics said:


> Well what was stopping you? Provide your suggestions, including modern recordings you would recommend. If you do indeed cast a benevolent eye over ninety years of recording then you will have lots of suggestions of good modern singing.
> 
> This has been a thread where posters simply suggest that we listen to _all_ available recordings. You'll understand that since you already appreciate recordings of any age.
> 
> The alternative is, as you pointed out, cherrypicking an arbitrary time somewhere around "the early mono magnetic era" and starting from there.


For Turandot recordings? I'd say all of the Nilsson recordings are good--I'd probably say the Leinsdorf is the best, the Stokowski with Corelli and Moffo second, the Gavazzeni with Corelli and Vishnevskaya third, the studio Molinari-Pradelli with Corelli and Scotto next, and last on my personal list is the Molinari Pradelli with di Stefano and L Price.

For non-Nilsson recordings, I guess I'd put the Mehta over the Robert Abbado with Eva Marton, Heppner and Margaret Price. Some of Marton's high notes are a little shrill, but it's still a good performance, and Price and Heppner are wonderful. The Callas is good, although i'm a little cooler on that one than many other Callas recordings. Probably roughly level with the Borkh/Del Monaco/Tebaldi recording in my affections. The Karajan is pretty low on my list, but still above Ghione which ranks dead last in my small stack of Turandots.

I haven't heard the Goerke yet but I'm looking forward to seeing it whenever they get around to putting it on PBS. I think they just showed her Walkure a couple of weeks ago, it's on my DVR now.

edited to add--or were you asking for recommendations of Verdi baritones? I don't have much else to add here beyond the names folks offered, except to say that I generally like Bruson and Zancanaro more than folks around here tend to. And I'm not sure if anyone's mentioned Gerald Finley yet but he sang a very fine Iago last year I believe?


----------



## DavidA

howlingfantods said:


> For Turandot recordings? I'd say all of the Nilsson recordings are good--I'd probably say the Leinsdorf is the best, the Stokowski with Corelli and Moffo second, the Gavazzeni with Corelli and Vishnevskaya third, the studio Molinari-Pradelli with Corelli and Scotto next, and last on my personal list is the Molinari Pradelli with di Stefano and L Price.
> 
> For non-Nilsson recordings, *I guess I'd put the Mehta* over the Robert Abbado with Eva Marton, Heppner and Margaret Price. Some of Marton's high notes are a little shrill, but it's still a good performance, and Price and Heppner are wonderful. The Callas is good, although i'm a little cooler on that one than many other Callas recordings. Probably roughly level with the Borkh/Del Monaco/Tebaldi recording in my affections. *The Karajan is pretty low on my list,* but still above Ghione which ranks dead last in my small stack of Turandots.
> 
> I haven't heard the Goerke yet but I'm looking forward to seeing it whenever they get around to putting it on PBS. I think they just showed her Walkure a couple of weeks ago, it's on my DVR now.


I'd certainly rank the Mehta higher than you as the best 'modern' recording. The Karajan is, of course, lamed by the Turandot, but is tremendously well conducted and played. Pity he didn't have a power-house soprano in the lead to match the orchestral splendours he conjures up from the orchestra. Callas was unsuited to the role of Turandot and she soon gave it up so I don't rate her performance too highly.
Nilsson of course was THE Turandot. She used to say it was her party piece and big earner. Her steam whistle soprano was amazing and she shows us what the voice can do as Franco does too. Pity about the routine conducting on the studio recording.


----------



## howlingfantods

DavidA said:


> I'd certainly rank the Mehta higher than you as the best 'modern' recording.


I'll admit to a slight allergy towards all three of Sutherland, Pavarotti and Caballe--I always rank their recordings lower than many others do, so having them all on the same recording is a trifle much for me.


----------



## Revitalized Classics

howlingfantods said:


> For Turandot recordings? I'd say all of the Nilsson recordings are good--I'd probably say the Leinsdorf is the best, the Stokowski with Corelli and Moffo second, the Gavazzeni with Corelli and Vishnevskaya third, the studio Molinari-Pradelli with Corelli and Scotto next, and last on my personal list is the Molinari Pradelli with di Stefano and L Price.
> 
> For non-Nilsson recordings, I guess I'd put the Mehta over the Robert Abbado with Eva Marton, Heppner and Margaret Price. Some of Marton's high notes are a little shrill, but it's still a good performance, and Price and Heppner are wonderful. The Callas is good, although i'm a little cooler on that one than many other Callas recordings. Probably roughly level with the Borkh/Del Monaco/Tebaldi recording in my affections. The Karajan is pretty low on my list, but still above Ghione which ranks dead last in my small stack of Turandots.
> 
> I haven't heard the Goerke yet but I'm looking forward to seeing it whenever they get around to putting it on PBS. I think they just showed her Walkure a couple of weeks ago, it's on my DVR now.


Cool, that's a good spread. I think I've had a listen to all of them at different times except the Marton/R.Abbado version and the very recent broadcast. Other than that, the Caballe/Carreras/Freni version with Lombard has it's moments but I don't remember the conducting going so well.

It does obviously tail off quite dramatically as the 1970s move into the 1980s and 1990s - which is not a criticism of your list, I think that is basically representative.

If we turn back to Verdi baritones I'm thinking that the trajectory is the same - big peak in the 1950s and up to the 80s and then tailing off... say with Rigoletto

50s Warren, Protti, Taddei, Gobbi, Merrill, Capecchi
60s Bastianini, MacNeil, Herlea, Fischer-Dieskau
70s Milnes, Panerai, Cappuccilli
80s Bruson, Nucci, Zancanaro
90s Chernov, Agache
00s Gavanelli, Alvarez, Lucic
10s Domingo, Hvorostovsky

I'm sure there are enjoyable performances out there but it rings alarm bells to me that the most famous current Rigoletto is perhaps a 77-year-old Leo Nucci...


----------



## Revitalized Classics

Speaking of Leo Nucci, his Wikipedia page is trolling him  Wonder how long it has been like that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Nucci



> Leo Nucci (born 16 April 1942) is an Italian operatic fake baritone true tenor, particularly suited to Verdi roles. He is an undeveloped tenor but trying to darken his voice like a baritone, so his low notes are very weak and his high notes are easier than the true baritones.


Lower down it says 


> Nucci has enjoyed a long and successful throaty career. His repertoire encompasses the entire Italian repertory from bel canto to verismo, but his throaty voice, horrible technique and shouting abilities are displayed in Verdi - notably as Rigoletto, Macbeth, Count di Luna, Giorgio Germont, Rodrigo, Amonasro, Iago, and Falstaff. He has sung the role of Rigoletto alone more than 500 times.[5]


----------



## schigolch

:lol:

..........


----------



## howlingfantods

Ouch. Not a fan of Nucci but that's harsher than necessary. That "fake baritone" stuff definitely sounds like the work of the This is Opera crowd--they seem to love arguing that singers are actually different fachs than they are.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy

Revitalized Classics said:


> Speaking of Leo Nucci, his Wikipedia page is trolling him  Wonder how long it has been like that?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Nucci
> 
> Lower down it says


:lol::lol:

jfc that's mean, but....it is funny :/


----------



## Woodduck

howlingfantods said:


> I like recordings from the 1920s and recordings from the 1950s and recordings from the 1980s and recordings from the 2010s. Thus I don't think it's remotely contradictory to recommend 60 year old recordings since I often recommend recordings from many eras.
> 
> *The funny thing about the "old things good, new things bad" trope around here is that the "old" and the "new" are extremely fluid categories depending on whatever the argument happens to be about. I do think it's pretty funny in this particular thread that the "new" that yall are attacking DavidA for liking includes the 50 year old Mehta recording. I gather that since David also recommended Toscanini and Gobbi recordings that the "new" for the purposes of this particular thread includes the early mono magnetic era, which is pretty amusing.*


I'm afraid, HF, that you're creating a fiction, the "old things good, new things bad trope," which you're attributing to a bunch of unspecified people you call "y'all."

There is no "y'all," and I've seen no one here (with one exception) propounding an "old things vs new things" dichotomy. You're right that there's been no consensus on what constitutes an "old" recording or a "new" one, but that's because there is no need for such a consensus. Most people here, I feel sure, don't care how old or new a singer is, as long as he's good. The fact that a noticeable majority of the baritones singled out for special praise in this thread were active in the pre-stereo era doesn't necessarily imply a general preference for "oldness." It might just imply a widely shared feeling that the standard of Verdi singing took a dive sometime during the 20th century and may be at a nadir right now. That is definitely my view, and you can bet your life that if we had anyone equal to - or even close to - a Battistini, a Ruffo, a Stracciari or a Tibbett around, this thread would be bubbling and fizzing with excitement about the "new."

The truth is that the only one here who insists continually on positing an "old-versus-new" dichotomy is DavidA. Whenever singers from the pre-LP era are praised on the forum, he proclaims and seeks to justify his lack of interest in them. He professes to be unable to enjoy recordings with poor sound quality, to be unable to evaluate singers from the acoustic era, and to be incapable of understanding why people want to listen to them. He is openly incredulous that some of us can actually make determinations as to the quality of singing to be heard on recordings too old for him to cope with. That some of us are lifelong students of singing and even singers ourselves does not impress him, despite his demand for the "qualifications" and "credentials" of people who offer judgments here. He has offered no explanation for his odd propensity, or perhaps compulsion, to announce the limitations of his appreciative capacity whenever singers he considers too "old" are discussed.

Is it surprising that a number of us have pushed back against his "arguments"?

In any event, as far as "old" and "new" are concerned, a singer active in the 1950s certainly can't be said to occupy a recent position in the era of commercial sound recording - i.e., the era of singing we can actually hear. Tito Gobbi made his debut in 1935, which places him much closer to the time of Ruffo than to the time of Lucic or Kelsey. It's only the development of recording techniques - specifically the LP, and the recording of complete operas it facilitated - which allows us sometimes to feel that the singers of the postwar years are still "modern." That, and the curious fact that many of the older LP opera recordings remain, for most of us (and not all of us geezers!), our "standard" versions of the standard repertoire.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy

okay, laughs aside, that was quite an indecent prank. I admire the bluntness on that page most of the time, but that kind of behavior is on the level of the most polemic political groups on facebook. there is a world of difference between blunt criticism that justifies itself by its own merits and cheap shots like that.


----------



## Woodduck

The Nucci page on Wiki is just nasty and not at all amusing. People can say such things at parties where everyone is laughing at everything because they're drunk. They can even say them on this forum if they don't mind being called out for trolling. Wiki makes no pretense of being authoritative or even trustworthy, but its readers deserve better, and Nucci deserves redress and an apology from someone.


----------



## DavidA

howlingfantods said:


> I'll admit to *a slight allergy towards all three of Sutherland, Pavarotti and Caballe*--I always rank their recordings lower than many others do, so having them all on the same recording is a trifle much for me.


You can get some medication for that I believe! :lol:


----------



## DavidA

howlingfantods said:


> Ouch. Not a fan of Nucci but that's harsher than necessary. That "fake baritone" stuff definitely sounds like the work of the This is Opera crowd--they seem to love arguing that singers are actually different fachs than they are.


Yes wouldn't surprise me. Just a cheap shot that people with no talent themselves who have never made it take. He was a reliable baritone in the Aldo Protti mould. Not terribly imaginative but reliable. Sadly by the time he recorded Iago the voice was in tatters. People who write that sort of thing suffer from tin ears and prejudice. Failures themselves who harp on failure.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> Yes wouldn't surprise me. Just a cheap shot that *people with no talent themselves who have never made it* take. He was a reliable baritone in the Aldo Protti mould. Not terribly imaginative but reliable. Sadly by the time he recorded Iago the voice was in tatters. *People who write that sort of thing* suffer from tin ears and prejudice. *Failures themselves who harp on failure.*


Who are you to call people you don't know "failures"? Can't you simply express disapproval of what they've said?

It's generally presumptuous to begin sentences with "People who..."


----------



## DavidA

BalalaikaBoy said:


> okay, laughs aside, that was quite an indecent prank. I admire the bluntness on that page most of the time, but that kind of behavior is on the level of the most polemic political groups on facebook. there is a world of difference between blunt criticism that justifies itself by its own merits and cheap shots like that.


You can see what a plonker the writer is in the opening paragraph:" Leo Nucci (born 16 April 1942) is an Italian operatic fake baritone true tenor, *particularly suited to Verdi roles."*
So apparently according to this moron Verdi wrote his roles for fake baritones! :lol:


----------



## aussiebushman

DavidA said:


> Maybe if we put some frying bacon and eggs in the background it would be more acceptable? Why go to the ancient and crackling recordings when we have such riches decently recorded? Especially if we want complete recordings? Or is it my fascination with the 'new fangled' technology of 50 years ago?


I may have misinterpreted your argument but have only just decided to respond with a couple of examples of "early" recordings (not necessarily Verdi or even just baritones) that will dispel any attempt by you or anyone else to discredit early recordings, just because the sound does not compare favorably with more "modern" recordings.

Get real! After all, isn't it "all about the music"?

Baritones:

Igor Gorin 



Ivan Petrov 



Apollo Granforte 




Tenors: 
Leonid Sobinov Lensky;s aria recorded in 1911
Ditto - Pourquoi me reveiller Massenet - Werther.
Dmitri Smirnov Mi par d'udir ancora (Pearl Fishers) recorded in 1913


----------



## DavidA

aussiebushman said:


> I may have misinterpreted your argument but have only just decided to respond with a couple of examples of "early" recordings (not necessarily Verdi or even just baritones) that will dispel any attempt by you or anyone else to discredit early recordings, just because the sound does not compare favorably with more "modern" recordings.
> 
> *Get real! After all, isn't it "all about the music"?
> *
> Baritones:
> 
> Igor Gorin
> 
> 
> 
> Ivan Petrov
> 
> 
> 
> Apollo Granforte
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tenors:
> Leonid Sobinov Lensky;s aria recorded in 1911
> Ditto - Pourquoi me reveiller Massenet - Werther.
> Dmitri Smirnov Mi par d'udir ancora (Pearl Fishers) recorded in 1913


I'm as real can be. It is about the music- the music being heard to its greatest advantage by a recording that is at least acceptable. If you want to listen to these then pleasedo so. I gave up listening to Peter Dawson on 78s on my grandfathers gramophone as a kid. It's interesting to hear what past singers sounded like but not for sustained listening. Besides, where is the rest of the opera?


----------



## aussiebushman

You have obviously never heard the complete Gluck Orfeo in the performance recorded with Kathleen Ferrier. The recording quality was never good and remastering it did little to improve it. However, I defy you to hear a more spine-chilling performance:


----------



## DavidA

aussiebushman said:


> You have obviously never heard the complete Gluck Orfeo in the performance recorded with Kathleen Ferrier. The recording quality was never good and remastering it did little to improve it. However, I defy you to hear a more spine-chilling performance:


Yes I have toward it. She was a great singe of course but I am one of those strange peopke who believe that there is more than one way of dong things. There are nany other great singers who gave since tackled the role in better sound.


----------



## aussiebushman

Your point is respected, but can you apply the same criteria to the following?

Rigoletto Caruso / Ruffo / Galvany/ Pareto released on Saga 7014 Recorded 1908 




Otello Zenatello / Lehman Noto Live performance at Covent Garden Rubini GV85 1926 



 (Yes you will cringe - it is sung in German)

Luisa Miller Lauri Volpi / Kelston / Vaghi Radiotelevisione Italia Cetra- Everest S433/3:


----------



## wkasimer

DavidA said:


> It's interesting to hear what past singers sounded like but not for sustained listening.


As I've said before, suit yourself. Vocalism and singing has changed a lot over the past century, and mostly not for the better. If you insist on modern sound, and don't make the effort to learn how to listen to older singers, you miss out on things like this:






Yeah, it's more than a century old, and it's in the wrong language, but no baritone in the last 50 years can touch it.


----------



## DavidA

wkasimer said:


> As I've said before, suit yourself. Vocalism and singing has changed a lot over the past century, and mostly not for the better. If you insist on modern sound, and don't make the effort to learn how to listen to older singers, *you miss out on things like this:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's more than a century old, and it's in the wrong language, but no baritone in the last 50 years can touch it.


Frankly it of no matter to me to miss things like this. It might be of interest to collectors of old singers but as one who listens to opera itself it is of little interest to me. There are baritones who have recorded the work in far better sound (and in the original language) who I would find it far preferable to listen to. With respect, you are rather like my friend who likes vintage cars. They are his interest but of no interest to me who just wants a car to drive. I want to listen to opera not antique singers. And the orchestra btw.


----------



## wkasimer

DavidA said:


> Frankly it of no matter to me to miss things like this. It might be of interest to collectors of old singers but as one who listens to opera itself it is of little interest to me. There are baritones who have recorded the work in far better sound (and in the original language) who I would find it far preferable to listen to.


Which is why vocal standards have suffered. That's what happens when opera fans and critics care more about everything other than singing - they become unable to distinguish the great from the merely good or even mediocre.


----------



## DavidA

aussiebushman said:


> Your point is respected, but can you apply the same criteria to the following?
> 
> Rigoletto Caruso / Ruffo / Galvany/ Pareto released on Saga 7014 Recorded 1908
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Otello Zenatello / Lehman Noto Live performance at Covent Garden Rubini GV85 1926
> 
> 
> 
> (Yes you will cringe - it is sung in German)
> 
> Luisa Miller Lauri Volpi / Kelston / Vaghi Radiotelevisione Italia Cetra- Everest S433/3:


Thanks for these. Singing in German doesn't make me cringe. Just prefer the original language if I'm not going to hear it in English as I don't speak German. No doubt great artists but I have in place of Caruso the likes of the great di Stefano, Pavarotti, Kraus, etc, All of course in more modern sound even though di Stefano is in rather dim mono. The other thing is they don't pull the rhythm around like Caruso. But that is a matter of style. Let me say that I have no problem in other people enjoying listening to crackling old recordings which give an idea of singers of the past but I prefer listening to opera in reasonable sound where the orcher=stra can be properly heard too
Btw not sure how Caruso and Lehman make it on to a thread about Verdi baritones! :lol:


----------



## howlingfantods

My problem with all these threads full of antediluvian singers is that most of these singers didn't produce full recordings. I'm not interested in _Il Balen_, I'm interested in _Il Trovatore_.


----------



## wkasimer

howlingfantods said:


> My problem with all these threads full of antediluvian singers is that most of these singers didn't produce full recordings. I'm not interested in _Il Balen_, I'm interested in _Il Trovatore_.


Some of us are interested in both.


----------



## howlingfantods

wkasimer said:


> Some of us are interested in both.


I never said you couldn't be interested in both. I'm just saying I personally am not, and that informs my opinion on who I'd consider the "great Verdi baritones"--to me a "great Verdi baritone" would be one who I could hear in a variety of full Verdi operas. Someone who impresses not just in _Eri tu_ but also in the ensemble where Renato discovers that the masked lady he escorts is Amelia, someone as mocking and buffo when talking to Monterone and heartbreaking in _Povera Rigoletto_ as he furious and bitter in _Cortigiani_.


----------



## Woodduck

wkasimer said:


> As I've said before, suit yourself. Vocalism and singing has changed a lot over the past century, and mostly not for the better. If you insist on modern sound, and don't make the effort to learn how to listen to older singers, you miss out on things like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's more than a century old, and it's in the wrong language, but no baritone in the last 50 years can touch it.


Schwarz was a marvel. He was of course superb in German opera as well; I don't think anyone ever sang a more beautiful "Evening Star" in _Tannhauser_ (pardon the tangent):






Caruso's sobriquet for Pol Plancon, "the human cello," suits Schwarz as well.


----------



## Revitalized Classics

howlingfantods said:


> My problem with all these threads full of antediluvian singers is that most of these singers didn't produce full recordings. I'm not interested in _Il Balen_, I'm interested in _Il Trovatore_.


If the condition is that they had to have made full recordings then that would exclude a ton of interesting portrayals - including all the individually recorded arias, abridgments, compilations up to the present day. Suit yourself but I think you are throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I'd argue this misses the point of how Verdi built his operas around key arias and ensembles - except maybe Otello and Falstaff.

The arias and ensembles were intended as genuine highlights - they were also performed in concert and printed as sheet music like popular hits.

The operas were sung by star performers who insisted on these features and exulted in them when it came to early recordings. It might be that we only have a few passages by Ruffo, Battistini, Amato etc in each role but these are often the parts that count most.

Using your example, Il balen might be a small proportion of the opera in terms of notes/pages etc but it is the crux of his part - his main solo. Can you suggest examples where the baritone was only superb in the aria? Doesn't it stand if the baritone excels in the aria then much of the battle re the part has been won?


----------



## DavidA

wkasimer said:


> Which is why vocal standards have suffered. That's what happens when opera fans and critics care more about everything other than singing - they become unable to distinguish the great from the merely good or even mediocre.


You are saying that we are not all as good and sophisticated as you? Sorry about that! Sounds a bit of one-upmanship to me! I'm not at all sure vocal standards have suffered as we can hear what people actually sound like in far clearer recordings than was possible 100 years ago.


----------



## DavidA

howlingfantods said:


> I never said you couldn't be interested in both. I'm just saying I personally am not, and that informs my opinion on who I'd consider the "great Verdi baritones"--to me a "great Verdi baritone" would be one who I could hear in a variety of full Verdi operas. Someone who impresses not just in _Eri tu_ but also in the ensemble where Renato discovers that the masked lady he escorts is Amelia, someone as mocking and buffo when talking to Monterone and heartbreaking in _Povera Rigoletto_ as he furious and bitter in _Cortigiani_.


Absolutely, very difficult to judge these antediluvian singers on single arias poorly recorded. They might have been wonderful but the fact is we simply don't know on the slight evidence given to make a full judgment unless, of course, we claim to be some sort of 'expert' who can apparently hear things other mortals can't.


----------



## DavidA

Revitalized Classics said:


> If the condition is that they had to have made full recordings then that would exclude a ton of interesting portrayals - including all the individually recorded arias, abridgments, compilations up to the present day. Suit yourself but I think you are throwing the baby out with the bath water.
> 
> I'd argue this misses the point of how Verdi built his operas around key arias and ensembles - except maybe Otello and Falstaff.
> 
> The arias and ensembles were intended as genuine highlights - they were also performed in concert and printed as sheet music like popular hits.
> 
> *The operas were sung by star performers who insisted on these features and exulted in them when it came to early recordings.* It might be that we only have a few passages by Ruffo, Battistini, Amato etc in each role but these are often the parts that count most.
> 
> Using your example, Il balen might be a small proportion of the opera in terms of notes/pages etc but it is the crux of his part - his main solo. Can you suggest examples where the baritone was only superb in the aria? Doesn't it stand if the baritone excels in the aria then much of the battle re the part has been won?


They may have but just as I use a smart phone and not a 1920s phone and drive a car built post-2000 rather than a vintage 1920s car I also listen to recordings of complete operas. Verdi et al would have been the first to rejoice at the recordings available of their complete operas. So would the singers you mention if they were up to the mark. As I say, if you want to listen to these recordings that is fine but please don't let us have this feeling that it is somehow better to do so any more than it is better to drive a vintage car or use a landline rather than an iPhone


----------



## Revitalized Classics

DavidA said:


> They may have but just as I use a smart phone and not a 1920s phone and drive a car built post-2000 rather than a vintage 1920s car I also listen to recordings of complete operas. Verdi et al would have been the first to rejoice at the recordings available of their complete operas. So would the singers you mention if they were up to the mark. As I say, if you want to listen to these recordings that is fine but please don't let us have this feeling that it is somehow better to do so any more than it is better to drive a vintage car or use a landline rather than an iPhone


I'm suggesting that the old records have value for what they do contain - nothing more.

I never said the technology was as good, I never said that complete operas are bad: argue with someone else.


----------



## wkasimer

DavidA said:


> You are saying that we are not all as good and sophisticated as you?


No, I'm saying that most critics, particularly those who contribute to the mainstream media, are not as knowledgable about singing as critics of the past - people like Herman Klein, John Steane, and the still-writing Conrad Osborne.



> I'm not at all sure vocal standards have suffered as we can hear what people actually sound like in far clearer recordings than was possible 100 years ago.


Quod erat demonstrandum. The reality, whether you wish to believe it or not, is that modern recordings are heavily edited, spliced, processed, and manipulated in ways that make voices, particularly small voices, sound attractive. They can even correct intonational issues. Such maneuvers are a little more limited with live recordings, but even those are pretty heavily edited. Recordings in the electrical era, and even more so in the acoustic era, could not be so manipulated. If I want to hear what a singer actually sounds like, I go to hear them live - and I've often been shocked at how recordings give a false impression, in both directions. Large voices are not flattered by modern recordings, and small voices often disappear and lose their character when heard live.


----------



## wkasimer

DavidA said:


> Absolutely, very difficult to judge these antediluvian singers on single arias poorly recorded. They might have been wonderful but the fact is we simply don't know on the slight evidence given to make a full judgment unless, of course, we claim to be some sort of 'expert' who can apparently hear things other mortals can't.


With all due respect, the reason that you aren't hearing them is because you're simply not trying.


----------



## wkasimer

Revitalized Classics said:


> If the condition is that they had to have made full recordings then that would exclude a ton of interesting portrayals.


Exactly. Were Ruffo, Granforte, and de Luca (just to name three) not great Verdi baritones because they didn't participate in complete recordings? And while he wasn't a Verdi baritone, I doubt that anyone who knows Boris Godunov would deny that Chaliapin was *the* great exponenent of the title role during recorded history - and all we have are snippets of him in the role.


----------



## DavidA

Revitalized Classics said:


> I'm suggesting that the old records have value for what they do contain - nothing more.
> 
> I never said the technology was as good, I never said that complete operas are bad: argue with someone else.


Sorry but with respect, you are the one who is arguing with me. I'm not the one saying that everyone ought to listen to the ancient recordings.


----------



## DavidA

wkasimer said:


> No, I'm saying that most critics, particularly those who contribute to the mainstream media, are *not as knowledgable about singing as critics of the past *- people like Herman Klein, John Steane, and the still-writing Conrad Osborne.
> 
> Quod erat demonstrandum. The reality, whether you wish to believe it or not, is that modern recordings are heavily edited, spliced, processed, and manipulated in ways that make voices, particularly small voices, sound attractive. They can even correct intonational issues. Such maneuvers are a little more limited with live recordings, but even those are pretty heavily edited. Recordings in the electrical era, and even more so in the acoustic era, could not be so manipulated. If I want to hear what a singer actually sounds like, I go to hear them live - and I've often been shocked at how recordings give a false impression, in both directions. *Large voices are not flattered by modern recordings, and small voices often disappear and lose their character when heard live*.


Is that a point you can prove? For example, John Steane was actually a schoolmaster who taught English not music. He was a brilliant writer (I have some of his writings and appreciate them) but how did that qualify him better than anyone else, apart from the fact he was another who liked to delve into ancient recordings. Good luck to him I say but how does it better qualify him? Unless you like good old English amateurism. Steane was an enthusiast and I appreciate him but does that make him more of an expert than today's critics? I don't know.

Of course, what you are saying is that we should give up on recordings altogether. Sorry but not the route for me. Of course recordings can be heavily edited but it is what is coming out of the speakers that interests me not what went on in the studio. When listening to a recording that's all that matters. Me and the speaker.


----------



## DavidA

wkasimer said:


> Exactly. Were Ruffo, Granforte, and de Luca (just to name three) not great Verdi baritones because they didn't participate in complete recordings? And while he wasn't a Verdi baritone, I doubt that anyone who knows Boris Godunov would deny that Chaliapin was *the* great exponenent of the title role during recorded history - and all we have are snippets of him in the role.


No-one is saying they weren't great. Just it is difficult to judge by ancient recordings and snippets. Even Chaliapin - all we can say is from what we can hear (and from what was said) he was a great exponent. You really cannot judge unless you hear the whole thing. 
With respect, I wish you guys would realise that, as someone has said, some of us are interested in hearing the opera not snippets in ancient sound with an annoying piping orchestral sound in the background. That was the best they could do in the past and if you guys get unlimited pleasure from listening to these then that's fine. But some of us agree with the somewhat ore cynical view of the 'Bluffer's Guide to Music' and do wonder at just how the sounds coming out really are the product of some vanished golden era. But please, if you guys get pleasure from hearing these old recordings, please go ahead. However, for those of us uninitiated in the golden art, please leave us with the meagre pickings of Tebaldi et al onwards in sound that is at least bearable.


----------



## vivalagentenuova

> Of course, what you are saying is that we should give up on recordings altogether. Sorry but not the route for me. Of course recordings can be heavily edited but it is what is coming out of the speakers that interests me not what went on in the studio. When listening to a recording that's all that matters. Me and the speaker.


That's fine, as far as preferring recordings. But when talking about the quality of the _singers_ themselves, it matters a great deal what went on in the studio. In fact, that's the only thing that matters. Someone who is recording on decent equipment but needs multiple takes spliced together, the orchestra turned way down to be heard, everything smoothed over is simply not a great singer. They are fodder for a good sound engineer.


----------



## DavidA

vivalagentenuova said:


> That's fine, as far as preferring recordings. But when talking about the quality of the _singers_ themselves, it matters a great deal what went on in the studio. In fact, that's the only thing that matters. Someone who is recording on decent equipment but needs multiple takes spliced together, the orchestra turned way down to be heard, everything smoothed over is simply not a great singer. They are fodder for a good sound engineer.


Your problem is though you often cannot tell from the ancient recordings what the singer really sounded like in the flesh - you are filling in with your imagination - so the question remains anyway. In any case you are miming a judgment that all modern recordings are like this. Have you any proof? I know of Fred Smudge in the Bluffers Guide but that was a satire.


----------



## vivalagentenuova

I did not say _all_ are like that. You habitually strawman my arguments.



> Your problem is though you often cannot tell from the ancient recordings what the singer really sounded like in the flesh - you are filling in with your imagination - so the question remains anyway.


In certain ways I'm filling in as far as personal listening goes. But for objective criteria I'm relying on the testimony of the time. I think Tetrazzini was a big voice because she gave an open air concert to tens of thousands of people and could be heard. I think Melba was a big voice because she could sing _Aida_, and because people said she could always be heard, in high or low register. I think Rethberg was a big voice because she was the most famous _Aida_ of her day, and sang Sieglinde. Then I look at modern singers of the coloratura and lyric voice types and ask, can they do the same, without amplification? It's a resounding (or rather, not resounding) no.


----------



## DavidA

vivalagentenuova said:


> *I did not say all are like that. You habitually strawman my arguments.*
> 
> In certain ways I'm filling in as far as personal listening goes. But for objective criteria I'm relying on the testimony of the time. I think Tetrazzini was a big voice because she gave an open air concert to tens of thousands of people and could be heard. I think Melba was a big voice because she could sing _Aida_, and because people said she could always be heard, in high or low register. I think Rethberg was a big voice because she was the most famous _Aida_ of her day, and sang Sieglinde. Then I look at modern singers of the coloratura and lyric voice types and ask, can they do the same, without amplification? It's a resounding (or rather, not resounding) no.


Not at all. Your implication was pretty clear. So you think? You actually heard Melba? And Rethberg? I bet Nilsson could have sung to thousands of people and been heard but then her voice was one in a generation. I can assure you modern singers do sing without amplification - just go to the opera houses and hear them. You won't find them amplified unless you watch them in the cinema on HD but then that is a necessity for transmission. It's the problem we hear everywhere that 'old is good, new is bad'. Rinaldo wouldn't have even been a sub in the old days. I'm not saying there weren't great singers around in the old days - of course there were. And they were recorded because they were the best. The rest have past unnoticed. But to build a world where we cannot seem to enjoy modern opera performances because of what may or may not have happened in the past seems to me unfortunate.


----------



## wkasimer

DavidA said:


> No-one is saying they weren't great. Just it is difficult to judge by ancient recordings and snippets.


I didn't say that it's not sometimes difficult (although with baritones, it's actually not, since the baritone voice recorded quite well compared to, say, sopranos). But it's pretty obvious that you don't think that it's worth the effort. I think that it is.


----------



## wkasimer

DavidA said:


> Have you any proof? I know of Fred Smudge in the Bluffers Guide but that was a satire.


I've had several experiences of hearing a singer on record and being sorely disappointed when I heard them live. I'm not going to mention names, but they are singers who made excellent recordings, and when I heard them live, their voices lacked color and in one case, was virtually inaudible. On the other hand, some voices are unimpressive on record, but impressive when heard in the flesh (the late Johan Botha was a good example).


----------



## howlingfantods

Revitalized Classics said:


> If the condition is that they had to have made full recordings then that would exclude a ton of *interesting portrayals* - including all the individually recorded arias, abridgments, compilations up to the present day. Suit yourself but I think you are throwing the baby out with the bath water.
> 
> I'd argue this misses the point of how Verdi built his operas around key arias and ensembles - except maybe Otello and Falstaff.
> 
> The arias and ensembles were intended as genuine highlights - they were also performed in concert and printed as sheet music like popular hits.
> 
> The operas were sung by star performers who insisted on these features and exulted in them when it came to early recordings. It might be that we only have a few passages by Ruffo, Battistini, Amato etc in each role but these are often the parts that count most.
> 
> Using your example, Il balen might be a small proportion of the opera in terms of notes/pages etc but it is the crux of his part - his main solo. Can you suggest examples where the baritone was only superb in the aria? Doesn't it stand if the baritone excels in the aria then much of the battle re the part has been won?


Hm, I didn't expect to have to defend the proposition that listening to a full opera is a richer experience than listening to arias and highlights in the opera forum. But ok:

I don't consider a single aria to be "an interesting portrayal". Let's take Rigoletto--most of the people recorded in the acoustic era recorded at most Cortigiani. Everyone approaches Cortigiani roughly the same--anger, bitterness, pathos. However, what fills out the role and makes it a fully rounded portrayal is how the jester mocks Monterone, the apprehension when meeting Sparafucile, the paternal love and warmth of his duet with Gilda, the agony when he realizes that he helped the courtesans kidnap her, the comfort he gives after their reunion, the vengeful plotting of act 3, then the joy of his revenge followed by the devastation when he realizes the target of his revenge rebounded to Gilda.

How do these acoustic-era singers play it? Are they especially bitter? Do they emphasize the buffo? Is the singer's Rigoletto a strong man beaten down by circumstance? A vicious man who got his just desserts? I would argue that you can get very little of that flavor from just a solitary Cortigiani.

I assume, as you do, that these acoustic era singers were probably as good at these other parts as they were in Cortigiani, but not being able to hear them do a full portrayal, what relevance or utility is that conclusion? We can hear them do Cortigiani and say, "boy, it sure would be great to hear his Figio… mio padre or Povera Rigoletto" but if I want to hear them, I can't, right? So if someone asked me for Verdi baritone recommendations, I'd rather point them in the direction of those who sing the full roles.

Let me offer an analogy. I love Pogorelic's pre-breakdown performances of Beethoven's sonatas, of which there were two--op 22 and op 111. There was basically nothing else--no other sonatas, no concertos, no chamber music. Despite being a great admirer of his op 22 and op 111, if someone asked me for great Beethovenians to listen to, I wouldn't mention him, since he's recorded such a tiny amount of the repertoire. To me, singers who are only recorded an aria or two are even less recommendable, since at least Pogorelic recorded full compositions--to me, recording an aria or two is like recording only one movement of a sonata, or even just a fragment of one movement of a sonata. It's just not a standalone work of art from my perspective.


----------



## Woodduck

Is there really a question about whether, and how well, we can judge a Verdi baritone by single arias or other excerpts? I think we can do so quite fairly, in many cases. Once recording was in full swing as a commercial endeavor, most of the well-known singers of the past recorded more than one or two arias, and we can get a good idea of their artistic range and versatility. A singer as far back as Battistini recorded prolifically in a wide range of repertoire, and we can hear very well what he was capable of vocally and musically even if the full resonance of his timbre couldn't be captured. I don't need a complete recording of _La Traviata_ to prove to me that his singing exhibited a bel canto elegance rarely encountered - never, in fact, in any baritone of my own day.






In the light of such singing, I simply don't understand a statement such as: "I assume, as you do, that these acoustic era singers were probably as good at these other parts as they were in [individual arias or excerpts], but not being able to hear them do a full portrayal, of what relevance or utility is that conclusion?"

But for the bits recorded by singers whom we can't hear in full roles, we would not know what the human voice can do and how well music can be sung. As a former singer, a lover of singing, and a student and appreciator of music in general, I find great relevance and utility in that knowledge.


----------



## DavidA

wkasimer said:


> I didn't say that it's not sometimes difficult (although with baritones, it's actually not, since the baritone voice recorded quite well compared to, say, sopranos). *But it's pretty obvious that you don't think that it's worth the effort. *I think that it is.


I think it's interesting to hear what singers of a former era who were praised to the skies sounded like but I wouldn't make a habit of listening to the very poor recordings. Besides in the case of sopranos so much is lost I cannot see how on earth you can tell. You hear what appears like warbling and then realise it was some celebrated soprano. Either they were over-celebrated or the recording process available didn't do them justice. I think when you say 'worth the effort' it depends on where your priorities lie, in the performers or in the opera itself. Mine is the latter.


----------



## DavidA

wkasimer said:


> I've had several experiences of hearing a singer on record and being sorely disappointed when I heard them live. I'm not going to mention names, but they are singers who made excellent recordings, and *when I heard them live, their voices lacked color and in one case, was virtually inaudible.* On the other hand, some voices are unimpressive on record, but impressive when heard in the flesh (the late Johan Botha was a good example).


And maybe if you'd have heard some singers in the past away from the recording process you might have been similarly disappointed. Who can tell. You didn't hear them in the flesh. And similarly some voices don't take as well to recording as others. But recording is always second best anyway as we know but what a blessing it is to be able to hear so much opera!


----------



## DavidA

howlingfantods said:


> Hm, I didn't expect to have to defend the proposition that listening to a full opera is a richer experience than listening to arias and highlights in the opera forum. But ok:
> 
> I don't consider a single aria to be "an interesting portrayal". Let's take Rigoletto--most of the people recorded in the acoustic era recorded at most Cortigiani. Everyone approaches Cortigiani roughly the same--anger, bitterness, pathos. However, what fills out the role and makes it a fully rounded portrayal is how the jester mocks Monterone, the apprehension when meeting Sparafucile, the paternal love and warmth of his duet with Gilda, the agony when he realizes that he helped the courtesans kidnap her, the comfort he gives after their reunion, the vengeful plotting of act 3, then the joy of his revenge followed by the devastation when he realizes the target of his revenge rebounded to Gilda.
> 
> How do these acoustic-era singers play it? Are they especially bitter? Do they emphasize the buffo? Is the singer's Rigoletto a strong man beaten down by circumstance? A vicious man who got his just desserts? I would argue that you can get very little of that flavor from just a solitary Cortigiani.
> 
> I assume, as you do, that these acoustic era singers were probably as good at these other parts as they were in Cortigiani, but not being able to hear them do a full portrayal, what relevance or utility is that conclusion? We can hear them do Cortigiani and say, "boy, it sure would be great to hear his Figio… mio padre or Povera Rigoletto" but if I want to hear them, I can't, right? So if someone asked me for Verdi baritone recommendations, I'd rather point them in the direction of those who sing the full roles.
> 
> Let me offer an analogy. I love Pogorelic's pre-breakdown performances of Beethoven's sonatas, of which there were two--op 22 and op 111. There was basically nothing else--no other sonatas, no concertos, no chamber music. Despite being a great admirer of his op 22 and op 111, if someone asked me for great Beethovenians to listen to, I wouldn't mention him, since he's recorded such a tiny amount of the repertoire. To me, singers who are only recorded an aria or two are even less recommendable, since at least Pogorelic recorded full compositions--to me, recording an aria or two is like recording only one movement of a sonata, or even just a fragment of one movement of a sonata.* It's just not a standalone work of art from my perspective*.


I thoroughly agree with all of this. There is more to opera than just the standard arias. I could give the analogy of Rachmaninov and the frustration that RCA didn't record him playing Beethoven sonatas as he proposed. All we have is mainly snippets apart from his own works and the Schumann Carnival and Chopin sonata. But we cannot judge his Beethoven from what we have. Even what we have can be painful to listen to in the limited recording. Of course it's great we have what we have but if one is going to listen to the work rather than the performer you have to weigh the poor recording quality as a decided negative.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> I thoroughly agree with all of this. There is more to opera than just the standard arias. I could give the analogy of Rachmaninov and the frustration that RCA didn't record him playing Beethoven sonatas as he proposed. All we have is mainly snippets apart from his own works and the Schumann Carnival and Chopin sonata. But we cannot judge his Beethoven from what we have.


This is such a poor analogy that it doesn't even qualify as an analogy. There is simply nothing in it relevant to judging a singer by excerpts as opposed to full roles, and nothing that suggests the impossibility of enjoying the former in their own right and appreciating singers for what those excerpts tell us.

You've made clear, over and over, that old recordings don't tell you much or offer you much pleasure. Well, that's your shortcoming. It's not our problem. How much space on this thread, and this forum, do you intend to take up telling us what you can't enjoy listening to? It's perverse, tiresome, and weird. Most of us are here to talk about what we DO enjoy.


----------



## Revitalized Classics

DavidA said:


> Sorry but with respect, you are the one who is arguing with me.


I wrote to howlingfantods about the value of highlights as I see them.

You decided to interject re vintage cars and phones, remember?

I did not reference you, I did not address you. When it came to it, I didn't think much of your analogies.

You told us about superficial differences but at no point acknowledged that they are cosmetic differences: all that actually matters is if the car takes you from A to B and if you can hear what is said on the phone.

Perhaps if you were less concerned with setting an arbitrary deadline in the 1950s you'd be able to appreciate records on a case by case basis.

Perhaps you were also being ironic mentioning your modern phone since a call using this modern tech has inferior bandwidth (>4 kHz) to a wax cylinder let alone a 78 and we somehow manage just fine.



> I'm not the one saying that everyone ought to listen to the ancient recordings.


The posters here are *already* listening to the ancient recordings and modern ones and everything in between. They don't need convincing.


----------



## Revitalized Classics

howlingfantods said:


> Hm, I didn't expect to have to defend the proposition that listening to a full opera is a *richer* experience than listening to arias and highlights in the opera forum. But ok


That's because nobody asked you to.

I did not ever say that excerpts are preferable to complete operas. I questioned if they might include enough important music to be representative.

Do I really need to add the proviso that when I suggest excerpts can be informative that I have not subsequently chucked my complete operas in the bin? I'm advocating that we can learn from them all.


----------



## millionrainbows

When I first glanced at this thread title, I thought it said "Verdi Bathrooms."


----------



## DavidA

Revitalized Classics said:


> I wrote to howlingfantods about the value of highlights as I see them.
> 
> You decided to interject re vintage cars and phones, remember?
> 
> I did not reference you, I did not address you. *When it came to it, I didn't think much of your analogies.*
> 
> You told us about superficial differences but at no point acknowledged that they are cosmetic differences: all that actually matters is if the car takes you from A to B and if you can hear what is said on the phone.
> 
> Perhaps if you were less concerned with setting an arbitrary deadline in the 1950s you'd be able to appreciate records on a case by case basis.
> 
> Perhaps you were also being ironic mentioning your modern phone since a call using this modern tech has inferior bandwidth (>4 kHz) to a wax cylinder let alone a 78 and we somehow manage just fine.
> 
> The posters here are *already* listening to the ancient recordings and modern ones and everything in between. They don't need convincing.


I didn't think much of your arguments but that's beside the point. You did address me because you addressed this thread and every member can take part. I am not concerned with arbitrary deadlines as you call them but recording quality. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything but I notice you are. I am merely stating my point of view which I have a right to do on this forum.


----------



## DavidA

millionrainbows said:


> When I first glanced at this thread title, I thought it said "Verdi Bathrooms."


You might just as well. We have had sopranos and all sorts of composers in here! :lol:


----------



## Revitalized Classics

Interesting to hear the depth of talent available a hundred years ago and the technical differences - primarily bass resolution - afforded by electrical recording. The difference is more apparent in the big ensembles than in individual arias.

Riccardo Stracciari - Tutte le feste...Si vendetta from Rigoletto
1919 with Maria Barrientos (Acoustical)





1929 with Mercedes Capsir (Electrical)





Giuseppe de Luca and Galli-Curci - Bella figlia dell'amore with Caruso, Perini
1917 (Acoustical)





1927 (Electrical) with Gigli, Homer


----------



## Revitalized Classics

DavidA said:


> I didn't think much of your arguments but that's beside the point. You did address me because you addressed this thread and every member can take part. I am not concerned with arbitrary deadlines as you call them but recording quality. *I am not trying to convince anyone of anything* but I notice you are. I am merely stating my point of view which I have a right to do on this forum.


Literally the previous message you posted on this thread:

"...Of course it's great we have what we have but if one is going to listen to the work rather than the performer *you have to* weigh the poor recording quality as a decided negative."


----------



## vivalagentenuova

David, it's very helpful that you quote my full statements every time you respond. It makes it very easy for everyone to see that what you say has nothining to do with my actual words.

What I said:


> But for objective criteria I'm relying on the testimony of the time.


Your response:


> So you think? You actually heard Melba? And Rethberg?


Your response has nothing to do with what I said. I said I'm relying on the testimony of people who were there. You respond, "OH so you heard them live?" I never said that. I never implied that. No rational person would ever think that I was.

Again, I said:


> I think Tetrazzini was a big voice because she gave an open air concert to tens of thousands of people and could be heard.


You replied:


> I bet Nilsson could have sung to thousands of people and been heard but then her voice was one in a generation.


Nilsson is irrelevant. Nilsson was a Wgnerian soprano, Tetrazzini was a coloratura! Tetrazzini gave and open air concert in San Francisco in which she sang to tens of thousands (the SF Chronicle reported 200,000, but that seems inflated). I simply said, show me the modern coloratura who can do that. Which, I notice, you didn't. Because there isn't one.

And don't carp about my "implications." When you implied insulting things about me, you laughed it off, and then preceeded to say it again about someone else not one page later. What I actually said was that if you can't sing the notes well so that they would be heard in a theater, you're not a great opera singer. Like everything I say, you went off and invented some nonsense to respond to and put it in my mouth. This trolling is getting pretty old.


----------



## Woodduck

Revitalized Classics said:


> Literally the previous message you [DavidA] posted on this thread:
> 
> "...Of course it's great we have what we have but if one is going to listen to the work rather than the performer *you have to* weigh the poor recording quality as a decided negative."


I wonder why people say "you" when they should say "I." It's hard for me to believe, when they confuse the two pronouns over and over again, that they aren't "trying to convince anyone of anything."

"You just have to think..." "You just want to..." "you can't help but..." "You must realize that..." "Ya hafta believe..."

No, I don't hafta.


----------



## DavidA

Revitalized Classics said:


> Literally the previous message you posted on this thread:
> 
> "...Of course it's great we have what we have but if one is going to listen to the work rather than the performer *you have to* weigh the poor recording quality as a decided negative."


Well I certainly don't weigh ancient recording quality as a positive, do you?


----------



## DavidA

vivalagentenuova said:


> David, it's very helpful that you quote my full statements every time you respond. It makes it very easy for everyone to see that what you say has nothining to do with my actual words.
> 
> What I said:
> 
> Your response:
> Your response has nothing to do with what I said. I said I'm relying on the testimony of people who were there. You respond, "OH so you heard them live?" I never said that. I never implied that. No rational person would ever think that I was.
> 
> Again, I said:
> 
> You replied:
> 
> Nilsson is irrelevant. Nilsson was a Wgnerian soprano, Tetrazzini was a coloratura! Tetrazzini gave and open air concert in San Francisco in which she sang to tens of thousands (the SF Chronicle reported 200,000, but that seems inflated). I simply said, show me the modern coloratura who can do that. Which, I notice, you didn't. Because there isn't one.
> 
> And don't carp about my "implications." When you implied insulting things about me, you laughed it off, and then preceeded to say it again about someone else not one page later. What I actually said was that if you can't sing the notes well so that they would be heard in a theater, you're not a great opera singer. Like everything I say, *you went off and invented some nonsense* to respond to and put it in my mouth. *This trolling is getting pretty old*.


Considering we are talking about Verdi baritones in this thread and you are continually bringing up the subject of sopranos I wonder who is trolling? Look, I know it is a favourite tactic of people who can't convince someone else of their argument to accuse the other person of 'trolling' but to me it is purely poor sportsmanship and an insult. I simply asked you if you had heard these people? You haven't any more than I have. We simply only have their recordings, dim as they are. And as I admitted the comments of people at the time. If you won't accept Nilsson btw no doubt Sutherland could have sung and been heard by thousands. the voice was huge.
And btw I didn't say insulting things to you any more than you said to me. I certainly did not invent nonsense to put into your mouth. Please do not be quite so sensitive when you appear to want to just say anything you like to me . I did say that every singer I have heard in an opera theatre can be heard. I don't know whether you have heard differently?. 
Now please if you cannot argue in a reasonable fashion let's just agree to differ. I do not like these things to fall into a slanging match and personal insults which leaves a bad taste in the mouth when we are supposed to be discussing something we both love. This is not a competition and to who is right but merely an expression of preferences. If you prefer to listen to 100 year-old recordings than that is your preference. Just that I will not accept the argument that the old was always better than the new on that evidence. Let's just agree to differ on that!


----------



## DavidA

This isn't bad either even though Dame Joan doesn't exactly look as I imagine Gilda!


----------



## wkasimer

DavidA said:


> If you prefer to listen to 100 year-old recordings than that is your preference.


It's not a preference. It's an unfortunate necessity. If I want to hear Caruso, Chaliapin, et al., I have to listen to recordings of limited fidelity, or eschew an appreciation of the range of operatic performance over the previous 120 years.



> Just that I will not accept the argument that the old was always better than the new on that evidence.


I agree - singing was not always better in the past. But if you dismiss recordings made with older technology, you haven't got a clue. Just to give an example - if you want to hear what an authentic French tenor sounds like, you need to hear the recordings of Georges Thill, Paul Franz, Cesar Vezzani, Leon Escalais, Fernand Ansseau, Louis Cazette, Charles Friant, Joseph Rogatchewsky, et al - because with the possible exceptions of Alain Vanzo and Leopold Simoneau, there hasn't been one since opera became internationalized after WW2 (and even before). And if you haven't heard Leonid Sobinov (born 19 years before Tchaikovsky died) sing Lensky's aria, you have no idea what Tchaikovsky might have intended, even if the recording is more than 100 years old.


----------



## Revitalized Classics

Celestino Sarobe was an interesting singer, I admire his phrasing and timbre. I'm not sure if he is well known here, his mentor was Battistini


----------



## wkasimer

Revitalized Classics said:


> Celestino Sarobe was an interesting singer, I admire his phrasing and timbre. I'm not sure if he is well known here...


Not well known at all. By sheer coincidence, I heard him for the first time a few days ago, on a Preiser CD of "Four Famous Baritones of the Past":









Kind of a misnomer, since Sarobe and the other three (Umberto Urbano, Carlo Drago Hrzic, and Alexander Sved) are not exactly household names, even in my house (Sved is a little more familiar to Americans because he sang at the Met and shows up on a couple of well-known broadcast recordings).

Sarobe certainly deserves to be better known - fine voice and style. He is the sort of singer that provides evidence about the quality of singing in the past, because if a singer of his artistic abilities showed up in 2019, he'd likely have an international career.


----------



## DavidA

wkasimer said:


> It's not a preference. It's an unfortunate necessity. *If I want to hear Caruso, Chaliapin, et al., I have to listen to recordings of limited fidelity*, or eschew an appreciation of the range of operatic performance over the previous 120 years.
> 
> I agree - singing was not always better in the past. *But if you dismiss recordings made with older technology, you haven't got a clue.*[/B] Just to give an example - if you want to hear what an authentic French tenor sounds like, you need to hear the recordings of Georges Thill, Paul Franz, Cesar Vezzani, Leon Escalais, Fernand Ansseau, Louis Cazette, Charles Friant, Joseph Rogatchewsky, et al - because with the possible exceptions of Alain Vanzo and Leopold Simoneau, there hasn't been one since opera became internationalized after WW2 (and even before). And if you haven't heard Leonid Sobinov (born 19 years before Tchaikovsky died) sing Lensky's aria, you have no idea what Tchaikovsky might have intended, even if the recording is more than 100 years old.


I quite agree. But hearing them is your preference. It might not be everyone's preference to hear them with having to put up with restricted sound and only meagre excerpts instead of whole operas. Also we don't know Sobinov is what Tchaikovsky would have intended - it is a 'might' - an interesting might but a might. Like Toscanini said, the score is the composer's intention not some singer's rendering. I am not knocking your hobby of listening to old recordings and admire the missionary zeal with which people advocate it, but just saying it might not be everyone's choice. It isn't mine although of course it is interesting to hear what singers in the past might have sounded like. To be honest, though, I'm invariably disappointed, especially in the higher ranges. 
But to say I haven't a clue is laughable! Come on, just because I don't share your interest in old recordings doesn't mean I haven't a clue. I'm not sure just how 'authentic' a French tenor should be. I don't know whether you count Georges Nore as authentic? Sounds pretty authentic on Beecham's Faust (which is not surprising as he was French!) and Richard Verreau (although he was French Canadian but sounds pretty good on my Damnation of Faust). Also I had a feeling that Roberto Alagna is French and so he appears but no doubt he must be dismissed for the sin of having Sicilian parents? But now we have gone on to French tenors when we should be dealing with Verdi baritones. How on earth did we get here? Sorry I can't share your enthusiasm for the oldies. My limit tends to be stuff that bears repeated listening. But I know guys like yourself find it fascinating. I have got more than a clue - just that I prefer more modern recordings. Good luck!


----------



## wkasimer

DavidA said:


> But to say I haven't a clue is laughable! Come on, just because I don't share your interest in old recordings doesn't mean I haven't a clue.
> 
> No, but it does mean that I should treat your opinions about singing with a certain degree of skepticism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also I had a feeling that Roberto Alagna is French and so he appears but no doubt he must be dismissed for the sin of having Sicilian parents?
> 
> 
> 
> You're making my point. Alagna may sing in French, but he's a pale imitation of a French tenor. It has nothing to do with place of birth - Rogatchewsky was a consummate French stylist, despite the fact that he was born and spent his first fifteen or so years in Ukraine.
> 
> As for Nore and Verreau - they're perfectly serviceable French tenors, but they're not remotely in the same leagues as Thill, Franz, Rogatchewsky, Cazette, et al.
> 
> I'm done here.
Click to expand...


----------



## DavidA

wkasimer said:


> DavidA said:
> 
> 
> 
> But to say I haven't a clue is laughable! Come on, just because I don't share your interest in old recordings doesn't mean I haven't a clue.
> 
> No, but it does mean that I should treat your opinions about singing with a certain degree of skepticism.
> 
> You're making my point. *Alagna may sing in French, but he's a pale imitation of a French tenor. * It has nothing to do with place of birth - Rogatchewsky was a consummate French stylist, despite the fact that he was born and spent his first fifteen or so years in Ukraine.
> 
> As for Nore and Verreau - they're perfectly serviceable French tenors, but they're not remotely in the same leagues as Thill, Franz, Rogatchewsky, Cazette, et al.
> 
> I'm done here.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh this is too much! This is just your opinion! I could absolutely predict what you would say! So a guy born and bred in France knows less about singing the French language than your good self? Can I ask you - do you speak the language fluently yourself in order to make such judgments? Or is it just gleaned from listening to elderly recordings? Sorry but your opinions are not facts any more than mine are.
Click to expand...


----------



## wkasimer

DavidA said:


> wkasimer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh this is too much! This is just your opinion! I could absolutely predict what you would say! So a guy born and bred in France knows less about singing the French language than your good self? Can I ask you - do you speak the language fluently yourself in order to make such judgments? Or is it just gleaned from listening to elderly recordings? Sorry but your opinions are not facts any more than mine are.
> 
> 
> 
> As I said - I'm done here.
Click to expand...


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> wkasimer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh this is too much! This is just your opinion! I could absolutely predict what you would say! So a guy born and bred in France knows less about singing the French language than your good self? Can I ask you - do you speak the language fluently yourself in order to make such judgments? Or is it just gleaned from listening to elderly recordings? Sorry but your opinions are not facts any more than mine are.
> 
> 
> 
> Wkasimer is right. French style, and the sort of singers who represent it, are specific things which can be heard and understood by people interested enough to listen and digest what they're hearing. Alagna is - or I should say was, since he's now way past his best - a fine tenor, but stylistically "internationalized," as are most singers nowadays. National traditions in singing, and in classical music generally, are in an advanced state of dilution. One gleans knowledge of this precisely by the means you disparage: by listening.
> 
> But you're not interested in listening to the singers from whom you might learn something, which makes your smarty-pants dismissal of others' opinions as no better than yours laughable. If you choose to be ignorant of something, as you insist over and over that you do, at least have the decency to respect the judgments of those who've put in the work.
Click to expand...


----------



## wkasimer

Woodduck said:


> National traditions in singing, and in classical music generally, are in an advanced state of dilution. One gleans knowledge of this precisely by the means you disparage: by listening.


And the traditions that have suffered the most are the French and Russian. Particularly when it comes to tenors, but it's true of all voice types.


----------



## DavidA

wkasimer said:


> Woodduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the *traditions that have suffered the most are the French and Russian. * Particularly when it comes to tenors, but it's true of all voice types.
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite sure how your software is behaving but you are quoting me on things I haven't said. No-one is disparaging listening, by the way. Some of us have got many CDs of opera which we listen to regularly. Because we prefer to listen to whole operas does not mean we disparage listening, rather the opposite! Incidentally, how would you consider fixing that particular problem you are complaining of? Any answers? That is a genuine question, btw. I'd be interested to hear your opinion.
Click to expand...


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> Not quite sure how your software is behaving but you are quoting me on things I haven't said. *No-one is disparaging listening, by the way. Some of us have got many CDs of opera which we listen to regularly.* Because we prefer to listen to whole operas does not mean we disparage listening, rather the opposite! Incidentally, how would you consider fixing that particular problem you are complaining of? Any answers? That is a genuine question, btw. I'd be interested to hear your opinion.


Pay attention to what you write. You said: "Can I ask you - do you speak the language fluently yourself in order to make such judgments? *Or is it just gleaned from listening to elderly recordings?* Sorry but your opinions are not facts any more than mine are."

That disparages listening.

The principle way of "gleaning" anything about music is by listening to it. Some of us listen to "elderly" recordings and by doing so learn things about singing styles that you will not learn if you don't do likewise.

Clear enough?


----------



## bobleflaneur

wkasimer said:


> Companies are making plenty of records, more than ever before - it's just not the so-called "major" labels making them, and most of them don't feel the need to record standard repertoire operas that have been recorded umpteen times before.


I'm a week late coming to this, but while this is true in important ways, I do think it needs a bit more nuancing. After all, doesn't it seem like a new Winterreise recording drops every month?

While there's indeed been a (welcome) shift beyond the standard repertoire, it seems to me the biggest thing driving what gets recorded is a push to record more cheaply. That means that new chamber recordings or lieder recordings, where you only have to pay a handful of musicians and hire out a small, inexpensive hall, are plentiful, whether they feature well-known or esoteric music. Orchestral recordings are much less common, especially with elite orchestras that are used to commanding high fees. And new opera recordings have almost ceased (though they seem to have made it work for videos for the moment; I suspect that will slow down as the repertoire starts to become saturated). The logic seems to be that if a CD will go for $18, whether it's a pair of Beethoven symphonies or a set of violin sonatas, why not do the violin sonatas and pay two musicians instead of eighty?

That may seem like a loss to some and a gain to others, but I wonder whether it might actually be described more as a cyclical return. For anyone who's a product of the LP or CD era, it's always seemed like the symphony (or perhaps the opera) was the preeminent form of classical music. But I wonder whether that's partly because those forms were so well suited to the medium -- all of a sudden, you could bring 100+ musicians inside your home and have them sound great. But before, say, World War II, music in your house was less likely to be experienced through recordings than through performances -- especially amateur performances. That would have given small-ensemble works a visibility and prestige that they ceded to symphonic works in the postwar era, but which now seems to be returning to them, in a somewhat different way.


----------



## wkasimer

bobleflaneur said:


> I'm a week late coming to this, but while this is true in important ways, I do think it needs a bit more nuancing. After all, doesn't it seem like a new Winterreise recording drops every month?


The glut of Winterreisen, of course, proves your point below. I listen to, or at least sample, virtually every Winterreise that is released, and many of them smack of vanity projects, by singers and pianists who are virtually unknown, on obscure labels. There's not much that's cheaper to record than Lieder by unknown singers.

What surprises me is how many standard repertoire recordings are made by world class orchestras. Does *everyone* need to record a set of the Beethoven symphonies?



> And new opera recordings have almost ceased


And those that are made are almost all live recordings. I assume that cost has a lot to do with that, too.


----------



## Revitalized Classics

I've been searching to see which baritones are singing Verdi in Russia and France recently/ in the coming seasons and checking out their videos. I was rather hoping there would be lots of talent I had not heard about...

I noticed that Russian baritones are still singing the parts there - but I take the point that the ones who can adapt to an international style, rather than a quintessentially Russian sound, probably get more gigs abroad.

One example is Roman Burdenko's videos - I find the timbre of his voice attractive (He's appeared or due to appear in Forza/Don Carlo/Boccanegra/Trovatore at the Mariinsky). I rather missed some vitality in his performances but I'd need to hear more





It looks to me there are very few French baritones singing the Verdi roles in France.

Ludovic Tezier stands out as the exception




However, at home they often import a lot of foreign artists - the scene there is very international. Stephane Degout did sing Rodrigue at Lyon but normally sings other rep.

Hopefully I'm just missing French talent that is out there...

Speaking of international artists, I'm rather interested in two artists, both young, both from Mongolia who turned up in my Russia/France searches and who have warm voices. Can it be a fluke? I'm wondering if an older tradition somehow continues there.

Ariunbaatar Ganbaatar (due for Trovatore and Tosca at the Mariinsky)





Enkhbatyn Amartuvshin (due for Ernani in Lyon, Luisa Miller in Rome, Nabucco in Berlin, Tosca in Naples...)





If we can't have totally idiomatic style, I hope we can at least hear healthy, focused sounds from young singers.


----------



## DavidA

wkasimer said:


> The glut of Winterreisen, of course, proves your point below. I listen to, or at least sample, virtually every Winterreise that is released, and *many of them smack of vanity projects, by singers and pianists who are virtually unknown, *on obscure labels. There's not much that's cheaper to record than Lieder by unknown singers.
> 
> What surprises me is how many standard repertoire recordings are made by world class orchestras. Does *everyone* need to record a set of the Beethoven symphonies?
> 
> And those that are made are almost all live recordings. I assume that cost has a lot to do with that, too.


Not necessarily 'vanity' projects. We have to realise that with the advent of digital technology, recording has become far more available and a CD or download or video on YouTube has now become a way an artist can advertise himself and get himself (or herself) out there. You can have your own label these days as many leading choirs and orchestras do but also probably many singers and artists who want to get known. Of course, this means not every disc will be a Scheier or D F-D but as with publishing things are now more available.


----------



## DavidA

Revitalized Classics said:


> I've been searching to see which baritones are singing Verdi in Russia and France recently/ in the coming seasons and checking out their videos. I was rather hoping there would be lots of talent I had not heard about...
> 
> I noticed that Russian baritones are still singing the parts there - but I take the point that the ones who can adapt to an international style, rather than a quintessentially Russian sound, probably get more gigs abroad.


You guys do have to realise that we are living in a different world than the days of 78s. Jet travel has opened up the world and hence there is opportunity for these singers to perform internationally in a way that there wasn't before. Sorry but for better or worse, times change. We just have to realise that.


----------



## Sieglinde

Tézier is really amazing, and has consistently been so. His Boccanegra made me cry. Feels like a role he was made for - while he can do villains really well too, he truly shines when he's playing a good and kind character (bonus if he gets to die).

Wish he'd do Rigoletto more often, because I've seen a video of an open-air performance with him and it was really a tour de force.


----------



## Revitalized Classics

DavidA said:


> You guys do have to realise that we are living in a different world than the days of 78s. Jet travel has opened up the world and hence there is opportunity for these singers to perform internationally in a way that there wasn't before. Sorry but for better or worse, times change. We just have to realise that.


I'm talking about 2019, times have already changed. I'm comparing how Russia still cultivates domestic Verdian talent today while France does not to the same degree. Nothing here about 78s.

If jet travel was the only explanation then they would be affected the same. That is not the case.

In Russia there are still a lot of Russian baritones employed for the domestic audience - they sing a variety of roles there both in Russian and other languages including Verdi in Italian. They are even exporting their most successful talent as they have continued to do for years.

In France there appears to be very few French baritones employed domestically in the Verdi roles _and_ except for Tezier it is hard to name a French baritone singing the Verdian parts internationally?

I'm not seeing evidence that French baritones are even getting gigs in France, let alone internationally.

I suggest this is not a coincidence. I suggest that if they keep importing singers from all over the globe rather than employing local singers domestically then they might never have numerous French singers to export.


----------



## DavidA

Revitalized Classics said:


> I'm talking about 2019, times have already changed. I'm comparing how Russia still cultivates domestic Verdian talent today while France does not to the same degree. Nothing here about 78s.
> 
> If jet travel was the only explanation then they would be affected the same. That is not the case.
> 
> In Russia there are still a lot of Russian baritones employed for the domestic audience - they sing a variety of roles there both in Russian and other languages including Verdi in Italian. They are even exporting their most successful talent as they have continued to do for years.
> 
> In France there appears to be very few French baritones employed domestically in the Verdi roles _and_ except for Tezier it is hard to name a French baritone singing the Verdian parts internationally?
> 
> I'm not seeing evidence that French baritones are even getting gigs in France, let alone internationally.
> 
> I suggest this is not a coincidence. I suggest that if they keep importing singers from all over the globe rather than employing local singers domestically then they might never have numerous French singers to export.


If you have visited both countries you will have noticed that Russia is still a far less open society than France both to enter and leave. Hence travel to and from wòuld be more restricted.


----------



## Revitalized Classics

DavidA said:


> If you have visited both countries you will have noticed that Russia is still a far less open society than France both to enter and leave. Hence travel to and from wòuld be more restricted.


If that is true, it would explain fewer international artists performing in Russia.

If it is the case, Russia has still been able to cast entire seasons using indigenous talent. Could France populate a single run of Trovatore? or Traviata? or Otello?

If they are not allowed to leave, how are Russian artists filling out casts in European and American houses?

I've already described international artists performing in France, my question is where are the French Verdians who would formerly have been singing there? If they are itinerant performers what are their names, where are they singing? I hope they are out there somewhere.

There were always able French baritones both at home and abroad and not in the distant past - think Bianco, Borthayre, Massard, Blanc, Dens, Bacquier, Manuguerra. It is peculiar if Tezier is the only one standing.


----------



## DavidA

Revitalized Classics said:


> If that is true, it would explain fewer international artists performing in Russia.
> 
> If it is the case, Russia has still been able to cast entire seasons using indigenous talent. Could France populate a single run of Trovatore? or Traviata? or Otello?
> 
> If they are not allowed to leave, how are Russian artists filling out casts in European and American houses?
> 
> I've already described international artists performing in France, my question is where are the French Verdians who would formerly have been singing there? If they are itinerant performers what are their names, where are they singing? I hope they are out there somewhere.
> 
> There were always able French baritones both at home and abroad and not in the distant past - think Bianco, Borthayre, Massard, Blanc, Dens, Bacquier, Manuguerra. It is peculiar if Tezier is the only one standing.


I didn't say Russia is the closed society it once was under communism I said it is a lot less open. You only have to visit there to see. I have no idea why French baritones are not prospering at the moment. It is interesting the way musicians come in phases in various parts of the world. There is feast or famine.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> I have no idea why French baritones are not prospering at the moment. It is interesting the way musicians come in phases in various parts of the world. There is feast or famine.


The famine extends beyond France. A century ago there were so many superb Italian baritones you couldn't keep track of them. Here's a good, but not exhaustive, representation:

https://operalively.com/forums/showthread.php/743-Legendary-Italian-baritones/page3


----------



## Woodduck

Revitalized Classics said:


> Speaking of international artists, I'm rather interested in two artists, both young, both from Mongolia who turned up in my Russia/France searches and who have warm voices. Can it be a fluke? I'm wondering if an older tradition somehow continues there.
> 
> Ariunbaatar Ganbaatar (due for Trovatore and Tosca at the Mariinsky)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Enkhbatyn Amartuvshin (due for Ernani in Lyon, Luisa Miller in Rome, Nabucco in Berlin, Tosca in Naples...)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we can't have totally idiomatic style, I hope we can at least hear healthy, focused sounds from young singers.


These two young Mongolians have splendid instruments. Let's hope they use them wisely. Let's also hope they choose some catchy stage names. Maybe they could shorten them to Ari Gan and Enkhi Amartu?


----------



## aussiebushman

wkasimer said:


> The glut of Winterreisen, of course, proves your point below. I listen to, or at least sample, virtually every Winterreise that is released, and many of them smack of vanity projects, by singers and pianists who are virtually unknown, on obscure labels. There's not much that's cheaper to record than Lieder by unknown singers.


Please listen to the 1936 recording of Winterreise by Gerhard Husch when he was in his prime. He recorded it again much later in life and it is a sad reminder that retirement would have been preferable. However, even the later recording is better than Peter Pears!

This is the 1936 version:





And yes, we have drifted a long way from "Verdi Baritones" but who cares?


----------



## DavidA

aussiebushman said:


> Please listen to the 1936 recording of Winterreise by Gerhard Husch when he was in his prime. He recorded it again much later in life and it is a sad reminder that retirement would have been preferable. *However, even the later recording is better than Peter Pears! *
> 
> This is the 1936 version:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yes, we have drifted a long way from "Verdi Baritones" but who cares?


I think point-making which is totally off the point of the thread should be discouraged. What on earth the tenor, Pears, who never recorded Verdi as far as I know, has to do with Verdi baritones I have no idea.


----------



## Revitalized Classics

aussiebushman said:


> Please listen to the 1936 recording of Winterreise by Gerhard Husch when he was in his prime. He recorded it again much later in life and it is a sad reminder that retirement would have been preferable. However, even the later recording is better than Peter Pears!
> 
> This is the 1936 version:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yes, we have drifted a long way from "Verdi Baritones" but who cares?


Not much of a drift since Husch recorded extracts from Rigoletto, Ballo and Otello according to LP reissues. Haven't found examples on YouTube yet...


----------



## wkasimer

aussiebushman said:


> Please listen to the 1936 recording of Winterreise by Gerhard Husch when he was in his prime.


I've been doing that for 45 years. Hüsch's Winterreise recording was the first one I bought when I was a teenager. Still one of my favorites.



> However, even the later recording is better than Peter Pears!


You and I will have to agree to disagree about the Pears recording, another favorite of mine. Pears' voice may not be beautiful, but it's expressive, and Britten's playing is superb.


----------



## wkasimer

DavidA said:


> I think point-making which is totally off the point of the thread should be discouraged. What on earth the tenor, Pears, who never recorded Verdi as far as I know, has to do with Verdi baritones I have no idea.


My apologies. Here you go - one of the greatest baritones on record:


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> I think point-making which is totally off the point of the thread should be discouraged.


Good point! We must always remember to ask DavidA what the point of a thread is before doing any point-making. I'm not pointing fingers here, but some point-makers - especially these pointy-headed pseudo-intellectuals who hang about the place - make some pretty pointless points, and there's no point in encouraging them - if you see my point.


----------



## Woodduck

wkasimer said:


> My apologies. Here you go - one of the greatest baritones on record:


Singing like that just stops my breath. One could almost think that humans then belonged to a different species.


----------



## DavidA

This guy was pretty good too. The late great! But of course he is probably too recent for some! :tiphat:


----------



## Revitalized Classics

DavidA said:


> This guy was pretty good too. The late great! But of course he is probably too recent for some! :tiphat:


I'd be interested to hear what opinions are out there re Hvorstovsky in Verdi. I'm actually wondering if 'pretty good' was the strength of it.

As a recap, I think his studio records were _Traviata_ (Mehta), _Don Carlo_ (Haitink), _Boccanegra_ (Orbelian) and _Rigoletto_ (Orbelian).

Live recordings included _Trovatore_ (Rizzi), _Traviata_ (Maazel) and _Trovatore_ (Armiliato).


----------



## DavidA

wkasimer said:


> I've been doing that for 45 years. Hüsch's Winterreise recording was the first one I bought when I was a teenager. Still one of my favorites.
> 
> *You and I will have to agree to disagree about the Pears recording, another favorite of mine. * Pears' voice may not be beautiful, but it's expressive, and Britten's playing is superb.


I must confess that I learnt Wintereisse through the Pears recording but when I came back to it I was disappointed that the actual sound of his voice. The version I found unbeatable us the live, cough-ridden one with Schreier and Richter. A true winters journey backed up with bronchial effects


----------



## wkasimer

Revitalized Classics said:


> I'd be interested to hear what opinions are out there re Hvorstovsky in Verdi. I'm actually wondering if 'pretty good' was the strength of it.


I heard Hvorostovsky live a number of times, starting with an OONY concert with Borodina back in the mid-90's, and ending with a Boston recital a couple of years before his sad death. I've also heard virtually all of his recordings.

He was at his best in Russian song, and was a great Onegin and Yeletsky. But for Verdi, I sometimes found him less than satisfactory. In the more lyric roles (Posa in particular) he was quite good. But the more dramatic roles - Boccanegra, Rigoletto for example - the lack of brilliance at the top of his range was pretty debilitating, and it really wasn't a particularly large voice to begin with. I always had the impression that he was artificially darkening the tone for effect, and when the music call for a dramatic outburst, he had to resort to shouting and bluster instead of real singing.


----------



## Revitalized Classics

wkasimer said:


> I heard Hvorostovsky live a number of times, starting with an OONY concert with Borodina back in the mid-90's, and ending with a Boston recital a couple of years before his sad death. I've also heard virtually all of his recordings.
> 
> He was at his best in Russian song, and was a great Onegin and Yeletsky. But for Verdi, I sometimes found him less than satisfactory. In the more lyric roles (Posa in particular) he was quite good. But the more dramatic roles - Boccanegra, Rigoletto for example - the lack of brilliance at the top of his range was pretty debilitating, and it really wasn't a particularly large voice to begin with. I always had the impression that he was artificially darkening the tone for effect, and when the music call for a dramatic outburst, he had to resort to shouting and bluster instead of real singing.


This is great info, thanks for sharing!


----------



## DavidA

wkasimer said:


> My apologies. Here you go - one of the greatest baritones on record:


Now it's interest9ing when I hear these old recordings of singers who I know were reckoned to be great. But when I hear them I'm often disappointed. Whether it's the restricted recording I don't know but is it that impressive not knowing who the singer was? Not really. Of course, to those 'in the know' that is just philistine talk but I can only go by what I hear. Maybe in the theatre he did bowl people over with his voice. But not me there.


----------



## nina foresti

David:
I am a dedicated Hvorostovsky fan of the grandest order with _Eri tu_ being among his gems, yet there is no way it is fair to compare the voice of the great Battistini's with his. 
First, the sound of the recording leaves a lot to be desired and we are missing some of the sounds that would be richer if the acetate were first rate.
Secondly, Battistini shows stupendous talent when it comes to timing, nuance, diminuendos and just plain fine taste with his talent for perfection of interpretation of the music. 
Perhaps if you try to listen again, closer this time, like trying to decipher a Mapleson cylinder, (lotsaluck!) you too might suddenly pick up on some very rare and special phrasing that seems missing in any tenor we have today.


----------



## Woodduck

nina foresti said:


> I am a dedicated Hvorostovsky fan of the grandest order with _Eri tu_ being among his gems, yet there is no way it is fair to compare the voice of the great Battistini's with his. Battistini shows stupendous talent when it comes to timing, nuance, diminuendos and just plain fine taste with his talent for perfection of interpretation of the music.


I too admire Hvorostovsky and consider him one of the finest baritones of recent decades. But I must agree that Battistini is in a different class from anyone we can hear today, in terms of both vocal technique and style. His "Eri tu" is a singing lesson for the ages in many respects: the perfect integration and consistency of the voice; the quick, tight, consistent vibrato at all pitches and volumes; the ease and freedom from muscular interference which allow him to reach the highest notes and lean excitingly into the tone without forcing: the ability to crescendo and diminuendo at will on any note, as easily as turning a volume control; the ability to color the tone, opening, covering, darkening and brightening it at will, which we can hear remarkably well even through the medium of acoustic recording.

Battistini can do whatever he wants to do musically because he has the technical mastery to do it, and he has the sense of style and imagination to bring the music to three-dimensional life in a way that most modern singers can't even contemplate, partly because interpretive traditions for 19th-century music have been lost, but just as importantly because singers no longer have the technical finesse to do the things he does.

It's curious that Battistini's one weakness is one he shares with another great stylist of the "golden age," Tito Schipa: they both have limited lower ranges. Occasionally, as in his "Eri tu," Battistini would transpose a low note up an octave.

I forgive him. May he forgive me for even mentioning it.


----------



## nina foresti

I too noticed that he didn't take the low note and it bothered me -- for a second!


----------



## DavidA

nina foresti said:


> David:
> I am a dedicated Hvorostovsky fan of the grandest order with _Eri tu_ being among his gems, yet there is no way it is fair to compare the voice of the great Battistini's with his.
> First, the sound of the recording leaves a lot to be desired and *we are missing some of the sounds* that would be richer if the acetate were first rate.
> Secondly, *Battistini shows stupendous talent when it comes to timing, nuance, diminuendos and just plain fine taste* with his talent for perfection of interpretation of the music.
> Perhaps if you try to listen again, closer this time, like trying to decipher a Mapleson cylinder, (lotsaluck!) you too might suddenly pick up on some very rare and special phrasing* that seems missing in any tenor we have today.*


Yes this is the point I am making. You do have to use a lot of imagination to get past the old recording. I often wonder it's what we hear or whether it's what we imagine we hear. I do respect people who obviously know more about singing than me and I do hear some of the things you mention. Just that as recorded the voice does not give me (my personal view) an awful lot of pleasure in repeated listening. Of course what he was like in the theatre we can only imagine. 
Not being nit picking btw but wan't Bastistini a baritone?


----------



## nina foresti

My bad. Of course he was a baritone ... and among the very best.
Another beauty (in more ways than just his gorgeous baritone voice) was Ettore Bastianini (my top favorite baritone), who had a sadly untimely death from cancer.


----------



## DavidA

nina foresti said:


> My bad. Of course he was a baritone ... and among the very best.
> Another beauty (in more ways than just his gorgeous baritone voice) was Ettore Bastianini (my top favorite baritone), who had a sadly untimely death from cancer.


Yes, sadly Bastianini became best known for getting fired from Decca's Otello when he hadn't allegedly learned the part of Iago properly. Pity about that.


----------



## wkasimer

DavidA said:


> Yes, sadly Bastianini became best known for getting fired from Decca's Otello when he hadn't allegedly learned the part of Iago properly.


That's certainly not the first thing that I think of when someone mentions Bastianini....


----------



## DavidA

wkasimer said:


> That's certainly not the first thing that I think of when someone mentions Bastianini....


Maybe because I read Culshaw's 'Putting the Record Straight' years ago and it made an impression. He had a fine voice which is why Culshaw chose him to play Iago. I did have his recording of Rigoletto once but let it go. He appeared to be a fine voice but not overmuch character acting.


----------



## Revitalized Classics

DavidA said:


> Yes, sadly Bastianini became best known for getting fired from Decca's Otello when he hadn't allegedly learned the part of Iago properly. Pity about that.


I think he is "best known" for the many brilliant recordings he did make... 77 opera recordings by one count: https://www.operadis-opera-discography.org.uk/CLSIBAST.HTM

Bastianini was no Ernst Kozub: his short career was brilliant and he arguably did realise a lot of his promise despite his career being tragically cut short. Iago would have been nice but there were a ton of important gigs and luckily a lot were recorded.

Lets think about it, Callas isn't "best known" for the _Macbeths_ at the Met she didn't sing, Corelli isn't just the-guy-who-didn't-sing-_Otello_ and Bjorling's posthumous reputation is going just fine despite not recording _Ballo_ with Solti.


----------



## DavidA

Revitalized Classics said:


> I* think he is "best known" for the many brilliant recordings he did make*... 77 opera recordings by one count: https://www.operadis-opera-discography.org.uk/CLSIBAST.HTM
> 
> Bastianini was no Ernst Kozub: his short career was brilliant and he arguably did realise a lot of his promise despite his career being tragically cut short. Iago would have been nice but there were a ton of important gigs and luckily a lot were recorded.
> 
> Lets think about it, Callas isn't "best known" for the _Macbeths_ at the Met she didn't sing, Corelli isn't just the-guy-who-didn't-sing-_Otello_ and Bjorling's posthumous reputation is going just fine despite not recording _Ballo_ with Solti.


You're probably right. I was speaking personally not having had much contact with his recordings. Bjorling's posthumous reputation would have been enhanced had he recorded Ballo, however. Culshaw reckoned it to be 'one of the great performances of our time' and it was his reason for recording Ballo in the first place. Pity it didn't work out.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> Yes this is the point I am making. *You do have to use a lot of imagination to get past the old recording. I often wonder it's what we hear or whether it's what we imagine we hear.* I do respect people who obviously know more about singing than me and I do hear some of the things you mention. Just that as recorded the voice does not give me (my personal view) an awful lot of pleasure in repeated listening. Of course what he was like in the theatre we can only imagine.


And the point OTHERS are making is that there are things one can actually HEAR - not "imagine" - in singers recorded before the era of modern recording. For the most part, the only thing one can't hear - to a variable extent - is the exact timbre of the voice. The baritone range, as it happens, was generally the best match for the frequencies which acoustic recordings were able to register, and we therefore have a closer approximation to the actual sound of baritone voices than to the sound of higher or lower voices. Caruso, a tenor with a baritonal timbre, is said to have recorded particularly well, but of course his voice would have been even more impressive heard live (hard as that is to get one's head around!). Women, in general, recorded less well, with sopranos suffering the most, their voices losing both depth and brilliance. Here's a good illustration of what happened to them, and in this example we're not even talking about acoustic recordings but rather comparing a live recording from 1937 with an electrical studio recording from 1928:






We could be listening to a different singer, though we can hear that the vibrato action and the musical approach are the same.

With baritones we're much better off. Riccardo Stracciari sounded like this on a (very early) 1904 acoustical






this on a 1917 acoustical






and this on a 1930 electrical






Not only is he recognizably the same singer, but we can hear that his voice shows little decline in quality over the years (he was 55 in 1930). 1930 is still not very recent as recordings go, but there's very little we can't tell about the superb baritone that he was.

It may be difficult or impossible to imagine the true timbre and impact of singers recorded in the prewar era, but it's what we can actually HEAR, not what we have to imagine, that enables us to make judgments about their capabilities, and that gives those who appreciate the fine points of vocal technique and style a great deal of pleasure. Speaking for myself, what I get from hearing a master singer such as Battistini or Caruso is often something beyond pleasure. It's a glimpse into a wonderful musical and cultural milieu otherwise inaccessible, and very precious.


----------



## howlingfantods

DavidA said:


> You're probably right. I was speaking personally not having had much contact with his recordings.


Bastianini is great as Carlo in Forza, Rodrigo in Don Carlo, Di Luna in Trovatore. He tends to sound a little bored in the Dad baritone roles like Germont, he tends to be best in stirring and heroic or antiheroic roles like Rodrigo and Carlo. I like his Rigoletto a little more than you do--I think there's loads of good singing on that disc, although I'll concede there are times when he's under-emotive.

His technique is less than stellar at times, but he also possessed a uniquely beautiful voice. He started his career as a bass before retraining as a baritone when he was around 30, in the early 1950s, and his voice retained a certain atypical resonance and richness. Over the next decade, he performed on stage in dozens of newly learned baritone roles, which is one of the reasons Culshaw's contention that he simply couldn't learn a role for a studio recording (a far easier task than learning a role for the stage) is extremely implausible.

His reputation was diminished in the 60s when he continued singing after contracting a throat tumor in 1962, which led to some very uneven performances in the last few years of his life before succumbing to his illness in 1967. Since no one knew of his illness, the assumption was just that he had lost it early before his shocking death at 45 years old made his illness a matter of public knowledge.


----------



## DavidA

howlingfantods said:


> Bastianini is great as Carlo in Forza, Rodrigo in Don Carlo, Di Luna in Trovatore. He tends to sound a little bored in the Dad baritone roles like Germont, he tends to be best in stirring and heroic or antiheroic roles like Rodrigo and Carlo. I like his Rigoletto a little more than you do--I think there's loads of good singing on that disc, although I'll concede there are times when he's under-emotive.
> 
> His technique is less than stellar at times, but he also possessed a uniquely beautiful voice. He started his career as a bass before retraining as a baritone when he was around 30, in the early 1950s, and his voice retained a certain atypical resonance and richness. Over the next decade, he performed on stage in dozens of newly learned baritone roles, *which is one of the reasons Culshaw's contention that he simply couldn't learn a role for a studio recording (a far easier task than learning a role for the stage) is extremely implausible. *
> 
> His reputation was diminished in the 60s when he continued singing after contracting a throat tumor in 1962, which led to some very uneven performances in the last few years of his life before succumbing to his illness in 1967. Since no one knew of his illness, the assumption was just that he had lost it early before his shocking death at 45 years old made his illness a matter of public knowledge.


What do you think, then, was the reason for hiring Protti (who Culshaw admits no-one wanted as he had been inadequate in the previous Decca Otello) instead of Bastianini?


----------



## howlingfantods

DavidA said:


> What do you think, then, was the reason for hiring Protti (who Cuylshaw admits no-one wanted as he had been inadequate in the previous Decca Otello) instead of Bastianini?


Karajan being Karajan, I would guess. Perhaps Karajan and Bastianini had a difference of opinion about how the role should be performed, or perhaps Bastianini hit on Karajan's lady friend, or perhaps Bastianini said something rude about Austrians. Who knows. The only implausible story is the one that Culshaw offered.


----------



## DavidA

One of the great Verdi baritones on a slightly offbeat topic


----------



## DavidA

Another interview with Merrill. Sorry about the po-faced interviewer!


----------



## DavidA

howlingfantods said:


> Karajan being Karajan, I would guess. Perhaps Karajan and Bastianini had a difference of opinion about how the role should be performed, or perhaps Bastianini hit on Karajan's lady friend, or perhaps Bastianini said something rude about Austrians. Who knows. The only implausible story is the one that Culshaw offered.


Why implausible? Of course, Karajan had a habit of asking singers to perform without scores which may have been the problem but I doubt it at that stage. Karajan was not then quite the absolute master of the world he later became. I just can't think of why he would have wanted Bastianini out of the way. Your explanations about Karajan's lady friends are highly implausible as Karajan had recently married his third wife and was smitten at the time.


----------



## howlingfantods

DavidA said:


> Why implausible? Of course, Karajan had a habit of asking singers to perform without scores which may have been the problem but I doubt it at that stage. Karajan was not then quite the absolute master of the world he later became. I just can't think of why he would have wanted Bastianini out of the way. Your explanations about Karajan's lady friends are highly implausible as Karajan had recently married his third wife and was smitten at the time.


As I explained in my original post, it's extremely implausible since Bastianini learned dozens of baritone roles including most of the major Verdi roles for live stage performance in the decade before the Otello recording. It's far easier to learn a role for studio recording than for the stage, and there's nothing particularly difficult about memorizing the Iago role, no more so than Di Luna or Rodrigo--both roles by the way that he performed live under Karajan's baton at Salzburg. Saying that a world famous Verdi baritone was unable to learn a Verdi role for studio performance is almost insultingly implausible, a gossamer thin cover story.


----------



## DavidA

howlingfantods said:


> As I explained in my original post, it's extremely implausible since Bastianini learned dozens of baritone roles including most of the major Verdi roles for live stage performance in the decade before the Otello recording. It's far easier to learn a role for studio recording than for the stage, and there's nothing particularly difficult about memorizing the Iago role, no more so than Di Luna or Rodrigo--both roles by the way that he performed live under Karajan's baton at Salzburg. Saying that a world famous Verdi baritone was unable to learn a Verdi role for studio performance is *almost insultingly implausible, a gossamer thin cover story*.


The problem is that your theories are implausible - he appeared under Karajan in Trovatore in 1962 just a year after Otello so any suggestion of a 'fall out' appears to be implausible. Karajan was not the sort to re-engage a singer he had taken a dislike to. Bastinianini was a singer in demand at the time of Otello so my theory is that he was just too busy to learn his part properly - as Culshaw says 'surprising for a man of his intelligence'. I admit the whole thing is a puzzle but that to me is the most likely explanation. There were other examples like Kozub not learning Siegfried.


----------



## DavidA

DavidA said:


> Another interview with Merrill. Sorry about the po-faced interviewer!


Love this quote: "You're a human being first, then an artist. If you try it the other way round you get into trouble."


----------



## DavidA

Hi family could sing too! Dreadfully corny show though! :lol:


----------



## Bonetan

Here's a modern one. Thoughts?


----------



## Sieglinde

Love him. Has the right kind of sound and he's also a good actor (seen him as Renato, Rigoletto and Don Carlo di Vargas).


----------



## Bonetan

Sieglinde said:


> Love him. Has the right kind of sound and he's also a good actor (seen him as Renato, Rigoletto and Don Carlo di Vargas).


He seems like a fine singer to me. What separates him from someone like Milnes or Verdi baritones from even further in the past? I'm not honed at evaluating recorded voices in this way, so I'm looking forward to hearing your opinion or any opinions others have to offer


----------



## Bonetan

This guy is enjoying big success as a Verdi baritone right now at only 33. Dark voice for a baritone. I wonder how it projects...aria at 3:50


----------



## Seattleoperafan

I wonder if the dearth in great baritones is due to baritones no longer being represented in popular music. Now it is only tenors. Most people start becoming aware of music through the radio and young people used to have Sinatra, Andy Williams, Elvis, Tom Jones, Jack Jones, Nat King Cole who made baritonal voices sexy. From the 70's on we only had David Bowie pretty much. I say there likely are just the same number of people with the talent to become great baritones, but they are not being seduced into the field.


----------



## Woodduck

Seattleoperafan said:


> I wonder if the dearth in great baritones is due to baritones no longer being represented in popular music. Now it is only tenors. Most people start becoming aware of music through the radio and young people used to have Sinatra, Andy Williams, Elvis, Tom Jones, Jack Jones, Nat King Cole who made baritonal voices sexy. From the 70's on we only had David Bowie pretty much. I say there likely are just the same number of people with the talent to become great baritones, but they are not being seduced into the field.


I don't know about a connection to opera, but I think the disappearance of the baritone in popular music is a consequence of the takeover of popular culture by children. Baritones sound like adults, which became a disreputable stage of life in the '60s; young people stopped wanting to grow up, and grownups started wanting to be teenagers. Baritones may survive in country music, but I avoid that genre whenever possible.


----------



## Rogerx

Sherrill Milnes: Verdi - Macbeth, 'Pietà, rispetto, amore'


----------



## The Conte

Rogerx said:


> Sherrill Milnes: Verdi - Macbeth, 'Pietà, rispetto, amore'


Now _that's_ a baritone!

N.


----------



## vivalagentenuova

Never been a fan of Sherrill Milnes. His voice sounds "collapsed" to me, as though the tone is thinned out and not full and ringing. I'd take him over most of the baritones at the MET today, but to me he's an example of the negative trends in baritone singing over the last 50 years: collapsed sound; distorted vowels, especially on top notes; and breathy, whispery interpretations in recordings.


----------



## DavidA

vivalagentenuova said:


> Never been a fan of Sherrill Milnes. His voice sounds "collapsed" to me, as though the tone is thinned out and not full and ringing. I'd take him over most of the baritones at the MET today, but to me he's an example of the negative trends in baritone singing over the last 50 years: collapsed sound; distorted vowels, especially on top notes; and breathy, whispery interpretations in recordings.


Frankly I don't know what you mean by 'collapsed'. He sounds fine to me. Maybe too recent for your taste? In everything I have with him singing - Macbeth, Rigoletto, Iago - he is splendid - up there with the best. I've just checked other reviews of his singing in various journals - none of them mention the 'collapsed' tone you speak of.


----------



## Woodduck

vivalagentenuova said:


> Never been a fan of Sherrill Milnes. His voice sounds "collapsed" to me, as though the tone is thinned out and not full and ringing. I'd take him over most of the baritones at the MET today, but to me he's an example of the negative trends in baritone singing over the last 50 years: collapsed sound; distorted vowels, especially on top notes; and breathy, whispery interpretations in recordings.


"Collapsed" is a metaphor not everyone may get, but I know exactly what you mean. I wonder why Milnes gets more attention than, say, Giuseppe Taddei? Maybe just because he's a bit more recent and made more recordings? Or because he's better-looking? In this aria he shows a freer, more open and ringing vocal production than Milnes:






Of course we could go back to Battistini, here at age 56:






About as far from "collapsed" as a voice can get!


----------



## vivalagentenuova

It's a pretty consistent feature of Milnes' voice. It has a hollow core. I know he's well regarded, but so are a number of less than stellar singers. I expect many reviewers just take it to be "his sound", or his unique timbre, but you can identify the same problem in the voice of many other recent male singers if you listen very closely. For comparison, Mattia Battistini sings with strong core all the way through. It's not just a difference in their natural timbre, but that Battistini's voice is fully engaged where Milnes' is not.





You can hear the collapsed sound very strongly in the Milnes recording posted above by Rogerx at a few places: 204-2:07 on the words "a di cadenti", especially on the "ca". The core drops out of his voice and it is a very hollow, unclear "ah" vowel. By contrast, Battistini at 1:26 in his video sings it correctly: rich, solid sound with core. The following "ah, non spargeran" passage also makes a good point of comparison. Milnes makes it very obvious again at "la tua canuta eta, non spargeran" at 2:21-2:31. Compare with Battistini at 1:43-1:50. Battistini makes non of the spluttery, gaspy, hollow sounds that Milnes does in this phrase. It's because Milnes' voice is not properly engaged but Battistini's is.

If you listen to Milnes and Battistini singing these short, excerpted passages multiple times you might hear the difference in the _kind_ of sounds that they are making. It's important to listen to short passages many times to distinguish the precise kind of sound. It's not an issue of natural timbre. We're not listening to compare timbre at all. We're listening to compare core, which, for all their imperfections, you can hear on old recordings. All the old baritones up through Bechi and Merrill sounded more like Battistini, and the modern baritones sound more like Milnes.

Another point of comparison:





Listen to Milnes at 7:40 singing "Io morro ma lieto in core", Just that short phrase, up through 7:48.

Now listen to Gino Bechi sing the same phrase, also piano, at 1:18-1:28.





All I hear with Bechi is rich, full, Corelli-if-he-were-a-baritone sound, but even smoother than Corelli. With Milnes it sounds like he's running out of air, even though it's the beginning of the phrase and he presumably just took a breath. The sound is stopped, can't get out, whereas with Bechi it is pouring out and sounds like he couldn't stop it if he tried. I'm getting metaphorical, but there is a very clear, audible difference in their sounds, and Bechi is a lot like what Battistini would sound like on better recording equipment. Very different from Milnes' collapsed sound.


----------



## vivalagentenuova

Woodduck said:


> "Collapsed" is a metaphor not everyone may get, but I know exactly what you mean. I wonder why Milnes gets more attention than, say, Giuseppe Taddei? Maybe just because he's a bit more recent and made more recordings? Or because he's better-looking? In this aria he shows a freer, more open and ringing vocal production than Milnes:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course we could go back to Battistini, here at age 56:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> About as far from "collapsed" as a voice can get!


Ha! I didn't see that you'd already posted Battistini, but you're right on. As solid and "uncollapsed" as you can get. And absolutely agree about Taddei. An excellent baritone, especially early in his career. He's in the 1940 _Andrea Chenier_ with Gigli, Caniglia Simionato and Bechi. I listened to the whole thing during a traffic jam on a recent car trip, and it's an embarrassment of riches. The very young Taddei in that recording is pretty awesome, though Bechi is even greater.
And yeah, terminology is difficult. I'm not sure what might work better as a metaphor than collapsed. Hollow? Coreless? It's so hard to describe sound.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> Frankly I don't know what you mean by 'collapsed'. He sounds fine to me. Maybe too recent for your taste? In everything I have with him singing - Macbeth, Rigoletto, Iago - he is splendid - up there with the best. I've just checked other reviews of his singing in various journals - none of them mention the 'collapsed' tone you speak of.


Reviewers write for the general public, and most of them aren't experts on vocal technique. When I read opera reviews I'm constantly stunned by the lack of knowledge and the inappropriateness of the notions called upon to describe singing. A voice with a big wobble will be described as "vibrant" and so forth... I think, too, that there's a reluctance to criticize singers when they're the best we have.


----------



## Woodduck

vivalagentenuova said:


> All I hear with Bechi is rich, full, Corelli-if-he-were-a-baritone sound, but even smoother than Corelli. With Milnes it sounds like he's running out of air, even though it's the beginning of the phrase and he presumably just took a breath. The sound is stopped, can't get out, whereas with Bechi it is pouring out and sounds like he couldn't stop it if he tried. I'm getting metaphorical, but there is a very clear, audible difference in their sounds, and Bechi is a lot like what Battistini would sound like on better recording equipment. Very different from Milnes' collapsed sound.


Bechi is extraordinary here. There isn't a baritone in the world who can even approximate a sound like this, or the kind of expressiveness that such a technique makes possible. Old-school singing!

Here's Battistini at age 56 (he recorded the aria again in his 60s but was by then showing signs of vocal decline):


----------



## DavidA

vivalagentenuova said:


> Ha! I didn't see that you'd already posted Battistini, but you're right on. As solid and "uncollapsed" as you can get. And absolutely agree about Taddei. An excellent baritone, especially early in his career. He's in the 1940 _Andrea Chenier_ with Gigli, Caniglia Simionato and Bechi. I listened to the whole thing during a traffic jam on a recent car trip, and it's an embarrassment of riches. The very young Taddei in that recording is pretty awesome, though Bechi is even greater.
> And yeah, terminology is difficult. I'm not sure what might work better as a metaphor than collapsed. Hollow? Coreless? It's so hard to describe sound.


Of course I suppose you would go on about the great Gobbi also as being 'collapsed'?


----------



## vivalagentenuova

Gobbi is not quite at the same level, vocally speaking, as Bechi and Battistini, but he's a very good singer, far superior to Milnes. His sound usually has core. He loses it occasionally.


----------



## vivalagentenuova

Woodduck said:


> Reviewers write for the general public, and most of them aren't experts on vocal technique. When I read opera reviews I'm constantly stunned by the lack of knowledge and the inappropriateness of the notions called upon to describe singing. A voice with a big wobble will be described as "vibrant" and so forth... I think, too, that there's a reluctance to criticize singers when they're the best we have.


That reluctance is going to have to disappear if we are going to get better singers. I am also frequently shocked (though not surprised) by the judgments of major critics. Take this Gramophone review of Nina Stemme's shrieking in Gergiev's _Die Walkure_:


Clueless reviewer said:


> Stemme has the measure of her role in spades and her strong, pure, just slightly chilled tones (a description, not a criticism) deliver memorably the great curve of Act 3 - fear, defiance, guilt, more defiance to almost flirtation.


That's a review of this performance:




Out of tune, shrill, collapsed, about as bad as it can get. And Stemme is an operatic superstar!

Clean out your ears with Marta Fuchs, virtual unknown from the 30s:


----------



## DavidA

vivalagentenuova said:


> Gobbi is not quite at the same level, vocally speaking, as Bechi and Battistini, but he's a very good singer, far superior to Milnes. His sound usually has core. He loses it occasionally.


I'm sure the great singer would have been pleased to hear your criticism!


----------



## DavidA

'Reviewers write for the general public'

You know what? Singers sing for the general public too!


----------



## silentio

vivalagentenuova said:


> That reluctance is going to have to disappear if we are going to get better singers. I am also frequently shocked (though not surprised) by the judgments of major critics. Take this Gramophone review of Nina Stemme's shrieking in Gergiev's _Die Walkure_:
> 
> That's a review of this performance:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Out of tune, shrill, collapsed, about as bad as it can get. And Stemme is an operatic superstar!
> 
> Clean out your ears with Marta Fuchs, virtual unknown from the 30s:


When I first got the Historical Naxos release of Die Walkure Excerpts (Act I & II), I was the most impressed not by supposed stars of the set, Lehmann and Melchior, but by Fuchs' warm, feminine, and secure Brunnhilde. I wonder why she was not better known. There is a full 1942 Gotterdammerung with Fuchs and Set Svanholm, conducted by Karl Elmendorff (also a great conductor but sadly forgotten today). In the live document, we can tell she was not as stable on the high notes as Flagstad, Leider, or Traubel, and was a bit exhausted towards the end (but it was the 4hrs Gotterdammerung anyways!), but nonetheless it was healthy Wagnerian singing: strong chest and middle, free of the "out of tune, shrill, collapsed" singing as you mentioned in that contemporary "superstar". The dialogue with Waltraute and the confrontation with Siegfried at the end of Act 1 showed her at her best.


----------



## DavidA

vivalagentenuova said:


> That reluctance is going to have to disappear if we are going to get better singers. I am also frequently shocked (though not surprised) by the judgments of major critics. Take this Gramophone review of Nina Stemme's shrieking in Gergiev's _Die Walkure_:
> 
> That's a review of this performance:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Out of tune, shrill, collapsed, about as bad as it can get. And Stemme is an operatic superstar!
> 
> Clean out your ears with Marta Fuchs, virtual unknown from the 30s:


Sorry but how does this excerpt of Wagnerian sopranos for in with a thread on Verdi baritones? Please keep to the point of the thread.


----------



## vivalagentenuova

So no response to the substance of any of the points I made?


----------



## Woodduck

^^^Stemme isn't great, but she's no worse than many others. Hildegard Behrens seems similar, though much more secure on top:






Worse, to my ears, is the pressurized lunging of Martha Modl:






At the bottom of the barrel I locate Deborah Voigt, post-weight-loss (start at 0:40):






The Met really should've known better. Christine Goerke is certainly an improvement, though not up to past Met Leider/Flagstad/Traubel/Nilsson standards. We're still waiting for a proper successor to those ladies.

I should add, to avoid being chided for helping to sidetrack the thread, that we're also waiting for proper successors to Battistini, Stracciari, Tibbett, Bechi, and any number of prewar baritones.


----------



## vivalagentenuova

Behrens is the best out of that bunch, though yes, Flagstad, Leider, Traubel, Nilsson, Fuchs, Lawrence, Lubin and on and on were in a whole different class. Goerke is less strident, but still collapsed. Lise Davidsen is the new "one in a million" voice according to the NYT, but she's also collapsed, and I could list 30 greater singers from the 30s alone just in the dramatic fach! There seems to be no sense of history or knowing about the great singers of the past by journalists or even conductors or even singing teachers!

In any case, Giuseppe de Luca apparently had the same teacher as Battistini. He shows the same strong voice and elegant style:


----------



## The Conte

"I don't think you would want an artist, a real artist that cannot act." - Maria Callas

My favourite baritone roles were written by Verdi and they require vocal strength, impeccable legato and artists that know how to act (both vocally and visually). Gobbi and Milnes are my favourite (with Battistini and Tibbett coming close behind). It's unfair to compare Battistini with later singers as no complete recording of his exists. How to compare the triumph of Gobbi's complete recording of Rigoletto with Battistini's two duet recordings totalling little more than six minutes? At least there is a live recording of Tibbett in the role and I can't listen to anyone other than Gobbi, Milnes or Tibbett in that opera (other than Battistini's excerpts).

Fortunately there are a number of recordings of Battistini in Ernani and these are not only amongst his greatest recordings, but the are candidates for the greatest baritone singing of recorded history. Let's be clear, Battistini could eat Milnes for breakfast when it comes to technique, roundness of tone (and therefore beauty in the voice), but Milnes was an artist who could make up for that with his shaggy, intense interpretations. 

I like Stracciari too, although Bechi has never really done much for me (although I haven't heard much of his singing). Taddei had a fine voice, but I often find him dull. Although it depends on what he is singing I have to admit.

N.


----------



## The Conte

vivalagentenuova said:


> That reluctance is going to have to disappear if we are going to get better singers. I am also frequently shocked (though not surprised) by the judgments of major critics. Take this Gramophone review of Nina Stemme's shrieking in Gergiev's _Die Walkure_:
> 
> That's a review of this performance:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Out of tune, shrill, collapsed, about as bad as it can get. And Stemme is an operatic superstar!
> 
> Clean out your ears with Marta Fuchs, virtual unknown from the 30s:


Yes, what a difference. Fuchs is on a whole different level technically. Solidly supported, the registers are perfectly integrated and the vowels pure. Plus she has musicality in spades (which I doubt Stemme could match even without her shortcomings). That said, Leider's singing of this passage is unmatched (even Flagstad and Nilsson can't approach her).

N.


----------



## DavidA

The Conte said:


> "I don't think you would want an artist, a real artist that cannot act." - Maria Callas
> 
> My favourite baritone roles were written by Verdi and they require vocal strength, impeccable legato and artists that know how to act (both vocally and visually). Gobbi and Milnes are my favourite (with Battistini and Tibbett coming close behind). It's unfair to compare Battistini with later singers as no complete recording of his exists. How to compare the triumph of Gobbi's complete recording of Rigoletto with Battistini's two duet recordings totalling little more than six minutes? At least there is a live recording of Tibbett in the role and *I can't listen to anyone other than Gobbi, Milnes or Tibbett in that opera* (other than Battistini's excerpts).
> 
> Fortunately there are a number of recordings of Battistini in Ernani and these are not only amongst his greatest recordings, but the are candidates for the greatest baritone singing of recorded history. Let's be clear, Battistini could eat Milnes for breakfast when it comes to technique, roundness of tone (and therefore beauty in the voice), but Milnes was an artist who could make up for that with his shaggy, intense interpretations.
> 
> I like Stracciari too, although Bechi has never really done much for me (although I haven't heard much of his singing). *Taddei had a fine voice, but I often find him dull.* Although it depends on what he is singing I have to admit.
> 
> N.


No-one else? Poor you! I find the first recording I had of that opera by Krauss, Moffo and Merrill very good indeed. Indeed it still stands up to the competition pretty well. Merrill had a wonderful voice. I've also got Zancanaro in the role who stands up to most competition despite Muti's conducting. 
I find it incomprehensible that you dint Taddei dull. You heard his Scarpia or Tonio for Karajan or his Leporello for Giulini? Even his late Falstaff for Karajan where the voice was not what it was? The opposite of 'dull' is what I would use.


----------



## The Conte

DavidA said:


> No-one else? Poor you! I find the first recording I had of that opera by Krauss, Moffo and Merrill very good indeed. Indeed it still stands up to the competition pretty well. Merrill had a wonderful voice. I've also got Zancanaro in the role who stands up to most competition despite Muti's conducting.
> I find it incomprehensible that you dint Taddei dull. You heard his Scarpia or Tonio for Karajan or his Leporello for Giulini? Even his late Falstaff for Karajan where the voice was not what it was? The opposite of 'dull' is what I would use.


"Although it depends on what he is singing I have to admit."

This quote of mine should have told you that there are exceptions to my lack of enthusiasm for Taddei. One is the Giulini Don Giovanni, another is his early Cetra Barber. I can't remember his Scarpia and haven't heard his Falstaff. As for the Karajan Pagliacci, I find the whole thing a complete and utter bore. There's a nice sound from the orchestra, I suppose, but opera audiences should have their spines chilled and so Gobbi with Di Stefano or Corelli, Tibbett with Martinelli, Milnes with Domingo and Merill with Bjorling all float my boat. The Karajan Pagliacci is what refined people refer to as 'the epitome of style' (or something similar). Style?! It's an Italian melodrama in music for goodness sake! Give me Serafin, Panizza or Cellini any day!

If Bergonzi fans want to hear the object of their desire in Pagliacci, then his early Cetra recording that finds him in unashamed, passionate voice would be my recommendation.

N.


----------



## vivalagentenuova

The Conte said:


> Let's be clear, Battistini could eat Milnes for breakfast when it comes to technique, roundness of tone (and therefore beauty in the voice), but Milnes was an artist who could make up for that with his shaggy, intense interpretations.


This is the sticking point for me. Take the two clips of "O Carlo ascolta... Io morro ma lieto in core" from _Don Carlo_ that I posted above. It's not just about Bechi having a better voice, although he unquestionably does. It's that his technique allows him to be expressive in ways that Milnes cannot because of his flaws. For example, the smoothness with which Bechi sings the first line, "Io morro ma lieto in core" is in fact expressive, a) because Verdi wrote a naturally expressive melody, b) because you can actually hear the words very clearly, and it sounds more like Bechi is speaking a text supported by constant tone than he is doing whatever Milnes is doing, c) because the apparent ease with which he produces the sound allows me to focus on the "Acting" part without filtering out all kinds of ugly sounds; d) to me a proper opera voice is inherently expressive, and more moving than whatever shading and musicality singers without proper voices attempt to compensate with.

Take the way Milnes and Bechi handle the repeat back to "Io morro" after the middle section of the aria (8:40 for Milnes, 2:29 for Bechi). Milnes has been coughing and spluttering in the interim to sound like he's dying. Bechi hasn't, yet he somehow still expresses that he's dying. Anyway, as they come up to the "io morir per te, ahhhh, Io morro" part, Milnes constricts his sound and goes soft. Bechi also does a diminuendo, yet he does it not be constricting the sound but by using his registration to move the sound towards head voice. The tone gets sweeter, really, rather than a lot quieter. In fact, Bechi pushes this almost to the point of cutting off the sound, but then pulls it back and goes into a full chest repeat. This means that not only do we hear every word and still get the sense of diminuendo, he also maintains an elegant legato throughout. He uses this same method at the very end of the aria when he actually dies, except he then breaks the tone and expires. It's a riveting, characterful performance that demonstrates how vocal technique, including proper registration and ability to precisely control whether the sound is more head voice or more chest voice, allows Bechi to expressive, musical, and intelligible all at the same time. It's a masterclass in perfect opera singing. I find that kind of acting to be far more moving and meaningful than what Milnes does, or what many modern singers do, which is mostly just to sing in a tiny, inaudible, and dull voice and call it subtlety. Old singers didn't mistake less sound for greater subtlety and expressiveness.


----------



## DavidA

The Conte said:


> "Although it depends on what he is singing I have to admit."
> 
> This quote of mine should have told you that there are exceptions to my lack of enthusiasm for Taddei. One is the Giulini Don Giovanni, another is his early Cetra Barber. I can't remember his Scarpia and haven't heard his Falstaff. *As for the Karajan Pagliacci, I find the whole thing a complete and utter bore.* There's a nice sound from the orchestra, I suppose, but opera audiences should have their spines chilled and so Gobbi with Di Stefano or Corelli, Tibbett with Martinelli, Milnes with Domingo and Merill with Bjorling all float my boat. The Karajan Pagliacci is what refined people refer to as 'the epitome of style' (or something similar). Style?! It's an Italian melodrama in music for goodness sake! Give me Serafin, Panizza or Cellini any day!
> 
> If Bergonzi fans want to hear the object of their desire in Pagliacci, then his early Cetra recording that finds him in unashamed, passionate voice would be my recommendation.
> 
> N.


A bore? Well no accounting for taste I suppose! I wonder sometimes if we are hearing the same performances but then life on TC would be dull if we all thought the same. Of course there are other ways of doing it but I actually find the absence of rug cutting enhances the drama. But each to his own. I find Taddei chills the spine sufficiently and Bergonzi is absolutely superb. I've also got the likes of Bjorling and Corelli so I do appreciate different styles.


----------



## Revitalized Classics

DavidA said:


> A bore? Well no accounting for taste I suppose! I wonder sometimes if we are hearing the same performances but then life on TC would be dull if we all thought the same. Of course there are other ways of doing it but I actually find the absence of rug cutting enhances the drama. But each to his own. I find Taddei chills the spine sufficiently and Bergonzi is absolutely superb. I've also got the likes of Bjorling and Corelli so I do appreciate different styles.


There is definitely room for different styles. I'm not sure in terms of execution if that recording is everything it is cracked up to be.

In the case of Bergonzi, we know he could be a more forthright and exciting Canio since there was a previous studio recording and a live one with Cleva. I didn't find those especially vulgar performances given the genre (_pace_ Del Monaco and Gigli)... and if I wanted a tasteful performance, Bjorling's was more beautifully sung in any case than any of Bergonzi's, including low-key-Karajan.

Regarding Taddei, I think it is his only recording of _Pagliacci_ so it is nice to have as a memento. By this point his voice could be rather unsteady (compared to the fifties). He could still sound good e.g. the Schippers _Macbeth_ but I'm not always enamoured about his collaborations with Karajan.

If we compare his Scarpia from 1962 with Karajan to 1957 with Serafin, I find Taddei more finicky and underlining dynamic contrasts in a way which is a bit mannered. The slow tempos can be a bit of a strain too which emphasises any vocal unsteadiness.

The Pagliacci-as-blood-sport angle was already pretty well covered during this period by the Matacic recording from La Scala where Gobbi was terrific, larger than life. Taddei could have went in this direction, but this would probably not have fitted the Karajan concept.

Conversely, there was already the recording by Molinari-Pradelli which showed the way for a more tasteful approach, at least as far as the baritone was concerned. MacNeil was in glorious voice, steadier and more beautiful than Taddei, Gobbi and even Merrill, as well as phrasing more subtly than the latter.

With the Karajan set I'm not always convinced that we get the best-of-both worlds: rather we have exciting artists evidently tailoring their singing for the microphone.


----------



## DavidA

Revitalized Classics said:


> There is definitely room for different styles. I'm not sure in terms of execution if that recording is everything it is cracked up to be.
> 
> In the case of Bergonzi, we know he could be a more forthright and exciting Canio since there was a previous studio recording and a live one with Cleva. I didn't find those especially vulgar performances given the genre (_pace_ Del Monaco and Gigli)... and if I wanted a tasteful performance, Bjorling's was more beautifully sung in any case than any of Bergonzi's, including low-key-Karajan.
> 
> Regarding Taddei, I think it is his only recording of _Pagliacci_ so it is nice to have as a memento. *By this point his voice could be rather unsteady* (compared to the fifties). He could still sound good e.g. the Schippers _Macbeth_ but I'm not always enamoured about his collaborations with Karajan.
> 
> If we compare his Scarpia from 1962 with Karajan to 1957 with Serafin, I find Taddei more finicky and underlining dynamic contrasts in a way which is a bit mannered. The slow tempos can be a bit of a strain too which emphasises any vocal unsteadiness.
> 
> The Pagliacci-as-blood-sport angle was already pretty well covered during this period by the Matacic recording from La Scala where Gobbi was terrific, larger than life. Taddei could have went in this direction, but this would probably not have fitted the Karajan concept.
> 
> Conversely, there was already the recording by Molinari-Pradelli which showed the way for a more tasteful approach, at least as far as the baritone was concerned. MacNeil was in glorious voice, steadier and more beautiful than Taddei, Gobbi and even Merrill, as well as phrasing more subtly than the latter.
> 
> With the Karajan set I'm not always convinced that we get the best-of-both worlds: *rather we have exciting artists evidently tailoring their singing for the microphone.*


Funny I'm listening to the Karajan Pagliacci and are you sure we are talking about the same recording? Taddei unsteady? He sounds anything but to me on here. Yes the conventional way with Pagliacci was well covered by recordings like the Matacic which I have on disc and which is very good but Karajan brought something different to the conventional. Of course, if you are a traditionalist (you probably are) you won't like them but an awful lot of people to reassess the opera. After all, if one approach has been covered well why do it again the same way?
As for your comment about 'singing for the microphone, isn't that what all singers do in studio recordings? It seems to me an odd (though well worn) cliche to fall back on.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> As for your comment about *'singing for the microphone, isn't that what all singers do* in studio recordings? It seems to me an odd (though well worn) cliche to fall back on.


Singers sing _in front of_ a microphone, not _for_ it. Those who sing _for_ it are those who fail to make us forget that it's there - i.e., that they're making a recording rather than giving a performance. We all know that the excitement of performing live, interacting with colleagues and an audience, is hard to duplicate in the studio, and at the extreme studio jobs can seem either unnatural (from the intrusive use of technology) or simply bland (from the artists' inability to be inspired under studio conditions). To a certain extent it may be necessary to "tone it down" a little when making a recording; Callas thought so, but of course even a toned-down Callas performance is still pretty remarkable. Ask most singers to tone it down and what's left won't be terribly interesting. I'd guess that most singers, faced with a microphone and the prospect of short, out-of-sequence takes, need to make a special effort to "get it up." It's not at all surprising that even very good studio recordings of opera tend not to generate the frisson of "you are there."


----------



## Revitalized Classics

DavidA said:


> Funny I'm listening to the Karajan Pagliacci and are you sure we are talking about the same recording? Taddei unsteady? He sounds anything but to me on here. Yes the conventional way with Pagliacci was well covered by recordings like the Matacic which I have on disc and which is very good but Karajan brought something different to the conventional. Of course, if you are a traditionalist (you probably are) you won't like them but an awful lot of people to reassess the opera. After all, if one approach has been covered well why do it again the same way?
> As for your comment about 'singing for the microphone, isn't that what all singers do in studio recordings? It seems to me an odd (though well worn) cliche to fall back on.


"Taddei unsteady?" Yes, both compared to his younger self where records exist and the aforementioned baritones. It never was a voice with the focus of Gobbi, Bechi, Stabile in any case as it was more bass-baritone: Dulcamara rather than Belcore.

Compare MacNeil's steady voice:





"Of course, if you are a traditionalist (you probably are) you won't like them but an awful lot of people to reassess the opera"

Because taking four minutes longer over the course of an opera makes it unrecognisable? What case are you trying to make for this set?

"After all, if one approach has been covered well why do it again the same way?"

As mentioned, Bjorling/Cellini's refined approach predated Karajan by a decade and with a better cast. Regarding baritones, Molinari-Pradelli and MacNeil showed a bel canto approach in modern times. Callas and De Los Angeles pointed that way too, as did Panerai, Merrill and Monti in the previous decade.

Did Karajan actually set any new standards? I'd suggest yes orchestrally and with the choruses but not necessarily regarding the protagonists.

Given Bergonzi sounded better before, given Taddei does not sound his best, given that the results can sound mannered with results approaching crooning, Karajan's approach was an interesting experiment but at the cost of some vibrancy.

"As for your comment about 'singing for the microphone, isn't that what all singers do in studio recordings? It seems to me an odd (though well worn) cliche to fall back on".

Should I, as the listener, be aware that the recording is a jigsaw of little pieces, recorded out of sequence with each little moment micromanaged within an inch of its life? No. But I am here.


----------



## Revitalized Classics

Woodduck said:


> Singers sing _in front of_ a microphone, not _for_ it. Those who sing _for_ it are those who fail to make us forget that it's there - i.e., that they're making a recording rather than giving a performance. We all know that the excitement of performing live, interacting with colleagues and an audience, is hard to duplicate in the studio, and at the extreme studio jobs can seem either unnatural (from the intrusive use of technology) or simply bland (from the artists' inability to be inspired under studio conditions). To a certain extent it may be necessary to "tone it down" a little when making a recording; Callas thought so, but of course even a toned-down Callas performance is still pretty remarkable. Ask most singers to tone it down and what's left won't be terribly interesting. I'd guess that most singers, faced with a microphone and the prospect of short, out-of-sequence takes, need to make a special effort to "get it up." It's not at all surprising that even very good studio recordings of opera tend not to generate the frisson of "you are there."


Gobbi wrote about the horrible trepidation of the recording light going on during recording sessions.

He and Callas were extraordinarily good in the studio: perhaps they had exceptional concentration...

One of Gobbi's own recordings he did like was the _Nabucco_, appropriately enough for this thread


----------



## The Conte

Revitalized Classics said:


> There is definitely room for different styles. I'm not sure in terms of execution if that recording is everything it is cracked up to be.
> 
> In the case of Bergonzi, we know he could be a more forthright and exciting Canio since there was a previous studio recording and a live one with Cleva. I didn't find those especially vulgar performances given the genre (_pace_ Del Monaco and Gigli)... and if I wanted a tasteful performance, Bjorling's was more beautifully sung in any case than any of Bergonzi's, including low-key-Karajan.
> 
> Regarding Taddei, I think it is his only recording of _Pagliacci_ so it is nice to have as a memento. By this point his voice could be rather unsteady (compared to the fifties). He could still sound good e.g. the Schippers _Macbeth_ but I'm not always enamoured about his collaborations with Karajan.
> 
> If we compare his Scarpia from 1962 with Karajan to 1957 with Serafin, I find Taddei more finicky and underlining dynamic contrasts in a way which is a bit mannered. The slow tempos can be a bit of a strain too which emphasises any vocal unsteadiness.
> 
> The Pagliacci-as-blood-sport angle was already pretty well covered during this period by the Matacic recording from La Scala where Gobbi was terrific, larger than life. Taddei could have went in this direction, but this would probably not have fitted the Karajan concept.
> 
> Conversely, there was already the recording by Molinari-Pradelli which showed the way for a more tasteful approach, at least as far as the baritone was concerned. MacNeil was in glorious voice, steadier and more beautiful than Taddei, Gobbi and even Merrill, as well as phrasing more subtly than the latter.
> 
> *With the Karajan set I'm not always convinced that we get the best-of-both worlds: rather we have exciting artists evidently tailoring their singing for the microphone.*


I 100% agree with your observations here and your last sentence is very much how I feel about the disappointing Karajan Cav/Pag. I find a lot of my dislike for that recording is in Karajan's disjointed conducting. As a friend of mine was saying about Domingo, when you record a huge amount and variety of opera, it's inevitable that some of the stuff you do will be *****.

N.


----------



## 89Koechel

Yes, indeed, HERE'S one of our best "guys" from the older days of great recordings. Thanks, schigolch, for remembering the specific legacy of Heinrich Schlusnus.


----------



## 89Koechel

Also, thank to those present-day posts, from David & the other "erudite" posters, and you guys can take-OUT the parentheses (of "erudite"), anytime. I might even mention some of the Golden Age baritones - Amato, Sammarco, Montesanto, and others. I might even mention one of the best articles, 'bout singers/baritones. It's from the old High Fidelity magazine, of Oct. 1967 - "A Plain Case for The Golden Age; Why they don't make singers like they used to.", by Conrad L. Osborne. In other words, maybe we might KNOW that Bechi and other favorites, might not BE the equal of some of the best of those, who recorded in acoustic (recording) days, and somewhat-beyond, in certain capacities.


----------



## Rogerx

Revitalized Classics said:


> Gobbi wrote about the horrible trepidation of the recording light going on during recording sessions.
> 
> He and Callas were extraordinarily good in the studio: perhaps they had exceptional concentration...
> 
> One of Gobbi's own recordings he did like was the _Nabucco_, appropriately enough for this thread


What's not to like . :cheers:


----------



## DavidA

Revitalized Classics said:


> "Taddei unsteady?" Yes, both compared to his younger self where records exist and the aforementioned baritones. It never was a voice with the focus of Gobbi, Bechi, Stabile in any case as it was more bass-baritone: Dulcamara rather than Belcore.
> 
> Compare MacNeil's steady voice:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Of course, if you are a traditionalist (you probably are) you won't like them but an awful lot of people to reassess the opera"
> 
> Because taking four minutes longer over the course of an opera makes it unrecognisable? What case are you trying to make for this set?
> 
> "After all, if one approach has been covered well why do it again the same way?"
> 
> As mentioned, Bjorling/Cellini's refined approach predated Karajan by a decade and with a better cast. Regarding baritones, Molinari-Pradelli and MacNeil showed a bel canto approach in modern times. Callas and De Los Angeles pointed that way too, as did Panerai, Merrill and Monti in the previous decade.
> 
> Did Karajan actually set any new standards? I'd suggest yes orchestrally and with the choruses but not necessarily regarding the protagonists.
> 
> Given Bergonzi sounded better before, given Taddei does not sound his best, given that the results can sound mannered with results approaching crooning, Karajan's approach was an interesting experiment but at the cost of some vibrancy.
> 
> "As for your comment about 'singing for the microphone, isn't that what all singers do in studio recordings? It seems to me an odd (though well worn) cliche to fall back on".
> 
> Should I, as the listener, be aware that the recording is a jigsaw of little pieces, recorded out of sequence with each little moment micromanaged within an inch of its life? No. But I am here.


I remember the Italians themselves saying they viewed Cav and Pag as the pre- and post- Karajan eras, such an impact did his conducting of them make. But no doubt you are better qualified to assess their own operas than they are? He didn't of course make the operas unrecognisable but he actually made them sound better than before to many people. 'Karajan's reading fairly shimmers with a sense of style' says one reviewer reflecting the impact the recordings made. I listened to Pag last night after quite some years and your (and other) criticisms seem incredible. Someone described it as 'dull'. Was he listening to the same opera? Or so used to del Monaco bawling his head off that anything less than a bill for Canio is unacceptable. Taddei unsteady? Not on your life on this recording!
I also have the Bjorling / Cellini and would not accept the cast is better. But a good performance well conducted with Bjorlong and de los Angeles cast against type and Warren singing the final line. As for Molinari-Pradelli I have always thought of him as a laid back conductor relaxed in tempi and consistently lazy in attack. Bit of a nondescript. MacNeill is magnificent voice bwt if you can stand del Monaco's blaring foghorn.
Your statement about recording makes me smile as of course the earlier recordings were made up of a jigsaw of little pieces, recorded out of sequence. By the time Karajan recorded his longer takes were in use. I wonder how much our own prejudices get in the way of how we hear things?


----------



## DavidA

The Conte said:


> I 100% agree with your observations here and your last sentence is very much how I feel about the disappointing Karajan Cav/Pag. I find a lot of my dislike for that recording is in Karajan's disjointed conducting. As a friend of mine was saying about Domingo, when you record a huge amount and variety of opera, it's inevitable that some of the stuff you do will be *****.
> 
> N.


Are you really listening to the same recording I listened to last night? 'Disappointing' is the last word I would have applied to it. 'One of Karajan's greatest opera recordings' says the Metropolitan Guide. Disjointed conducting? Really? I would have thought the opposite listening last night. But no accounting for taste I suppose!


----------



## DavidA

89Koechel said:


> Also, thank to those present-day posts, from David & the other "erudite" posters, and you guys can take-OUT the parentheses (of "erudite"), anytime. I might even mention some of the Golden Age baritones - Amato, Sammarco, Montesanto, and others. I might even mention one of the best articles, 'bout singers/baritones. It's from the old High Fidelity magazine, of Oct. 1967 - "A Plain Case for The Golden Age; Why they don't make singers like they used to.", by Conrad L. Osborne. In other words, maybe we might KNOW that Bechi and other favorites, might not BE the equal of some of the best of those, who recorded in acoustic (recording) days, and somewhat-beyond, in certain capacities.


You crack me up! Here's me over 70 years old and talking about a recording from 1965 which is now 55 years old and it's looked upon as 'present-day posts' and the implication is I'm looked upon as some reactionary modern phenomenon! Thanks! Nice to feel ones youth renewed!

Happy new Year! :lol:


----------



## The Conte

DavidA said:


> Are you really listening to the same recording I listened to last night? 'Disappointing' is the last word I would have applied to it. *'One of Karajan's greatest opera recordings'* says the Metropolitan Guide. Disjointed conducting? Really? I would have thought the opposite listening last night. But no accounting for taste I suppose!


Whilst I wouldn't put it in my list of great Karajan recordings, even if it were one of his greatest recordings, that says nothing about how it compares with the many other superlative versions. Even if you restrict it to recordings of Cav/Pag as a double bill, there are quite a few other options that both for the conducting and the cast are far superior and that would seem to be a common view here.

By the way, I spent six years singing in Cav (chorus) in Northern Italy touring round various places from the ridiculous to the sublime. We performed in hospitals to the bed bound and even sang in an open air chapel in the mountains. Nobody once mentioned Karajan, it was known as Mascagni's Cavalleria.

N.


----------



## Revitalized Classics

DavidA said:


> I remember the Italians themselves saying they viewed Cav and Pag as the pre- and post- Karajan eras, such an impact did his conducting of them make. But no doubt you are better qualified to assess their own operas than they are? He didn't of course make the operas unrecognisable but he actually made them sound better than before to many people. 'Karajan's reading fairly shimmers with a sense of style' says one reviewer reflecting the impact the recordings made. I listened to Pag last night after quite some years and your (and other) criticisms seem incredible. Someone described it as 'dull'. Was he listening to the same opera? Or so used to del Monaco bawling his head off that anything less than a bill for Canio is unacceptable. Taddei unsteady? Not on your life on this recording!
> I also have the Bjorling / Cellini and would not accept the cast is better. But a good performance well conducted with Bjorlong and de los Angeles cast against type and Warren singing the final line. As for Molinari-Pradelli I have always thought of him as a laid back conductor relaxed in tempi and consistently lazy in attack. Bit of a nondescript. MacNeill is magnificent voice bwt if you can stand del Monaco's blaring foghorn.
> Your statement about recording makes me smile as of course the earlier recordings were made up of a jigsaw of little pieces, recorded out of sequence. By the time Karajan recorded his longer takes were in use. I wonder how much our own prejudices get in the way of how we hear things?


"I remember the Italians themselves saying they viewed Cav and Pag as the pre- and post- Karajan eras, such an impact did his conducting of them make. But no doubt you are better qualified to assess their own operas than they are?"

I'm afraid that didn't happen.
There were *NO* performances of _Pagliacci_ by Karajan at La Scala. 
He did not conduct the combo and _Pagliacci_ is entirely the product of the studio.
Bergonzi, Carlyle, Taddei did not appear in either opera during those runs.
Whatever your Italians were clapping did not make it into the studio.

"Or so used to del Monaco bawling his head off that anything less than a bill for Canio is unacceptable"

What has actually been said, as opposed to what you've conveniently imagined, is preferring Bergonzi's own recordings in actual performance - as with the staged Cleva recording - or the RAI broadcast made in one take. Bergonzi sounds subdued compared to his own best standards.

By the time Karajan recorded his longer takes were in use. I wonder how much our own prejudices get in the way of how we hear things?
In a time of multitrack recording (1965), with a cast, orchestra and chorus who, as I've established, had not worked together in a stage production of _Pagliacci_ you don't magic 'long takes ' out of thin air.

They spent days in the studio to get it right and the result is surprisingly precise given the circumstances but not spontaneous-sounding.


----------



## DavidA

The Conte said:


> Whilst I wouldn't put it in my list of great Karajan recordings, even if it were one of his greatest recordings, that says nothing about how it compares with the many other superlative versions. Even if you restrict it to recordings of Cav/Pag as a double bill, there are quite a few other options that both for the conducting and the cast are far superior and *that would seem to be a common view here.*
> 
> By the way, I spent six years singing in Cav (chorus) in Northern Italy touring round various places from the ridiculous to the sublime. We performed in hospitals to the bed bound and even sang in an open air chapel in the mountains. Nobody once mentioned Karajan, it was known as Mascagni's Cavalleria.
> 
> N.


That would seem a common view among a few here. I can't see why anyone should mention Karajan if you're just singing in hospitals and chapels. Why should they? Maybe if you had been singing at La Scala they might. Of course we know it's Mascangni's Cav. Karajan would have agreed. He heard Mascagni conduct it and was impressed.


----------



## DavidA

Revitalized Classics said:


> "I remember the Italians themselves saying they viewed Cav and Pag as the pre- and post- Karajan eras, such an impact did his conducting of them make. But no doubt you are better qualified to assess their own operas than they are?"
> 
> I'm afraid that didn't happen.
> There were *NO* performances of _Pagliacci_ by Karajan at La Scala.
> He did not conduct the combo and _Pagliacci_ is entirely the product of the studio.
> Bergonzi, Carlyle, Taddei did not appear in either opera during those runs.
> Whatever your Italians were clapping did not make it into the studio.
> 
> "Or so used to del Monaco bawling his head off that anything less than a bill for Canio is unacceptable"
> 
> What has actually been said, as opposed to what you've conveniently imagined, is preferring Bergonzi's own recordings in actual performance - as with the staged Cleva recording - or the RAI broadcast made in one take. Bergonzi sounds subdued compared to his own best standards.
> 
> By the time Karajan recorded his longer takes were in use. I wonder how much our own prejudices get in the way of how we hear things?
> In a time of multitrack recording (1965), with a cast, orchestra and chorus who, as I've established, had not worked together in a stage production of _Pagliacci_ you don't magic 'long takes ' out of thin air.
> 
> They spent days in the studio to get it right and the result is surprisingly precise given the circumstances but not spontaneous-sounding.


I didn't say there were performances at La Scala. Italians do listen to recordings though, I imagine. It was the recordings of these operas which impressed. Why don't you actually read what I put.
Whether one prefers Bergonzi's live performance with Cleva or his perhaps more mature thoughts with Karajan is a matter of taste. He certainly does not sound 'subdued' to me on the Karajan set. 
I'm certainly glad you were there in the recording studio to study Karajan's methods of recording. You were there I take it during the recording sessions to know what happened? Karajan's method of course was not to conjure take out of thin air but to rehearse thoroughly with the material and then take longish takes. Of course you do realise that other recordings you have recommended were studio recordings done with singers who had not necessarily sung the works together on stage? So of course the same thing applies.
What of course you miss out is that given the very fine standard of singing and superb orchestral playing, our preferences amount to one thing - personal taste.


----------



## Bonetan

One of the leading Verdi baritones of today...


----------



## 89Koechel

OK, David ... hope you're not too "cracked-up" too far ... haha, kidding. When I mentioned "present-day posts", I simply meant that we're talkin' 'bout posts, of the true PRESENT, about older recordings. Also, shouldn't have mentioned that certain posts were not erudite; it's simply that I have fundamental disagreements about some of them. No, indeed, you're not some sort of "reactionary phenom", but I do have a certain fondness for the older guys, that Osborne mentioned (Amato, Sammarco, Montesanto, et. al.). Osborne gave specific, and I think truly-SOUND reasons why the Bechi/Siepi/Bastianini generation of baritones was not-QUITE (let's say) the equal of their forerunners. ... In any case, this is an ENJOYABLE discussion, and hope it'll continue.


----------



## Bonetan

I don't know how to feel about Leonard Warren. He's obviously one of the greats but it's a really strange voice to me lol


----------



## Woodduck

Bonetan said:


> I don't know how to feel about Leonard Warren. He's obviously one of the greats but it's a really strange voice to me lol


Warren's timbre lacks brilliance, and he doesn't vary the color or dynamics much; his rendition of "Eri tu" is pretty uninteresting. The voice seems strong, but you have to wonder how well it carried in the house. He was quite successful, though, up until his untimely death.


----------



## The Conte

Woodduck said:


> Warren's timbre lacks brilliance, and he doesn't vary the color or dynamics much; his rendition of "Eri tu" is pretty uninteresting. The voice seems strong, but you have to wonder how well it carried in the house. He was quite successful, though, up until his untimely death.


I haven't heard very many of his recordings, but this sums up how I feel about those I have heard.

N.


----------



## wkasimer

Woodduck said:


> Warren's timbre lacks brilliance, and he doesn't vary the color or dynamics much; his rendition of "Eri tu" is pretty uninteresting. The voice seems strong, but you have to wonder how well it carried in the house. He was quite successful, though, up until his untimely death.


I'm not a big Warren fan, feeling the same way about his recordings that you do - impressive if rather ugly voice, not a great deal of imagination or interpretive nuance. But those who heard him at the old Met tell me that it was a big voice and carried well - and these are people for whom vocal size and high notes are more important than anything else.


----------



## Bonetan

Woodduck said:


> *Warren's timbre lacks brilliance*, and he doesn't vary the color or dynamics much; his rendition of "Eri tu" is pretty uninteresting. *The voice seems strong, but you have to wonder how well it carried in the house.* He was quite successful, though, up until his untimely death.


I thought this exactly.



wkasimer said:


> I'm not a big Warren fan, feeling the same way about his recordings that you do - impressive if rather ugly voice, not a great deal of imagination or interpretive nuance. *But those who heard him at the old Met tell me that it was a big voice and carried well *- and these are people for whom vocal size and high notes are more important than anything else.


Yet this is the consensus from everything I've read & heard. Also it's a dark voice, darker than many of today's bass baritones, but it has high notes to burn & little on the bottom. AND his speaking voice sounds nothing like I imagined...






All of that makes me believe that it was a manufactured sound, but WOW he manufactured it well.


----------



## Woodduck

Warren's speaking voice didn't have that dark, covered quality that his singing voice had. Strange indeed.


----------



## Barelytenor

I have to say, I just love m'boy Leonard. I think it's the unusual tone quality, rich in overtones and seemingly an effortless production, even throughout (except for those bad low notes below C, the curse of Verdi baritones as a rule). I agree he's not a genius interpreter, but I love the darkness which nonetheless sounds natural .... not "hooty" or overly covered. I bet his voice carried like a siren in the hall. Maybe his voice was like Nilsson's, just didn't record well? I think I hear some of that darkness even in his speaking voice. A lot of singers' speaking voices sound little like their singing voices, IMHO. And bonetan I'm not sure what a "manufactured" singer's voice means, beyond sounding vaguely pejorative. It sounds ringing, unforced, and huge to my ears.

I would rather sing like Warren than any other baritone I have heard ... well, except myself. (Can I trade? Oh wait, he dropped dead on the stage of the Met at an early age. Well, I guess I am singing better at 70 than he was.) At any rate, I would sure rather be myself ... or Leonard Warren ... than that guy in the clip of "Eri tu," pretending to play a piano in the opening shot despite the assured presence of an orchestra! 

Gotta stand up for Leonard. Having said that, I do think I owe Woodduck, especially, a debt of thanks for introducing me and others to "some other great" Verdi baritones, many of whom flourished before Warren. So, Woodduck, your tiphat is below.

Kind regards, :tiphat:

George


----------



## DavidA

89Koechel said:


> OK, David ... hope you're not too "cracked-up" too far ... haha, kidding. When I mentioned "present-day posts", I simply meant that we're talkin' 'bout posts, of the true PRESENT, about older recordings. Also, shouldn't have mentioned that certain posts were not erudite; it's simply that I have fundamental disagreements about some of them. No, indeed, you're not some sort of "reactionary phenom", but *I do have a certain fondness for the older guys, *that Osborne mentioned (Amato, Sammarco, Montesanto, et. al.). Osborne gave specific, and I think truly-SOUND reasons why the Bechi/Siepi/Bastianini generation of baritones was not-QUITE (let's say) the equal of their forerunners. ... In any case, this is an ENJOYABLE discussion, and hope it'll continue.


Older guys! About 100 or more years old now! One problem of course as has been pointed out is many of these guys did not record complete perfraomnces (not their fault) only excerpts, so it is impossible to compare them as interpreters of whole roles.


----------



## DavidA

DavidA said:


> That would seem a common view among a few here. I can't see why anyone should mention Karajan if you're just singing in hospitals and chapels. Why should they? Maybe if you had been singing at La Scala they might. Of course we know it's Mascangni's Cav. Karajan would have agreed. He heard *Mascagni conduct it* and was impressed.


One point about Mascagni's own Cav is that it's the slowest on disc!


----------



## Bonetan

Barelytenor said:


> I have to say, I just love m'boy Leonard. I think it's the unusual tone quality, rich in overtones and seemingly an effortless production, even throughout (except for those bad low notes below C, the curse of Verdi baritones as a rule). I agree he's not a genius interpreter, but I love the darkness which nonetheless sounds natural .... not "hooty" or overly covered. I bet his voice carried like a siren in the hall. Maybe his voice was like Nilsson's, just didn't record well? I think I hear some of that darkness even in his speaking voice. A lot of singers' speaking voices sound little like their singing voices, IMHO. And bonetan I'm not sure what a "manufactured" singer's voice means, beyond sounding vaguely pejorative. It sounds ringing, unforced, and huge to my ears.


Warren is a Verdi baritone god & I would never pretend otherwise, BUT I don't think he sang with his natural voice, which is why I have mixed feelings about him. That's what I meant by 'manufactured'.

I read somewhere that he covered throughout his range which is odd to say the least. I have no idea how he had such resonance singing this way, but the low cover explains a lot of things. I think he was an amazing singer DESPITE his technique. IMHO it wasn't built for the long haul.

I don't mean to offend Warren fans, but I've been spending a lot of time reading & asking questions trying to understand this voice! I even bought his book lol. To me he's an anomaly & we'll never see his like again.


----------



## Bonetan

From the book Leonard Warren: American Baritone

"Warren used this technique religiously. His cover was quite far back which we call "hooking" and his upper voice from F to A just became bigger and more beautiful. And miraculously, it could achieve a decrease on these top notes. The problem is to disguise this change in production so that it doesn't sound like two different voices. Warren solved this problem by singing everything in the covering position. This, some think, cost him a measure of clarity in his middle range and may have contributed to the eventual wobble. Warren's voice sounded deeper than it was because of its weight and dark color, but it was a high baritone, the Verdi baritone. Other great baries, like Ruffo, have simply thrown away the low notes. Warren insisted on singing them fully, and I think this is what cost him."


----------



## The Conte

Bonetan said:


> From the book Leonard Warren: American Baritone
> 
> "Warren used this technique religiously. His cover was quite far back which we call "hooking" and his upper voice from F to A just became bigger and more beautiful. And miraculously, it could achieve a decrease on these top notes. The problem is to disguise this change in production so that it doesn't sound like two different voices. Warren solved this problem by singing everything in the covering position. This, some think, cost him a measure of clarity in his middle range and may have contributed to the eventual wobble. Warren's voice sounded deeper than it was because of its weight and dark color, but it was a high baritone, the Verdi baritone. Other great baries, like Ruffo, have simply thrown away the low notes. Warren insisted on singing them fully, and I think this is what cost him."


I find this rather odd. I would have thought that 'covering' all the way down wouldn't have helped with singing the low notes fully. Nor am I sure that the 'miracle' Ruffo 'simply threw them away'. If I get time in between listening to everybody else's favourite sopranos singing Suor Angelica, I'll give both baritones a listen and report back.

N.


----------



## Bonetan

The Conte said:


> I find this rather odd. I would have thought that 'covering' all the way down wouldn't have helped with singing the low notes fully. Nor am I sure that the 'miracle' Ruffo 'simply threw them away'. If I get time in between listening to everybody else's favourite sopranos singing Suor Angelica, I'll give both baritones a listen and report back.
> 
> N.


I think they're saying that Warren's insistence on singing the low notes fully with the covered technique did damage to his voice, and that if he had eschewed the low notes like Ruffo does in the video below (at :45) he would have been better off.


----------



## Woodduck

Bonetan said:


> I think they're saying that Warren's insistence on singing the low notes fully with the covered technique did damage to his voice, and that if he had eschewed the low notes like Ruffo does in the video below (at :45) he would have been better off.


We should hear Warren sing "Eri tu" in the opera house, where he brings a little more passion and imagination to it:






Warren may be superior to any present-day baritone in this repertoire, but I have to say that Ruffo mops the floor with him. And Ruffo wasn't alone, as several other baritones from the prewar years demonstrate. There's Amato:






and that paragon of baritonal bel canto, Battistini:






I never tire of listening to the way those old-timers could play with the voice and the music. The total coordination, the quickness with which the voice can move, the natural, effortless legato, the ability to swell and diminish, to shift the resonance from chest to head and to cover and open the tone at will... Almost every Battistini recording has those spine-tingling moments when he opens the vowel and drives slightly sharp, even adding an ornament to heighten the emotion, an effect we'd listen for in vain from any present-day singer of any voice type.

I just sit silently after such singing, my eyes moist, wondering where it all went.


----------



## Bonetan

Woodduck said:


> We should hear Warren sing "Eri tu" in the opera house, where he brings a little more passion and imagination to it:


Wow. His low A here can't be heard (2:35). He's got a tenor's range with a bass baritone color. I will never comprehend this voice lol


----------



## Barelytenor

I made sure Santa Claus was good to me this year by buying a new 2019 auto that has a three-month free trial to Sirius XM radio. There are only two strictly classical stations, one "Symphony" and one "Met Opera." I tuned in yesterday while tooling around and they were doing a La Gioconda from 1957, conducted by Fausto Cleva. Warren's voice was instantly recognizable, massive, superb high notes, it struck me again how much better he sounds when he is truly acting and singing at the same time and interacting with other singers. There is no way that voice didn't carry well in the old Met building. The tenor was good but the voice was undistinctive, probably someone I've never heard of. Ah, well that didn't take long, sure enough, found him with Mr Google: A guy named Gianni Poggi.

I agree with Bonetan that I too will never understand Warren's vocal production but I love it nonetheless, kind of like eating dark chocolate compared with the bland Hershey's kisses so many other bland singers give us. I do agree with Woodduck that I wish Warren would be more graceful and play with shaping the lines and interpret phrases better. I think he had all the gifts vocally, but he can come off as somewhat stolid and wooden-sounding at times. I guess part of the mythos surrounding him also comprises his incredible death on stage at the Met in 1960, age 48, after singing "Morir! Tremenda cosa ... Urna fatale" during _La Forza del Destino_ and literally pitching face-forward onto the stage, instantly dead from all accounts, before the vengeance cabaletta that follows.

I dunno, perhaps somehow his voice imprinted on my brain back during that era. I don't recall consciously listening to Met radio broadcasts from that era, but I was a child and the timing is right. At any rate, I just have to say again, I have never heard a baritone voice that thrills me more overall. (I do wish we had a documented performance of him singing "Di quella pira." That still sounds apocryphal to me. Yeah, I can sing it too, as long as I leave out the high Cs.)

Kind regards, :tiphat:

George


----------



## Sieglinde

Salsi is decent, but his voice is more or less lyric. Definitely not how I like Rigoletto to sound. There is no "bite". (Also, this aria out of context? So weird.)

Also, I feel like he's best suited to kind and friendly characters. I've seen him in a few bad guy roles and he just seems too much like a huggable teddy bear to be believeable as evil.


----------



## Admiral

What a wonderful thread! Threads like this are what makes our little corner of the internet THE best place to discuss opera.

As to Milnes- I admit to being a fan as his compilation LP was one of the 3 opera discs I had that introduced me to opera as a youth (the others were Domingo Sings Caruso and Karajan Ring Highlights) so his voice was stamped onto my DNA. Having said that, I never liked the affected nasal snarl and now, doing the comparison suggested infra I agree that he is overdoing it. I’ll always be a fan but this thread got me listening deeper to Ruffo and the others suggested here …thanks to all for those comparisons


----------



## Bonetan

Admiral said:


> As to Milnes- I admit to being a fan as his compilation LP was one of the 3 opera discs I had that introduced me to opera as a youth (the others were Domingo Sings Caruso and Karajan Ring Highlights) so his voice was stamped onto my DNA. Having said that, I never liked the affected nasal snarl and now, doing the comparison suggested infra I agree that he is overdoing it. I'll always be a fan but this thread got me listening deeper to Ruffo and the others suggested here …thanks to all for those comparisons


I had the same experience! There are operas that I was introduced to with Milnes as the baritone so I've always held him in high regard, but after comparing him to other singers here its pretty clear to me that he's not in the top tier vocally.


----------



## Bonetan

Here's some more love for beastly baritone Giangiacomo Guelfi. When speaking of Ruffo, J.B. Steane said "the only baritone whom I can think of as having given anything at all comparable in the theatre is Giangiacomo Guelfi in the late fifties". Quite the compliment! What are everyone's thoughts on him?


----------



## vivalagentenuova

Despite having perhaps an almost ideal, cavernous baritone sound, I actually like Guelfi better in Puccini than Verdi. His biting voice just works so perfectly for Rance and Scarpia, and despite the incredible sound I don't really respond as much to him in Verdi roles. In Verdi I prefer a Battistini, who contrary to what is sometimes said, had a huge voice, but also had better high notes and better facility with the long Verdi lines. Puccini's vocal music is what I think of as "acted", mainly a kind of amplified, declamatory, highly expressive speech that sometimes breaks out into gushing melody. His famous melodic talent aside, Puccini is often more concerned with tying each moment in the vocal line to the characterization, drama, and psychology than he is in creating long, flowing, Bel Canto lines. He can do that when he wants to, as in his famous arias, but it's acutally not so much his style during the scenes in between the famous bits, which are often where the best stuff is.

This aria of Rance, though melodic, is for the voice mostly broken up into short phrases, each one tied intimately to the text. Guelfi's highly expressive but not particularly agile voice is perfect. He is snarly and conflicted and big, but no long arc is required. (As an aside, the accompaniment for this aria is so wonderfully expressive.)





This aria from La forza del destino just seems kind of labored, though. He's fine in the recitative, but the aria just seems heavy (the tempo is kind of slow, though). I don't like it very much compared with Battistini or Schlusnus.


----------



## Bonetan

vivalagentenuova said:


> Despite having perhaps an almost ideal, cavernous baritone sound, I actually like Guelfi better in Puccini than Verdi. His biting voice just works so perfectly for Rance and Scarpia, and despite the incredible sound I don't really respond as much to him in Verdi roles. In Verdi I prefer a Battistini, who contrary to what is sometimes said, had a huge voice, but also had better high notes and better facility with the long Verdi lines. Puccini's vocal music is what I think of as "acted", mainly a kind of amplified, declamatory, highly expressive speech that sometimes breaks out into gushing melody. His famous melodic talent aside, Puccini is often more concerned with tying each moment in the vocal line to the characterization, drama, and psychology than he is in creating long, flowing, Bel Canto lines. He can do that when he wants to, as in his famous arias, but it's acutally not so much his style during the scenes in between the famous bits, which are often where the best stuff is.


I thoroughly enjoyed reading this


----------



## Woodduck

Guelfi was a real tonsil-tosser, wasn't he? Must've driven the crowd wild. I can live without it.


----------



## Barelytenor

I disagree on "cavernous" since the cavern tends to collapse with some frequency. Interesting version of the last aria Leonard Warren ever sang ... part of, as we discussed again recently. Guelfi in the flesh had the largest voice I have ever heard in a man, massive, but there is not any subtlety and he pays for his curious production. I think many singers try to keep "space" in the vocal cavity (or cavern, okay) above what is being used for the actual singing, which helps to consistently produce a beautiful tone. There are several places in the recitative where you can hear that vocal space disappear, and his vowels sound like they are bumping up against the roof of his mouth. Where, more specifically? Listen, for example, to the ornamented second-time-around short notes of "mal pensiero, il-l-l-l mal-l-l-l pensiero." Then when he gets to some longer melodic notes, he again resumes singing with a different production to make the voice sound covered and more pleasing. This is a notable inconsistency of his voice, and clear sign of a flawed technique. And I have to say, the sustained high F-sharp on "pensie-e-e-ro" is just brutally ugly--for the same reason, there is no vocal space above that which he is using to produce the sound. It sounds like a bass fire engine.

This is can belto, not bel canto.

Kind regards, :tiphat:

George


----------



## DavidA

Bonetan said:


> I had the same experience! There are operas that I was introduced to with Milnes as the baritone so I've always held him in high regard, but after comparing him to other singers here its pretty clear to me that he's not in the top tier vocally.


You can also say that about Gobbi but he made up for it in other ways


----------



## Bonetan

DavidA said:


> You can also say that about Gobbi but he made up for it in other ways


Yes I totally agree


----------



## vivalagentenuova

Probably the only singer who was actually a great Verdi baritone and a great Verdi tenor:










Ever since I heard his voice, I have been in awe of Renato Zanelli. Not only does he have one of the greatest voices of the century, his interpretations are deeply moving. He's my Caruso. (And my Ruffo :lol


----------



## Woodduck

vivalagentenuova said:


> Probably the only singer who was actually a great Verdi baritone and a great Verdi tenor:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ever since I heard his voice, I have been in awe of Renato Zanelli. Not only does he have one of the greatest voices of the century, his interpretations are deeply moving. He's my Caruso. (And my Ruffo :lol


A great singer indeed. I must admit that his extreme histrionics in Otello's death scene made me burst out laughing. I mean, it's still MUSIC, folks! But it sounded like a live peformance, so maybe it worked fine in the theater.


----------



## vivalagentenuova

Yes the gasps are a bit silly, but everything up to that point is extremely musical and well characterized.


----------



## Woodduck

I adhere to the Callas school of interpretation: say what you have to say through musical means, by coloring the voice and inflecting the phrase. Gasps and sobs generally seem hammy to me.


----------



## vivalagentenuova

I mean, I agree with that up to a point, but Callas actually took it too far. She artificially lightened her voice in order to "color" her lines, and in a number of her vaunted recordings is pretty much crooning and full of constriction. That's just as bad imo as hammyness. And it's what destroyed her voice.


----------



## Woodduck

vivalagentenuova said:


> I mean, I agree with that up to a point, but Callas actually took it too far. She artificially lightened her voice in order to "color" her lines, and in a number of her vaunted recordings is pretty much crooning and full of constriction. That's just as bad imo as hammyness. And it's what destroyed her voice.


One is ham and the other is eggs. I don't know why eggs. It just sounds nice.

Callas's vocal colorings have never bothered me one iota. In fact they always amaze me. Call it "crooning" (I wouldn't) or call it anything, but the mental strength and feeling behind it was never in doubt. Her imagination and artistic ambition may have overtaxed her voice, but what a ride while it lasted!


----------



## Bonetan

Where do the Verdi baritone roles rank in terms of the strength of voice required? I assume Rigoletto, Iago, Macbeth require the heavier voice, yes? Do Boccanegra & Nabucco belong in that category? Or can lyric voices sing them like Germont, Posa? Where do di Luna & Renato fall? How many Verdi baritone roles actually require a true Verdi baritone to be truly successful?


----------



## Woodduck

Bonetan said:


> Where do the Verdi baritone roles rank in terms of the strength of voice required? I assume Rigoletto, Iago, Macbeth require the heavier voice, yes? Do Boccanegra & Nabucco belong in that category? Or can lyric voices sing them like Germont, Posa? Where do di Luna & Renato fall? How many Verdi baritone roles actually require a true Verdi baritone to be truly successful?


I'm not sure about these fine distinctions, but my feeling is that categories like "Verdi baritone" - categories of all kinds, actually, but especially vocal "fachs" - tempt us to be too limited in our thinking and expectations. Not every baritone needs to be a roaring lion like Ruffo to sing Verdi's dramatic parts effectively. Verdi singers don't normally have to battle a huge orchestra the way Wotan does, not even in his later operas, but they need to have a combination of range, power, projection and finesse to do justice to Verdi's music, which calls for a foundation in bel canto technique (but fails to get that from too many singers, especially recently). A good Verdi baritone should be a good Donizetti or Rossini baritone as well.


----------



## DavidA

Bonetan said:


> Where do the Verdi baritone roles rank in terms of the strength of voice required? I assume Rigoletto, Iago, Macbeth require the heavier voice, yes? Do Boccanegra & Nabucco belong in that category? Or can lyric voices sing them like Germont, Posa? Where do di Luna & Renato fall? How many Verdi baritone roles actually require a true Verdi baritone to be truly successful?


You miss out Falstaff which requires a heavy baritone. Gobbi of course hadn't quite the 'fatness' required but made up for it by sheer vocal acting. In recent years Maestri has made the role his own both in voice and appearance.


----------



## Bonetan

Woodduck said:


> Not every baritone needs to be a roaring lion like Ruffo to sing Verdi's dramatic parts effectively. Verdi singers don't normally have to battle a huge orchestra the way Wotan does, not even in his later operas, but they need to have a combination of range, power, projection and finesse to do justice to Verdi's music, which calls for a foundation in bel canto technique (but fails to get that from too many singers, especially recently). A good Verdi baritone should be a good Donizetti or Rossini baritone as well.


Ahh this must be why it's so rare for a dramatic baritone to excel in both Wagner & Verdi in their careers.

With that in mind, who has really excelled in both?


----------



## wkasimer

Woodduck said:


> I'm not sure about these fine distinctions, but my feeling is that categories like "Verdi baritone" - categories of all kinds, actually, but especially vocal "fachs" - tempt us to be too limited in our thinking and expectations. Not every baritone needs to be a roaring lion like Ruffo to sing Verdi's dramatic parts effectively.


Amen. My favorite "Verdi baritone" is Pavel Lisitsian, who was anything but a roaring lion.


----------



## wkasimer

Bonetan said:


> Ahh this must be why it's so rare for a dramatic baritone to excel in both Wagner & Verdi in their careers.
> 
> With that in mind, who has really excelled in both?


Joseph Schwarz.


----------



## Sieglinde

Boccanegra seems deceptively lyrical for the most part (and lyric baritones do sing him sometimes) but then the council chamber scene hits and he needs that power  The curse is far more terrifying when someone like Milnes delievers it.


----------



## Woodduck

Bonetan said:


> Ahh this must be why it's so rare for a dramatic baritone to excel in both Wagner & Verdi in their careers.
> 
> With that in mind, who has really excelled in both?


Scwarz was marvelous, as wkasimer points out. I suspect that many pre-WW II baritones were effective in both Verdi and Wagner, much as Frida Leider was as a soprano. Of course opera was generally sung in translation then, so German singers doing Verdi would have sung it in German. But Schwarz is so good I'd rather hear him sing Rigoletto in German than a great many others in Italian.


----------



## vivalagentenuova

Indeed. There were many baritones who could sing Verdi and Wagner well, especially the lighter Wagner roles. Reinmar (who even sang Wotan very well), Schlusnus, Rehkemper, Bellantoni, and Battistini even sang _Tannhauser_.



> Of course opera was generally sung in translation then, so German singers doing Verdi would have sung it in German. But Schwarz is so good I'd rather hear him sing Rigoletto in German than a great many others in Italian.


Preiser has a set of Rosvaenge and Schlusnus doing Verdi arias and duets in German. Absolutely excellent. They do my one of my favorite versions of Solenne in quest'ora.


----------



## wkasimer

Bonetan said:


> With that in mind, who has really excelled in both?


I don't believe that Tibbett sang any Wagner other than Wolfram on stage, but he did record an excellent Wotan's Farewell.


----------



## Revitalized Classics

Bonetan said:


> Ahh this must be why it's so rare for a dramatic baritone to excel in both Wagner & Verdi in their careers.
> 
> With that in mind, who has really excelled in both?


Giuseppe Taddei recorded Hans Sachs and the Dutchman and a great many of the Verdi baritone roles.


----------



## Revitalized Classics

On closer inspection, there are a variety of extracts and complete recordings with Eberhard Wächter in Verdi roles - I didn't realise there was a Ballo, Boccanegra, Falstaff (as Ford), Rigoletto extracts as well as his Rodrigo in Don Carlo. I've not heard these so cannot be sure if he 'excelled' in this rep besides his German roles?


----------



## wkasimer

Bonetan said:


> With that in mind, who has really excelled in both?


While I don't think that Verdi and Wagner are central to his career, Gerald Finley has been a successful Amfortas, Sachs, and Iago.

Similarly, Peter Mattei has been acclaimed for his Wolfram and Amfortas, and is probably the best Posa on record.

And while I don't think much James Morris' Iago, he certainly sang it, and some people thought it successful.

Sergei Leiferkus sang both Alberich and Iago, but that's probably not what you're looking for....l

Hans Hotter sang quite a bit of Verdi early in his career - Iago and Falstaff, perhaps other roles.

And Josef Metternich, a fine Dutchman and Telramund, sang a lot of Verdi.


----------



## Woodduck

This conversation made me wonder about Hermann Uhde, a superb Wagnerian I've long admired, known especially for his Dutchman, Telramund and Klingsor at Bayreuth, as well as his Wozzeck. It wasn't a conventionally beautiful voice, not particularly rich or warm, but it had a unique, biting timbre that demanded roles with plenty of character. He was a superior musician and interpreter. Here's his great Dutchman






and some Rigoletto (in German)






Probably no one's idea of a Verdi voice, but probably quite effective in the theater.


----------



## Revitalized Classics

Woodduck said:


> This conversation made me wonder about Hermann Uhde, a superb Wagnerian I've long admired, known especially for his Dutchman, Telramund and Klingsor at Bayreuth, as well as his Wozzeck. It wasn't a conventionally beautiful voice, not particularly rich or warm, but it had a unique, biting timbre that demanded roles with plenty of character. He was a superior musician and interpreter. Here's his great Dutchman
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and some Rigoletto (in German)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably no one's idea of a Verdi voice, but probably quite effective in the theater.


Uhde gave some hair-raising performances - I think he was terrific. Can imagine him as a Macbeth or Iago.
Thanks for the suggestion! I'll be trawling through Spotify and my records for him


----------



## Bonetan

wkasimer said:


> Joseph Schwarz.


Thanks for exposing me to Herr Schwarz & thanks to everyone who's taken the time to answer my question! It seems that since Schwarz there have been Wagner singers who have sprinkled in some Verdi & vise versa, but no singer who's core rep looks like Wotan, Iago, Dutchman, Macbeth, Sachs, di Luna for instance. Even more hard to come by if I specify 'all sung in the original language'. It would take a special singer with a big range to pull it off.


----------



## Revitalized Classics

Bonetan said:


> Thanks for exposing me to Herr Schwarz & thanks to everyone who's taken the time to answer my question! It seems that since Schwarz there have been Wagner singers who have sprinkled in some Verdi & vise versa, but no singer who's core rep looks like Wotan, Iago, Dutchman, Macbeth, Sachs, di Luna for instance. Even more hard to come by if I specify 'all sung in the original language'. It would take a special singer with a big range to pull it off.


I've contributed to enough opera and classical forums to know that mentioning Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau at this point is like lighting a blue touch paper...

So...

I'll mention Fischer-Dieskau, perhaps uniquely in recent times, recorded complete or extracts from all these parts in the original languages and hazard that the results were/are... _controversial_?

...and now run away before all hell breaks loose


----------



## wkasimer

Revitalized Classics said:


> I'll mention Fischer-Dieskau, perhaps uniquely in recent times, recorded complete or extracts from all these parts in the original languages and hazard that the results were/are... _controversial_?


"Controversial" is one way to put it...


----------



## The Conte

Revitalized Classics said:


> I've contributed to enough opera and classical forums to know that mentioning Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau at this point is like lighting a blue touch paper...
> 
> So...
> 
> I'll mention Fischer-Dieskau, perhaps uniquely in recent times, recorded complete or extracts from all these parts in the original languages and hazard that the results were/are... _controversial_?
> 
> ...and now run away before all hell breaks loose


I like some of Fischer-Dieskau's opera recordings of both Verdi and Wagner (but know that few here agree with me). His Wolfram and Telramund are superb in my opinion (and even his Dutchman works for me, although his voice is somewhat slight for that role). When it comes to Verdi I think his Macbeth and Rodrigo are superb and I also admire his Rigoletto. Where I agree with those who don't like him in opera other than Mozart or Strauss, is that Wotan and Scarpia didn't work for him. (I haven't heard his Germont or his Iago.) Artists that pay attention to the text of an opera and bring it to life always fascinate me, though.

N.


----------



## Bonetan

Revitalized Classics said:


> I've contributed to enough opera and classical forums to know that mentioning Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau at this point is like lighting a blue touch paper...
> 
> So...
> 
> I'll mention Fischer-Dieskau, perhaps uniquely in recent times, recorded complete or extracts from all these parts in the original languages and hazard that the results were/are... _controversial_?
> 
> ...and now run away before all hell breaks loose


Ya, his was one of the 1st names I thought of too! He did them all, but should he have? I think the majority of us think not. BUT he might prove to be the best answer to the question...

How was DFD's top in the Verdi & bottom in the Wotan/Dutchman? Probably a tough question to answer unless you were specifically listening for it, I know lol


----------



## wkasimer

The Conte said:


> I like some of Fischer-Dieskau's opera recordings of both Verdi and Wagner (but know that few here agree with me). His Wolfram and Telramund are superb in my opinion (and even his Dutchman works for me, although his voice is somewhat slight for that role). When it comes to Verdi I think his Macbeth and Rodrigo are superb and I also admire his Rigoletto. Where I agree with those who don't like him in opera other than Mozart or Strauss, is that Wotan and Scarpia didn't work for him. (I haven't heard his Germont or his Iago.) Artists that pay attention to the text of an opera and bring it to life always fascinate me, though.


I'm pretty sure that I've heard every one of his recordings of Wagner and Verdi over the years. The only ones that I find acceptable are a 1948 Posa, in German under Fricsay, and his Wolfram on various recordings. Everywhere else, he is both underpowered and fussy.


----------



## Woodduck

wkasimer said:


> I'm pretty sure that I've heard every one of his recordings of Wagner and Verdi over the years. The only ones that I find acceptable are a 1948 Posa, in German under Fricsay, and his Wolfram on various recordings. Everywhere else, he is both underpowered and fussy.


Besides his Wolfram, I do like his Telramund, second only to Uhde's, and his Kurwenal under Furtwangler, recorded early when his voice was at its freshest; he makes the character seem younger than Suthaus's Tristan, but I don't mind. His Gunther for Solti is also good; the character sounds noble but weak, which seems to me just right. None of these are "helden" roles that require the pouring out of sheer vocal abundance. I haven't bothered to listen to most of his Verdi; I can just tell I wouldn't like it. It may be hard to say exactly what a Verdi baritone IS, but F-D is certainly an example of what one ISN'T.


----------



## vivalagentenuova

Excellent Verdi baritone. What a timbre! Definitely singing for the stage and not the microphone.


----------



## The Conte

Woodduck said:


> Besides his Wolfram, I do like his Telramund, second only to Uhde's, and his Kurwenal under Furtwangler, recorded early when his voice was at its freshest; he makes the character seem younger than Suthaus's Tristan, but I don't mind. His Gunther for Solti is also good; the character sounds noble but weak, which seems to me just right. None of these are "helden" roles that require the pouring out of sheer vocal abundance. I haven't bothered to listen to most of his Verdi; I can just tell I wouldn't like it. It may be hard to say exactly what a Verdi baritone IS, but F-D is certainly an example of what one ISN'T.


I agree. (I'd forgotten about his superb Gunther.) Whilst it is counterintuitive he does make an excellent Macbeth, but then in some respects the murderous couple aren't quite like other Verdi soprano and baritone roles. He famously wanted a soprano with a dark, ugly sound for the Lady, but do we know the qualities he had in mind for Mr Macbeth? It seems a part tailor made for an acting baritone rather than the usual Verdi baritone and DFD and Milnes are the only two singers I genuinely like in the role. (The live recording with Gobbi was made on an off night for him, so we can only dream what he would have done with the part when he was on the top of his game.)

N.


----------



## Woodduck

vivalagentenuova said:


> Excellent Verdi baritone. What a timbre! Definitely singing for the stage and not the microphone.


American baritone Richard Bonelli (1889-1980) seems rather forgotten. I discovered these recordings by chance just a few years ago. He had a long career beginning in 1915.


----------



## DarkAngel

Pristine XR with MOT have recently been releasing some great vintage Verdi performances, two here with Stracciari made in small studio (not radio broadcast typical of this time period, or post 1931 at MET with RCA) sound is excellent like you would expect on a good 1950s mono recording......Duck is right these singers are masters of their vocal art, very fluid and imaginative bringing characters to life, amazing versatility in vocal deliveries.......I listen and learn

HFT will be happy to have full opera not isolated arias, soprano Mercedes Capsir is of the Galli Curci school with extra vocal ornaments light canary like tone (very unlike Callas) not well known today......

I stopped buying and have subscription to Pristine XR streaming now, great stuff to explore


----------



## Woodduck

DarkAngel said:


> Pristine XR with MOT have recently been releasing some great vintage Verdi performances, two here with Stracciari made in small studio (not radio broadcast typical of this time period, or post 1931 at MET with RCA) sound is excellent like you would expect on a good 1950s mono recording......Duck is right these singers are masters of their vocal art, very fluid and imaginative bringing characters to life, amazing versatility in vocal deliveries.......I listen and learn
> 
> HFT will be happy to have full opera not isolated arias, soprano Mercedes Capsir is of the Galli Curci school with extra vocal ornaments light canary like tone (very unlike Callas) not well known today......
> 
> I stopped buying and have subscription to Pristine XR streaming now, great stuff to explore


Stracciari should be familiar to all baritone conoisseurs; I've known him since my high school years. The surprise for me on those recordings was Borgioli, an elegant lyric tenor who carried into the mid-20th century the real bel canto tradition. I can't think of a single tenor singing today who's capable of his kind of vocal chiaroscuro. There's plenty of him on YouTube for those interested.


----------



## Bonetan

I'm aware that he has already appeared in the thread, but I must say that this is the complete Verdi baritone package for me. Does anyone else tick all the boxes like he does?


----------



## Woodduck

Bonetan said:


> I'm aware that he has already appeared in the thread, but I must say that this is the complete Verdi baritone package for me. Does anyone else tick all the boxes like he does?


Bastianini leaves a lot of boxes unticked. Magnificent natural instrument, but that's about the extent of it. He sounds best when loudest, and seems to know it. Too mant aspirates, too many notes without vibrato, vibrato sometimes slows on high notes - can belto, not bel canto. And he's musically bland; is there a less imaginative performance of this (well, there's Leonard Warren...)? Legato? Rubato? Tone color? Dynamic shading? Embellishment? Compare Stracciari, Amato, Battistini. The last of these has eveything Bastianini lacks:


----------



## Bonetan

Woodduck said:


> Bastianini leaves a lot of boxes unticked. Magnificent natural instrument, but that's about the extent of it. He sounds best when loudest, and seems to know it. Too mant aspirates, too many notes without vibrato, vibrato sometimes slows on high notes - can belto, not bel canto. And he's musically bland; is there a less imaginative performance of this (well, there's Leonard Warren...)? Legato? Rubato? Tone color? Dynamic shading? Embellishment? Compare Stracciari, Amato, Battistini. The last of these has eveything Bastianini lacks:


He ticks all of my personal boxes at least :lol: for me the vigour of his voice & his ability to sing all of the notes with strength is major. The singers who can't sing the low A I'm giving a red card. Those tenors are out! From my own experience I know its easier to be imaginitive when a role sits low for you & the low notes aren't held against you. & I think the excitement I get from Bastianini's singing is because of where the roles lie for him. So personally, in Verdi, I'd rather listen to Bastianini than Battistini.


----------



## Bonetan

Do you all find Domingo acceptable in any of this rep? Let's pretend he was never a tenor & just came on the scene lol


----------



## Sieglinde

Domingo has committed crimes against Verdi and his music.


----------



## Revitalized Classics

Bonetan said:


> Do you all find Domingo acceptable in any of this rep? Let's pretend he was never a tenor & just came on the scene lol


I attended I Due Foscari with Domingo, Meli, Agresta and Pappano conducting at Covent Garden and thoroughly enjoyed Domingo's performance.

I too had heard less than complimentary things about his singing, contemporary broadcasts which arguably sound even worse than the Macbeth above and rather wondered if buying the ticket was worth the risk. In the end, it wasn't a great opera but he was good in it.

I wanted to hear him and make up my own mind. In the house, I was pleasantly surprised by the volume and timbre of his voice, his phrasing was shapely and I did not recognise characteristics which are occasionally grating to me on records - what you might take to be nasality or a rather insistent vibrato were actually fine.

You'll understand why I thought I'd offer a different perspective.


----------



## Revitalized Classics

Sieglinde said:


> Domingo has committed crimes against Verdi and his music.


Probably...there have always been old singers who would carry on too long given the chance. Rather goes with the territory.

If there are young singers who sound like Zancanaro or Manuguerra (I'm not exactly holding out hope for another Battistini and Ruffo) I think we'd all love to hear them.


----------



## Sieglinde

Fortunately Zancanaro teaches, so at least younger singers have a good master to learn from. George Petean is one of his students, and while a bit on the lyric side, I quite like him. Not as powerful as his big brother Alexandru Agache, but overall a sympathetic singer.

For the younger generation, I love Ruciński, he's working his way into Verdi and he already said he intends to wait with the real big challenges (Rigoletto, Boccanegra) until he feels 100% ready. He's got a beautiful voice and solid technique, and he's a really good actor too.

There is also David Pershall who has already done Rodrigo (really well, too, there is a video of the whole performance), and apparently also di Luna and Germont. He looks impossibly young but he's got to be over 30 by now. Hoping he takes it slow and frankly, companies should give him Billy Budd stat - he'd be a dream. Verdi is quite dangerous. 

Leon Kim is another young singer I have hopes for. He managed to impress me as Paolo, and that's quite hard in such a thankless role, so the lad knows something!


----------



## Bonetan

This has a Verdi baritone in it, therefore:


----------



## Woodduck

Bonetan said:


> This has a Verdi baritone in it, therefore:


A duet that, sadly, was never heard in the opera house, as Caruso died at 48, before he could take on the role. Ruffo, however, did sing Iago: Here's his "Credo," followed by another great Verdi baritone and superb singing actor, Lawrence Tibbett, whose Iago can be heard complete on live from the Met recordings (from which this sounds like an excerpt):






Walter Legge heard Ruffo in 1922 and wrote this:

"From the his first phrase the audience was vanquished by the overwhelming beauty of his voice-manly, broad, sympathetic, of unsurpassed richness. Such ease of production, such abundance of ringing high Gs! But more: Ruffo's infinite subtlety, variety of tone-colour, interpretive insight and sincerity, his magnificent control, stupendous breathing powers, and impeccable phrasing stamped him as a genius."


----------



## Bonetan

I'm going to start by saying something blaspemous. I think the 'King of Baritones' was probably a tenor who chose to sing baritone. But what a stylish & elegant singer he was. I can't get enough. Thanks to Wooduck, Wkasimer, Viva, & others for influencing me to do my homework on this fine artist (I've also become a big Stracciari fan thanks to this thread).






Is there no 'il Balen' recording of Battistini?? I need that in my life...


----------



## wkasimer

Bonetan said:


> I'm going to start by saying something blaspemous. I think the 'King of Baritones' was probably a tenor who chose to sing baritone.


I've read the same comment about Leonard Warren and Heinrich Schlusnus.


----------



## Woodduck

Bonetan said:


> I'm going to start by saying something blaspemous. I think the 'King of Baritones' was probably a tenor who chose to sing baritone.


I can see why you'd say it - there's that limited low range - but timbrally I hear a baritone. There are of course "intermediate" voices: tenors with baritonal timbres (Caruso, Melchior) and bright-voiced baritones. The technology of recording then couldn't reveal the full depth and resonance of voices, and some voices recorded better than others. I'm guessing that Battistini had a brilliant quality we can't hear, but also more depth to the tone than recordings reveal.


----------



## Bonetan

wkasimer said:


> I've read the same comment about Leonard Warren and Heinrich Schlusnus.


I'm not as familiar with Schlusnus but I think Warren probably was tbh


----------



## Bonetan

Woodduck said:


> I can see why you'd say it - there's that limited low range - but timbrally I hear a baritone. There are of course "intermediate" voices: tenors with baritonal timbres (Caruso, Melchior) and bright-voiced baritones. The technology of recording then couldn't reveal the full depth and resonance of voices, and some voices recorded better than others. I'm guessing that Battistini had a brilliant quality we can't hear, but also more depth to the tone than recordings reveal.


There's a whole section on his voice classification in the book about him. I was able to read it online if anyone cares for the link. Here's a quote from Battistini on the matter in Mattia Battistini: King of Baritones...whenever he was asked if his voice was a tenor or baritone, he would reply with a mysterious smile, "Tenor or baritone, I'm Battistini." :lol:


----------



## Woodduck

Bonetan said:


> I'm going to start by saying something blaspemous. I think the 'King of Baritones' was probably a tenor who chose to sing baritone. But what a stylish & elegant singer he was. I can't get enough. Thanks to Wooduck, Wkasimer, Viva, & others for influencing me to do my homework on this fine artist (I've also become a big Stracciari fan thanks to this thread).


One of the best reproductions of Battistini's voice I know of is this marvelous recording of Tosti's _Ideale:_






This is an object lesson in style and technique as practiced by singers trained in the 19th century. The ease, security and consistency of tonal emission allows him to create a full range of dynamic gradations wherever he chooses to employ them, and to darken and brighten the sound at will (we can hear this expressive covering and opening of the tone in many singers of that era; his fellow baritone Pasquale Amato loved the effect). The voice is clear as a bell; there's no artificial darkening or weighting of the sound, no boominess or woofiness, no slowing and widening of the vibrato from excessive force. Diction is crystal clear, the words floating independent of the vocal mechanism, neither having to distort to accommodate the other. The technical freedom makes possible a freedom of style - the superb legato, the rhythmic impulsiveness never in thrall to the bar line, and that wonderful "Battistini snarl" that drives the pitch microtonally sharp and turns his quick vibrato into a shiver of excitement - which 19th-century musicians and listeners valued and expected. What we hear is a direct expression of emotion, made possible by the immediate response of an impeccably schooled vocal mechanism to the singer's every impulse, and limited only by his imagination.

When I was a young man just getting to know opera and singing, I heard singers like Caruso, Schipa, Battistini, Amato, Chaliapin and others from their era doing things with their voices and making music in a way that the singers of my day did not. That was in the 1960s, a time many young people now regard, because of the vast heritage of complete opera recordings, as a "golden age." Listening to a Battistini or a Patti, people for whom the music of Verdi was new and their very own, must be a nearly incomprehensible experience for the operagoers of today.


----------



## Bonetan

Woodduck said:


> One of the best reproductions of Battistini's voice I know of is this marvelous recording of Tosti's _Ideale:_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is an object lesson in style and technique as practiced by singers trained in the 19th century. The ease, security and consistency of tonal emission allows him to create a full range of dynamic gradations wherever he chooses to employ them, and to darken and brighten the sound at will (we can hear this expressive covering and opening of the tone in many singers of that era; his fellow baritone Pasquale Amato loved the effect). The voice is clear as a bell; there's no artificial darkening or weighting of the sound, no boominess or woofiness, no slowing and widening of the vibrato from excessive force. Diction is crystal clear, the words floating independent of the vocal mechanism, neither having to distort to accommodate the other. The technical freedom makes possible a freedom of style - the superb legato, the rhythmic impulsiveness never in thrall to the bar line, and that wonderful "Battistini snarl" that drives the pitch microtonally sharp and turns his quick vibrato into a shiver of excitement - which 19th-century musicians and listeners valued and expected. What we hear is a direct expression of emotion, made possible by the immediate response of an impeccably schooled vocal mechanism to the singer's every impulse, and limited only by his imagination.
> 
> When I was a young man just getting to know opera and singing, I heard singers like Caruso, Schipa, Battistini, Amato, Chaliapin and others from their era doing things with their voices and making music in a way that the singers of my day did not. That was in the 1960s, a time many young people now regard, because of the vast heritage of complete opera recordings, as a "golden age." Listening to a Battistini or a Patti, people for whom the music of Verdi was new and their very own, must be a nearly incomprehensible experience for the operagoers of today.


That is really exquisite singing. I will be coming back to this often...here's something I think about though. People say "where are the great singers like this today?" But if a singer sounding exactly like this auditioned to sing Verdi today he would not be considered. Who is to blame for this? Why did the style change?


----------



## vivalagentenuova

Battistini, Schlusnus, Bechi, and a few others all have lighter timbres than, say, Stracciari, but I consider them all baritones. I don't think not having the lowest baritone notes makes you a tenor, any more than Helen Traubel not having a consistent high C makes her a mezzo. Same for baritones having high notes and sopranos having low notes. What's important is what tessitura the singer is comfortable, healthy, and excels at singing in on a regular basis. All these baritones had great high notes, but I doubt they would have been comfortable with the tenor tessitura. The only way to know for sure would be to be in the room with their teachers, but we have their verdict since they were all trained as baritones.


----------



## vivalagentenuova

Bonetan said:


> That is really exquisite singing. I will be coming back to this often...here's something I think about though. People say "where are the great singers like this today?" But if a singer sounding exactly like this auditioned to sing Verdi today he would not be considered. Who is to blame for this? Why did the style change?


It changed in music generally. This is Opera! did an interesting video comparing 19th century piano players, trained by Chopin's students, to modern Chopin performers. Similar stylistic differences can be observed: not as strict with meter and rhythm, more dynamic contrast, independence of melody from accompaniment etc.. Battistini also uses portamenti in a way that would get him laughed out of a conservatory. I love it.




The same changes have taken place in singing. I think it's also a technical issue. I think modern singers just simply can't do legato like Battistini even if they wanted to because they are so constricted. Battistini's voice is released, and so the voice is a constant stream. Modern singers often sound like they're being choked and having to tear the sound out of them.


----------



## Woodduck

vivalagentenuova said:


> Battistini also uses portamenti in a way that would get him laughed out of a conservatory.


Do you think so? I'd like to think that people staffing conservatories are as aware as we are of what's missing in today's singers. They have access to the recordings, and awareness of 19th-century performance practice is increasing.

Schumann once said (I paraphrase): "What matters in performing Romantic music is not the notes themselves but how we get from one note to another." Musicians of that era didn't worry about bar lines, which were merely a guide, like everything else in a musical score. I think it was Caruso who first alerted me to the fact that notes and phrases are not goals; great performers sing through them, not on them. When he sang, you didn't think or care about notes; they just got carried along in the flow, like birds in the wind. He always sounded completely spontaneous and uncalculated, as if the music were something he had just thought up and felt compelled to communicate. But in order to convey this the voice has to be free to do whatever strikes the singers fancy. As you say,



> I think it's also a technical issue. I think modern singers just simply can't do legato like Battistini even if they wanted to because they are so constricted. Battistini's voice is released, and so the voice is a constant stream. Modern singers often sound like they're being choked and having to tear the sound out of them.


----------



## Bonetan

vivalagentenuova said:


> Battistini also uses portamenti in a way that would get him laughed out of a conservatory. I love it.





Woodduck said:


> Do you think so? I'd like to think that people staffing conservatories are as aware as we are of what's missing in today's singers. They have access to the recordings, and awareness of 19th-century performance practice is increasing.


I think Viva is correct. Conservatories, teachers etc seem only concerned with the practices of the moment. Battistini as we know him wouldn't be allowed to exist today.


----------



## howlingfantods

DarkAngel said:


> HFT will be happy to have full opera not isolated arias, soprano Mercedes Capsir is of the Galli Curci school with extra vocal ornaments light canary like tone (very unlike Callas) not well known today......


I love this Rigoletto, I think I'm on record saying that Stracciari's performance is my favorite on record. I was pretty excited to see that Pristine did this remaster, but after sampling it, I found I preferred the sound on my old Arkadia set.

Now that you mention it though, my favorite overall performance of Rigoletto is one of Pristine's remasters--the Warren/Sayao/Bjorling Met performance. This used to be in too poor sound for me to really rate in my old Naxos version, but the Pristine version is much more listenable. Warren isn't nearly so flawless as Stracciari but I've never heard a more gripping and moving performance.


----------



## DavidA

vivalagentenuova said:


> It changed in music generally. This is Opera! did an interesting video comparing 19th century piano players, trained by Chopin's students, to modern Chopin performers. Similar stylistic differences can be observed: not as strict with meter and rhythm, more dynamic contrast, independence of melody from accompaniment etc.. Battistini also uses portamenti in a way that would get him laughed out of a conservatory. I love it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same changes have taken place in singing. I think it's also a technical issue. I think modern singers just simply can't do legato like Battistini even if they wanted to because they are so constricted. Battistini's voice is released, and so the voice is a constant stream. Modern singers often sound like they're being choked and having to tear the sound out of them.


Interesting so actually playing what the score doesn't say is the correct way of doing it to these people? Playing with their hands not together is the correct way of doing it? And the whole thing is about correctly reading the score? Funny I was taught the opposite. Of course the problem with doing things like this is that it is quite ridiculous just to get two performances of ancient and modern, present them side-by-side and say they represent ancient and modern. To actually prove a point academically you'd have to get a lot more samples.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> Interesting so actually playing what the score doesn't say is the correct way of doing it to these people? Playing with their hands not together is the correct way of doing it? And the whole thing is about correctly reading the score? Funny I was taught the opposite. Of course the problem with doing things like this is that it is quite ridiculous just to get two performances of ancient and modern, present them side-by-side and say they represent ancient and modern. To actually prove a point academically you'd have to get a lot more samples.


This is only a sample of many possible illustrations.

Whatever "opposite" you were taught, it is simply a fact that in the Romantic era musical performance exhibited more flexibility and interpretive freedom. This was indeed considered the "correct" approach to music making. A singer who gave an audience nothing but what was in the score would have been considered a bore. The score was a foundation for a performance, not a straightjacket on it. If you had more of an appetite for old recordings, you'd discover all this.


----------



## howlingfantods

I have not been keeping up on this thread, but I see from glancing through it now that folks have mentioned one baritone I've always been curious about--Gino Bechi. 

A very fine baritone in the recordings I have (mostly accompanying Gigli, plus that one Nabucco with Callas), I was pretty surprised to learn that he was only born in 1913 and lived until 1993--I'm not aware of a single recording after 1949, and Wikipedia mentions that he was in decline by the late 50s and retired by 1965. Does anyone know what accounted for his short career?


----------



## howlingfantods

vivalagentenuova said:


> It changed in music generally. This is Opera! did an interesting video comparing 19th century piano players, trained by Chopin's students, to modern Chopin performers. Similar stylistic differences can be observed: not as strict with meter and rhythm, more dynamic contrast, independence of melody from accompaniment etc.. Battistini also uses portamenti in a way that would get him laughed out of a conservatory. I love it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same changes have taken place in singing. I think it's also a technical issue. I think modern singers just simply can't do legato like Battistini even if they wanted to because they are so constricted. Battistini's voice is released, and so the voice is a constant stream. Modern singers often sound like they're being choked and having to tear the sound out of them.


Weird, I just saw this modern (actually very young pianist) play Chopin the other day and yet she seems to play more like Cortot (one of the "old pianists") than Kissin (one of the "modern pianists").






Oh lordy, one of their "modern pianists" is Arthur Rubinstein. Born in 1887, the same year as Alfred Cortot, one of their "old pianists" and decades before another "old pianist" Dinu Lipatti. Two of their other "modern pianists" is Bella Davidovich and Sondra Bianca.

I mean... this is the kind of cherrypicking and historical timeline bending that makes this channel so fundamentally dishonest to me, even when I agree with their preference for Cortot and Koczalski over Rubinstein in chopin performance.


----------



## Bonetan

howlingfantods said:


> I have not been keeping up on this thread, but I see from glancing through it now that folks have mentioned one baritone I've always been curious about--Gino Bechi.
> 
> A very fine baritone in the recordings I have (mostly accompanying Gigli, plus that one Nabucco with Callas), I was pretty surprised to learn that he was only born in 1913 and lived until 1993--I'm not aware of a single recording after 1949, and Wikipedia mentions that he was in decline by the late 50s and retired by 1965. Does anyone know what accounted for his short career?


I read that at age 37 critics were already saying he had little voice left. Apparently he tried to mask this with "mannerisms & overemphasis".

In Bollettino Verdi - vol.1 n.1 Venetian critic Giuseppe Pugliese had this to say:

"Gino Bechi, in the part of Renato, uses that method of voice production which could have such a negative influence on the many baritones who might wish, ill-advised, to imitate him. An emission contrary to every vocal rule and which makes the voice ugly, sometimes unbearable...and it is in the most tiring passages that his defects show up to the greatest extent."

I'm not exactly sure when this was written, but I think its enough to tell us that it was probably a faulty technique that lead to his early decline.


----------



## vivalagentenuova

On Bechi, there certainly are recordings after 1949. The idea that he suffered a massive vocal decline says more about the difference in standards then and the standards today. While his later recordings are indeed not as good as his earlier ones, they are fine, and I would rather hear 1950s Bechi than any baritone today. It's still excellent singing. The Largo is starting to show some shoutiness, but the tone is very impressive. The Falstaff is great.










Even in 1967, when Bechi was 54, he recorded the role of Germont in _Traviata_ for the wonderful film with Moffo and Bonisolli. While showing more decline than the 50s recordings, it's still perfectly listenable singing with some wonderful moments.





What caused decline in Bechi is unclear. Vocal decline can be caused by a lot of things, from health issues to changing technique to exhaustion etc.. But there is a difference between having a great technique and then losing it and never having one in the first place. During his prime, Bechi had exceptional technique. He was one of the greatest baritones of the century, and truly had a legato and emission of sound that would have made Battistini proud, even if he didn't use 19th century style.

Bechi had exceptional breath control as well, which allowed him to sing phrases of whatever length he desired. In one phrase from "Io morro ma lieto in core" he starts _mf_, decrescendos, crescendos again, and ends up singing the 20 second phrase on one breath. His diction is always as clear as day, dynamic contrasts, and a through line connects everything.


----------



## Bonetan

Bechi sounds like a tenor to me too & he's another one who takes the 'Eri tu' low A up the octave. I'm now convinced that 50% of historical Verdi baritones were lazy tenors. Don't try to convince me otherwise! At least Domingo waited until he was old to become a lazy tenor :lol:


----------



## vivalagentenuova

On 19th century style, yes I do think that any singer who attempted to sing Verdi like the singers that Verdi knew and loved, would generally be "corrected" and told that he wasn't doing "what Verdi wrote." The fact of the matter is that the idea of the score being a sacrosanct and precise thing that tells us exactly what the composer wanted is a 20th century idea, and it's a fantasy. If you want that, you can listen to it played by a computer. Nobody really wants that. It sounds terrible. So everybody, even ardent literalists want performers to violate the score. The question is, how much, and in what ways?

Modern ways of doing that are different than 19th century ways. This is a generalization, so of course there will exceptions. But I have not heard anybody play like Paderewski or Koczalski. Maybe moments, but as a rule, modern performance practice emphasizes rhythmic and metrical precision, hands together in piano, sparing use of portamento in violin, rubato reserved for specific places like the end of a phrase, etc.. And yes, not doing those things is really what people of the past, including many of the composers we all love here, thought was correct and wanted from their performers. The extent of such practices is still hotly debated, which composers wanted which deviations, but a point that This is Opera! makes over and over again couldn't be more salient here: written descriptions are virtually meaningless without knowing what actual sound they had in mind. Tetrazzini talks about "singing in the mask," but she isn't nasal like modern singers who say this. Lehmann wrote all kinds of nonsense about the voice, but the actual sounds she produced were great, and she trained great singers. Modern teachers who use her book, even though they have the words, can't train train students to make the sounds. This is why historical recordings are essential. And, in general, with exceptions, etc., the musicians I know are averse to historical recordings. They either don't care about them or are hostile to them, as though they are an insult to living musicians. Maybe I have been biased by an unrepresentative sample, but I find this attitude prevalent in critical reviews too. Sometimes reviewers will wax on about the historical importance and greatness of a singer or musician, then show they don't really understand them, as when a reviewer giving Alma Gluck a positive review called her low notes oddly powerful and her high notes "piping," and warned modern listeners they would take adjustment. Gluck had one of the most astonishingly beautiful voices of all time, and he high notes are angelic.

As for the This is Opera! comparison, as with any of their videos, if you take this one example and say that they were trying to prove a universal with only these examples, it is cherry picking. Fortunately, that was not their intention. They are giving these as representative examples of a phenomenon that anyone can easily verify for themselves by searching out more examples. If you listen to a lot of historical recordings, and compare them to modern recordings, which I've spent a lot of time doing, you can hear the difference right away. If students are starting to play more like Koczalski again, more power to them. I would love to hear a modern pianist who plays with independent accompaniment and melody.
Here's a video that gives a host of other examples with analysis.





Some more examples with St. Matthew Passion:


----------



## vivalagentenuova

I would just also add for Bechi this 1959 (!) live recording, which shows almost no decline. We'd fall over ourselves running to hear a voice like that. Perhaps he just became inconsistent?





(And isn't Virginia Zeani a great soprano?)


----------



## howlingfantods

vivalagentenuova said:


> On 19th century style, yes I do think that any singer who attempted to sing Verdi like the singers that Verdi knew and loved, would generally be "corrected" and told that he wasn't doing "what Verdi wrote." The fact of the matter is that the idea of the score being a sacrosanct and precise thing that tells us exactly what the composer wanted is a 20th century idea, and it's a fantasy. If you want that, you can listen to it played by a computer. Nobody really wants that. It sounds terrible. So everybody, even ardent literalists want performers to violate the score. The question is, how much, and in what ways?
> 
> Modern ways of doing that are different than 19th century ways. This is a generalization, so of course there will exceptions. But I have not heard anybody play like Paderewski or Koczalski. Maybe moments, but as a rule, modern performance practice emphasizes rhythmic and metrical precision, hands together in piano, sparing use of portamento in violin, rubato reserved for specific places like the end of a phrase, etc..


"modern" in what sense? Here 5 contemporary pianists in my Chopin collection, there is much rubato, de-syncing of hands, etc. Not to the same degree as Koczalski or Cortot but a lot, and unlike those, these pianists can play with Michelangeli-style clarity and ability to bring out inner voices.






















The essential problem with TIO is that they're conflating aesthetic and stylistic movements with a general decay in ability. The mid 20th century was an era that rejected much of the Romantic performance practice of the 19th century on aesthetic grounds, but that was a stylistic choice, not an inability to play like their predecessors.


----------



## Woodduck

vivalagentenuova said:


> I would just also add for Bechi this 1959 (!) live recording, which shows almost no decline. We'd fall over ourselves running to hear a voice like that. Perhaps he just became inconsistent?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (And isn't Virginia Zeani a great soprano?)


I'd heard little of Bechi before now. I can't dispute that he had a great voice, but there's a nasal brightness, a brassiness, in his tone and sometimes a brutality in his delivery that make whatever character he's portraying sound a little nasty. His "Largo al factotum" is joyless, and his 1959 "Di provenza" is short-breathed and hectoring (he actually sounds more sympathetic in 1967). The aggressive snarl in his sound reminds me of Gobbi, and like Gobbi he seems ideal for villains; the Falstaff and Iago selections suit him best. I don't much enjoy listening to him, but I have to acknowledge that he'd be more than welcome on today's stages.

Zeani is wonderful. She sings this scene as well as I've ever heard it sung. The voice itself just lacks the darker coloration and weight that makes a Callas or a Muzio incomparable.


----------



## vivalagentenuova

Fair enough. Do bear in mind that these are all from the least successful part of his career, although that brightness is present throughout and is just part of his technique. His earlier recordings are much suaver in terms of delivery. In fact, I think his stylistic decline is more significant than his vocal decline. His 40s recordings show wonderful legato and phrasing, which becomes more intermittent in the 50s.


----------



## Bonetan

How highly do you all rate Cappuccilli against his contemporaries?


----------



## Sieglinde

I love Cappuccilli, he may not have been the greatest actor (he certainly went to the William Shatner school of acting XD), but vocally, god tier. He really seemed to have infinite lung capacity! And in the many videos and recordings I have heard him in, I don't remember a single "bad day". 

This particular "Il balen" is one of the most perfect renditions. And Leonora prefers the tenor! Inconceivable.


----------



## Bonetan

Sieglinde said:


> I love Cappuccilli, he may not have been the greatest actor (he certainly went to the William Shatner school of acting XD), but vocally, god tier. He really seemed to have infinite lung capacity! And in the many videos and recordings I have heard him in, I don't remember a single "bad day".
> 
> This particular "Il balen" is one of the most perfect renditions. And Leonora prefers the tenor! Inconceivable.


I've been listening to his Boccanegra the last few days & you're right. His lung capacity is absolutely absurd!!! That's certainly a gift he was born with. Most of us could never achieve anything like that no matter how much we trained.


----------



## Bonetan

Here's an example. Listen to the first phrase at 19:18. Sing along & see how far you can get lol


----------



## Sieglinde

And I'm always like: HOW. He was rather small and fragile. Where did all that air fit! 

I love his Boccanegra so much.


----------



## vivalagentenuova

Cappuccilli fits in the middle of the spectrum for me. He's in the group of singers that I think of as "okay but not great". To me his voice has a dry quality that I don't particularly like, as though it's being blunted and prevented from fully resonating. Even in his early studio recordings it's lacking something. It doesn't bloom. Still, it's in tune, not unpleasant, proper vibrato, no barking, and it's well used. His long line in _Boccanegra_ is very impressive. That Il balen was nice, but I really much prefer singers like Bastianini and especially Lisitsian, Bechi, and Granforte among others in that aria. And most arias, to be honest.


----------



## Woodduck

vivalagentenuova said:


> Cappuccilli fits in the middle of the spectrum for me. He's in the group of singers that I think of as "okay but not great". To me his voice has a dry quality that I don't particularly like, as though it's being blunted and prevented from fully resonating. Even in his early studio recordings it's lacking something. It doesn't bloom. Still, it's in tune, not unpleasant, proper vibrato, no barking, and it's well used. His long line in _Boccanegra_ is very impressive. That Il balen was nice, but I really much prefer singers like Bastianini and especially Lisitsian, Bechi, and Granforte among others in that aria. And most arias, to be honest.


I feel exactly that way about him. A "useful" singer, not an interesting or exciting one. I can also never remember which consonants in his name to double.


----------



## Bonetan

With all that I've learned in this thread I'd like to attempt to craft the perfect Verdi baritone lol. Anyone care to assist?

I'm thinking...

Battistini's artistry

Ruffo's power

Cappuccilli's breath control

Gobbi's acting

Bastianini's timbre

Am I close??


----------



## DavidA

Cappuccilli I've always thought of as one of the greats with his ability to give a long breath. Just listen to his Boccanegra with Abaddo. I know he's too recent for some but that should not disqualify him. Just enjoy the sound.


----------



## vivalagentenuova

Bonetan said:


> With all that I've learned in this thread I'd like to attempt to craft the perfect Verdi baritone lol. Anyone care to assist?
> 
> I'm thinking...
> 
> Battistini's artistry
> 
> Ruffo's power
> 
> Cappuccilli's breath control
> 
> Gobbi's acting
> 
> Bastianini's timbre
> 
> Am I close??


I'd say Urbano or Tibbett's timbre, but yeah I would definitely love to hear that singer. Still, one thing that's nice about no one singer embodying all these different aspects is that we get to hear so many different takes on the same music, and each one brings out a different kind of greatness in their performance.



> Cappuccilli I've always thought of as one of the greats with his ability to give a long breath. Just listen to his Boccanegra with Abaddo. I know he's too recent for some but that should not disqualify him. Just enjoy the sound.


Except I don't enjoy his sound.


----------



## Woodduck

Bonetan said:


> With all that I've learned in this thread I'd like to attempt to craft the perfect Verdi baritone lol. Anyone care to assist?
> 
> I'm thinking...
> 
> Battistini's artistry
> 
> Ruffo's power
> 
> Cappuccilli's breath control
> 
> Gobbi's acting
> 
> Bastianini's timbre
> 
> Am I close??


That's good. Could you give us a demonstration?


----------



## DavidA

vivalagentenuova said:


> Except I don't enjoy his sound.


Funny I do! So do a whole lot of other people apparently!


----------



## Bonetan

Woodduck said:


> That's good. Could you give us a demonstration?


HAHA! I'm working on it :lol:


----------



## Bonetan

I found this review about an instance in which Ruffo & Battistini were double-booked to be quite interesting...apologies if it has already been posted!

https://search.proquest.com/openview/0ea6932e4dfcf50c/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=2913


----------



## vivalagentenuova

DavidA said:


> Funny I do! So do a whole lot of other people apparently!


But you advised me to just enjoy the sound instead of focusing on whether or not he's recent (which, the keen observer would note, I said absolutely nothing about in my original comment). Well, forgetting when he's from, I still don't enjoy the sound. So I'm back where I started. I'm glad you enjoy him, though.


----------



## wkasimer

Bonetan said:


> With all that I've learned in this thread I'd like to attempt to craft the perfect Verdi baritone lol. Anyone care to assist?
> 
> I'm thinking...
> 
> Battistini's artistry
> 
> Ruffo's power
> 
> Cappuccilli's breath control
> 
> Gobbi's acting
> 
> Bastianini's timbre
> 
> Am I close??


I'd just go with Pavel Lisitsian.

But if he were a more interesting interpreter, Robert Merrill would be pretty close to ideal.


----------



## Revitalized Classics

vivalagentenuova said:


> But you advised me to just enjoy the sound instead of focusing on whether or not he's recent (which, the keen observer would note, I said absolutely nothing about in my original comment). Well, forgetting when he's from, I still don't enjoy the sound. So I'm back where I started. I'm glad you enjoy him, though.


Given the choice, I'm not mad about Cappuccilli. It's not exactly a glamorous voice and his interpretations don't exactly burn in my memory...Still, I prefer him vocally to Bruson or Nucci and _Boccanegra_ with Abbado is probably his best work.

Among his contemporaries, Paskalis was creditable: particularly as Macbeth





Zancanaro had a richer voice than Cappuccilli along with similar strengths and weaknesses: long-breathed phrasing, native speaker, a bit stiff as an actor





Manuguerra was an asset in the same repertoire


----------



## wkasimer

Revitalized Classics said:


> Given the choice, I'm not mad about Cappuccilli. It's not exactly a glamorous voice and his interpretations don't exactly burn in my memory...Still, I prefer him vocally to Bruson or Nucci and _Boccanegra_ with Abbado is probably his best work.


I share your opinion about Cappuccilli. He's serviceable, but not very inspiring - I don't buy recordings because he's in them, but I don't reject them, either.

And I also share your views about Zancanaro and Manuguerra, and also Nicolae Herlea:


----------



## DavidA

vivalagentenuova said:


> But you advised me to just enjoy the sound instead of focusing on whether or not he's recent (which, the keen observer would note, I said absolutely nothing about in my original comment). Well, forgetting when he's from, I still don't enjoy the sound. So I'm back where I started. I'm glad you enjoy him, though.


If you don't enjoy, you don't enjoy! I do.


----------



## Revitalized Classics

wkasimer said:


> I share your opinion about Cappuccilli. He's serviceable, but not very inspiring - I don't buy recordings because he's in them, but I don't reject them, either.
> 
> And I also share your views about Zancanaro and Manuguerra, and also Nicolae Herlea


I've listened to Silveri and Valdengo for comparison and their voices are of similar weight but the actual singing is more animated. For a singer with so many virtues, I'm surprised to find rather a lot of his recordings a bit boring.

Thanks for sharing Herlea: I've not listened to him for a while. His voice is bigger and has more metal, the comparison that came to mind for me was Taddei who was perhaps even more towards a bass-baritone timbre. I'm guessing Herlea could be an exciting performer, I'll check out his records!

Thanks, David


----------



## Sieglinde

Panerai also had a beautiful voice, and he took good care ot it (I remember him singing Papa Germont in a film when he was about 75). He seems to be a bit underrated, probably because there were a lot of great baritones in that period.


----------



## Revitalized Classics

Sieglinde said:


> Panerai also had a beautiful voice, and he took good care ot it (I remember him singing Papa Germont in a film when he was about 75). He seems to be a bit underrated, probably because there were a lot of great baritones in that period.


Panerai was marvellous and he sang a wide repertoire.

It's difficult to gauge from records but I don't think his voice was quite as large as some of the other singers. Either that or he decided not to force his tone like Bechi or Gobbi sometimes did.

Subsequently, when it comes to Verdi I'm not sure he performed many of the big parts live e.g. Rigoletto, Macbeth, Boccanegra, Nabucco and Falstaff? I'd be interested if there is more info available.

He did sing Amonasro and Don Carlos (Forza del Destino) for broadcast (plus other parts in the RAI 1951 broadcasts) and recorded Count di Luna: but not when he was a mature artist, just at the start of his career.

Otherwise he deferred to Gobbi and Taddei and made his mark as Ford and occasionally as Paolo.


----------



## wkasimer

Revitalized Classics said:


> Thanks for sharing Herlea: I've not listened to him for a while. His voice is bigger and has more metal, the comparison that came to mind for me was Taddei who was perhaps even more towards a bass-baritone timbre. I'm guessing Herlea could be an exciting performer, I'll check out his records!


There are actually a few complete recordings, including Rigoletto, Forza, Traviata, Tosca, and I think Pagliacci, which have appeared on CD on the Vox label. Plus there's a live Met Don Carlo with Rysanek and Corelli.


----------



## SanyiKocka

Gobbi (Although his high register is not considered that good for Rigoletto) ,Bruson and MacNeil for Rigoletto
Bastianini for Count di Luna, Count Anckarstrom, Don Carlo di Vargas
Cappuccilli for Simon Boccanegra and Marquis di Posa
Milnes for Macbeth and Iago


----------



## VitellioScarpia

SanyiKocka said:


> Gobbi (Although his high register is not considered that good for Rigoletto) ,Bruson and MacNeil for Rigoletto
> Bastianini for Count di Luna, Count Anckarstrom, Don Carlo di Vargas
> Cappuccilli for Simon Boccanegra and Marquis di Posa
> Milnes for Macbeth and Iago


I would add Milnes for Simon Boccanegra. His Met performances as Simon were magnificent in the 80's. 
Vladimir Chernov's Marquis de Posa was also quite wonderful in the 90s.


----------



## Sieglinde

Milnes as Boccanegra is just so majestic and badass (and quite the DILF). Also he's incredibly scary in the curse scene. Nat 20 on intimidation.


----------



## The Conte

Sieglinde said:


> Milnes as Boccanegra is just so majestic and badass (and quite the DILF). Also he's incredibly scary in the curse scene. Nat 20 on intimidation.


I recently acquired this on DVD and it is fantastic. Gobbi would be my go to Verdi baritone and after him it is Milnes (for recordings of complete operas). Technically Battistini was probably the greatest baritone of all time, but we don't have any recordings of him in a complete opera.

N.


----------



## Sieglinde

I wish Bastianini had the opportunity to sing Boccanegra. It would have suited him so well.

Gobbi is also a big favourite in this role. He's very nuanced and has a lot of colours. He really could _act_ with his voice. Just listen to his duet with Amelia! Heavenly. When people say he "always sounded like Scarpia" I want to show them this recording.

Chernov was also great as Simon. Perhaps not as powerful vocally as some but I really believed him the character (including his rogueish past).


----------



## The Conte

I generally don't like Cappuccilli as I find his singing beautiful but lacking in drama. However, Simon is one of the roles I do like him in. Bastianini is another Verdi baritone I like, I forgot about him.

N.


----------



## Bonetan

The Conte said:


> Technically Battistini was probably the greatest baritone of all time, but we don't have any recordings of him in a complete opera.N.


For you, and whoever else cares to answer, why do folks prefer Battistini over De Luca? Is it more of a reputation thing or is there something technical that you hear? I'm finding myself preferring De Luca at the moment and I wonder if my ear isn't fine tuned enough yet...


----------



## Sieglinde

The Conte said:


> I generally don't like Cappuccilli as I find his singing beautiful but lacking in drama. However, Simon is one of the roles I do like him in. Bastianini is another Verdi baritone I like, I forgot about him.
> 
> N.


Listening to the Abbado recording right now (he's shaming the whole room currently) and damn, this really is good. The whole cast is very strong. Even Pietro is Foiani, and he's barely a character.


----------



## SanyiKocka

The Conte said:


> I generally don't like Cappuccilli as I find his singing beautiful but lacking in drama. However, Simon is one of the roles I do like him in. Bastianini is another Verdi baritone I like, I forgot about him.
> 
> N.


I prefer Cappuccilli singing more "lyric" roles, such as Posa , Simon Boccanegra etc. His long legato lines are beautiful . Although many people may prefer a more heroic Posa but Cappuccilli's Posa is tender and caring.


----------



## Bonetan

Sieglinde said:


> And I'm always like: HOW. He was rather small and fragile. Where did all that air fit!
> 
> I love his Boccanegra so much.


I was listening to the Met Boccanegra with Domingo (smh) and in the phrase I posted in which Cappuccilli takes zero breaths, Domingo takes four lol. Maybe that's just a product of Domingo's advanced age, but still!


----------



## SanyiKocka

Bastianini had a pleasant natural timbre，as Milnes put it, "strong and sexy", or in other words, "bronze and velvet". His singing also has dramatic forces. However he alwayssang as if the character is a nobleman. Well, some of these characters are noblemen, at least they have a noble heart. For those characters I like him most. But his Rigoletto, Barnaba are also like noblemen...
Gobbi did not have a great natural vocal gift, but he understood the music. He used his singing to tell the audience what the character was like rather than to show off his techniques. Even sometimes, his vocal shortcomings are not considered as shortcomings (e.g. his interpolated high A in the Rigoletto finale sounds rather "weak" but it illustrates the hopeless shout of the poor old man)


----------



## Bonetan

Did George London sing any complete Verdi roles on stage?


----------



## Bonetan

I've been hardcore Robert Merrill the last few days. I think those that say he had the most beautiful baritone voice may have got it right...


----------



## IgorS

*Antonio Cotogni*

True Verdi baritone, at least from Verdi's own point of view:
Antonio Cotogni, great baritone and great teacher.
Mattia Battistini, Carlo Galeffi, Giuseppe De Luca, Giacomo Lauri-Volpi, Beniamino Gigli and many others learned from him privately.
Here him singing at age of 77:


----------



## Bonetan

IgorS said:


> True Verdi baritone, at least from Verdi's own point of view:
> Antonio Cotogni, great baritone and great teacher.
> Mattia Battistini, Carlo Galeffi, Giuseppe De Luca, Giacomo Lauri-Volpi, Beniamino Gigli and many others learned from him privately.
> Here him singing at age of 77:


I was fascinated by your post and the contributions of Cotogni so I've been reading about him, but according to his wiki the "O casto fior" is not him, but is "in fact the voice of tenore robusto Francesco Tamagno's brother, Giovanni." The Cotogni wiki says that this is the only real recording of Cotogni:


----------



## IgorS

Bonetan,

Yes, it seem to be right. I remembered that there are some recordings of him in The Harold Wayne Collection, but now I see that there is only "I Mulattieri" there on Vol.2.


----------



## Bonetan

IgorS said:


> Bonetan,
> 
> Yes, it seem to be right. I remembered that there are some recordings of him in The Harold Wayne Collection, but now I see that there is only "I Mulattieri" there on Vol.2.


Thanks for bringing his name to my attention. I didn't realize how huge his contributions to the art were!


----------



## adrian1982

Cornell!


----------



## Bonetan

Is it common knowledge that Verdi wanted Battistini to premiere the role of Falstaff and Battistini refused, Verdi taking it as a personal affront and being angry with Battistini for some time?

By the way, the man is a vocal genius and for my money the greatest baritone who ever lived. Anything I said before that takes away from his greatness, I take back!


----------



## The Conte

He is my absolute favourite of golden age baritones. As we don't have any complete opera recordings with him in, it's difficult to compare him with some of those who came after.

N.


----------



## MAS

What can you do but *lament that there aren't any? *


----------



## The Conte

MAS said:


> What can you do but *lament that there aren't any? *


Complete opera recordings with Battistini?

N.


----------



## MAS

The Conte said:


> Complete opera recordings with Battistini?
> 
> N.


I meant "Verdi Baritones." Just reinforcing what others have said, I'm sure.


----------



## The Conte

MAS said:


> I meant "Verdi Baritones." Just reinforcing what others have said, I'm sure.


Ok, yes, I agree. What can you do? Put on the great recordings from the past.

N.


----------



## The Conte

Bonetan said:


> Is it common knowledge that Verdi wanted Battistini to premiere the role of Falstaff and Battistini refused, Verdi taking it as a personal affront and being angry with Battistini for some time?
> 
> By the way, the man is a vocal genius and for my money the greatest baritone who ever lived. Anything I said before that takes away from his greatness, I take back!


Do you have the six disc Marston set?

https://www.marstonrecords.com/collections/singer/products/battistini

N.


----------



## Bonetan

The Conte said:


> He is my absolute favourite of golden age baritones. As we don't have any complete opera recordings with him in, it's difficult to compare him with some of those who came after.
> 
> N.





The Conte said:


> Do you have the six disc Marston set?
> 
> https://www.marstonrecords.com/collections/singer/products/battistini
> 
> N.


I do not, how is it?? However, I did purchase the book "Mattia Battistini King of Baritones and Baritone of Kings" which contains numerous reviews and anecdotes from his career. So while I also lament the lack of full recordings, I can say with utmost confidence that if they existed all they would do is further his greatness. I've learned enough to be convinced that no one has been his equal before or since.


----------



## The Conte

I need to listen to him more. That complete set is absolutely essential and was produced with the usual care by Ward Marston.

N.


----------



## Bonetan

The Conte said:


> I need to listen to him more. That complete set is absolutely essential and was produced with the usual care by Ward Marston.
> 
> N.


You must!

Here's another tidbit you might appreciate. In 1880 Wagner came to Rome to hear Lohengrin and was so impressed by Battistini in the role of the Herald that he asked him personally to prepare Telramund, a role that I wasn't aware Battistini performed, nor one that would seem to be a fit. Wagner also had Battistini study Wolfram and the Dutchman. Goes to show how differently Wagner wanted his music sung compared to what we have today.

A review of Battistini's Telramund at age 24:

"congratulations to the excellent Battistini for his remarkable success in Lohengrin. This intelligent, conscientious artist was able to draw the most wonderful effects from the gratifying part of Telramund. Battistini had to endure tough comparisons with the singer who had filled the role before him, but everyone could appreciate the extent to which Battistini surpassed all expectations. He lifted himself to the highest artistic level, and his worthiness did not go unnoticed by the public, who applauded him sincerely and demanded an encore of his duet with Ortrud." (_Don Pirloncino_, 9 April 1880)


----------



## vivalagentenuova

While I can never settle on any "best" singer of any voice type, I think I can say that I've never heard anybody better than Battistini. His expressive range is phenomenal, and he seems to be able to everything you could want a great singer to do and more. I particularly admire his recordings of O Lisbona from _Don Sebastiano_, and his La ci darem la mano with Corsi (who is not in his league). He makes the Don into someone I could imagine women being interested in: a faux-sensitive suitor, rather than a transparently malevolent force as many basses seem to play him.


----------



## Sieglinde

MAS said:


> I meant "Verdi Baritones." Just reinforcing what others have said, I'm sure.


There still are some, even if they are rare. But Ludovic Tézier is a straight up golden age baritone, today. His legato is to die for.


----------



## Bonetan

Sieglinde said:


> There still are some, even if they are rare. But Ludovic Tézier is a straight up golden age baritone, today. His legato is to die for.


I've been listening to a lot of Tezier recently and I agree that he's the best baritone singing Verdi these days. He's the baritone on two DVDs I purchased recently. BUT I think his voice isn't as free as it could be and he leans towards a throaty method of singing that's basically the norm with men these days, especially low voice men. Kaufmann, Hvorostovsky rip, Ildar, are all guilty of it to varying degrees. Tezier less so, but now that I know what's possible I no longer accept this as great singing.

Members of TC, you have yourselves and covid to blame for my elevated snobbery :lol: I've been doing my homework!


----------



## Bonetan

Another Battistini tidbit from 'King of Baritones and Baritone of Kings' that I think you all will appreciate:

While on the subject of Chaliapin, it is well to remember that another great Russian bass, Alexander Kipnis, was so stunned by Battistini's singing that he "almost wanted to quit studying. I thought to myself, what's the use?" Later, when asked what singer had impressed him the most, he still replied:"Mattia Battistini. He had the kind of voice which made the voices of other cast members sound like tin in comparison to a golden bell."


----------



## vivalagentenuova

Two Great Verdi Baritones:
Andrej Ivanov, who is unjustly forgotten (often that phrase is a slight exaggeration, but he's seriously fantastic)





Joseph Schwarz, with the also underrated (no exaggeration here either!) Claire Dux:





You can hear Schwarz's incredible timbre even better in this Wagner aria:


----------



## Bonetan

For historical purposes. The first Iago...


----------



## vivalagentenuova

Two more great Verdi baritones:










What I find again and again when listening to old recordings is that bel canto doesn't mean "light" or "dramatically inert" or "pretty but not strong voices". It means flawless vocal production. Antonio Magini-Coletti (b. 1855) is a bel canto singer par excellence, but that's a strong, powerful voice that sounds like it would press you to the back wall of the theater. But there's nothing uncontrolled, nothing shouty, nothing woofy, nothing wobbly, nothing even sounds difficult. It's perfectly produced.


----------



## Bonetan

vivalagentenuova said:


> What I find again and again when listening to old recordings is that bel canto doesn't mean "light" or "dramatically inert" or "pretty but not strong voices". It means flawless vocal production. Antonio Magini-Coletti (b. 1855) is a bel canto singer par excellence, but that's a strong, powerful voice that sounds like it would press you to the back wall of the theater. *But there's nothing uncontrolled, nothing shouty, nothing woofy, nothing wobbly, nothing even sounds difficult. It's perfectly produced.*


You'd be hard pressed to find any Verdi singers who fit that description these days


----------



## The Conte

Bonetan said:


> You'd be hard pressed to find any Verdi singers who fit that description these days


I think it could be worse than that. A shouty, woofy Verdi baritone would be a boon. They all seem to have teeny, tiny voices that don't do much.

N.


----------



## Bonetan

On Battistini's recording process:

"We know that Battistini soon got in the habit of removing his jacket, necktie, collar, and shirt to put himself more at ease when making a recording. Some will find it amusing that this elegant singing could have come from a man half-dressed, while others will admire the artist who knew what he had to do to achieve the results he wanted. If his clothes prevented him from breathing properly, or from feeling at ease, why should he have kept them on? No gramophone fan would know the difference."

Amusing indeed :lol:


----------



## Seattleoperafan

Admittedly I am much more knowledgeable of female singers, but I don't see Leonard Warren receiving lots of love here and he was always my favorite baritone. I heard someone say he was a tenor who darkened his voice, but to my humble ears I can't see that. It was such a rich rich baritonal sound. I also am a fan of the barihunk website LOL. I saw Kwiecen when he was young and he had looks and a beautiful sound combined with good acting.


----------



## Bonetan

Seattleoperafan said:


> Admittedly I am much more knowledgeable of female singers, but I don't see Leonard Warren receiving lots of love here and he was always my favorite baritone. I heard someone say he was a tenor who darkened his voice, but to my humble ears I can't see that. It was such a rich rich baritonal sound. I also am a fan of the barihunk website LOL. I saw Kwiecen when he was young and he had looks and a beautiful sound combined with good acting.


I think if you hear him speak it's clear that he darkened his singing voice, but whether or not that makes him a natural tenor is debatable. I've never been a fan because he doesn't sing in a natural way. I don't think his technique would have held up much longer...


----------



## Sieglinde

Artur Ruciński


----------



## Seattleoperafan

I am rereading The Last Prima Donnas and Simeonato said her favorite baritone was Ettore Bastianini. She sang with them all and didn't give many singers praise.


----------



## MAS

Seattleoperafan said:


> I am rereading The Last Prima Donnas and Simeonato said her favorite baritone was Ettore Bastianini. She sang with them all and didn't give many singers praise.


Yesterday would've been Bastianini's 98th birthday.


----------



## MAS

Bonetan said:


> I think if you hear him speak it's clear that he darkened his singing voice, but whether or not that makes him a natural tenor is debatable. I've never been a fan because he doesn't sing in a natural way. I don't think his technique would have held up much longer...


I've never understood how some people held him in such high regard.


----------



## annaw

Seattleoperafan said:


> I am rereading The Last Prima Donnas and Simeonato said her favorite baritone was Ettore Bastianini. She sang with them all and didn't give many singers praise.


I recalled a Youtube interview where Simionato talked about Bastianini. Someone in the comments translated it into English, so I can as well copy a bit of it here:

_The only joyful thing he had was his voice, and God forgive me for saying he was wrongfully hit right in his voice which was his only joy, aspiration, dream and his only thought. It was the only thing he had. Now when they say that he was not expressive enough, they were people who were not sensitive enough to perceive this suffering. He sang through this suffering with this voice which I have always defined as being both of bronze and velvet together. This was a prestigious thing and we will never hear a voice like this again, in my opinion it was something miraculous. Perhaps God wanted to reward him with this voice for all of his other suffering. I say that it was not right to reach a public without the right sensitivity, but everyone hears in a different way because each of us is a different world and the brain of every person is different just like the way finger prints are different, everything is different. Naturally we must also respect the different points of view of these people. Of course, Ettore in these roles sang and put his interior pain into his voice and this must be understood, this voice was so swollen, swollen with this bronze that was in his voice. Naturally if you were struck by his voice it was a sublime thing, but if you were not struck by this voice you would say that this or that was missing. About Bastianini I can say this of the man and also as a singer. As I have said before, as a singer I would say that it was his sensitivity, his suffering that he passed on to the characters themselves, but it was contained by an instinctive personal technique. This "legato" and this technique helped to sustain this phrasing, this expression that was inside this voice so dark and bronze-like. These are things that either you hear or you do not hear._

Bastianini certainly had a spectacular vocal timbre.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy

Nicolae Herlea


----------



## Seattleoperafan

BalalaikaBoy said:


> Nicolae Herlea


Looks like John Wayne


----------



## Seattleoperafan

Bonetan said:


> Another Battistini tidbit from 'King of Baritones and Baritone of Kings' that I think you all will appreciate:
> 
> While on the subject of Chaliapin, it is well to remember that another great Russian bass, Alexander Kipnis, was so stunned by Battistini's singing that he "almost wanted to quit studying. I thought to myself, what's the use?" Later, when asked what singer had impressed him the most, he still replied:"Mattia Battistini. He had the kind of voice which made the voices of other cast members sound like tin in comparison to a golden bell."


I do listen to you sages and every week my best friend and I do a drive and listen to all sorts of music from Western Yodeling to grand opera while I am at my driving job. We had never heard Battistini before yesterday and were utterly blown away! She was getting chills. Do you know any arias where he sings really high. I'd love to hear that.


----------



## Bonetan

Seattleoperafan said:


> I do listen to you sages and every week my best friend and I do a drive and listen to all sorts of music from Western Yodeling to grand opera while I am at my driving job. We had never heard Battistini before yesterday and were utterly blown away! She was getting chills. Do you know any arias where he sings really high. I'd love to hear that.


Listening to and reading about Battistini has completely changed my perspective on technique and what great singing is. Total revelation for me and I have the members of TC to thank 

He sings the interpolated high A flat in the prologue here, which I believe he was the first to do. There is also a high G at the very end, but I'm not sure what record has him singing the highest...






If you're enjoying Battistini I recommend giving Pol Plancon a listen. I think he may have been an even more perfect singer than Battistini. Listen to what a bass with perfect technique and no artificial darkening is capable of. Listen to the runs after the 1:30 mark. Stunning.


----------



## vivalagentenuova

Bonetan said:


> Listen to what a bass with perfect technique and no artificial darkening is capable of. Listen to the runs after the 1:30 mark. Stunning.


Those runs are indeed amazing. I think the key word here is "artificial". I suspect that Plancon's voice would have sounded much darker in person/on electrical equipment than it did in these acoustic recordings. Still, it is not "woofy", as they say, and the vowels are clear. I remember seeing a masterclass with Fleming where the student was a bass who was terribly woofy. She advised him to sing more in the mask to get more squillo. It made a minor cosmetic improvement, but the chest voice was inadequately developed and now it was simply leaning towards nasality instead of leaning towards woofiness. It certainly didn't produce any significant squillo. Plancon has exactly the right sound: bright but not nasal and dark but not woofy. Though the equipment undervalues the dark part of the voice, you can still hear that the voice was _functionally_ perfect even if you can't hear the precise timbre.


----------



## annaw

vivalagentenuova said:


> Those runs are indeed amazing. I think the key word here is "artificial". I suspect that Plancon's voice would have sounded much darker in person/on electrical equipment than it did in these acoustic recordings. Still, it is not "woofy", as they say, and the vowels are clear. I remember seeing a masterclass with Fleming where the student was a bass who was terribly woofy. She advised him to sing more in the mask to get more squillo. It made a minor cosmetic improvement, but the chest voice was inadequately developed and now it was simply leaning towards nasality instead of leaning towards woofiness. It certainly didn't produce any significant squillo. Plancon has exactly the right sound: bright but not nasal and dark but not woofy. Though the equipment undervalues the dark part of the voice, you can still hear that the voice was _functionally_ perfect even if you can't hear the precise timbre.


I know only some very basic things about vocal technique but it's really insightful, even eye-opening to hear you guys discuss this here.

I absolutely love Battistini as well. I'd say that what I think makes both Poulenc and Battistini very different from the mid-20th century low male voices is their subtlety, the capability to use dynamics with immense skilfulness, and constant vibrato! Everything they sing sounds thought-through, delicate, and very refined which I find very satisfying to listen to. What's also interesting is that I find myself thinking much less about their individual vocal timbres. While quite evidently Battistini's top was his strength and he didn't possess a _particularly_ strong lower register, his voice is still unbelievably full-sounding. It's amazingly rich and colourful.

I remember immensely enjoying this when I had my most recent Bellini phase (it's not Verdi but I hope you forgive me this heresy ):






I think that singing good _bel canto_, like Bellini in this case, really requires an absolutely amazing technique. Showing off vocal skills has always seemed to be part of _bel canto_ singing to me. It's not meant to be simply survived.


----------



## Seattleoperafan

Okay, I am confused . I am having a real hard time with names here. Battistini. I was listening to Ettiore and thought he was amazing but apparently it is Mattea I should be listening to. I am getting old. Maybe I should stick to sopranos.


----------



## Bonetan

Seattleoperafan said:


> Okay, I am confused . I am having a real hard time with names here. Battistini. I was listening to Ettiore and thought he was amazing but apparently it is Mattea I should be listening to. I am getting old. Maybe I should stick to sopranos.


Bastianini is a legendary baritone, but compared to Battistini...I'll let you discover this for yourself


----------



## Bonetan

vivalagentenuova said:


> Those runs are indeed amazing. I think the key word here is "artificial". I suspect that Plancon's voice would have sounded much darker in person/on electrical equipment than it did in these acoustic recordings. Still, it is not "woofy", as they say, and the vowels are clear. I remember seeing a masterclass with Fleming where the student was a bass who was terribly woofy. She advised him to sing more in the mask to get more squillo. It made a minor cosmetic improvement, but the chest voice was inadequately developed and now it was simply leaning towards nasality instead of leaning towards woofiness. It certainly didn't produce any significant squillo. Plancon has exactly the right sound: bright but not nasal and dark but not woofy. Though the equipment undervalues the dark part of the voice, you can still hear that the voice was _functionally_ perfect even if you can't hear the precise timbre.


Totally agree. I think trying to sound dark (the woofiness) is probably the biggest issue among modern low voices. Darkness is simply not something you can manufacture unless you want to risk doing harm. Battistini and Plancon sing with a technique which makes their singing sound no more difficult and no less natural to them than speaking, which gives them total control and allows them to do things with their voices that a modern singer couldn't imagine...

Sample the pianissimo high A flat from about the 2:55 mark:






The elegance with which Plancon sings astounds me every time...






I'm also sorry to get away from Verdi in this thread, but I can't stop raving about these two great artists! The two best low voices in operatic history if you ask me!!


----------



## annaw

Bonetan said:


> I'm also sorry to get away from Verdi in this thread, but I can't stop raving about these two great artists! The two best low voices in operatic history if you ask me!!


I guess that as long as we are talking about Verdi baritones (no matter what else they happened to sing as well) we are safe .


----------



## Seattleoperafan

Bonetan said:


> Bastianini is a legendary baritone, but compared to Battistini...I'll let you discover this for yourself


OK. He is on my car playlist for next week and I will let you know. Thanks for encouraging me.


----------



## vivalagentenuova

This is what I imagine the difference between Plancon on acoustic and hypothetical Plancon on electric/live would be like:
Acoustic:





Electric:





A beautiful voice either way, but much darker and fuller in the electric, yet still full of core/squillo.



Bonetan said:


> Battistini and Plancon sing with a technique which makes their singing sound no more difficult and no less natural to them than speaking, which gives them total control and allows them to do things with their voices that a modern singer couldn't imagine...


Precisely. It sounds effortless and natural, which is the sign of real artistry. That's why when people try to separate technique and expressiveness I usually can't agree. Technique allows for real expressiveness. Battistini and Plancon can sing any note and any intensity with any coloration with apparent ease. That's when the most profound expression is possible.


----------



## The Conte

Bonetan said:


> Totally agree. I think trying to sound dark (the woofiness) is probably the biggest issue among modern low voices. Darkness is simply not something you can manufacture unless you want to risk doing harm. Battistini and Plancon sing with a technique which makes their singing sound no more difficult and no less natural to them than speaking, which gives them total control and allows them to do things with their voices that a modern singer couldn't imagine...
> 
> Sample the pianissimo high A flat from about the 2:55 mark:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The elegance with which Plancon sings astounds me every time...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm also sorry to get away from Verdi in this thread, but I can't stop raving about these two great artists! The two best low voices in operatic history if you ask me!!


Two of my absolute faves (and I have their complete recordings).

N.


----------



## SanyiKocka

MAS said:


> Yesterday would've been Bastianini's 98th birthday.


Also Cornell MacNeil! Two great baritones were born on thr same day in the same year. (9.24.1922)


----------



## Seattleoperafan

I will use first names as I can't keep their last names straight, but my friend and I were blown away with Ettiore and found Mattia to be ho hum. Perhaps it was because it was an earlier recording or the wrong recording. Ettiore moved us emotionally. You also must consider that I still love Warren, who most of you hate. Oh, well. I guess I should stick with female singers.


----------



## Bonetan

Seattleoperafan said:


> I will use first names as I can't keep their last names straight, but my friend and I were blown away with Ettiore and found Mattia to be ho hum. Perhaps it was because it was an earlier recording or the wrong recording. Ettiore moved us emotionally. You also must consider that I still love Warren, who most of you hate. Oh, well. I guess I should stick with female singers.


I can't speak for anyone else, but my appreciation for Mattia happened over time. You'll have to take the time to fine tune your ear to the baritone voice on old records as you have soprano


----------



## Richard di Calatrava

Sieglinde said:


> (If there is a thread about this already, please merge!)
> 
> So, as someone who is a wee bit obsessed with Verdi (understatement), I thought it would be fun to discuss baritones, past and present, who tackled these roles.
> 
> Nowadays many baritones more on the lyric side try their luck - some roles work better than others. I'd say Rodrigo is a fairly safe gambit, but in most cases a lyric baritone trying Verdi is like a dps character trying to solo a powerful boss. Doable if they are very careful, but it's easily to get one-hit killed by something a more tanky voice could endure easily.


Here's a Verdi baritone who is often overlooked (not by me!):

Bring to mind the live Solti/Pavarotti Otello. You will note that the Montano is ALAN OPIE. Opie is an English baritone who was active for many years with English National Opera, then went international, with great success. I saw him many times (I'm in UK) and he was always never less than first class!

His Verdi roles included leads in Nabucco (which he recorded in English for Chandos - stunning!), Ernani (also recorded), Rigoletto (in the famous Jonathan Miller/Mafia production...also on an Opera Australia video), Trovatore (also recorded), Traviata, Paolo in Boccanegra (also at Covent Garden), Melitone in Forza, both Ford AND Falstaff.

Late in his career, Opie sang at the MET, including-a couple of years ago- roles in Rusalka and Idomeneo (Arbace...where his voice was still pretty fresh, even in his early 70s!!) Just to top that off, he appeared as Bartolo in Barber of Seville and (yet again) as Germont for ENO (at 73 years old: here's a clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UG8r2_kAt20 ...pretty impressive for his age, eh?)

Opie has the knack of singing most beautifully -dramatically where appropriate- and making everything sound easy. It is such a joy to hear his (fortunately many) recordings and live performances. Unless you have an absolute aversion to Italian opera in English, I suggest acquiring his recital disc for Chandos 'Alan Opie sings Bel Canto Arias' (including Verdi, despite the title) - it was recorded when Opie was at his peak (late-90s/early 2000s) and you will NOT be disappointed!

Check out Alan Opie on YouTube and Amazon.

By the way, I'm not related...just a complete fan!!


----------



## MarioDelMonacoViva

I don't know if anyone mentioned Apollo Granforte: 




One of the greatest Verdi baritones of all time.


----------



## mparta

Bonetan said:


> I've been listening to a lot of Tezier recently and I agree that he's the best baritone singing Verdi these days. He's the baritone on two DVDs I purchased recently. BUT I think his voice isn't as free as it could be and he leans towards a throaty method of singing that's basically the norm with men these days, especially low voice men. Kaufmann, Hvorostovsky rip, Ildar, are all guilty of it to varying degrees. Tezier less so, but now that I know what's possible I no longer accept this as great singing.
> 
> Members of TC, you have yourselves and covid to blame for my elevated snobbery :lol: I've been doing my homework!


I think I heard Tezier in Paris and thought he was ok, but I recently purchased the DVD from Madrid of I Puritani with Tezier, Camarena, Teste and Damrau and Tezier is really a weak link, very inferior singing, garbling the little bit of fioritura required and monotonously mezzo-forte to forte singing. The baritone role is so critical to this opera, with so much of the beautiful music, and he does substantial damage to this performance. I do not think I would listen to a performance of his again except incidentally. Why his technique is so poor I can't imagine, it is exactly that throat business mentioned above. Very unattractive. I haven't thought of that though in hearing Kaufman (not a fan, heard his Otello, really not right) although I heard him make a hash out of Andrea Chenier or Hvorostosky, see below.

Interesting to read comparisons and confusion about Battistini and Bastianini throughout this, but Bastianini is a big voice and appreciable for the time (years) when he was recorded, Battistini requires an ear adjustment for the recordings but very good singing (the Puritani excerpt someone posted).

Real Verdi baritones, we should mention in mourning Hvorostovsky, posted criticism above aside. The first time I heard him was on the radio in Traviata and I pulled off the highway to listen, not knowing who it was but recognizing the quality for Verdi. I wonder about his last Rigoletto, if anyone has heard it. It has that stupid off-putting cover with what's supposed to be a jester's hat but at first glance seems a Norse helmet.

Sherril Milnes was so famous for the upward extension, and he did some extraordinary singing, but my taste is more drawn to less bright sounds. Still, his cruda funesta smania on the Sutherland/Pavarotti recording is A. not Verdi, sorry but B. thrilling, especially the end where his vibrato is in rhythm and provides impetus to the held note. And for Verdi, his Credo in Otello really knocked me out, with an operatic devil's laugh to close it that's worth the price of admission.


----------



## mparta

Revitalized Classics said:


> I've been checking through the discographies and I think that Renato Bruson has recorded the most Verdi baritone parts - over twenty as far as I can tell. Giuseppe Taddei was another versatile artist who performed many roles including rarely performed works such as _Un giorno di regno [aka Il finto Stanislao]_ and _La battaglia di Legnano_.
> 
> I'm not sure where this leaves my idea of a "Verdi baritone"... Both their voices have a lower centre-of-gravity than, say, Gobbi or Nucci, Panerai or Sereni who you might argue are more suited to Ford than Falstaff.
> 
> No sooner would you conclude that Taddei and Bruson provide a useful 'stereotype' - along with, say, Manuguerra's lovely timbre - than I realise that Milnes has performed almost as many Verdi parts and his voice is so different and used so differently...
> 
> I think that Ambrogio Maestri probably belongs to the same baritone-with-a-hint-of-bass range as Taddei and - when he is not pigeonholed as Falstaff - he sings Rigoletto, Ballo, Otello etc rather well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PS It is lamentable how many videos of Maestri's singing have poor sound. This seems to have been a decent modern version but it is hard to tell even though it is so-called HD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Between that and videos recorded by mobile phone, if the poor man retired tomorrow we could hardly muster a decent album to commemorate his hard work.


Wow, thank you for that Maestri Cortigiani!!!!
First, it does the essential, my main thought throughout was "what a great piece of music"
Second, the voice sits a little low for this. I have never heard him in anything other than Falstaff, although I've heard that three times. Very good singing, beautiful, well placed and when he has time to integrate the upper range it works well. I would hear this again willingly. What great music!!


----------



## mparta

For all the special pleading (including by me) for the adverse impact of the old recordings, I'm listening to Georges Thill Ah, Leve-toi, Soleil, and that requires no pleading. Wow.
Just saying.


----------



## Bonetan

Has anyone heard Apollo Granforte's Iago on the Sabajno _Otello_ from 1931? Thoughts on this performance?

'Era la notte' is when I knew I had to change my avatar and pay homage. This is a level I didn't know existed. This is the most impressive singing of a role I've ever heard from a baritone, all things considered.


----------



## PaulFranz

Sieglinde said:


> Artur Ruciński


Strangled, woofy, heady, full of straight tone, unclear, etc. Par for the course today.


----------



## PaulFranz

Bonetan said:


> Has anyone heard Apollo Granforte's Iago on the Sabajno _Otello_ from 1931? Thoughts on this performance?
> 
> 'Era la notte' is when I knew I had to change my avatar and pay homage. This is a level I didn't know existed. This is the most impressive singing of a role I've ever heard from a baritone, all things considered.


Granforte was always forced, unsubtle, and overdarkened for me. He had a huge, impressive instrument, but I don't think he used it wisely or beautifully.


----------



## PaulFranz

Richard di Calatrava said:


> Here's a Verdi baritone who is often overlooked (not by me!):
> 
> Bring to mind the live Solti/Pavarotti Otello. You will note that the Montano is ALAN OPIE. Opie is an English baritone who was active for many years with English National Opera, then went international, with great success. I saw him many times (I'm in UK) and he was always never less than first class!
> 
> His Verdi roles included leads in Nabucco (which he recorded in English for Chandos - stunning!), Ernani (also recorded), Rigoletto (in the famous Jonathan Miller/Mafia production...also on an Opera Australia video), Trovatore (also recorded), Traviata, Paolo in Boccanegra (also at Covent Garden), Melitone in Forza, both Ford AND Falstaff.
> 
> Late in his career, Opie sang at the MET, including-a couple of years ago- roles in Rusalka and Idomeneo (Arbace...where his voice was still pretty fresh, even in his early 70s!!) Just to top that off, he appeared as Bartolo in Barber of Seville and (yet again) as Germont for ENO (at 73 years old: here's a clip: impressive for his age, eh?)
> 
> Opie has the knack of singing most beautifully -dramatically where appropriate- and making everything sound easy. It is such a joy to hear his (fortunately many) recordings and live performances. Unless you have an absolute aversion to Italian opera in English, I suggest acquiring his recital disc for Chandos 'Alan Opie sings Bel Canto Arias' (including Verdi, despite the title) - it was recorded when Opie was at his peak (late-90s/early 2000s) and you will NOT be disappointed!
> 
> Check out Alan Opie on YouTube and Amazon.
> 
> By the way, I'm not related...just a complete fan!!


Compares very unfavorably to Rawnsley, who had a much clearer, darker, and firmer voice.


----------



## PaulFranz

mparta said:


> I think I heard Tezier in Paris and thought he was ok, but I recently purchased the DVD from Madrid of I Puritani with Tezier, Camarena, Teste and Damrau and Tezier is really a weak link, very inferior singing, garbling the little bit of fioritura required and monotonously mezzo-forte to forte singing. The baritone role is so critical to this opera, with so much of the beautiful music, and he does substantial damage to this performance. I do not think I would listen to a performance of his again except incidentally. Why his technique is so poor I can't imagine, it is exactly that throat business mentioned above. Very unattractive. I haven't thought of that though in hearing Kaufman (not a fan, heard his Otello, really not right) although I heard him make a hash out of Andrea Chenier or Hvorostosky, see below.
> 
> Interesting to read comparisons and confusion about Battistini and Bastianini throughout this, but Bastianini is a big voice and appreciable for the time (years) when he was recorded, Battistini requires an ear adjustment for the recordings but very good singing (the Puritani excerpt someone posted).
> 
> Real Verdi baritones, we should mention in mourning Hvorostovsky, posted criticism above aside. The first time I heard him was on the radio in Traviata and I pulled off the highway to listen, not knowing who it was but recognizing the quality for Verdi. I wonder about his last Rigoletto, if anyone has heard it. It has that stupid off-putting cover with what's supposed to be a jester's hat but at first glance seems a Norse helmet.
> 
> Sherril Milnes was so famous for the upward extension, and he did some extraordinary singing, but my taste is more drawn to less bright sounds. Still, his cruda funesta smania on the Sutherland/Pavarotti recording is A. not Verdi, sorry but B. thrilling, especially the end where his vibrato is in rhythm and provides impetus to the held note. And for Verdi, his Credo in Otello really knocked me out, with an operatic devil's laugh to close it that's worth the price of admission.


Both Khvorostovskij and Milnes spent the second half of their careers with a nasty, nasal, collapsed, unclear, woofy sound. There's just no point in listening to singing like that. I could list 40+ baritones better, more consistent, more understandable, and stronger in the same rep.

Mattia Battistini
Heinrich Schlusnus
Lawrence Tibbett
Riccardo Stracciari
Titta Ruffo
Giuseppe Bellantoni
Armand Crabbé
Mario Ancona
Giuseppe Pacini
Eugenio Giraldoni
Robert Weede
Antonio Magini-Coletti
Giovanni Inghilleri
Giovanni Albinolo
Giovanni Milani
Robert Merrill
Giuseppe de Luca
Giuseppe Danise
Mario Basiola
Umberto Urbano
Mario Laurenti
Jean Noté
Ernest Tilkin-Servais
Charles Cambon
Joseph Schwarz
Carlo Galeffi
Celestino Sarobe
Cesare Formichi
Hans Duhan
Pasquale Amato
Pavel Lisitsian
Maksimilian Maksakov
Mikhail Karakash
Vladimir Zakharov
Jose Segura-Tallien
Nestor de la Torre
Franco Bordoni
Vincenzo Guicciardi
John Brownlee
John Rawnsley
Henri Albers
Franco Pagliazzi
Enrico de Franceschi


...and there are others too, but in different rep


----------



## ColdGenius

Revitalized Classics said:


> Merrill in Forza (with Tucker)


Wonderful! 
The last video is nice. I think they had much fun. Tucker looks like elderly Cecilia Bartoli. And Merill's face expressions are amazing, as if here barely tries to conceal what he thinks about tenors, and in general he looks like he hasn't had such a fun for a long time. But both voices are marvelous. If I could hope to hear something like this one day.


----------



## Bonetan

PaulFranz said:


> Granforte was always forced, unsubtle, and overdarkened for me. He had a huge, impressive instrument, but I don't think he used it wisely or beautifully.


I consider the 1931 recording I referenced to be flawlessly sung, so while I won't disagree with your statement completely, I do think "always" is a stretch. I do agree that there are instances where he forces but I don't consider this to be common characteristic of his singing. Vocally, I don't think another baritone in recorded history has been able to bring as much to the role of Iago. The way he sang on this particular recording is not possible with a forced, overdarkened sound.


----------



## ColdGenius

I know that offering of a contemporary singer here could be interpreted as mauvais ton. But either recordings or live performances have their amenities. That's why I keep on going to the opera.


----------



## ColdGenius

Vladislav Sulimsky


----------



## ColdGenius

Stephane Degout. But I don't know if he sings Verdi. I heard him in Gluck and Rossini.


----------



## ColdGenius

Vladimir Stoyanov.


----------



## ColdGenius

Alexey Markov. My favorite Onegin.


----------

