# Rossini Tenor Heaven



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

I would hate to have to be the dueling Rossini partner of Larry Brownlee, but Michael Spyres, who I had never heard of, is up to the match. If you like good Rossini tenors this sounds up your alley. Brownlee's high C's are among the most beautiful and gutsy I have ever heard. They have a new disc out:https://operawire.com/q-a-lawrence-...li-album-theatre-closures-and-the-road-ahead/


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Brownlee and Spyres are superlative but I must add a huge shout out to Florez.


----------



## Handelian (Nov 18, 2020)

nina foresti said:


> Brownlee and Spyres are superlative but I must add a huge shout out to Florez.


I have a disc of Florez. He is amazing. Amazing on stage too. He really has stage presence. And of course he is so good looking (the swine!)


----------



## Sieglinde (Oct 25, 2009)

Flórez is like a ray of sunshine. You can really see he enjoys singing, and he makes it look easy. He delivers Arnold's crazy high notes like it's nothing.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

I love this recording .


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

We are blessed with several great and good Rossini tenors at the moment. There are a number of younger tenors doing the rounds.

N.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Sieglinde said:


> Flórez is like a ray of sunshine. You can really see he enjoys singing, and he makes it look easy. He delivers Arnold's crazy high notes like it's nothing.


Talking of crazy high notes, does anyone know Javier Camarena. I saw him in *La fille du régiment* a couple of years ago at Covent Garden and the top Cs were the easiest I've ever heard. Encoring the aria has become something of a calling card for him.


----------



## Handelian (Nov 18, 2020)

Flores as king of the high Cs


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Tsaraslondon said:


> Talking of crazy high notes, does anyone know Javier Camarena.


A terrific singer. I've not heard him in the flesh, but when he debuted at the Met, I was told that in the house, his voice was considerably more impressive than Florez's. It's a shame that Camarena hasn't recorded much.


----------



## Aerobat (Dec 31, 2018)

Handelian said:


> I have a disc of Florez. He is amazing. Amazing on stage too. He really has stage presence. And of course he is so good looking (the swine!)


I've got quite a few Florez recordings and he excels in Rossini & Donizetti especially. Was also able to see him in L'Elisir D'Amore in Vienna a few years ago. His stage presence and performance are fabulous, although he did seem a little frustrated by the excessive applause following Una Furtiva Lagrima. But not so frustrated that we didn't get an encore


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

I have seen both Camarena and Florez live and Camarena had a somewhat thinner voice (and was also quite nasal). Neither of them has a huge voice, of course and both of them can be heard without problem in the house. Florez has the more interesting voice for my money, but it will be interesting to see how Camarena's career progresses.

N.


----------



## Handelian (Nov 18, 2020)

Aerobat said:


> I've got quite a few Florez recordings and he excels in Rossini & Donizetti especially. Was also able to see him in L'Elisir D'Amore in Vienna a few years ago. His stage presence and performance are fabulous, although he did seem a little frustrated by the excessive applause following Una Furtiva Lagrima. But not so frustrated that we didn't get an encore


He knows how to milk the applause. But then he is a tenor!


----------



## DeGustibus (Aug 7, 2020)

Don't show this thread to the guys over in the "State of Operatic Singing."


----------



## Aerobat (Dec 31, 2018)

DeGustibus said:


> Don't show this thread to the guys over in the "State of Operatic Singing."


Going off the original topic of this thread, I have to confess to some frustration with that thread and others. There are some truly great singers today, right now, who we are lucky enough to be able to enjoy both in performances (pre-covid) and through recordings. However, there seem to be some folks around who can't accept that anyone whose career didn't finish in the 80s or earlier can be any good. Personally, I'm not going to live in past - I'm going to enjoy what we have today. There's no shortage of talented singers right now, so let's all enjoy what they have to offer.


----------



## mparta (Sep 29, 2020)

Handelian said:


> He knows how to milk the applause. But then he is a tenor!


A little disappointed with an online I Puritani in which Florez sounds quite forced. I heard him in L'Italiana in Algeri many moons ago, very nice but that's a very nice role, not terribly showy or challening although I like the arias. Cesare Valletti, wonderful sweet sound in the old Guilini/Simionato recording. I have the Florez Guillaume Tell, didn't make an impression on a first hear, obviously I should try harder.
Camarena seems to have a slighter voice (and is a small person with a peculiar likeness to Jonathan Winters) but it is exquisitely well used. I heard him in Puritani and a Berlioz Requiem, both wonderful. The upward extension is easy, integrated and very natural sounding for him. No stress, no mess.

BUT----- YOU'RE ALL COMPLETELY OFF THE MARK!!!!

Maybe that will spice this up a bit.

If you haven't heard Michele Angelini's Almaviva from a Paris Barbiere on Naxos, you haven't HEARD A ROSSINI TENOR!! Forum etiquette, shouting in capitals. Hilarious. But really, I'm trying to help. I think it's on line.

I mentioned Brian Hymel since I heard him in Guillaume Tell (Arnaud), he was spectacular and went from strength to strength. I would travel to hear him again. There were others, I was never much on Chris Merritt or Rockwell Blake, not very attractive voices to me, same with Gregory Kunde, but there was an Italian, Dano Raffanti, sang in the concert Donna del Lago with Horne/Von Stade/Blake. Really wonderful timbre (very Pavarotti like), free, good technique, and I also heard him as a very good Alfredo with Sutherland . In Memphis, Tennessee, of course, where else would you go to hear Dame Joan Sutherland in La Traviata?

I have Rossini's Otello with Carreras staring at me but haven't gotten to it. Anyone know that? Young Carreras, von Stade, Ramey.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

mparta said:


> I have Rossini's Otello with Carreras staring at me but haven't gotten to it. Anyone know that? Young Carreras, von Stade, Ramey.


It's a very good recording. The opera isn't quite Rossini at his best, but they do it proud. Von Stade stands out, but Carreras is good too.

N.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

Aerobat said:


> Going off the original topic of this thread, I have to confess to some frustration with that thread and others. There are some truly great singers today, right now, who we are lucky enough to be able to enjoy both in performances (pre-covid) and through recordings. However, there seem to be some folks around who can't accept that anyone whose career didn't finish in the 80s or earlier can be any good. Personally, I'm not going to live in past - I'm going to enjoy what we have today. There's no shortage of talented singers right now, so let's all enjoy what they have to offer.


Why isn't it ok to enjoy current singers while also acknowledging that the level was much higher in the past? We'd all be better off if current singers were held to that standard. As an active singer myself, it's a standard I want to reach and be held to. If we accept lesser singing as truly great singing the level will continue to drop and the genre will continue to fade into obscurity.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Here is Spyres in a concert Rossini aria. Many many C5's. He is much handsomer than in the recording video. Is it just me or is this guy a blazing new star tenor of the first caliber?? In one aria he even sings a FFF D5 plus several excursions into the baritone register. In another he sings up to Eb5. I get the impression his voice is larger than the typical Rossini tenor. He even sang the tenor lead in Carmen and Rigoletto, something you never hear other Rossini tenors do. I just discovered this Bellini aria where he sings it as written up to F# !!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Aerobat said:


> Going off the original topic of this thread, I have to confess to some frustration with that thread and others. There are some truly great singers today, right now, who we are lucky enough to be able to enjoy both in performances (pre-covid) and through recordings. However, there seem to be some folks around who can't accept that anyone whose career didn't finish in the 80s or earlier can be any good. Personally, I'm not going to live in past - I'm going to enjoy what we have today. There's no shortage of talented singers right now, so let's all enjoy what they have to offer.


There are many reasons to examine the recorded history of singing, but nostalgia is not one of them. It may not be too far off the topic of this thread to remark that if you were to explore some of the contributions here of people who talk knowledgeably about singers of the past, you might notice that comparisons often focus on larger voices, voices suitable for operas of the mid-19th and early 20th century repertoire. I think most of us agree that there are many fine singers today capable of singing Baroque and Classical opera well. Performances of Handel, Mozart and the lighter bel canto era works of Rossini and Donizetti are often very effectively cast. What we've lacked for some time, though, are big-voiced singers - singers classified as "spinto" or "dramatic" - who can meet the standards set by their predecessors in fulfilling the demands of Verdi, Wagner, and the verismo era. The difficulty of casting satisfactorily much of this repertoire is acknowledged by opera houses, and it's no accident that people still turn to recordings made sixty or seventy years ago to hear how these operas can sound. There's no snobbism or glee in asserting this; I'd like nothing more than to attend a _Tristan_ sung by the likes of Flagstad and Melchior - or Nilsson and Vickers - and I experience only sadness at seeing no such grand voices on the horizon. On the other hand, I'm glad that there's a Joyce DiDonato for lovers of Mozart and Handel. It makes sense that the revival of interest in older operatic repertoire would create a place for lighter voices to shine, and so it seems that we have more good Rossini tenors now than we had in 1960. It can't be accidental that every Rossini recording of that era seems to feature Luigi Alva!


----------



## mparta (Sep 29, 2020)

Bonetan said:


> Why isn't it ok to enjoy current singers while also acknowledging that the level was much higher in the past? We'd all be better off if current singers were held to that standard. As an active singer myself, it's a standard I want to reach and be held to. If we accept lesser singing as truly great singing the level will continue to drop and the genre will continue to fade into obscurity.


Sorry, bogus, singing was not better in the past, it was different.









Ramon Vargas here is absolutely wonderful and there is no historical recording that matches this or many of the other Rossinian tenors (I was pushing hard on Michele Angelini and I think he's an incredible example) performing now. My suspicion is that the "revival" of bel canto tenor singing actually led to this incredible stable of singers that is superior to anything in the past. Of course that's just a guess, the 19th century originals are lost. But the current singers are so unimaginably good that I'd stake a good bet on this as the golden era of this kind of singing.
So this sort of resays what Woodduck said above, the previous generations of tenors in Rossini and Bellini were woodducks when a wooddove was called for. Or something like that


----------



## Handelian (Nov 18, 2020)

A bit of a blast from the past









Valletti as the Count is here quite superb in a day when they didn't come thick and fast. He manages the arias Alva omits.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

mparta said:


> Sorry, bogus, singing was not better in the past, it was different.
> 
> View attachment 146544
> 
> ...


Even if I accept your opinion that Rossini and Bellini are better sung today as truth, which I don't, doesn't the fact that 100 years ago they had great singers in Rossini and Bellini as we do, but also in Puccini, Verdi, and Wagner prove that singing was indeed better in the past? Unless you believe that our improvements in Rossini and Bellini are great enough to make up for what we've lost in the dramatic rep I think you have to agree with me on this one.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

mparta said:


> Sorry, bogus, singing was not better in the past, it was different.
> 
> View attachment 146544
> 
> ...


I'm acquainted with the work of the fine Mr. Vargas (here's his young Count Almaviva: 



 ). Although he is excellent, I don't find him "unimaginable," or unequaled by many other singers past and present. Tenors capable of singing this music were not invented yesterday. I'll bet you've never heard of this very stylish guy: 



 That was 1941, live (no retakes). Then there was the elegant Dino Borgioli in 1930: 



 Who today can match that combination of dynamic control and legato? Going farther back in time (1908), Fernando de Lucia does things with his voice no tenor I can think of could do today: 



 Here's a wonderful guy I've just now discovered whose training is obviously in the same old school of bel canto grace: 



 Who sings like that now? And how about this fellow: 



 Maybe the last of the tenors with this old school training and style was Tagliavini (though his coloratura is a little rough): 




Some of the ways those guys can shade and play with their voices are, I imagine, "unimaginable" to young operagoers today.

We agree that there are many fine singers specializing in Rossini and earlier opera today. That's to be expected as a consequence of the early music revival which has continued apace since the 1960s. But the longer I live the more singers of the past I discover who put the present state of singing into perspective. Anyone harboring a sense of superiority about the state of operatic singing today has just not listened enough.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Well many of you are much smarter than me on tenors, but when I hear Florez, Brownlee or Spyres sing I don't long to hear singers of the past sing in their repertoire like I long for Callas, Milanov or Tebaldi when I hear today's Verdi sopranos. I heard Brownlee several times live and he took my breath away with his glorious vocal beauty and dexterity! Even 20 years later he sounds exactly the same. He was in the Young Artist program here under Speight Jenkins when we had the money for that great program.


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

mparta said:


> Sorry, bogus, singing was not better in the past, it was different.
> 
> View attachment 146544
> 
> ...


I was just thinking of this recording. It's been awhile since I listened to any of it, but from memory it's a nice one all around. I haven't gotten into Rossini's operas very much though, so I can't really say a lot on this topic.


----------



## Aerobat (Dec 31, 2018)

mparta said:


> Sorry, bogus, singing was not better in the past, it was different.
> 
> View attachment 146544
> 
> ...


Your point about 19th Century originals is perfectly valid. It's also worth pointing out that most 20th Century 'originals' are flawed and can't capture the music in its entirety. I've heard people on here rave about the 52 Armida recorded by Callas. I have this recording, and frankly it's so bad I've never managed to listen to all of it. The Fleming Armida by contrast is a joy to listen to, despite the nay-sayers on here who prefer the Callas.

I'm too young to have heard Callas perform (she died not long after I was born), but my only observation would be that I've seen plenty of reports from her time of her being booed at the Met, and at La Scala. Maybe, just maybe, she's now seen through rose-tinted glasses, and actually some of the modern generation are every bit as good if not better??

The other simple fact is that early recordings are of such poor quality that it's not really possible to hear every nuance of the singers voice (someone recently posted a link on here to a 1920s recording where the background hiss practically drowns out the singer). This can flatter the singers in many regards and frequently conceals weaker elements. A contemporary high resolution recording with bring through every detail of the performance, good or bad. This in turn allows us to be far more critical of what we hear.

I have no objection to folks enjoying music recorded in any era if it makes them happy. Personally, I rate Virginia Zeani & Angela Gheorghiu as two greats, one from the past and one from the modern era. What I do find strange is that some (not all) listeners seem determined to reject anything recorded in the modern era when there are clearly some very talented and enjoyable singers **right now** whose music we can enjoy greatly. And maybe, just maybe, those singers are every bit as good as those from the past. However, as we don't have high-res recordings of many of the earlier generations it's very difficult if not impossible to form a meaningful comparison.


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

People mention audio quality a lot when talking about old singers, but personally, I don't think that prevents us from getting a good feel for their voices unless the recordings are _really_ old (like 1930s and earlier).

There are singers (Callas, Björling, Varnay, etc.) who transcended both there stereo and mono eras. We can get a similar picture of their singing whether it be in stereo or mono.

By the 60s, we have recordings that have splendid sound, and we have legendary names like Nilsson, Corelli, Fischer-Dieskau, etc. When I compare the hi-fi recordings of that time with the very poor quality recordings of the time, I hear clearer sound, but I don't get a different impression of the voices. Take the Böhm _Ring _for example and compare it with another live recording from the time with the same singers. That's a huge difference in sound quality, but the higher quality recording though wonderful doesn't really change the impression of the singers.

There are also singers (Pavarotti, Popp, Weikl, etc.) who transcended both the analogue and digital eras. Again, same thing: sound improves, but the singers don't seem to have their overall vocal qualities made more apparent by the newer technology.

Basically, I believe you can tell a bad singer vs a mediocre one vs a good one pretty well regardless of sound. I think there is an effect that sound quality has on how we perceive a voice, but I don't think that effect is as big as some say. The recording medium would have to be really poor to change the perception of a singer. Example, Nilsson's voice on a cylinder:






One time actually, I did a little test to see how sound affected my perception of a couple singers -

I took a recent recording I have with singers I found undesirable (but not so blatantly terrible) and used Audacity to make them sound like a really old recording to see if they sounded better to me. I chopped off the low and high frequencies, distorted frequencies, added noise, and converted to mono. The soprano sounded a bit better (maybe from removing the high frequencies?), but the tenor still sounded bad, and I had to make the recording sound really poor to do this. Of course this is subjective. I would encourage others to try this and see what they think.

The thread has been really derailed now, so I probably won't go any further into this topic. This is discussion for the other thread.


----------



## mparta (Sep 29, 2020)

Woodduck said:


> I'm acquainted with the work of the fine Mr. Vargas (here's his young Count Almaviva:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I only agree with this and Bonetan to the degree that they consider me young and am very amused by the general "bet you've never heard of this" approach. I've heard that Landi, it's standard sweet Italian (the Valletti virtue) but no match for any of the current singers. But please, keep it up with the young stuff, too funny and something I don't get much. wonder why?

This has turned into a bunch of foolish nostalgia, the current singers in some of the repertory are providing much wonderful singing, and I wish i could hear great Verdi, (sometimes I can) but before my young time, when there was good Verdi, there was NO RAMEAU.

This has been ruined by this "good old days" nonsense. Going elsewhere.


----------



## Handelian (Nov 18, 2020)

adriesba said:


> People mention audio quality a lot when talking about old singers, but personally, I don't think that prevents us from getting a good feel for their voices unless the recordings are _really_ old (like 1930s and earlier).
> 
> There are singers (Callas, Björling, Varnay, etc.) who transcended both there stereo and mono eras. We can get a similar picture of their singing whether it be in stereo or mono.
> 
> ...


Just listen to what Nilsson says at the end: "Oh my! That's terrible! I will never laugh again when I hear an old recording!" We see here the paucity of the sound on these ancient recordings so even such a well known and great singer such as Nilsson is not recognised and does not in fact recognise herself!


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> There are many reasons to examine the recorded history of singing, but nostalgia is not one of them. It may not be too far off the topic of this thread to remark that if you were to explore some of the contributions here of people who talk knowledgeably about singers of the past, you might notice that comparisons often focus on larger voices, voices suitable for operas of the mid-19th and early 20th century repertoire. I think most of us agree that there are many fine singers today capable of singing Baroque and Classical opera well. Performances of Handel, Mozart and the lighter bel canto era works of Rossini and Donizetti are often very effectively cast. What we've lacked for some time, though, are big-voiced singers - singers classified as "spinto" or dramatic" - who can meet the standards set by their predecessors in fulfilling the demands of Verdi, Wagner, and the verismo era. The difficulty of casting satisfactorily much of this repertoire is acknowledged by opera houses, and it's no accident that people still turn to recordings made sixty or seventy years ago to hear how these operas can sound. There's no snobbism or glee in asserting this; I'd like nothing more than to attend a _Tristan_ sung by the likes of Flagstad and Melchior - or Nilsson and Vickers - and I experience only sadness at seeing no such grand voices on the horizon. On the other hand, I'm glad that there's a Joyce DiDonato for lovers of Mozart and Handel. It makes sense that the revival of interest in older operatic repertoire would create a place for lighter voices to shine, and so it seems that we have more good Rossini tenors now than we had in 1960. It can't be accidental that every Rossini recording of that era seems to feature Luigi Alva!


Not true. A couple feature Cesare Valletti!

But I completely agree with everything else.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Seattleoperafan said:


> Here is Spyres in a concert Rossini aria. Many many C5's. He is much handsomer than in the recording video. Is it just me or is this guy a blazing new star tenor of the first caliber?? In one aria he even sings a FFF D5 plus several excursions into the baritone register. In another he sings up to Eb5. I get the impression his voice is larger than the typical Rossini tenor. He even sang the tenor lead in Carmen and Rigoletto, something you never hear other Rossini tenors do. I just discovered this Bellini aria where he sings it as written up to F# !!!!!!!!!!


I heard him a couple of years ago in *La Damnation de Faust* in a concert performance of the piece (well it is, after all, a concert piece) at a Prom at the Royal Albert Hall. I thought he was extremely musical and accomplished but the voice was not large, and there were occasions I had difficulty hearing him, even though the orchestra under John Eliot Gardiner was a period bunch. I was very surprised to hear he had taken on Enée for the Nelson recording, andI wonder how much he's ben helped by microphone placing. I would have said he was a light, lyric tenor.

On the other hand, Javier Camarena, whom I heard as Tonio in _La fille du Régiment_ at Covent Garden had no problem being heard in Covent Garden, and his top Cs were easier than Pavarotti's or Florez's.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Aerobat said:


> Your point about 19th Century originals is perfectly valid. It's also worth pointing out that most 20th Century 'originals' are flawed and can't capture the music in its entirety. I've heard people on here rave about the 52 Armida recorded by Callas. I have this recording, and frankly it's so bad I've never managed to listen to all of it. The Fleming Armida by contrast is a joy to listen to, despite the nay-sayers on here who prefer the Callas.


Well I wouldn't ever recommend the Callas *Armida* to anyone for whom recorded sound is paramount. It is a trial to listen to, and most of us persevere with difficulty, but if you can listen _through the sound_, as it were, you will hear the most incredible dramatic coloratura singing imaginable. The Fleming recording, in nice modern sound, might be more comfortable to listen to, but it doesn't make a fraction of the dramatic impact of Callas's corruscating brilliance. I would agreee that the tenors on the Callas recording are a pretty sorry bunch, and I have no doubt you could field a much stronger team today, but Fleming, a singer I admire in the right repertoire, doesn't even begin to match Callas's achievement. The cumulative power of the finale in Callas's singing is simply staggering, where, with a voice of massive power, Callas peals forth vengeful coloratura flourishes with insouciant ease, capping it with a top Eb of huge proportions. You have to hear it to believe it, indeed, were it not for recorded evidence, you would not believe it possible.

Believe me nobody is seeing Callas through rose-tinted glasses. She was not only of the most extraordinary voices of the post-war period, but also one of the greatest musicians, in a time when reputations were made in the opera house, not in the recording studio.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

adriesba said:


> People mention audio quality a lot when talking about old singers, but personally, I don't think that prevents us from getting a good feel for their voices unless the recordings are _really_ old (like 1930s and earlier).
> 
> There are singers (Callas, Björling, Varnay, etc.) who transcended both there stereo and mono eras. We can get a similar picture of their singing whether it be in stereo or mono.
> 
> ...


As a codicil to this, I'd just say that large voices are much harder to record than small ones, and that those who heard Nilsson in the theatre will tell you that no recording ever did her voice justice. I've also heard people say that no recording really gives a true impression of the size of Sutherland's voice.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

mparta said:


> I only agree with this and Bonetan to the degree that they consider me young and am very amused by the general "bet you've never heard of this" approach. I've heard that Landi, it's standard sweet Italian (the Valletti virtue) but no match for any of the current singers. But please, keep it up with the young stuff, too funny and something I don't get much. wonder why?
> 
> This has turned into a bunch of foolish nostalgia, the current singers in some of the repertory are providing much wonderful singing, and I wish i could hear great Verdi, (sometimes I can) but before my young time, when there was good Verdi, there was NO RAMEAU.
> 
> This has been ruined by this "good old days" nonsense. *Going elsewhere.*


I missed the part where anyone tried to guess your age. Trust me, you can relax and not worry about being considered young.

Why is giving examples of singers to make a point amusing? Do you know another way of doing it?

"Standard sweet Italian?" "The Valletti virtue" (has he no others)? "No match for any [ANY?] of the current singers"? Should we do some more comparing of recordings, or is that approach too empirically informative for you?


----------



## Dick Johnson (Apr 14, 2020)

Agree with many other on this thread that the quality of Bel Canto tenors (and sopranos too) is very high right now and seems to be getting better all the time. I wouldn't trade the current group of Bel Canto singers for those of prior decades - at least based on the available recordings.

With respect to the Rossini Otello recording with a young Carreras - a very fine recording. Philips also released excellent recordings of some other Rossini operas at around the same time. Maometto Secondo and Mose in Egitto (both with Claudio Scimone conducting) are particularly good.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Aerobat said:


> I'm too young to have heard Callas perform (she died not long after I was born), but my only observation would be that I've seen plenty of reports from her time of her being booed at the Met, and at La Scala. Maybe, just maybe, she's now seen through rose-tinted glasses, and actually some of the modern generation are every bit as good if not better??


Callas is well-represented on recordings, made in both the studio and live in the opera house. There's no need to speculate about her singing. We have more than enough to make accurate judgments about her timbre, technique, musicianship and style.



> The other simple fact is that early recordings are of such poor quality that it's not really possible to hear every nuance of the singers voice (someone recently posted a link on here to a 1920s recording where the background hiss practically drowns out the singer). This can flatter the singers in many regards and frequently conceals weaker elements. A contemporary high resolution recording with bring through every detail of the performance, good or bad. This in turn allows us to be far more critical of what we hear.


For the most part recordings of the acoustic era do not flatter singers. They alter timbre, being particularly hard on women's voices, which lose high frequencies essential to their individuality. But what we can generally hear well is how skillfully the voice was used - i.e., vocal technique.



> I have no objection to folks enjoying music recorded in any era if it makes them happy. Personally, I rate Virginia Zeani & Angela Gheorghiu as two greats, one from the past and one from the modern era. What I do find strange is that some (not all) listeners seem determined to reject anything recorded in the modern era when there are clearly some very talented and enjoyable singers **right now** whose music we can enjoy greatly. And maybe, just maybe, those singers are every bit as good as those from the past. However, as we don't have high-res recordings of many of the earlier generations it's very difficult if not impossible to form a meaningful comparison.


Zeani and Gheorghiu are certainly both great singers. I really don't know a single person determined to reject all contemporary singers or modern recordings. Who are you thinking of?

The only way to compare singers of today with those of fifty or a hundred years ago is to listen, but knowing what to listen for in order to get over one's preconceptions and expand one's tastes is a process that takes time and effort. There is much to discover about singing and about the potentialities of the human voice.


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

Handelian said:


> Just listen to what Nilsson says at the end: "Oh my! That's terrible! I will never laugh again when I hear an old recording!" We see here the paucity of the sound on these ancient recordings so even such a well known and great singer such as Nilsson is not recognised and does not in fact recognise herself!


Yes, but only because the recording medium was really, really bad. I think you missed my point.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

adriesba said:


> Yes, but only because the recording medium was really, really bad. I think you missed my point.


Yes. Wax cylinders are the most primitive recording devices we have. The shellac 78 rpm disc was an improvement almost from the start, and by the time electrical recording came in in the early 1920s the 78 could capture certain voices (mostly lower voices) with fair fidelity. If we're experienced enough in listening to old recordings we can have a sense of when we're hearing a voice that recorded well. It's a pity Caruso died just before electrical recording, but his later 78s are thought to give a pretty good idea of his sound; we can hear the baritonal richness of his timbre as well as much of its brilliance, and his widow Dorothy said of one late recording that it was like hearing him singing in the next room.


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

Tsaraslondon said:


> I heard him a couple of years ago in La Damnation de Faust in a concert performance of the piece (well it is, after all, a concert piece) at a Prom at the Royal Albert Hall. *I thought he was extremely musical and accomplished but the voice was not large, and there were occasions I had difficulty hearing him, even though the orchestra under John Eliot Gardiner was a period bunch. I was very surprised to hear he had taken on Enée for the Nelson recording, andI wonder how much he's ben helped by microphone placing. I would have said he was a light, lyric tenor.*
> 
> On the other hand, Javier Camarena, whom I heard as Tonio in _La fille du Régiment_ at Covent Garden had no problem being heard in Covent Garden, and his top Cs were easier than Pavarotti's or Florez's.


Thanks for sharing your experience.

I've only heard Spyres' recordings and videos where I thought he sounded articulate, the flexibility of his voice is impressive and these lend vitality to his performances: 





However, I think we can tell even on records that his voice is not particularly large. 
Indeed, it is positively lean in this live recording of _Guillaume Tell_




Cont'd





I don't know many antecedents to such a light voice in this role, although among contemporaries Florez was severely pressed by it as was John Osborn on the Pappano recording.

You'll understand that I was rather mystified, then, when I read an interview with Spyres he said


> I have been offered a lot of Wagner, and will sing Act II of Tristan in the future. For heavier roles I will wait perhaps 10 years before I go down that path.


Source:https://www.rhinegold.co.uk/opera_now/why-michael-spyres-excels-at-rossini/

I'm not sure what sort of transformation he anticipates will take place. Besides that aspiration, I then read on Operabase that Spyres is to sing Pollione in Madrid in 2021 and Florestan at the Opera Comique.

There is a video of his Pollione here 





I'm not sure why such light tenors as John Osborn, Spyres and Florez are now performing roles like Pollione. Singing leggero/lyric Rossini roles well does not mean that everything by Bellini, Donizetti and Rossini (or Beethoven or Wagner...) is necessarily within the compass of your voice and technique.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

^^^Spyres wants to sing _Tristan???_

I'm trying to think of an appropriate response. No luck so far...


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Tsaraslondon said:


> I heard him a couple of years ago in *La Damnation de Faust* in a concert performance of the piece (well it is, after all, a concert piece) at a Prom at the Royal Albert Hall. I thought he was extremely musical and accomplished but the voice was not large, and there were occasions I had difficulty hearing him, even though the orchestra under John Eliot Gardiner was a period bunch. I was very surprised to hear he had taken on Enée for the Nelson recording, andI wonder how much he's ben helped by microphone placing. I would have said he was a light, lyric tenor.
> 
> On the other hand, Javier Camarena, whom I heard as Tonio in _La fille du Régiment_ at Covent Garden had no problem being heard in Covent Garden, and his top Cs were easier than Pavarotti's or Florez's.


I am so glad to have an ear witness report. It is strange then that he is singing roles like Rigoletto if he is a light lyric tenor, like most Rossini tenors. It also makes sense that he has that facility above the staff as that is often easier with lighter voices. In the recordings Brownlee sounds bigger up high, and it is not a voice of remarkable size.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Revitalized Classics said:


> Thanks for sharing your experience.
> 
> I've only heard Spyres' recordings and videos where I thought he sounded articulate, the flexibility of his voice is impressive and these lend vitality to his performances:
> 
> ...


Coincidentally I heard Florez at Covent Garden recently too, in the role of Werther. He too was underpowered and often drowned out by the orchestra. I felt throughout that he was husbanding his resources and he did sing with a bit more oomph in Act III, but the performance was generally small scale. Werther has been sung by light lyric tenors like Tagliavini and Schipa and of course I have no way of knowing how they sounded in the theatre.


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> Yes. Wax cylinders are the most primitive recording devices we have. The shellac 78 rpm disc was an improvement almost from the start, and by the time electrical recording came in in the early 1920s the 78 could capture certain voices (mostly lower voices) with fair fidelity. If we're experienced enough in listening to old recordings we can have a sense of when we're hearing a voice that recorded well. It's a pity Caruso died just before electrical recording, but his later 78s are thought to give a pretty good idea of his sound; we can hear the baritonal richness of his timbre as well as much of its brilliance, and his widow Dorothy said of one late recording that it was like hearing him singing in the next room.


It is funny that Tsaraslondon just mentioned Schipa - I was finding these examples of Schipa singing from Barber of Seville as an acoustic version (1923), an electric version (1926) and what I take to be a 1930s film. It rather confirms my suspicion that if all we had of him was the 1923 version with the noisy background, we would still have some idea of his skill, his timbre etc

Tito Schipa - Se il mio nome (1923 Acoustic version)





Se il mio nome (1926 Electric version)





Se il mio nome (1930s(?) Film)




(Can only watch this one on Youtube)

I'd be less convinced of the utility of old recordings if I was very disillusioned upon hearing a singer who sounded great on acoustic recordings only to sound bad in light of a better fidelity recording.

At least in my listening experience, that hasn't happened: if they sounded great on acoustic recordings singing a few feet away from a horn under all the adverse conditions of a primitive studio then I think this is proof of how very good they were.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Revitalized Classics said:


> I'd be less convinced of the utility of old recordings if I was very disillusioned upon hearing a singer who sounded great on acoustic recordings only to sound bad in light of a better fidelity recording.
> 
> At least in my listening experience, that hasn't happened: if they sounded great on acoustic recordings singing a few feet away from a horn under all the adverse conditions of a primitive studio then I think this is proof of how very good they were.


I agree. There are certainly singers who recorded acoustically and continued well into the LP era, even early stereo. I'm pretty sure that Gigli, Schlusnus, and Melchior all recorded acoustically and into the 1950's, but the best example is probably Flagstad, who started recording in 1914 and continued almost continuously until the late 1950's. Her voice may have aged, but it's instantly recognizable as the same singer.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

wkasimer said:


> I agree. There are certainly singers who recorded acoustically and continued well into the LP era, even early stereo. I'm pretty sure that Gigli, Schlusnus, and Melchior all recorded acoustically and into the 1950's, but the best example is probably Flagstad, who started recording in 1914 and continued almost continuously until the late 1950's. Her voice may have aged, but it's instantly recognizable as the same singer.


Ponselle is another good example. She was justified in complaining (as many singers did) that on 78s she sounded as if she were inside a box or a barrel or something, but she still sounded like Ponselle. Electrical recording didn't reveal any hidden imperfections in her singing, but only the true depth and vibrancy of her tone. Caruso's first discs sound like him; his later recordings, far from uncovering any hidden faults of tone or execution, stun us with the baritonal richness of his timbre (acoustic 78s were actually sounding fairly realistic by 1920). We can say the same of Stracciari, whose 1906 recordings reveal a splendid baritone voice, but whose electrical recordings make clear why Ponselle called his tone "a shower of diamonds." Early recordings had a way of making brighter soprano voices sound somewhat similar, "pure" and flutelike; those who were still in good voice during the electrical era only benefitted from the superior sound. Like Revitalized Classics, I can't think of any singers whose recordings bear out the notion that acoustic recordings concealed flaws that later recordings revealed. Of course it's possible for anyone to dislike any singer's peculiarities of timbre, which may be less pronounced on acoustic recordings.

I have heard of someone who prefers the sound of acoustic to electrical recordings. Maybe that person is nostalgic for the ragtime era.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

In short I agree with those who have put forward the following views:

1) Other than very early recordings (pre electrical era for me) we can hear enough to know how good singers from previous times were. (I would also add here that you can compare singers from the early stereo era with those singing today without the sound getting in the way.)

2) When it comes to Verdi and Wagner, there were better singers in the past than there were today.

3) When it comes to Baroque and Classical opera there were great singers in the past and great singers around today.

What I think is missing from this discussion is a definition of what we mean by 'better singers' or 'great singing'. I think most of us mean from a technical point of view. That is supporting the voice with the breath, balance between the head voice mechanism and chest voice mechanism and articulation, all of which lead to legato singing across a wide range and with good diction. I wonder if some here mean that they have a pleasant voice or are good actors or interpreters.

N.


----------



## Handelian (Nov 18, 2020)

Can I make an appeal please respectfully that if people want to rubbish singing today they do so on the thread which is designed for it rather than here, which is meant, if I understand the OP, to give a positive view of Rossini tenor singing. I very much enjoy much of the singing today. Like every era there are some good and some bad - but I do not want my enjoyment spoiled by continual negative comments about today’s singers. So please with respect can we not have this everything in the past was better than everything today. It does not make a scrap of difference to what is out there anyway as no one out there is taking any notice of us anyway.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Handelian said:


> Can I make an appeal please respectfully that if people want to rubbish singing today they do so on the thread which is designed for it rather than here, which is meant, if I understand the OP, to give a positive view of Rossini tenor singing. I very much enjoy much of the singing today. Like every era there are some good and some bad - but I do not want my enjoyment spoiled by continual negative comments about today's singers. So please with respect can we not have this everything in the past was better than everything today. It does not make a scrap of difference to what is out there anyway as no one out there is taking any notice of us anyway.


A very good point. There are different components that make up singing: technique, particular natural vocal sound, interpretation, musicality, dramatic abilities and visual elements. 'Better' could refer to all or just one of these.

By the way has anyone actually said here that *everything* was better in the past than all of today's singers?

N.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Discussing about Rossinian tenors, it's useful to know that they are usually divided into two groups:

Baritenore (Leicester, Otello, Rinaldo, Pirro, Rodrigo di Dhu,..) is a rather dark, robust voice, with his tessitura basically central, with jumps to the high notes, capable of some 'coloratura di forza'. Andrea Nozzari was the great singer for those roles, during Rossini's lifetime. A recent good example is the American tenor Chris Merritt.






Contraltino (Lindoro, Rodrigo, Don Narciso, Don Ramiro, Giannetto,..) is a singer more at ease with the top notes, the tessitura is placed higher and he is able to perform more extended and difficult 'coloratura di grazia'. Giovanni David was one of the leading singers at the beginning of the 19th century, and we have a wonderful tenor for these roles today in the Peruvian Juan Diego Flórez:






There are also roles like Argirio that are somewhat in between both types, though in this case more inclined to the 'baritenore' type:






About singers of the past vs. current singers, I basically agree with The Conte.

The last few decades, however, has been really good ones for Rossini's singing.

I sort of like also the recent release of Spyres and Brownlee.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

schigolch said:


> Discussing about Rossinian tenors, it's useful to know that they are usually divided into two groups:
> 
> Baritenore (Leicester, Otello, Rinaldo, Pirro, Rodrigo di Dhu,..) is a rather dark, robust voice, with his tessitura basically central, with jumps to the high notes, capable of some 'coloratura di forza'. Andrea Nozzari was the great singer for those roles, during Rossini's lifetime. A recent good example is the American tenor Chris Merritt.
> 
> ...


I bow to you. I was wondering what a baritenor was. You should be a teacher.


----------



## Handelian (Nov 18, 2020)

Seattleoperafan said:


> I bow to you. I was wondering what a baritenor was. You should be a teacher.


I always assumed it was one of those but never actually knew!


----------



## Aerobat (Dec 31, 2018)

The Conte said:


> A very good point. There are different components that make up singing: technique, particular natural vocal sound, interpretation, musicality, dramatic abilities and visual elements. 'Better' could refer to all or just one of these.
> 
> By the way has anyone actually said here that *everything* was better in the past than all of today's singers?
> 
> N.


I don't think anyone has actually said that. However, there are numerous threads on here where any mention of a current-generation singer is immediately followed by an explanation of why singer 'X' from fifty years ago was infinitely better. I find this approach quite off-putting at times. We have some great singers in most fachs right now, and I prefer to enjoy and celebrate what we have, especially when what we have is great, rather than complain that it's not as good as it used to be.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

Handelian said:


> Can I make an appeal please respectfully that if people want to rubbish singing today they do so on the thread which is designed for it rather than here, which is meant, if I understand the OP, to give a positive view of Rossini tenor singing. I very much enjoy much of the singing today. Like every era there are some good and some bad - but I do not want my enjoyment spoiled by continual negative comments about today's singers. So please with respect can we not have this everything in the past was better than everything today. *It does not make a scrap of difference to what is out there anyway as no one out there is taking any notice of us anyway.*


I respect your wishes, but I can assure you the bolded part is not true.


----------

