# SOPRANO TOURNAMENT (By Request): Tetrazzini vs Melba



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

Luisa Tetrazzini, Italy, 1871-1940 (lost to Destinn 7-13)

https://www.talkclassical.com/69896-soprano-tournament-round-1-a.html






Nellie Melba, Australia, 1861-1931 (lost to Alda 4-8)

https://www.talkclassical.com/70239-soprano-tournament-request-melba.html






'Sempre libera' from Verdi's _La Traviata_.

Who's singing did you prefer and why?


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Two of the most famous golden age prima donnas of the golden age of opera in a major coloratura aria. Both are great, but as beautiful as Melba's voice was, Tetrazzini's vocal beauty just blows me away and she delivers a lot more personality, not to mention her peerless stacatti and singing the Eb6, which Melba did not. They both had something no coloraturas today have, which is really big voices. I would listen to Luisa's version of this more than Melba's.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Luisa Tetrazzini is one of the few singers I can think of who used _too much_ chest voice. She was a fine singer for sure, but often, she would sing these characters who were young brides, ingenues, etc....and then all of a sudden sound like an Italian grandmother who was angry that you over-cooked the mostaccioli.

When she goes into the stratosphere though, few can rival her. She actually _sings_ highs Ds and Es rather than squeaking them.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

"Surreal" is the word that comes to mind as I listen to Tetrazzini's explosion of vocal virtuosity. Hearing the tempo she takes - somewhere just beyond the limit of what a rational person would think humanly possible - I had to go to the piano and check the pitch to reassure myself that the recording was not being played at too high a speed. The effect is perhaps a little comical, but that's certainly the result of the "chipmunkization" of the soprano voice by the ancient acoustic process; we must never forget that we are not hearing either the richness or the brilliance of these women's voices, and so should be careful about either praising or criticizing the sheer sound they're making in our ears. Even so, the exciting qualities of Tetrazzini's timbre and technique are irresistible. Some of the coloratura in this aria is almost impossible to keep from sounding awkward, screamy and squawky - maybe that's Verdi's intention - but Tetrazzini breezes through it as if it's just a warmup to something _really _hard.

Melba sings well as always - at a "normal" tempo for the piece - but she's up against a phenom here.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> *"Surreal" is the word that comes to mind as I listen to Tetrazzini's explosion of vocal virtuosity. Hearing the tempo she takes - somewhere just beyond the limit of what a rational person would think humanly possible* - I had to go to the piano and check the pitch to reassure myself that the recording was not being played at too high a speed. The effect is perhaps a little comical, but that's certainly the result of the "chipmunkization" of the soprano voice by the ancient acoustic process; we must never forget that we are not hearing either the richness or the brilliance of these women's voices, and so should be careful about either praising or criticizing the sheer sound they're making in our ears. Even so, the exciting qualities of Tetrazzini's timbre and technique are irresistible. Some of the coloratura in this aria is almost impossible to keep from sounding awkward, screamy and squawky - maybe that's Verdi's intention - but Tetrazzini breezes through it as if it's just a warmup to something _really _hard.
> 
> Melba sings well as always - at a "normal" tempo for the piece - but she's up against a phenom here.


imo, part of this is that her voice is so high that she sings even the most stratospheric passages as if she's singing an art song.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> imo, part of this is that her voice is so high that she sings even the most stratospheric passages as if she's singing an art song.


It was also big and strong, had wonderful chest notes for a coloratura only equaled later by Callas, and could be heard outdoors by 100,000 people in SF! She was a freak. God I would love to hear her recorded by good recording techniques. She even sounds good on the old stuff. It is possible that her voice was as big as Sutherland's, but we can never know for sure.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Tettrazzini's singing is phenomenal, but I can't say that I liked it. The staccati she uses might be brilliantly executed, but I don't like them and I'd much prefer it if she sang what Verdi actually wrote. It seems to pick up speed as she goes along, and the main impression I got was that she just wanted to get it over with as quickly as possible, so she could get out of the studio and go for dinner. 

Melba's performance has a good deal of technical accomplishment too and I prefer her more normal speed, so I'm going to opt for her.


----------



## Azol (Jan 25, 2015)

Tetrazzini is at the breakneck speed, it's a marvel she executes all these _fiorituri_ at all.
Also from these recordings I can assume her voice was quite big and all the high notes she took properly without "piping" them. In this comparison Melba stands no chance, I'm afraid.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Azol said:


> Tetrazzini is at the breakneck speed, it's a marvel she executes all these _fiorituri_ at all.
> Also from these recordings I can assume her voice was quite big and all the high notes she took properly without "piping" them. In this comparison Melba stands no chance, I'm afraid.


I read up on Melba and she was quite a force to be reckoned with. She might not have the notes above the staff but she had a very big voice and sang a wide variety of roles, including one excursion into one of the big Wagner parts. She could sing coloratura but wasn't known as specialist in those roles like Tetrazzini, for whom the term was created. She was a normal sized woman and looked convincing in the roles she sang. I don't think she was known as an interpreter but she had a supernaturally beautiful voice that sounded like she was singing right in front of you. The way the notes were presented to you was supposedly ethereal. I thought we needed to hear her in the singer contest as she was a major artist.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

I can't wait to read other posts on this one.
This was more fun!
Tetrazzini gave us a light show the likes of which I have never heard before with all her embellishments and the way she effected runs.
If not emotionally involved she certainly was technically so. But her voice sounds like a Pons-type voice which is way at the bottom of my like list.
Melba, on the other hand, also gave a secure rendering, but always mindfully aware of the clock running out on the disc she rushed through some rather intricate phrasings. However, her voice for me was much more appealing, despite the lack of those Tetrazzini vocal acrobatics, so with that said my vote goes to the lady whose name is forever on toast.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

nina foresti said:


> so with that said my vote goes to the lady whose name is forever on toast.


....and peaches.


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

I like Melba's recordings more than a lot of people seem to. I find her middle voice, even as preserved in these distorted recordings, extremely beautiful. I do think that her top usually sounds very strained, however, and this is no exception. She also sounds just a little too staid for the dramatic moment. 

Tetrazzini is phenomenal. Others have already said why. She gets my vote, despite my love for Melba.


----------

