[DarkAngel]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunnyears /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm not sure exactly when Pavarotti's vocal range began to show wear, but I do know that by the '80s he had problems with the high notes, sometimes missing them in performance. By the 90s he was already having his recitals, and perhaps even some of his opera performances, pitched lower to ensure that he hit the "high notes," a practice that was gleefully outed in the age of the internet when listeners with perfect pitch blogged about it after his performance at the Torino Olympics. What Pavarotti did have was an incomparable vocal timbre that was like honey in the sunlight -- warm and viscous, and gleaming like silk -- and the ability to touch the emotions. He popularized an art form that had become a niche for the intellectuals. Unfortunately, the lack of early training showed up in his limited acting ability, and poor understanding of the music he was singing. Perhaps that is why he befriended Bocelli, another talented "amateur" who cannot read music, and whose interpretive skills leave much to be desired.

I was going through all the Nessun Dormas on YouTube from the great ones:
-Corelli
-Del Monaco
-Di Stefano
-Bjorling
-Pavarotti

The version by popular singer Andrea Bocelli was closer in qulaity to Paul Potts than any of the classic opera tenors above.......a static delivery with limited dymanic range and tonal shadings, I was not too impressed.

Bjorling has incredible clarity in his diction even while singing at extended ranges, perhaps technically the best version.....just a matter of personal taste as to his emotional delivery and impact it has on you

 

[Bunnyears]

Quote:

Originally Posted by zotjen /img/forum/go_quote.gif Re: Pavarotti There have been a lot of artists who could not read music. Whether or not this creates a deficit in understanding the music is debateable. There is more to understanding (and interpreting) music than being able to read notes. I would also argue that there are many people who can read music but don't have a clue about it. As far as his acting ability, I don't know if early training would have helped. In the old days the main focus was the singing, with acting as an afterthought. Callas was probably one of the first singers who had the whole package. Nowadays, IMHO, too much emphasis is spent on acting and not enough on singing. Of course in many instances, the acting is focused on to make up for the singer's vocal deficits.

I wonder just how many opera singers are unable to read music. I would bet that there are very, very few. Opera is not jazz or pop singing. Native ability can take you only so far.

Opera is not natural singing; it is a highly stylized art form that makes extreme physical demands on vocal equipment. In opera the ability to read and analyze a score is as critical as acting ability. Pavarotti, who never sang opera until in his 20s, went as far as anyone without the early training could go. It is a mark of his special talent that he was able to take the opera world by storm, for opera fans are among the most knowledgeable and hypercritical in the world. The short span of the top level of his talent can only be attributed to his lack of early training, which not only serves to hone the skills of reading and understanding the music, but also works to strengthen the voice so that it will last decades longer than the natural, untrained voice under the rigors of operatic performance.

While it's true that Callas was the first singer to emphasize acting ability, by the time Pavarotti came around, at least some acting ability was expected of the great singers.

 

[Bunnyears]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkAngel /img/forum/go_quote.gif I was going through all the Nessun Dormas on YouTube from the great ones: -Corelli -Del Monaco -Di Stefano -Bjorling -Pavarotti The version by popular singer Andrea Bocelli was closer in qulaity to Paul Potts than any of the classic opera tenors above.......a static delivery with limited dymanic range and tonal shadings, I was not too impressed. Bjorling has incredible clarity in his diction even while singing at extended ranges, perhaps technically the best version.....just a matter of personal taste as to his emotional delivery and impact it has on you

Yes, and to the end of his terribly short career, he always sang on the note. He never asked for the accompaniment to be lowered by a half-tone to accommodate a voice that no longer had the range for the aria.

As for emotional punch, I think Puccini's music is uber-emotional. Overly emotional performance in any of the arias can too easily reduce it from deeply felt sentiment to mawkish sentimentality. Björling's singing was never mawkish, but always was deeply felt. It is the greatest pity that he was cut short so young, dying at the age of 49.

 

[zotjen]

Quote:

I wonder just how many opera singers are unable to read music.

Well, some others that supposedly couldn't read music are Ezio Pinza and Mirella Freni. I'm sure there are others, just as I'm sure it's not something most singers would want to boast about. And while not related to opera and not even singer, I believe Irving Berlin could not read music either.

 

[lyricalmoments]

Check out this link

Best Nessun Dorma

 

[Guarneri]

Another vote for Björling.