If Mr. Fogel’s intention was to showcase Mario Lanza’s magnificent voice, musicality, interpretative gifts and versatility, by exposing them to an audience that might not have been aware of them, then he fulfilled his task admirably.
Yes, there were better alternatives to some of the numbers played and there were a few minor errors plus a major one concerning Lanza’s supposed inability to learn operatic roles.
But with almost two hours consisting mainly of superb singing everything else pales into insignificance.
I’m not ashamed to say that listening to ‘Come Un Bel Di Di Maggio,’ I was moved to tears by the beauty of the voice combined with the poetic delivery and Lanza’s total identification with the part. And I marvelled anew at how immensely talented this man was.
I am pleased to say that I was able to listen to Henry Fogel’s program. It’s been such a long time since I’ve had a cooperative computer, that I felt I was on a desert island with no ability to share my thoughts and love of the Lanza music. Here are my two cents’ worth.
Charging out of the gate with the Otello duet and monologue, followed by the two Chenier arias, was a genius move on Mr. Fogel’s part. It showed me that he “gets it”!! These are some of the most important recordings in the Lanza catalogue. If one wasn’t hooked at that point then no hope can be had for the musical soul. Mario’s involvement, heart and soul, are evident at the start. I was spellbound from that moment on. I confess I had not listened at length to Mario’s CDs for many months, for reasons I cannot share, and to hear such saturation of beauty in his serious operatic works made my heart sing along with him. There were no silly insertions as in Pineapple Pickers, or even the soothing crooning songs that I love to write about sometimes. This was what Mario studied for and had set his heart on from his early days. He WAS going to sing on the opera stage…..
I loved Mr. Fogel’s reinforcement of the often discussed innate musicality we all know he possessed. What did he say? Lanza’s “innate sense of phrasing…knowing how music should go”? This cannot be emphasized too much in our quest to make sure he is recognized as a serious musical force. He didn’t go into Mario’s musical training (except for a mention of Tanglewood), which might have been a nice touch, but I’ll take his allowing Mario to speak (sing) for himself as all the proof anyone needs to sit up and take notice of his gift.
Perhaps there was a bit too much from the RAH, but I suppose he wanted to show that there was little deterioration in Mario’s voice even with some health problems beginning to gather ground. He was able to sing in recital, and, ohhh, that wonderful boyish sounding speaking voice! He could melt any heart with that alone.
Including the first Hollywood Bowl pieces was important, as well as the two Caruso Favs. I agree with Derek that the purely inspiring Passione would have made an excellent punctuation to the whole evening, but on the other hand, placing the Ideale there might have had a significant effect as well. Imagine Mario going off into the sunset with his quietly longing, “Torna, torna, torna…” Oh my.
When I listened to the arias from The Great Caruso, I realized this was not from the movie soundtrack, but from the LP that RCA released to promote the film. The selections are in the exact same order as on the LP, with the omission of only E Lucevan le Stelle and Una Furtiva Lagrima. Not a problem, as we get to hear whole arias and not parts as in the film.
I guess I had expected more commentary from Mr. Fogel, but it worked for me as I tire of hearing people giving incorrect information when the music is all we need to know. How disappointing for those who only want to hear the popular part of his repertoire. Let’s hope Mr. Fogel is not finished with topic of Lanza. There’s more material to explore.
Good listening and good feelings….
Muriel
No problem, Derek. I agree entirely regarding "Sia! Strofe, ultima Dea!" But in my opinion the 1950 version has a better line, the voice is better placed and the delivery more controlled. Although the 1952 recording is one of the better CC performances I can still hear some of the flaws that were very much a part of these radio programs.
Just a quick addendum here, Derek. I'm sure that I speak for all Forum members when I say Good Show! in your eforts at apprising us all of this broadcast and providing the link to same for those unable to pick it up on-air or by SatCom, Cable etc.
"I haven't the slightest interest in defending Lanza, anymore than I have in defending Tchaikovsky, or Schubert, or Gershwin, or Van Gogh for that matter. Why should Lanza have to be "defended" or "explained" anymore than any other artist, except in an intellectually credible context? And the present (invidiously dismissive) context is not intellectually credible. That's my point. Lanza was a unique stylist: heavy voice, pop intonation, impeccable phrasing, articulate interpretation of the lyric, and a fairly wide-ranging repertoire that included British and American pop, operetta, opera, musical comedy, sentimental ballads, Christmas songs, and religious hymns.
"Now I never waste time defending artists of these qualifications. I mean, there are credible reservations to be made about a Gershwin or a Tchaikovsky or a Schubert or a Lanza. Unfortunately, no such defensible logic was applied in the original post; so I was quite willing to negotiate it on a strictly non-musical level commensurate with its substance.
"Apart from aesthetics, there is Samuel Johnson's famous criteria of what pleases many for long; and Lanza fits that criteria. Indeed, two generations of singers have referred to Lanza's voice and style as an inspiration, including Jose Carreras. There is, I think, on DVD, a documentary on Lanza's career narrated by Domingo. His records rank among the best-selling in the Victor catalogue. They are recycled in every conceivable form, indeed multiplying like locusts in THE GOOD EARTH. Believe me, if this man wasn't an artist, he'd be forgotten by now; certainly by singers of the international caliber of the ones I mentioned.
"Obviously, even the greatest artists are not to everyone's taste; and this includes Mozart (who leaves many cold); Bach (who perplexes many); Brahms (who bores some); Schubert (who has been treated more or less as a glorified amateur by several on this newsgroup), Verdi (perceived as an Italian primitive by some), Puccini (treated as a rank sentimentalist by many), Strauss, Bruckner, Mahler, and lesser musical luminaries. As recently as Bernard Herrmann's early career he was dismayed and outraged to find that one had to hide Puccini's sheet music from one's music teacher or risk ridicule. Puccini still fills opera houses all over the world; while that music teacher probably doesn't even fill a six foot hole any longer.
"To paraphrase a remark Hemingway once made in defense of Robert Browning over T. S. Eliot, if I thought that by grinding one of Mario Lanza's critics in a meat grinder I could bring Lanza back to life, I would head immediately to the necessary location with a grinder in my hand."
Distinguished music critic?! The only way I can justify his pathetic selections is if the professor is going deaf!!