Bergonzi/Corelli
shortspark
Corelli in the flesh. He left a great impression on me and, as much as
I admired the 3Tenors, no singer since Corelli has been as enjoyable to
me.
As I play the recordings of Bergonzi I hear a fine singer indeed,
beautiful phrasing and line. No doubt he was a superb musician. When I
listen to Corelli, I do not hear the same attention to detail but what I
do hear is unbelievable! Both sang many of the same roles and both were
highly regarded in their time and today as well. (Corelli was an
attractive man and commanded the stage; Carlo was not as handsome but
I'm speaking only of voice here and not the stage).
I know it is a matter of taste and of course I suppose only I can really
answer this question but, given all of Bergonzi's attributes and talents
(most of which Franco could only dream of), why do I keep going back to
Corelli time and again? For some reason I find Corelli (BY FAR) to be
the more enjoyable tenor to me, despite all the flaws. Just wondering
if anyone else feels this way - or, perhaps, the opposite.
shortspark
Opaffic
IMO, Corelli had, by FAR, a better voice and that utterly thrilling,
freewheeling top. Bergonzi, by contrast, always sounds cautious, measured, and
slightly stiff in his upper register, the vibrato a markedly different/slower
rate than his middle so much of the time. Bergonzi's elegance and stylistic
mastery, esp in Verdi are to be treasured.
Bergonzi always inspires my admiration.....Corelli bypasses my thinking and
hits me in the gut, moving me, exciting me. I often listen to Bergonzi and
think about how beautifully a phrase was handled....Corelli gives goosebumps
and can even even provoke that nervous giggle that comes when I hear something
so unbelievably superhuman, it is beyond any cerebral analysis. Corelli often
leaves me shaking my head in pure wonder.
Wouldn't want to do without either one!!
Mike Richter
>
> I never heard Carlo live but did have the pleasure of seeing and hearing
> Corelli in the flesh. He left a great impression on me and, as much as
> I admired the 3Tenors, no singer since Corelli has been as enjoyable to
> me.
>
> As I play the recordings of Bergonzi I hear a fine singer indeed,
> beautiful phrasing and line. No doubt he was a superb musician. When I
> listen to Corelli, I do not hear the same attention to detail but what I
> do hear is unbelievable! Both sang many of the same roles and both were
> highly regarded in their time and today as well. (Corelli was an
> attractive man and commanded the stage; Carlo was not as handsome but
> I'm speaking only of voice here and not the stage).
The Germans seem to have a penchant for categorizing and give us a
useful tool here. They distinguish between "Stimm" and "Kunst" - voice
and art. Of course, that is an oversimplification and every performer
has some of each, but here it seems fitting.
Corelli was essentially a "Stimm" (please, don't bug me about the final
'e' - in this context, I've not seen it used) singer. He thrilled by his
voice as voice and his artistry, which I understand he worked hard to
develop, was not the reason for his appeal to audiences.
Bergonzi was a "Kunst" tenor. His voice was not objectionable - quite
the contrary - but the thrill he provided was due to the art with which
he used it. I would not proclaim either "better" than the other; each
sang material the other did not and where they sang the same roles, they
did so quite differently.
There's a tendency for opera aficianados to assume that Bergonzi's Great
Art made him a more worthy object of veneration than Corelli's high C.
To me, that's typical snobbery. The battle in his day was similar to
that a few decades back between the admirers of Pavarotti and Domingo.
Just as their two approaches to Rodolfo, Cavaradossi and Alfredo
differ, they were at their best in different domains. Rational listeners
would find a Pavarotti Lohengrin as ludicrous as a Domingo Tonio (Fille
du Regiment).
Note on tense: Yes, all four tenors are still with us. I chose to use
past tense for all because I am writing about their years of greatness -
and those are in the past.
HenryFogel
Pefectly put, Mike. Certainly individual taste comes into play -- but I'm with
Mike; I loved both Corelli and Bergonzi, and heard them both in the house many
times. The pleasures that they brought to me were different, but of equal
value. One of the great things about opera (or any music) is that one can
enjoy different performance approaches.
In the early-mid 1960s, the Met presented Ernani with both Corelli and
Bergonzi; I heard both, and have recordings of both. Each is thrilling, but in
differing ways -- as well described by Mike above. I wouldn't be without
either one.
Henry Fogel
Steve Silverman
> There's a tendency for opera aficianados to assume that Bergonzi's Great
> Art made him a more worthy object of veneration than Corelli's high C.
> To me, that's typical snobbery.
I don't think that's snobbery Mike. High and loud is good, but I've never
understood the attitude that an opera singer, as long as he/she can sing
high enough and loudly enough, can be excused from the normal standards of
musicianship that we expect when parting with our cash to hear an
instrumental soloist.
--
Steve Silverman (steve.s...@ntlworld.com)
Essex
England
A Tsar Is Born
did not hear either tenor before 1967 (Corelli) or 1969 (Bergonzi), when the
bloom of youth was past both of them. (Whereas, I first heard Domingo in
1966, in the Traviata that got me hooked on opera.)
I found Corelli's voice (a) loud and (b) ugly. On earlier recordings, he
seems to have the bad habits (and lisp) that I objected to when I heard him
live. I could see that the loudness was thrilling to certain opera-goers,
but it did not impress me as, say, Nilsson's or Sutherland's or Farrell's
fortes did, because all those ladies were also impressive in soft singing.
It was Jon Vickers who convinced me that loud could thrill when used to
paint character.
On the other hand, Corelli could surprise one: I remember an Aida -- on the
very last day of the Bing reign, in June, 1972 -- when I sat wincing in
anticipation of the ugly bark with which he usually concluded "Celeste
Aida", and to my surprise he sustained the note perfectly, piano, and ...
ended it perfectly ... as few tenors did then or have since. (I suspect his
fans were disappointed. I was astonished. A friend muttered that he must
have done it by accident.)
What I think many people forget is that Corelli, when he first appeared on
the scene, looked like a god and was a natural actor -- two things rare in
any opera singers then and still unusual in tenors. Of course, if the voice
had not been stunning, these two qualities would have counted for very
little, but the package made him very impressive. Also, with all the tales
about his ego (mostly true), great prima donnas (Callas, Tebaldi, Nilsson,
Price) seem to have found him fun to work with. It is probably more
enjoyable to make love to someone who looks like that and emotes like that
than to a stick....
Bergonzi on the other hand -- though this was not true earlier in his
career, when his pictures show him quite good looking -- resembled the
Italian barber of cliché. I recall a Ballo when he entered the throneroom in
the opening scene, an incongruous figure amidst the elegance, took up a
sort of rigid concert stance, opened his mouth -- and molten honey poured
out, as graceful as rococo filigree. It was the most perfect version of the
aria I've ever heard, live or on records. He was a capable actor, but the
voice was lovely and entirely at the service of Verdi -- or whatever
composer he was singing, but in my experience that was usually Verdi, and
I've seldom heard Verdi tenor-singing to match it. (A Pavarotti Duke, two
Carreras Dukes when he was 26, and his Oronte and Rodolfo, John Alexander's
Rodolfo, Wieslaw Ochman's Arrigo... and Domingo's Manrico when he was first
singing it.) One should add that this beautiful voice -- all these voices
(except Carreras, whom I never heard sing there) -- resounded clearly,
unforced, throughout even a barn the size of the Met.
No two people are "excited" by precisely the same things. A beautiful aria
flawlessly sung sends chills up and down my spine. Corelli never did that
for me.
There are a lot of tenors now who seem to have taken Corelli for their
model -- certainly Giordani and Shicoff can be as loud -- but almost none as
musicianly as Bergonzi. (Vargas maybe.) Sometimes I wonder if I'm ever going
to hear a perfect "Ah si, ben mio" or "Quando le sere al placido" or "La
rivedrai nell' estasi" again.
I've often said I'm bisexual: I like Callas and Tebaldi. But I wouldn't
include Corelli in the same breath with Bergonzi.
Hans Lick
atsar...@hotmail.com
Don Paolo
(unfortunately).......
DonP.
Steve Silverman <ssil...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:5krG7.5787$Ix6.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Valfer
I had the fortune of hearing both Corelli and Bergonzi onstage, although I
must admit thet I only saw Corelli once, and at the very end of his career.
The last time I saw Bergonzi, he was singing Alfredo in La Traviata. I had
just done the part for the first time, so I had the score fresh in my mind.
Bergonzi sang every musical mark Verdi put in that score, and all with
perfect naturality. Even in his late 50's, he could command a liquid and
quite fresh musical sound in his singing, and his duets with Soviero were
masterfully sung. One could very well overlook his looks for the
extraordinary singing. Corelli, on the other hand, was all expression,
power and looks. His Rodolfo in La Boheme is still clear in my memory.
Even in his last year at the MET, he had the looks and sound of the young
poet. His high B in Che Gelida Manina seemed to come from ten feet away,
and I was up in standing room. He could look amorous, even with the quite
corpulent Caballe as Mimi. His diction was interesting, as he seemed to
avoid pronouncing consonants, but somehow he got his words through. His
last spoken words - "Che vuol dire...?" were of such dramatic power that no
stage actor would have done any better.
If one is to compare artists of the caliber of Corelli and Bergonzi, the
most important point to be made is that beauty in art has many forms, and
none is better than the other. It's up to the listener to decide what he
likes, and to the performer to put his best forward. Bergonzi singing
"Quando le sere al placido" and Corelli singing "Celeste Aida" are two very
different experiences, but both are priceless moments.
Faust made a pact with Mephisto - his soul for a moment of supreme joy. How
lucky are we not to have to trade our souls, just our dollars, for such
moments!
Valfer
"shortspark" <mar...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:191-3BE...@storefull-245.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Opaffic
>If one is to compare artists of the caliber of Corelli and Bergonzi, the
>most important point to be made is that beauty in art has many forms, and
>none is better than the other. It's up to the listener to decide what he
>likes, and to the performer to put his best forward.
Beautifully stated, Valfer! Thanks. Loved your whole post in fact. We are truly
fortunate indeed to be blessed by all the great, and diverse, artists who
dedicate themselves to this art form we love so dearly.
Leonard Tillman
- but, rather, having all these wonderful voices to enjoy
repeatedly....to savor for their very differing qualities!
Best, LT -
"Use what talents you possess;
the woods would be very
silent if no birds sang there except those
that sang best". - Henry Van Dyke
Leonard Tillman
How lucky are we not to have to trade our souls, just our dollars, for
such moments!
Valfer"
Indeed, - moments that continue to last !
-- The far better part of the bargain.
Ken Meltzer
>
> > There's a tendency for opera aficianados to assume that Bergonzi's Great
> > Art made him a more worthy object of veneration than Corelli's high C.
> > To me, that's typical snobbery.
>
> I don't think that's snobbery Mike. High and loud is good, but I've never
> understood the attitude that an opera singer, as long as he/she can sing
> high enough and loudly enough, can be excused from the normal standards of
> musicianship that we expect when parting with our cash to hear an
> instrumental soloist.
I agree with you, Steve. But I think part of the reason we are more
forgiving is that, quite frankly, there are a lot more people who can
play the violin and piano well than can sing Calaf well.
Of course, being able to sing Calaf well involves respecting Puccini's
score.
Ken Meltzer
Steve Silverman
news:9se8t2$1fj$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> You pays your $; you gets your just reward -
I'm paying £'s. Maybe that's the problem.
Ancona21
How much is that in *real* money?
Ancona
Mike Richter
>
> << I'm paying £'s. >>
>
> How much is that in *real* money?
About 1.4 Eurodollars recently.
Siegfried Pinkerton
> Ancona21 wrote:
> >
> > << I'm paying £'s. >>
> >
> > How much is that in *real* money?
>
> About 1.4 Eurodollars recently.
Mike, the name of the new European currency (which will replace our
national currencies on Jan. 1st !) is *Euro*. Nothing to do with the
dollar !
Matthew B. Tepper
fc.aol.com:
><< I'm paying £'s. >>
>
> How much is that in *real* money?
Or, more germane, how much is it in €?
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Top 3 worst UK exports: Mad-cow; Foot-and-mouth; Charlotte Church
Steve Silverman
> Mike, the name of the new European currency (which will replace our
> national currencies on Jan. 1st !)
Eh? Someone had better tell Blair. Quickly.
Thomas H. Israel
to Bergonzi and Corelli is the exact opposite. As a musician myself, I
always admired Carlo Bergonzi's fastidious musicianship and accuracy, and it
was truly a pleasure to hear him, even with his limited acting ability.
I heard both Corelli and Bergonzi frequently at the Met Opera during their
prime years. Unfortunately, for my taste, Corelli appeared in far too many
operas that I attended; in fact, it seemed to me that I couldn't escape him!
I realize that many listeners and fans admired his ability to taper off
notes, responded to his vocalism, his fine appearance, etc. To me the basic
sound of his voice was always unattractive to my ears and his musical
sloppiness, plus the annoying lisp, just about drove me out of the Met
whenever he sang.
On the other hand, Carlo Bergonzi was always a treat to my ears. I still
enjoy his many recordings, and while I have a number of sets with Franco
Corelli, I never play them.
Fortunately, we all like different qualities in singers and respond very
differently!
TOM
> I know it is a matter of taste and of course I suppose only I can really
> answer this question but, given all of Bergonzi's attributes and talents
> (most of which Franco could only dream of), why do I keep going back to
> Corelli time and again? For some reason I find Corelli (BY FAR) to be
> the more enjoyable tenor to me, despite all the flaws. Just wondering
> if anyone else feels this way - or, perhaps, the opposite.
>
> shortspark
>
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
John
>Corelli, I never play them.
Would you please send them to me??
Oxydols,
John
Corelli rules, Bocelli drools.