Pavarotti is dead

[m]

https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20607839/

[nasalstein]

like some people said, if only he decided to seriously develop himself as an artist, i think he could be even greater than enrico caruso.
i wanted to accompany him if only once.....
so long, luciano.

[quantum]

Sad news.  RIP

[pianistimo]

voices like that never die.  i liked his confidence and intimate understanding of the italian language.  although, i didn't like the 'three tenors' as much as him just singing by himself in operas.  turandot was one that he sang in at the met last year wasn't it?  that will be pretty much my last recollection besides this  u-tube.  the bellagio u-tube was beautiful.

here's one of the arias from turandot:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwlE_qNSWLw

btw, i think the kimmel center does live broadcasts from the met that people can come and watch.  not sure how much it costs.  surely a lot less - and less travel time for anyone living here in pa.

[thalbergmad]

like some people said, if only he decided to seriously develop himself as an artist, i think he could be even greater than enrico caruso.

I was wondering about that too. Perhaps some classical artists that have "popularlised" themselves have maybe cheapened their art, like Mario Lanza for instance.

I loved Pavarotti and thought he had one of the truly great voices, but did not enjoy listening to him singing with the likes of Tom Jones. I like Tom Jones as well, but it simply did not work.

The news programmes here in the UK have been playing the same 20 seconds of Nessun Dorma all day and it is slowly driving me mad. Regretfully many Englishmen will always attach Pavarotti to this singular piece and Englands sad performance at the World Cup. He was of course worth much more than that.

Thal

[ahinton]

I was wondering about that too. Perhaps some classical artists that have "popularlised" themselves have maybe cheapened their art, like Mario Lanza for instance.

I loved Pavarotti and thought he had one of the truly great voices, but did not enjoy listening to him singing with the likes of Tom Jones. I like Tom Jones as well, but it simply did not work.

The news programmes here in the UK have been playing the same 20 seconds of Nessun Dorma all day and it is slowly driving me mad. Regretfully many Englishmen will always attach Pavarotti to this singular piece and Englands sad performance at the World Cup. He was of course worth much more than that.

Thal

I agree with all that you write here. It is a strange thing among vocal artists that one finds from time to time a singer whose vocal ability far outweighs his/her general musical intelligence. Now I'm not suggesting that Pavarotti lacked musical intelligence altogether - just that what he did appear to have in that department was fairly ordinary whereas the instrument itself was beyond outstanding. One has only to recognise - and rather bemoan - the limits to his repertoire and then listen to him in the things that he did best to realise that.

The sheer size of his voice, which was, like certain other aspects of the man himself, larger than life, was in itself extraordinary, yet there was more to it than just that; yes, he could indeed sing with immense delicacy when appropriate and still project splendidly, yet can you imagine a Pavarotti lieder recital? The fact that he would have given us no such thing was certainly not due to any inability to scale things down appropriately.

One of England's great sopranos of the recent past, Dame Eva Turner, is quoted as having once said that a "Wagnerian soprano" was one who could excel in Bach, Schubert and Fauré as well as Wagner - in other words "the compleat soprano". Had Pavarotti explored Wagner, French song and Austro-German lied, Bach, Handel, etc. successfully and sung more Mozart than he did, he might have become one of the greatest performers of our time. He didn't. A comparison with the recently deceased Rostropovich is salutary here - another performer with an absolutely massive sound when needed and who could project better than almost any soloist, yet the repertoire in which he excelled was vast. Can you imagine Pavarotti premièring scores of new works as Rostropovich did? No - and even his operatic rôles were confined almost exclusively to Romantic Italian repertoire in which he had for the most part to depend upon his legendary vocal skills alone to do the "acting", since it was generally accepted that he simply couldn't act.

As to the "popularising" stuff - well, I am convinced that he did neither himself nor "classical music" in general nor opera in particular any great favours by this part of his work. Does anyone really imagine that his crossover work, his "three Tenors" appearances or his "Pavarotti in the park" indulgences - most of which contained some truly remarkable singing - has encouraged anyone who would never otherwise have thought of doing so to attend productions of Die Soldaten, Death in Venice or King Priam - or Pelléas et Mélisande, Siegfried or Falstaff - or Cosí fan Tutte or Semele? Not a chance! No more of a chance, indeed, than of anyone listening to a certain fragment of Puccini's Turandot and thinking "I must go and see the opera". This kind of thing was - and always is - sheer commercialism as an art-form in itself, no more, no less. The fact that his singing it in was often so glorious was perhaps the nearest it got to any kind of redeeming factor. That said, I'm not sure that Pavarotti himself expected that this kind of work was "bringing people to the opera houses" either; he never seemed to give any impression of being pompous or self-aggrandising. I think that he just enjoyed himself doing it and the pay cheques weren't exactly too much of a disincentive either. I wouldn't wish to discourage such a wonderful singer from enjoying himself or even from being fabulously well paid for so doing, but let's just put it all into appropriate perspective.

The "popularising" singer is, of course, by no means a novel phenomenon, as you observe in your mention of Lanza. John McCormack used to do this kind of thing many years ago with his incessant popular ditties that simply did not and could not use more than a tiny fraction of his immense talent - and there has been no shortage of others. It is an affliction that seems to manifest itself in singers rather more often, more consistently and more noticeably than in instrumentalists. By the "popularising" singer here I mean the type that ends up being as well or even better known for that kind of work than for the rest of it.

OK, so Pavarotti loved football. Fine. So, as it happens, did Shostakovich. Shostakovich, however, never envisaged his symphonies - still less his string quartets - being performed at football stadia before tens of thousands of adoring fans at a time. Just as well, really. Music is one thing and football is another. That said, mention of Dmitry Dmitreyevich in this context reminds me of the wonderful story told me by a fellow Scotsman who was present at the time of the big Shostakovich retrospective at the 1962 Edinburgh Festival at which the recently emerged Fourth Symphony (1935-36) was to receive its eagerly anticipated UK première. Shostakovich himself was obviously expected to attend rehearsals but was nowhere to be found. He did turn up eventually but the rehearsals were over by then. He explained that he simply had to go instead to see Rangers playing Celtic and then apparently offered some comparisons between these two teams and Moscow Dynamo. He did attend the performance of his Fourth Symphony, though.

Anyway, the airwaves in UK yesterday were indeed filled beyond bursting point with Incessant Dorma and no doubt even the best Indian restaurants in Britain were serving Nessun Korma in tribute to him. Perhaps this kind of thing might almost even encourage some of us to recognise that one of the best things about Busoni's Turandot (which, incidentally, predates Puccini's far better known one by just a few years) is its lack of Nessun Dorma...

All we really need to do is remember that astonishing and instantly recognisable voice - and we are not likely to forget it in any great hurry.

Best,

Alistair

[elspeth]

There is an invidious trend in opera audiences - and the same also tends to apply to plays too, these days - that there are a great many people who go to see an opera because of who stars in it rather than the quality of the show or the poeple who are actually acting in it. Recently my theatre was offered Equus when it comes out on tour next season, and we turned it down because 'the Potter boy' will not be touring and we haven't a hope of selling it without him merely on the merits of the play. Equally you could sell any opera you like to packed houses with a Pavarotti or a Domingo or others of their ilk starring. There is a large 'borderline' group of audience out there who chose their shows based on the star, along with only a very general liking for the genre of show. A star name can be the turning point between a person listening to Classic FM occasionally and starting to go to the opera. Therefore, to the theatres, there is value in the 'popularisation' of opera which accompanied the Three Tenors and the football connection - it does help to get bums on seats.

Unortunately it cuts both ways in terms of quality and variety of programming in theatres outside London. The number of real stars who tour to the regions is absolutely minimal and opera tickets especially are very expensive. These days in the regions, you cannot sell the RSC doing Shakespeare simply because it's the RSC doing Shakespeare so both the quality and content will be excellent, you need a Jacobi or someone of his calibre and popularity in the lead role because many people have grown up on such a diet of TV and mainstream pop music that they are not used to thinking about entertainment beyond who is starring in it. Most members of this forum would cheerfully go to concerts based on the programme of music presented, and then judge the performance as it happened, but as a group we are not the norm. In theatres we are also starting to find increasingly that a lot of the actors touring to the regions are ex-TV actors - often escaped soap actors - and they have no idea of theatre acting or vocal projection, they are merely a 'name' just for the sake of having 'names' in the cast, leaving talented but unknown - to TV audiences - actors out in the cold who would turn in far better performances. The rise of TV is having a very bad effect on the performance talent appearing on the nation's stages.

It's a sad trend, and I hope it reverses but I really can't see that happening any time soon.

Haing sidetracked, a voice such as Pavarotti's is a sad loss, regardless of what he did with his career. Hopefully some new, real talent will come through into opera soon, as the current crop of Russell Watson and his contemporaries do not cut the mustard.

[ahinton]

There is an invidious trend in opera audiences - and the same also tends to apply to plays too, these days - that there are a great many people who go to see an opera because of who stars in it rather than the quality of the show or the poeple who are actually acting in it. Recently my theatre was offered Equus when it comes out on tour next season, and we turned it down because 'the Potter boy' will not be touring and we haven't a hope of selling it without him merely on the merits of the play. Equally you could sell any opera you like to packed houses with a Pavarotti or a Domingo or others of their ilk starring. There is a large 'borderline' group of audience out there who chose their shows based on the star, along with only a very general liking for the genre of show. A star name can be the turning point between a person listening to Classic FM occasionally and starting to go to the opera. Therefore, to the theatres, there is value in the 'popularisation' of opera which accompanied the Three Tenors and the football connection - it does help to get bums on seats.

Unortunately it cuts both ways in terms of quality and variety of programming in theatres outside London. The number of real stars who tour to the regions is absolutely minimal and opera tickets especially are very expensive. These days in the regions, you cannot sell the RSC doing Shakespeare simply because it's the RSC doing Shakespeare so both the quality and content will be excellent, you need a Jacobi or someone of his calibre and popularity in the lead role because many people have grown up on such a diet of TV and mainstream pop music that they are not used to thinking about entertainment beyond who is starring in it. Most members of this forum would cheerfully go to concerts based on the programme of music presented, and then judge the performance as it happened, but as a group we are not the norm. In theatres we are also starting to find increasingly that a lot of the actors touring to the regions are ex-TV actors - often escaped soap actors - and they have no idea of theatre acting or vocal projection, they are merely a 'name' just for the sake of having 'names' in the cast, leaving talented but unknown - to TV audiences - actors out in the cold who would turn in far better performances. The rise of TV is having a very bad effect on the performance talent appearing on the nation's stages.

It's a sad trend, and I hope it reverses but I really can't see that happening any time soon.

Haing sidetracked, a voice such as Pavarotti's is a sad loss, regardless of what he did with his career. Hopefully some new, real talent will come through into opera soon, as the current crop of Russell Watson and his contemporaries do not cut the mustard.

Sadly, it is well-nigh impossible to disagree with any of this, all of which needs to be said and I for one appreciate your saying it, especially given the nature of your own work. Bums on seats are a commercial necessity, of course, but the extent to which they are also an artistic one is sometimes questionable, as you well illustrate.

As to the Russell Watsons of this demi-monde (one might as well cite Michael Ball [not the composer of that name, that is!] or Andrea Boccelli [who is apparently singing at LP's funeral, the only imaginable justification for which would seem to be his friendship with LP), there's really nothing to be said other than that people who have been hoodwinked by the marketing côteries into believing that these people are real "opera stars" have thereby been heavily inclucated with the very worst of Classic FM mentality. None of these people even have operatic careers such as each of the "Three Tenors" have had.

As a postscript, one of the most remarkable aspects of Pavarotti's voice was the level of maturity that it had reached by the time he was around 20 years of age; plenty of other people besides him had also been singing all their lives at this age, but Pavarotti at 20 seemed to possess the kind of well-developed and carefully nurtured vocal instrument that one would be hard put to expect of someone twice his age. This is really quite rare and all too many singers of the past century and more have been persuaded that they are - and indeed even should be - capable of vocal feats whose proper execution requires years of painstaking, patient and diligent practice. To return to Eva Turner once again, I recall her once making a wry joke about this very issue when saying of her own voice that it didn't attain full maturity until she was 55 but that by the time she reached 54 she was getting abit past it (she wasn't, actually, but it was a good line)...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

I think that he just enjoyed himself doing it and the pay cheques weren't exactly too much of a disincentive either.

Yes, i agree.

There must be a vast financial difference between a World Premier of an unknown work and singing Puccini in front of 10,000 at Leeds Castle.

Thal

[cmg]

This thread is about Pavarotti. 

I knew him.  Only casually, of course.  In the late 1980s, I was Performance Manager for the Metropolitan Opera.  Luciano sang many times in NYC in the 1980s.  He was not overly intelligent.  He came from a rather humble background.   He had a voice that is one in a century.  And his was the tenor voice of the 20th century.  Truly Italian. 

That he didn't expand his repertoire beyond the Italian was probably one of the few truly intelligent  artistic (and personal) decisions he made in his career.  He was the greatest exponent, in our times, of Italian lyricism.  He was the perfect tenor.  Unlike Domingo or Corelli, he was not a "baritonal" tenor.  He was the REAL THING.  Purely a tenor.

He was a little pompous, a little full of himself in the years that I knew him.  He was a star by then and the "country boy" was dazzled and seduced by the world's attention. 

Yes, he did get lazy with fame and wealth.  Yes, he forgot his origins and behaved like a divo.  Yes, he was undereducated, especially as a musician.  But he sang in the Italian style like the greatest masters in recorded history.  A legato that was pure, flowing oil, a sensitivity to his native language that was extremely moving.  A vocal quality that was unique, instantly recognizable and utterly beautiful.

His recorded achievement is astonishing and very beautiful. 

Was he the greatest tenor in recorded history?  No.  Is he irreplaceable?  No.  Thankfully, tenors in every generation to follow will emerge to rival and even surpass him.

But, for this time, he is ours.  For my generation, he was the supreme example of great Italian operatic singing. 

Subsequent generations will have theirs.  I see no need to minimize his considerable artistic achievements by attacking him for his lapses in taste.  What he DID accomplish is more than most of us here will ever dream of.

Pace, Luciano.
 

[m]

I find it quite ironic that, for example, Domingo is much better and much more intelligent musician, but he will never reach that popularity.

Life is unfair, you know, a violinist for example, can have the best Stradivari in the world, practice twenty hours a day for the whole life, have a beautiful sound and nobody would care. But it is enough for a tenor to have a voice and already the whole world... oh well...

Let's talk about piano...

[cmg]

One of England's great sopranos of the recent past, Dame Eva Turner, is quoted as having once said that a "Wagnerian soprano" was one who could excel in Bach, Schubert and Fauré as well as Wagner - in other words "the compleat soprano". Had Pavarotti explored Wagner, French song and Austro-German lied, Bach, Handel, etc. successfully and sung more Mozart than he did, he might have become one of the greatest performers of our time. He didn't. A comparison with the recently deceased Rostropovich is salutary here - another performer with an absolutely massive sound when needed and who could project better than almost any soloist, yet the repertoire in which he excelled was vast. Can you imagine Pavarotti premièring scores of new works as Rostropovich did? No - and even his operatic rôles were confined almost exclusively to Romantic Italian repertoire in which he had for the most part to depend upon his legendary vocal skills alone to do the "acting", since it was generally accepted that he simply couldn't act.

I have no idea what you, or Dame Eva Turner, really mean here.  The voice may be an "instrument" but it does not have the capacity, such as a cello, to be universally applied to any and all repertoire.  A Mozartian soprano is not necessarily capable of being a Wagnerian soprano and vice versa.  And that "failure" is not one of intelligence, industry or nerve.  Voices are quite individual and if one is able to sing Mozart, Bach, Schubert or Faure, that does not mean one is equally able to sing Wagner.  And that inability is not the result of laziness or lack of talent.

Very few singers have been able to cope with the demands of Mozart, say, and Wagner.  Eleanor Steber, the American soprano, was one of the few singers who could successfully perform both composers but she hardly ventured into the most demanding of Wagnerian roles:  Elisabeth and Elsa, yes, but Brunnhilde?  No.


Birgit Nillsson sang Mozart very early in her career as a young singer but gave him up as her voice developed.  And as it developed, it simply could not cope with the demands of lightness and agility that Mozartian roles require.  

Happily, the agility that Mozart demands is not a requirement of the heavier and more important roles of Wagner.  In fact, that kind of agility is rarely found in voices that can produce a huge outpouring of sound.  In most Wagner, the requirement is for a voice of great power that can penetrate the sound of a large Romantic orchestra with vocal lines that are mostly declamatory.  Mozart most often demands agility and powerful voices normally are not also agile.  Even Sutherland had to make that choice:  to remain agile, she had to avoid the heavy Wagnerian roles.  It requires a different technique.  And for most voices, overwhelmingly, that difference is mutually exclusive.  It's not about artistic laziness.  It's simply the way voices seem to be constructed.

Verdi's "La Traviata" is a good example of the singer's dilemma.  The role of Violetta is notoriously difficult because it requires, really, two different soprano voices:  one of great agility and one of powerful lyric intensity.  Few sopranos can successfully pull this off.  Voices are normally constructed to be either/or.  It is not the singer's fault.  

In short, to compare Rostropovich with Pavarotti is rather absurd.  Pavarotti knew his limitations and strengths, which were ordained by his instrument.  He chose to stay within his strengths.  He was Italian to the bone.      

[cmg]

I find it quite ironic that, for example, Domingo is much better and much more intelligent musician, but he will never reach that popularity.

Yes, you are right.  But his command of the Italian style does not rival Pavarotti's.  It's a simple fact.  And I would suggest that on Domingo's death, he will be as honored as Pavarotti for his immense achievements as a singer and a musician. 

It's not fair the advantage singers have over us pianists.  I agree.  But there it is!  Life ISN'T fair, Marik, my friend.  And that's our curse. 

But, don't forget that all of us instrumentalists are really only imitating the human voice.  The human voice is the first and foremost instrument.

We all, really, want to be "singers" in the final analysis.  If we don't, then we are inferior musicians.

[m]

But his command of the Italian style does not rival Pavarotti's.  It's a simple fact. 

 
It sounds like you are trying to say that Italian style is superior... ahhhh.... I mean popular, that is  .
Indeed, there is something irresistable in the "real" Italian style, something that touches (esp. the wider audiences) to the bottom of the heart--just the pure beauty of the melody.

BTW, for me Pavarotti was always kinda out of place with all those Spicy Girls, James Brown, etc. exactly the same as Montserrat Caballe with Freddy Mercury.

[m]

We all, really, want to be "singers" in the final analysis. 

Well, I always wanted to be a singer, in the first place. If I had even an ounce of at least SOME kind of voice, there would've been no any question about piano.
Unfortunately, as my mother used to say, my voice is good only for one thing--to sit in the bathroom and scream: "Occupied!!!"

[ahinton]

I have no idea what you, or Dame Eva Turner, really mean here.  The voice may be an "instrument" but it does not have the capacity, such as a cello, to be universally applied to any and all repertoire.  A Mozartian soprano is not necessarily capable of being a Wagnerian soprano and vice versa.  And that "failure" is not one of intelligence, industry or nerve.  Voices are quite individual and if one is able to sing Mozart, Bach, Schubert or Faure, that does not mean one is equally able to sing Wagner.  And that inability is not the result of laziness or lack of talent.

Very few singers have been able to cope with the demands of Mozart, say, and Wagner.  Eleanor Steber, the American soprano, was one of the few singers who could successfully perform both composers but she hardly ventured into the most demanding of Wagnerian roles:  Elisabeth and Elsa, yes, but Brunnhilde?  No.


Birgit Nillsson sang Mozart very early in her career as a young singer but gave him up as her voice developed.  And as it developed, it simply could not cope with the demands of lightness and agility that Mozartian roles require.  

Happily, the agility that Mozart demands is not a requirement of the heavier and more important roles of Wagner.  In fact, that kind of agility is rarely found in voices that can produce a huge outpouring of sound.  In most Wagner, the requirement is for a voice of great power that can penetrate the sound of a large Romantic orchestra with vocal lines that are mostly declamatory.  Mozart most often demands agility and powerful voices normally are not also agile.  Even Sutherland had to make that choice:  to remain agile, she had to avoid the heavy Wagnerian roles.  It requires a different technique.  And for most voices, overwhelmingly, that difference is mutually exclusive.  It's not about artistic laziness.  It's simply the way voices seem to be constructed.

Verdi's "La Traviata" is a good example of the singer's dilemma.  The role of Violetta is notoriously difficult because it requires, really, two different soprano voices:  one of great agility and one of powerful lyric intensity.  Few sopranos can successfully pull this off.  Voices are normally constructed to be either/or.  It is not the singer's fault.

You make a whole raft of very good and interesting points here. What I think Turner was alluding to, however - and perhaps you might feel disposed to accuse her of a kind of unwarranted (or at least somewhat impractical) idealism here - is that a Wagnerian soprano needs to be capable of all of those other things as well, not that singers well able to give their all to Mozart, Fauré, Bach, etc. should therefore and thereby be able to sing Wagner. The business of having the power to get over a Wagnerian orchestra (or an early Straussian one) is an issue as much for the composer as for the singer; Strauss knew just how to write massively for a large orchestra when he need to do so but still without thereby placing unresaonble demands on vocal power, such was just one aspect of his technical skill. Pavarotti's voice was one of immense power but he could scale it down to whatever level of delicacy and intimacy was required by the music.

In short, to compare Rostropovich with Pavarotti is rather absurd.  Pavarotti knew his limitations and strengths, which were ordained by his instrument.  He chose to stay within his strengths.  He was Italian to the bone.      

I did not intend such a comparison to be treated universally or to be complete in and of itself, but I do think that Pavarotti's view of the limitations of his instrument was itself unduly limited and that, given time, willingness and work, he could have developed in repertoire outside that for which he is principally known; the reason I say this is because his voice was in itself such an all-embracing and all-encompassing thing. I can well sympathise with his desire to remain within what he thought were the things that he could do best, but I am less sure that he would necessarily have remained temperamentally and/or somehow congenitally incapable of other things. In other words, I'm not convinced that Pavarotti even understood fully what he might be capable of doing; he may well have underestimated himself.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I should perhaps add to my last, for the purposes of clarification, that Turner's impled sense of the ideal Wagnerian singer as being, as the French say, capable de tout is something which we on a piano forum might recognise in the form of a pianist fully able to rise and respond to every aspect of all the challenges set by Godowsky and Alkan, in the sense that such a pianist is almost certainly going to be capable of playing almost anything else with ample technical ease and musical intelligence. It is in this sense and context that I cited Rostropovich - a cellist similarly capable de tout - this was all that prompted my "comparison" (as far as it could realistically be take as such) between Slava and Pava.

As to what the cello can be considered to do in comparison to the human voice, I can do no better than echo - and agree wholeheartedly with - what I understand of your own sentiments when you wrote
"But, don't forget that all of us instrumentalists are really only imitating the human voice.  The human voice is the first and foremost instrument. We all, really, want to be "singers" in the final analysis.  If we don't, then we are inferior musicians."
These are wise and pertinent words indeed - and ones which were pre-echoed by Sorabji's remark that "music begins and ends with singing" (thereby also implying that singing in some sense also occupies all points between that beginning and ending). I am not even an instrumentalist, let alone a singer, but, as a composer, I identify with that remark wholly, just as I do with what you write here.

Best,

Alistair

[thalberg]

Yes, you are right.  But his command of the Italian style does not rival Pavarotti's.  It's a simple fact.  And I would suggest that on Domingo's death, he will be as honored as Pavarotti for his immense achievements as a singer and a musician. 

It's not fair the advantage singers have over us pianists.  I agree.  But there it is!  Life ISN'T fair, Marik, my friend.  And that's our curse. 

But, don't forget that all of us instrumentalists are really only imitating the human voice.  The human voice is the first and foremost instrument.

We all, really, want to be "singers" in the final analysis.  If we don't, then we are inferior musicians.

Oh sad....don't let any singers see this, it will go to their already-inflated heads.

[thalberg]

I just thought of a funny story about Pavarotti.  I heard him sing in a Three Tenors concert at a stadium.  And he said he was going to dedicate a song to a woman on his touring staff who meant a lot to him--the dedication was for her birthday.  And for her birthday, the dedication would be--La donna e mobile.  HHAHAHA.  He got this hilarious expression on his face like he knew he was up to mischief.  I laughed really loud and the rest of the stadium was silent cause they didn't get it, haha. 

La donna e mobile means "women are fickle" and the song says that women cannot make up their mind--first the love this man then they love that man, they are always changing their affections.  Nice birthday gift!! ahah. In the opera, it was sung by a man who was himself quite fickle, as was Pavarotti.  So it really fit.  It was hilarious.