Bruce Charlton's Notions

 

I first heard this aria sung, as above, by Luciano Pavarotti - and this is, for me, the greatest performance overall. But the role was clearly Not written for a tenor of Pavarotti's type - with such a full, ringing and loud voice. (This is indeed known from multiple other sources of evidence.) 

Therefore, despite that Pavarotti sings every other note with his usual, perfectly even and glorious tone, he cannot reach the high F without switching to a falsetto (head-voice) voice production which marks a qualitative break in tonal quality. The run-in to this note is from 4:25. He does the high F beautifully - yet it sounds like someone else is singing that particular note. 

Pavarotti had probably the best high C of any full-voiced Italianate tenor - and what is more he possessed equally fine high C-sharp and even D - as may be heard in this aria; yet there are extremely few tenors of his type that can manage these notes using the same mode of vocal production as the high C. 

But the high F is three semitone above D - and that is a long way when singers are being judged by exact standards - and way beyond what any big-voiced tenor could produce in his normal vocal tone. 

You can hear this from a compilation of recordings of this notorious note - which is, I think, by far the highest note in the mainstream operatic tenor repertoire - since it is very seldom any tenor is required to go above high C at most - and that only once or twice per opera. 

Ignore the drivel in the comments! - What you can hear is that any tenor who has the kind of loud, ringing tone of a Pavarotti - someone like Gedda - must change to a qualitatively different tone for the high F. 

This is because all tenors have a 'break' in the voice, above which the tone must become falsetto; this break can be raised by training - but it is because of this that full-voiced tenors will sometimes 'crack' on high notes. This is like a yodel, and for the same reason - the voice suddenly, but uncontrolled because accidentally, flips into falsetto. 

(Yodeling is a controlled flipping back and forth between falsetto and the ordinary voice.) 

So, is the high F 'impossible'? 

There are tenors who, instead of having an abrupt break, gradually introduce more and more falsetto - their voice gradually and evenly changes from normal to falsetto as the notes get higher. (I have a friend with a naturally deep and sweet-toned voice, who does this spontaneously - and who has been able successfully to sing bass, baritone and tenor roles in Gilbert and Sullivan!) For such tenors, this high F may have more, or less, falsetto according to how high the break occurs. Some tenors have a very high break, and therefore the high F has less falsetto. 

However, these tenors invariably have a 'lighter', quieter and less ringing kind of tenor voice than the likes of Pavarotti and Gedda (or other greats of Italian Opera such as Caruso or Gigli) - they are, in essence, a different kind of voice (leggiero or tenore de grazia are some of the terms) - and such tenors are nowadays most often seen in Rossini, because only lighter voices can manage rapid coloratura (decorative passages of many quick notes). Luigi Alva was of this type.    

It seems certain that Bellini was writing for a just this type of leggiero, ligh-voliced singer, who used falsetto-flavoured production for the high notes. However, the tenor plays a man in nearly all operas, what is more the hero; and so he needs to sound masculine in vocal quality. 

This need for a heroic quality can be a problem for most high-voiced tenors, including who can best manage the high F with the minimum of falsetto. For perfection, the tenor should be able to integrate the high F with the whole of the rest of his voice - so that there is a completely-seamless transition in vocal quality. 

An example of musically-desirable seamless integration is Bruce Brewer (from 4:20):

However; Brewer sounds too-much like a female contralto - and not at all heroic!

*

In my mid teens I listened through several of the operas of Vincenzo Bellini - which were rather riding high in reputation at that time.

I have never seen any Bellini operas live, nor have I listened all through to any of them again - so I don't really know how they stand-up.

But Bellini wrote some of the most glorious arias ever for a truly great singer in the Bel Canto style, who can sustain the long, fluid melodic line; and can 'rise' to the wonderfully well-prepared high notes.

In this aria from I Puritani, Pavarotti unleashes one of the most thrilling tenor high notes captured on vinyl - a C-sharp. It works best if you listen to the whole thing, and certainly the second verse run-in - but the actual note comes about 2.45:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMnC0W26Hkw

Probably Bellini's best known aria is Casta Diva from Norma which is a big favourite among the best dramatic sopranos - here is a version from the best of the best:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iK2LwLyZAlc

*

*

We live in a world of professional performers - singers, musicians, actors, dancers; and it seems natural to us that these be mostly professionals, dominated by professionals who do these things for a living.

But - with a very important exception - I am against this, on the whole. The arts professions are full of dull, mediocre professionals, mostly supported by subsidies coercively extracted from the public at large - a public who seldom bother to attend even when performances are subsidized or free of charge.

I think it would be better, and the arts would be better, if done mostly/ almost entirely by amateurs - that is, by people who don't make their living from the performing arts.

*

Take dancing. When it became 'Dance' it became dominated by professionals; and we have gone from a world that was full of people dancing, to a world where people watch dancing - and the few who themselves do much dancing are wannabe professionals and their teachers.

*

Singing? Most of the best singers - in the sense of 'singers you would want to listen to' are amateurs. Professional singers offer many technical advantages such as quick-learning and breath control and reliability... but most of them just aren't very pleasant to listen-to and lack musicality. Beauty of voice and the ability to phrase are gifts: they cannot be manufactured.

*

Acting is a similar thing. Most professional actors are rubbish at acting - they succeed either because they are good looking or have a nice voice and because there are far more jobs for professions than talented professionals. (The same applies to directors.) Yet if you go to a school play, or amateur dramatics, you will usually find one or two absolutely stunning natural actors - who do things far beyond the professional.

*

Classical musical instruments generally require years of practice, yet most cities have amateur orchestras able to play nearly all of the repertoire to a good standard - and in concerts more enjoyable than those produced by the general run of cynical, jaded and under-rehearsed professional musicians. And in a wider musical perspective, folk music around the world is full of stunningly gifted part timers - virtuosi even.

*

What about the exception? The arts always have a place for the outstanding genius; and these are the people - they are the only people - who should be full-time professional performers.

Singers like Joan Sutherland or Pavarotti really were the best in the world - and by a margin, and pretty much everybody can hear the difference. People of that class (and the class just below that level) should be the professional performers, and they should be the only professionals.

*

Something similar applies to other performing artists - the few dancers, actors, instrumentalists who are really great are the ones who can make a living at it, and who the community is happy to support with fees - and the rest should be amateur.

The model even potentially applies to literature and painting.

John Martin (1789-1854), was an artist who specialized in epic Old Testament paintings - and he made a living by touring his vast canvases, and charging people to come and look at them.



The  professional performing arts should be rare and stunning experiences; done by a tiny minority of great performers.

It is, in practice, almost impossible to prevent such people becoming professionals, and indeed becoming wealthy; because lots of people will willingly travel long distances, and pay large sums of their own money, to see 'the greats' perform.

But people will voluntarily do this only to experience greatness in performance; and not the mass of performers who merely competent, certified, salaried and 'professional'...

*

*

I love the tenor voice above all others, and am very fond of Rossini - but it is very, very seldom that Rossini is sung better than adequately by tenors.

Indeed I know of only one tenor - Luigi Alva - who has sung the Rossini tenor roles as they should be sung.

*

Mostly Rossini is sung by tenors with far too heavy a voice - of the examples below Gedda was a Spinto tenor, which is of the same type as Pavarotti. Although he skillfully held-back on his full tone and volume, and lightened it - he cannot get anywhere near singing the decorations of the aria.

Florez is a lighter and much more flexible modern lyric tenor - but still too heavy a voice for Rossini - because although he manages most of the decorations, he cannot separate the notes, and this shows up especially in the runs (the scales).

Listening to Alva after these is a revelation: that is how it should be done. The notes in the fast decorations are separated.

Alva was not perfect - there is sometimes a audible aspiration between the separated notes - but he is the only one capable of singing Rossini in the style it should be sung - in which the decorations contribute a great deal of the value of the music. Without hearing these decorations given full value, the music does not reveal its full value.

*

Nicolai Gedda - adequate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2uuTJfQOXY


Juan Diego Florez - good: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu_ma50DYZo


Luigi Alva: how it should be done

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xqRx5ggOqs

*

In the 1970s James Galway became the first classical flautist ever to reach mass public consciousness in the UK - to be invited onto chat shows, to have his own TV programme and concerts based around him. He was a household name.

At first I wondered whether this was mostly due to his engaging personality and his man-of-the-people Ulster accent; but as I explored his performances I realized that it was based on the fact that he really was the best flute player of the era - and by some considerable margin.

By 'best' I mean quite simply that he made by far the richest and fullest sound of any flute player (ever?), and also that his phrasing was extremely fluid and lyrical - and these are the qualities most valued by the general, music loving public at large (leaving aside the more various views of expert critics).

In other words, people like Galway for the same reason they like a great singer such as Wunderlich, Sutherland or Pavarotti - because they make the loveliest sound and also 'phrase' the music in a way that brings-out its beauty above all else. So by 'great' I mean 'middlebrow great' in the same way that Austen, Dickens and Frost are regarded as great, and not in the way that Joseph Conrad, Henry James or TS Eliot are regarded as great.

Anyway, if you haven't yet listened to Galway, then perhaps you should. Here he is playing JS Bach 'chamber music' - the Trio Sonatas. Although great favourites of mine, these pieces can seem quite dry and intellectual, the way most performers play them - but not Galway/ Chung!

If you want a pop singer (or any kind of singer) with a very good voice - it may be that sacrifices must be made in terms of the... overall package. Sometimes the old phrase that "only a mother could love that face" (or whatever), springs to mind.

Of course there are some attractive singers who are very good singers (Debbie Harry from Blondie, for instance) - but good voices are rare enough that there is usually a trade-off between looks and voice. 

And this means that when the singer is less than gorgeous, it usually means that we are in for a vocal treat!

Typically, of course, pop singers are marketed on the basis of looks rather than vocal flair - and steps are taken during the recording process to cover-up the deficiencies. But when the vocalist is chosen by a musically-talented instrumentalists or composer; he is likely to choose a musically-talented singer. 

The gifted composer and synthesiser virtuoso Vince Clarke exemplifies this with his picks; about whom we can say they are all very good singers, and also that you could tell they were going-to be good, even before they opened their mouths:  

 

Note: Much the same applies in opera. My choice of probably the two greatest singers of the late 20th century would be Joan Sutherland and Luciano Pavarotti - and they certainly weren't picked on the basis of their looks: