Lauri Volpi era un fenomeno vocale, ed anzi l'unico vero fenomeno vocale di tutta la storia della lirica: esula da ogni categoria. Filippeschi è stato sicuramente un grande tenore, tanto che un Lauri Volpi ormai in "pensione" gli scrisse una missiva dove ne elogiava le capacità in acuto, al punto da ritenerlo il migliore in quel momento storico.
Grazie. Testimonianza live preziosa. Problemi di emissione, quell'Uomo, certamente non ne aveva! Tutto fluido, regolare, vocali ben scandite, niente trucchi, aggiustamenti, farfugliamenti, strani portamenti mischiati a coperture. Alla fine c'è un Si naturale, perché così è scritto. Detto questo, le scelte stilistiche sono tutte sue, cioè non sono dettate da imbarazzi sul passaggio o altre amenità. Sono espressione del gusto di un'epoca, ma soprattutto del rapporto che l'Artista stabilì col suo pubblico. Ma è tutto vero, genuino: prendere o lasciare.
Mario Filippeschi was a thrilling performer with a brilliant high voice and marvellously energetic stage presence. I saw him in Il Trovatore and William Tell and will never forget the excitement. It's wonderful to hear this, thank you!
I was a student and it was in Drury Lane in 1959, the last ever visiting "All Italian Company", including Ebe Stignani as Azucena and Gino Bechi as William Tell. Alicia Markova was principal dancer in William Tell and some people came just to see her dance! The whole experience was unforgettable, pure undiluted Italian Opera performed by Italians.
CharlotteinWeimar Whenever I encounter someone who has heard one of the greats live in the house, Im always compelled to ask more questions. How big would you say that Filippeschi's voice was in comparison to Stignani and Bechi? Does he sound much bigger in person? Also, could you describe what it was like to hear Stignani and Bechi as well? Thanks
Che dire... Non ho abbastanza parole per ringraziarvi di aver caricato questo pezzo di registrazione. Non solo mi ha commosso, ma mi ha fatto sentire quello che forse è il tenore che stimo di più in una forma smagliante. Un'emissione così sciolta, fluida e allo stesso tempo una voce così piena sono un monumento alla natura umana. Grazie.
Wow! Never heard Filippeschi before. Thank you for sharing! Fantastic! For all you Pavarotti fanatics out there... I love Pavarotti's voice and have all his recordings, but... I too have heard him live and it simply was not a big voice! Sorry. He did a spectacular job with this aria in recordings and with a microphone (three tenors tours), but never had a sufficiently dramatic voice to sing the complete role of Calaf. Don't you think he would have done it if he could? And by the way Yoda, there is no "king of tenors". They were all great in their own right and had special things about their voices. They all also had flaws in their voices. That never takes away from their greatness. Pavarotti is way up there among those. And now that I have heard Filippeschi I must count him among them as well.
to be fair to Pavarotti if you heard him with the 3 tenors he must have been not so young already.. the first Pavarotti was great too. But I prefer previous tenors too. but fair is fajr
@@guidogreco341 Corelli is a great Calaf, tall and handsome, on singing high notes and bring fire into the house, Mario is way above with much clean diction and relentless power delivery!
Someone trained him to obtain a technique reliant on a supported instrument. This training is apparently no longer available, and we all participate like sheep in the opera charade of today.
Dire magnifico è poco! Filippeschi, vorrei aggiungere per quelli che dubitano, cantava sempre in tono perchè non aveva nessun problema nel registro acuto!!!
I apologize ThePavafan- I knew Pav recorded Turandot, but didn't remember him performing the whole opera live. My ignorance. Humble pie doesn't taste too bad. Have listened to more Filippeschi. Love this guy's voice!
He performed live with caballe at san francisco opera house the entire opera, but he later cancelled, you can find it here the live domestic recording ...
I suppose I should have expected it. The video is about Fillipeschi but most of the comments are about Pavarotti or rather about the Pavarotti fanboys. Maybe that's just - they recorded many of the same repertoire. Maybe it's an ineveitable comparison.I heard Pavarotti many times but never heard Fillipeschi live. I'm too young (boy how I love to say that). Pavarotti had a lovely and freely produced voice. It was god sized but not dramatic. For example I heard Pavarotti and Corelli sing Cavaradossi. Both had large enough voices for the role in the San Francisco opera house. Bergonzi didn't. That big theater just swallowed him up. Both of them had voices that carried better than that that of dramatic tenor Giacomini. Giacomini sounded thick and bottled up. Corelli overacted while Pavarotti hardly acted at all. he just walked around the stage being genial.Both took many liberties with the score. Corelli had more voice and was memorable and thrilling. Pavarotti sang everything nicely with lovely tone.The singer most like Fillipeschi recently was probably Bonisolli. Both had fabulous tops. They were true high note tenors while Pavarotti never was. Both were vigorous singers who sometimes sang a bit too choppily. Pavarotti always sang with better taste even if he was never was quite as sweet voiced as Carreras or Björling. Pavarotti was a famously bad musician. He was very slow to learn music. So when I first heard him he went on stage not really knowing the score very well. But he was a good memorizer and once he knew a part he was fine he didn't forget and he paid attention to the all the coaching he had gotten. Corelli in contrast learned a new role by himself at the piano in only a few days. But is performance he was less careful than he might have been. In recital Corelli always kept the sheet music on the piano because he was worried about forgetting. In recital Pavarotti never had any anxieties. he was solid once he had the music ell learned.
+Patrick Boyle Well voice is never really about size is it? Its about how it moves an audience - some singers with lesser technique can move a listener if the timbre is beautiful. Carreras always felt intimidated by the bigger voices of Domingo and Pavarotti and he tried to compete instead of letting his own sweetness shine through - also because he felt overshadowed he got very nervous...he was not a comfortable singer by any means but he was driven by his love for music.
Lorna Kelly Sorry, I must disagree with you. Vocal size is very important. Corelli or Vickers or King were thrilling in a way that singers with more modest vocal means just aren't. I heard Carreras live many times. It was always a big enough voice. I never heard him try Rhadames or Chenier or one of the parts that were probably too big for him. He had a much bigger voice for example than Bergonzi.
+Patrick Boyle Patrick, shame on you, you are slipping. What happened on this morning, you decided to be nice to Luciano? You even mentioned his "god-sized voice," though that was obviously a Freudian slip. But all jokes aside, your assessment of Pavarotti here is quite fair and balanced IMHO, and I say that even as a great fan of his. I do think though that if you listen to his recordings from the early 60's to around 1980, not only is his voice as meltingly beautiful as any tenor sound ever recorded, but his singing is quite remarkable as well.
Pavarotti started as a leggiero and never went beyond a standard lyric. It was not a huge voice. I heard him in person several times. It was a beautiful timbre, but not big. since he was mic'd all the time people have the mistaken impression it was a huge voice. Nope. Filippeschi had a great voice.
+MrCafiero I heard him many times in some of his best years. It was not a "big" voice-but hardly small. I always call it a big lyric-but live in an opera house or concert hall it was so well produced, so clear, so easy that the impression was of a larger voice. His great accomplishment is in the lyric roles-was sort of on the cusp of a spinto but never quite there. But this new myth that it was a mic voice is ridiculous
Pavarotti was better in opera without a mike. He had a lot of energy for the lyric roles. He, Carreras, DeStefano, etal lyric tenors make the tragic mistake of singing the dramatic tenor voices. I get the feeling when Pavarotti is in concert and uses a mike he doesn't give it his ALL. After all Pavarotti has sung a lot of years and had to preserve his voice. Even singing for so many Fund Raisers all over the world. God bless him. Philip Tropea tenor www.youtube.com
@@Labienus Speak the truth man!!! Beyond the hype.Also Pavarotti had a limited repertoire and anything outside of Italian language he performed a massacre.When he was singing in French, the French people were looking at each other with a stoned face. They didn't understand a single word!!! He wss singing gibrish!!!.The young Pavarotti voice had great timbre and ring but he wasn't big.He also was notoriously bad musician, he couldn't even read the partiture!!!!He was passing the arias until he reached the high c and there he hit them with everything he had and kept them for 12-15 seconds and the ignorant from opera audiences clapped hands and screamed like crazy.Their measure wss against pop and rock singers and Pavarotti was a revelation to them. He was a God in their eyes.He became mainly known outside the opera audiences from the 3 tenors in the 90's.That is where his immense popularity derives from.Many people consider him the greatest ever but they haven't heard anyone else performing operatic arias,and they are arguing with people that were operatic fans their entire lives when they say that he isn't even top 10-15 material. They don't know that hundreds of tenors existed prior and at Pavarotti 's time.I was one of them when i was 20 years old, but instead of arguing, i decided to listen for myself.WHAT A REVELATION THAT WAS. I found within days about 20 tenors that he had nothing on them!!!!!!!! Caruso, Bjorling Fleta, Gigli, Wunderlich, Lemeshev, Di Stefano, Lauri Volpi, Corelli, Gedda,Filippeschi, i can go on and on... Ignorance rules...
Dear Hobo, I DON'T think your statements are accurate about Fillipeschi.He had great facility in the upper register.He was able to sing mezza voce and filatura.Fillipeschi also got high commendations and praise by the great Lauri Volpi and perhaps was one of the very few tenors in Volpi's category that could sing anything from Favorita to William Tell,Puritani,Ugonotti,Otello Aida ,Tosca,Rigoletto,Trovatore.My father heard him in Europe and said that his voice travelled very well in the theater.
Mario F was very good, pretty voce. But Volpi is a monster, a deep monster, even young he got a wobble or smthing, but on a records his defects was so beauty. Volpi is my favourite one, like Corelli-Monaco. He is a whole theatre or more. I can not understand, who criticizing Mario F. Maybe his timbre is not so beauty, stable or smthing. So, lets that people go and listen freaks like pavaroti, trio bandits or like that.
@ThePavafan In 1 word you stated an irrefutable fact. The more I listen to his voice dynamics, the equalized registers, the powerful and squillante top, the inhuman repertory he dominated, the least I desire to hear refurbished studio recordings of present market tenors. Filippeschi's old live recorded performances, are artistry of superior quality.
Voce certamente eccezzionale, era l'unico che poteva cantare con continuità :Guglielmo Tel opera per tanti grandi più illistri tenori impossibile cantare per la terriibile tessitura. Filippeschi era ed è lunico Arnoldo di riferimento.
I don't think in the last 70 years we had a tenor that sounded like Filippeschi. Lots of squillo, phrasing, brilliant from botton to top and with easy incedible high notes. Pavarotti's voice was not large, but had a cutting power, but not even close to Filippeschi. Aragall, had the most beautiful quality and easy top (when nerves got not in the way); Carreras, beautiful voice and sang from his heart, and Kraus, a great technician. Many others great tenors, but the list too long to remember them all.
lo que demuestra que en la actualidad la opera ha muerto, solo queda un gigante como placido domingo y alguna reliquia más pero cuando se retiren los que quedan son unos impostores..
Senza dubbio caro Leo,e' come asserisci tu soprattutto in un epoca nella quale non esisteva solo Caruso,alla fine il risultato fu il seguente:6500000 di 78 giri in vita e circa 185000000 di dischi riediti nei vari anniversari dalla sua morte oltre a LP e C D.Massimiliano ,Portici.
Sorry,I misunderstood.I thought you were writing about Fillipeschi.MF's William Tell and Puritani are excellent.He perhaps developed a wobble later in his career.Pavarotti's voice might had been a little thin but traveled pretty well in the theater.
Most lyric tenors have small voices if you compare them to spinto or dramatic. And his technique was good. But I agree with you, there were a lot of better tenors.
When it come to super high notes, only Filipescchi, all others are...... ok, nice high notes. To hear him singing William Tell, an those now days, just trying, sorry, but they sounded like castratis.
Hey ThePavafan. Don't go dissin' on Domingo. Comparing Pavarotti and Domingo is like comparing apples and oranges. Pavarotti, who specialized in bel canto and later in verissmo italian operas was brilliant with what he did! The ease and excitement of his high notes were thrilling. But, he never had the versatility of Domingo. Domingo sang from Donizetti to Wagner. He was brilliant at all of them. His command of the many languages in which sang was amazing. He is also a first rate musician. These two tenors are nothing alike and comparing them in such a general way is ignorant. They are both great artists and musicians! Being a fan of one should not diminish the other. My apologies to those who came on here to comment on Filippeschi.
+canio59 But Pavarotti in his fach remains the more historic voice. Domingo may have sung everything but was hardly brilliant in them all. His early German was awful-though it got better. His top was often a problem even in his best years (especially compared to a voice like Filippeschi), and he fancied himself a great actor and interpreter, but was hardly that. I am not a Domingo basher, but when I turn to the recorded legacy, in almost every role I think of, he is never my first choice and often not in the top 3.
+Labienus Your comments about Domingo have merit and he is not in my top 3 either, but you can't take away what he has accomplished as a singer over 40+ years. Besides, I said he was brilliant at all of them, not in all of them. I thought he was brilliant in the way he negotiated high notes he didn't really have. Maybe I should have said he was brilliant in his approach to all of them. Who else in his era has been able to successfully perforn so many styles, languages and fachs? He is on of my list for top 10 tenors between 1970 and the early 2000s. We all have our own tastes and favorite sounds in a voice we listen for, but the fact remains we are just listeners and spectators commenting on world renown singers. You can find the flaws in every singer if that's what your looking for. You can also find the greatness in them all. Timbre, resonance, freedom, excitement, size, finess, musicality... all have different combinations and can be enjoyed for what they offered the world. I, for one, am grateful for them all!
+Calaf59 It's a bit unproductive when making distinctions, engaging in Internet connoisseurship, expressing what singers meant the most and why, to then say all of them can be enjoyed in different ways for what they accomplished. To do what they have done successfully is, indeed, something wonderful and should be valued, but then the discussion begins from that point. That's why I often come to Domingo's defense when people in coarse and unproductive language put him down-and he is disdained by many on the Internet. I never tried to 'take anything away from him." But that still doesn't alter what I first said--that with all that he accomplished he rarely if ever made an historic mark. Look I heard him in some splendid live performances-and thought his last phase of Wagner-Siegmund and Parsifal, was some of the best work he ever did. In a huge house like the Met, a big, easy sound, with bronze color, musically applied-quite satisfying. But he certainly, in the end doesn't erase the imprint of the great, idiomatic tenors in those roles. You make much of the fact that-"Who else in his era has been able to successfully perform so many styles, languages and fachs?" But to me that may have been the problem-good in much, very good in some, not great in anything. I think in opera-if you have even a few roles that puts you in the pantheon of your fach-then you have achieved a kind of immortality. Maybe he spread himself too thin? If he is on your list of top 10 tenors between 1970-2000-which I don't think anyone would argue about-but what does that say if you then try to place him in the context of the entire tenor legacy? I used first 3 as an example, but in most roles he would be farther down than that-which is nothing to sneeze at. But right now with what we have on recordings, there are just so many tenors that I'd grab first-and in some of those instances he is clearly the better musician, stylist, but then not the best voice, or most moving.
+canio59 Pavarotti and Domingo's names will always come up when discussing tenors because of their legacy. Your analysis of these two greats is spot on BTW.
Domingo had a wonderful voice when he was young. He sang too much especially German operas which is very difficult. He forced his voice as well as Carreras in his later years. He is a triple threat LOL, a singer, pianist and conductor-what a talent! Philip Tropea tenor www.youtube.com
Before commenting I listened to this recording quite a few times. The voice itself is full, ringing, but it is a boring interpretation. Minimal dynamics( forte. more forte and fortissimo a few mezzo fortes). Dove la poesia? Dove il misterio? Non exiiste. Forte and forte. Where are the colors? It seems he was aspiring for the way Del Monaco sang it. Brazen sounds. Roaring leon. Declamatory style. Perhaps great for Chenier Improvisso. But that is not Calaf. Calaf is a mystery.Instead. I was expecting every moment "Ora per sempre addio" from Otello.... Sorry guys.for me this is just a display of a beautiful instrument which could be used with so much more finesse.
@@AfroPoli I listened to a 1946 film version. Indeed there he has all the finesse needed. And there is also an unforgettable Gobbi. A pity they cut out Possente amor. Filippechi was well able to do it. There is also another thing. I think the first half of the 20th century up to the middle of the Fifties was more under stylistic influences of Caruso, Fleta, Lazaro, Gigli and later Bjorling. The heavier singing invaded around the end of Fifties- Sixties with singers that sang with less finesse and more sound owing also to some techniques that became more prevalent during those times. So, volume became modern. Also, orchestras and conductors became more and more loud. Some mixing of Wagner into Italian singing also happened. And that is also the time where people started dividing singers more into categories. Look, Caruso, Gigli and even Schipa sang belcanto, heavier Verdi, Puccini and verismo. It was acceptable. Later people started looking more from the category and started associating specific voice categories with specific roles. The point is that when the roles were written, and as older recordings attest, that was not always the case.
@@yoramchaiter3569 very true. Much has happened since the 1930s. I do place a great deal of the blame on the recording industry. Or on those who haven’t understood that singing for the record is as different from singing on stage as acting for a TV camera is from being on stage in a theater. The record created a taste: rounder, louder, heavier etc… it did not work so well on stage. Usually, people don’t take into consideration how much tampering went into the records, even in the 50s. Nilsson complained to Culshaw that her voice wasn’t loud enough in Götterdämmerung. Culshaw wrote that, if anything, her voice had already been blown out of proportion prior to her complaint. But she wanted to sound even bigger and she got her way. And so it goes…
un altro drammatico con quel registro acuto non c'è mai stato...non parlatemi di del monaco...non sapeva cantare...e aveva un gusto osceno...nn riesco a sentirlo...
E vero, il timbre di Caruso e meraviglioso. Non c'e uguale! Lanza era il un grande tenore natural. Se egli ha studiato un altro anno con Enrico Rosati sarebbe fantastico. Rosati era il maestro di Lanza e Gigli, uno dei miei favoriti. Philip Tropea tenore www.youtube.com .
The amount of ring in this man's voice is incredible!
Imagine Live performance, Mario can set the whole house on fire, truly glorious voice, Love deeply, Bravo!!!
Lauri Volpi era un fenomeno vocale, ed anzi l'unico vero fenomeno vocale di tutta la storia della lirica: esula da ogni categoria. Filippeschi è stato sicuramente un grande tenore, tanto che un Lauri Volpi ormai in "pensione" gli scrisse una missiva dove ne elogiava le capacità in acuto, al punto da ritenerlo il migliore in quel momento storico.
doti vocali incredibili ma letteralmente prese a calci nel modo di esibirle
Todos los MARIO son insuperables jaja, este Nessun Dorma es TOP ONE !!!!!!
Grazie. Testimonianza live preziosa. Problemi di emissione, quell'Uomo, certamente non ne aveva! Tutto fluido, regolare, vocali ben scandite, niente trucchi, aggiustamenti, farfugliamenti, strani portamenti mischiati a coperture. Alla fine c'è un Si naturale, perché così è scritto. Detto questo, le scelte stilistiche sono tutte sue, cioè non sono dettate da imbarazzi sul passaggio o altre amenità. Sono espressione del gusto di un'epoca, ma soprattutto del rapporto che l'Artista stabilì col suo pubblico. Ma è tutto vero, genuino: prendere o lasciare.
Mario Filippeschi was a thrilling performer with a brilliant high voice and marvellously energetic stage presence. I saw him in Il Trovatore and William Tell and will never forget the excitement. It's wonderful to hear this, thank you!
I was a student and it was in Drury Lane in 1959, the last ever visiting "All Italian Company", including Ebe Stignani as Azucena and Gino Bechi as William Tell. Alicia Markova was principal dancer in William Tell and some people came just to see her dance! The whole experience was unforgettable, pure undiluted Italian Opera performed by Italians.
I have the entire broadcast of the Tell performance. If you don't have it already, I can send you a copy.
CharlotteinWeimar Whenever I encounter someone who has heard one of the greats live in the house, Im always compelled to ask more questions. How big would you say that Filippeschi's voice was in comparison to Stignani and Bechi? Does he sound much bigger in person? Also, could you describe what it was like to hear Stignani and Bechi as well? Thanks
Please send it to me as well!!
Wow! You've witnessed some serious operatic history then! Filippeschi was probably the best interpreter of Arnoldo bar Duprez!!
Semplicemente meraviglioso!
De los mejores de la historia...
Bello ed emozionante!! E' la ma romanza preferita ed adoro avere i brividi!!.. grazie.!
Unico!
onnipotenza assoluta incredibile sublime superbo che meraviglia!!!
He is the man, way above 3 tenors!!! Love it.
Filippeschi had all the vocal faculties to be considered a great tenor in any generation. Who can sing like him today?
Juan Diego Flores, hahahahahah°
@@eliasoctaviohidalgonot even close 😂
@bodiloto Voce portentosa, heroica e bella. concordo plenamente con usted.
MARAVIGLIOSO!!!BRAVISSIMO!!!
che bella voce, e teniamo conto anche dei mezzi di registrazione di allora, grande!
Excellent tenor- reminds me of the great Jan Keipura!
Шикарно! Шикарная школа пения на И!!!!!!
Che dire... Non ho abbastanza parole per ringraziarvi di aver caricato questo pezzo di registrazione. Non solo mi ha commosso, ma mi ha fatto sentire quello che forse è il tenore che stimo di più in una forma smagliante. Un'emissione così sciolta, fluida e allo stesso tempo una voce così piena sono un monumento alla natura umana.
Grazie.
Mario Filippeschi soprannominato "Spadavoce" per via del suo prodigioso squillo messo su una voce robusta!
INCREIBLEEEEEE
Gorgeous.
Exceptional talent---Thank you for sharing Mario Filippeschi's voice!!!!
Fantastico!!!Grazie ❤della condivisione
Wow! Never heard Filippeschi before. Thank you for sharing! Fantastic!
For all you Pavarotti fanatics out there... I love Pavarotti's voice and have all his recordings, but... I too have heard him live and it simply was not a big voice! Sorry. He did a spectacular job with this aria in recordings and with a microphone (three tenors tours), but never had a sufficiently dramatic voice to sing the complete role of Calaf. Don't you think he would have done it if he could?
And by the way Yoda, there is no "king of tenors". They were all great in their own right and had special things about their voices. They all also had flaws in their voices. That never takes away from their greatness. Pavarotti is way up there among those. And now that I have heard Filippeschi I must count him among them as well.
to be fair to Pavarotti if you heard him with the 3 tenors he must have been not so young already.. the first Pavarotti was great too. But I prefer previous tenors too. but fair is fajr
Pavarotti did sing Calaf twice, I think. He wasn't half bad, although definitely not heroic enough.
Corelli..Corelli.Corelli
The Calaf of the XX Century....Franco..yes Franco Corelli
@@guidogreco341 Corelli is a great Calaf, tall and handsome, on singing high notes and bring fire into the house, Mario is way above with much clean diction and relentless power delivery!
Someone trained him to obtain a technique reliant on a supported instrument. This training is apparently no longer available, and we all participate like sheep in the opera charade of today.
james ward His teacher was Arrigo Pola. Later he continued under Ettore Campogalliani who he was referred to by his old maestro.
This refers of course to Pavarotti, as for Filippeshi, his teacher was one Sr.Vicidomini and I could not find any information about the maestro.
Not only not available, it is actively discouraged by those teachers and artistic directors... yes. How tragic.
Dire magnifico è poco! Filippeschi, vorrei aggiungere per quelli che dubitano, cantava sempre in tono perchè non aveva nessun problema nel registro acuto!!!
Ma aveva un gusto da carrettiere, plateale.
gli acuti sono importanti, ma anche un minimo di grazia nell'interpretazione distingue i fuoriclasse
@@ciupotto mai commento fu più giusto. Vedo la differenza tra lui e Corelli. Franco aveva molta più classe
Omg fantastic
Bravo!
Ottimo
Nobody Best this Singer. But Is not too Easy understand ......
Great, great. Thank you very much.
I apologize ThePavafan- I knew Pav recorded Turandot, but didn't remember him performing the whole opera live. My ignorance. Humble pie doesn't taste too bad.
Have listened to more Filippeschi. Love this guy's voice!
He performed live with caballe at san francisco opera house the entire opera, but he later cancelled, you can find it here the live domestic recording ...
@ceccherecchi Grandissimo direbbe io. Alla stessa statura di un Lauri Volpi, un Corelli. Una voce luminosa, facile.
grandi doti vocali ma assolutamente imparagonabile a Volpi e Corelli....per lui inarrivabili come stile e finezza interpretativa
Imparagonabile anche a Beniamino Gigli.
I suppose I should have expected it. The video is about Fillipeschi but most of the comments are about Pavarotti or rather about the Pavarotti fanboys. Maybe that's just - they recorded many of the same repertoire. Maybe it's an ineveitable comparison.I heard Pavarotti many times but never heard Fillipeschi live. I'm too young (boy how I love to say that). Pavarotti had a lovely and freely produced voice. It was god sized but not dramatic. For example I heard Pavarotti and Corelli sing Cavaradossi. Both had large enough voices for the role in the San Francisco opera house. Bergonzi didn't. That big theater just swallowed him up. Both of them had voices that carried better than that that of dramatic tenor Giacomini. Giacomini sounded thick and bottled up. Corelli overacted while Pavarotti hardly acted at all. he just walked around the stage being genial.Both took many liberties with the score. Corelli had more voice and was memorable and thrilling. Pavarotti sang everything nicely with lovely tone.The singer most like Fillipeschi recently was probably Bonisolli. Both had fabulous tops. They were true high note tenors while Pavarotti never was. Both were vigorous singers who sometimes sang a bit too choppily. Pavarotti always sang with better taste even if he was never was quite as sweet voiced as Carreras or Björling. Pavarotti was a famously bad musician. He was very slow to learn music. So when I first heard him he went on stage not really knowing the score very well. But he was a good memorizer and once he knew a part he was fine he didn't forget and he paid attention to the all the coaching he had gotten. Corelli in contrast learned a new role by himself at the piano in only a few days. But is performance he was less careful than he might have been. In recital Corelli always kept the sheet music on the piano because he was worried about forgetting. In recital Pavarotti never had any anxieties. he was solid once he had the music ell learned.
+Patrick Boyle Well voice is never really about size is it? Its about how it moves an audience - some singers with lesser technique can move a listener if the timbre is beautiful. Carreras always felt intimidated by the bigger voices of Domingo and Pavarotti and he tried to compete instead of letting his own sweetness shine through - also because he felt overshadowed he got very nervous...he was not a comfortable singer by any means but he was driven by his love for music.
Lorna Kelly Sorry, I must disagree with you. Vocal size is very important. Corelli or Vickers or King were thrilling in a way that singers with more modest vocal means just aren't.
I heard Carreras live many times. It was always a big enough voice. I never heard him try Rhadames or Chenier or one of the parts that were probably too big for him. He had a much bigger voice for example than Bergonzi.
+Patrick Boyle I heard King in recital and sat something like 15 ft away from him. It was intimidating. I have the tape somewhere....
+Patrick Boyle Patrick, shame on you, you are slipping. What happened on this morning, you decided to be nice to Luciano? You even mentioned his "god-sized voice," though that was obviously a Freudian slip. But all jokes aside, your assessment of Pavarotti here is quite fair and balanced IMHO, and I say that even as a great fan of his. I do think though that if you listen to his recordings from the early 60's to around 1980, not only is his voice as meltingly beautiful as any tenor sound ever recorded, but his singing is quite remarkable as well.
m. filipp.solche stimmen gibt es nicht mehr-g.grossartig w böke
Ricordatevi tutti che siamo negli anni 50, immediato dopoguerra
Pavarotti started as a leggiero and never went beyond a standard lyric. It was not a huge voice. I heard him in person several times. It was a beautiful timbre, but not big. since he was mic'd all the time people have the mistaken impression it was a huge voice. Nope. Filippeschi had a great voice.
+MrCafiero
I heard him many times in some of his best years. It was not a "big" voice-but hardly small. I always call it a big lyric-but live in an opera house or concert hall it was so well produced, so clear, so easy that the impression was of a larger voice. His great accomplishment is in the lyric roles-was sort of on the cusp of a spinto but never quite there. But this new myth that it was a mic voice is ridiculous
Pavarotti was better in opera without a mike. He had a lot of energy for the lyric roles. He, Carreras, DeStefano, etal lyric tenors make the tragic mistake of singing the dramatic tenor voices. I get the feeling when Pavarotti is in concert and uses a mike he doesn't give it his ALL. After all Pavarotti has sung a lot of years and had to preserve his voice. Even singing for so many Fund Raisers all over the world. God bless him. Philip Tropea tenor www.youtube.com
10 pavarotti< One Filippeschi
@@Labienus Speak the truth man!!! Beyond the hype.Also Pavarotti had a limited repertoire and anything outside of Italian language he performed a massacre.When he was singing in French, the French people were looking at each other with a stoned face. They didn't understand a single word!!! He wss singing gibrish!!!.The young Pavarotti voice had great timbre and ring but he wasn't big.He also was notoriously bad musician, he couldn't even read the partiture!!!!He was passing the arias until he reached the high c and there he hit them with everything he had and kept them for 12-15 seconds and the ignorant from opera audiences clapped hands and screamed like crazy.Their measure wss against pop and rock singers and Pavarotti was a revelation to them. He was a God in their eyes.He became mainly known outside the opera audiences from the 3 tenors in the 90's.That is where his immense popularity derives from.Many people consider him the greatest ever but they haven't heard anyone else performing operatic arias,and they are arguing with people that were operatic fans their entire lives when they say that he isn't even top 10-15 material. They don't know that hundreds of tenors existed prior and at Pavarotti 's time.I was one of them when i was 20 years old, but instead of arguing, i decided to listen for myself.WHAT A REVELATION THAT WAS. I found within days about 20 tenors that he had nothing on them!!!!!!!! Caruso, Bjorling Fleta, Gigli, Wunderlich, Lemeshev, Di Stefano, Lauri Volpi, Corelli, Gedda,Filippeschi, i can go on and on... Ignorance rules...
@@心理变态又嫉妒心极强 I will never trade Mario with big Pavarotti, leave it for public to worship as biggest Calaf...definitely he got much more $ than F.
I'm surprised his voice is actually quite dark and had some depth. His ringing metal was obvious enough in most recordings.
Dear Hobo, I DON'T think your statements are accurate about Fillipeschi.He had great facility in the upper register.He was able to sing mezza voce and filatura.Fillipeschi also got high commendations and praise by the great Lauri Volpi and perhaps was one of the very few tenors in Volpi's category that could sing anything from Favorita to William Tell,Puritani,Ugonotti,Otello Aida ,Tosca,Rigoletto,Trovatore.My father heard him in Europe and said that his voice travelled very well in the theater.
Mario F was very good, pretty voce. But Volpi is a monster, a deep monster, even young he got a wobble or smthing, but on a records his defects was so beauty. Volpi is my favourite one, like Corelli-Monaco. He is a whole theatre or more. I can not understand, who criticizing Mario F. Maybe his timbre is not so beauty, stable or smthing. So, lets that people go and listen freaks like pavaroti, trio bandits or like that.
@ThePavafan In 1 word you stated an irrefutable fact. The more I listen to his voice dynamics, the equalized registers, the powerful and squillante top, the inhuman repertory he dominated, the least I desire to hear refurbished studio recordings of present market tenors. Filippeschi's old live recorded performances, are artistry of superior quality.
Voce certamente eccezzionale, era l'unico che poteva cantare con continuità :Guglielmo Tel opera per tanti grandi più illistri tenori impossibile cantare per la terriibile tessitura. Filippeschi era ed è lunico Arnoldo di riferimento.
Adoro lui, adoro Pertile, adoro Pavarotti, ma quando arriva Corelli mi spiace non ce n'è per nessuno!! Tutti spianati!!
Projection at ease!
Grande e Basta!
I don't think in the last 70 years we had a tenor that sounded like Filippeschi. Lots of squillo, phrasing, brilliant from botton to top and with easy incedible high notes. Pavarotti's voice was not large, but had a cutting power, but not even close to Filippeschi. Aragall, had the most beautiful quality and easy top (when nerves got not in the way); Carreras, beautiful voice and sang from his heart, and Kraus, a great technician. Many others great tenors, but the list too long to remember them all.
lo que demuestra que en la actualidad la opera ha muerto, solo queda un gigante como placido domingo y alguna reliquia más pero cuando se retiren los que quedan son unos impostores..
Senza dubbio caro Leo,e' come asserisci tu soprattutto in un epoca nella quale non esisteva solo Caruso,alla fine il risultato fu il seguente:6500000 di 78 giri in vita e circa 185000000 di dischi riediti nei vari anniversari dalla sua morte oltre a LP e C D.Massimiliano ,Portici.
Sorry,I misunderstood.I thought you were writing about Fillipeschi.MF's William Tell and Puritani are excellent.He perhaps developed a wobble later in his career.Pavarotti's voice might had been a little thin but traveled pretty well in the theater.
Bravo bravo bravo Filippeschi un grande
Most lyric tenors have small voices if you compare them to spinto or dramatic.
And his technique was good.
But I agree with you, there were a lot of better tenors.
When it come to super high notes, only Filipescchi, all others are...... ok, nice high notes. To hear him singing William Tell, an those now days, just trying, sorry, but they sounded like castratis.
Hey ThePavafan. Don't go dissin' on Domingo. Comparing Pavarotti and Domingo is like comparing apples and oranges. Pavarotti, who specialized in bel canto and later in verissmo italian operas was brilliant with what he did! The ease and excitement of his high notes were thrilling. But, he never had the versatility of Domingo. Domingo sang from Donizetti to Wagner. He was brilliant at all of them. His command of the many languages in which sang was amazing. He is also a first rate musician. These two tenors are nothing alike and comparing them in such a general way is ignorant. They are both great artists and musicians! Being a fan of one should not diminish the other. My apologies to those who came on here to comment on Filippeschi.
+canio59 But Pavarotti in his fach remains the more historic voice. Domingo may have sung everything but was hardly brilliant in them all. His early German was awful-though it got better. His top was often a problem even in his best years (especially compared to a voice like Filippeschi), and he fancied himself a great actor and interpreter, but was hardly that. I am not a Domingo basher, but when I turn to the recorded legacy, in almost every role I think of, he is never my first choice and often not in the top 3.
+Labienus Your comments about Domingo have merit and he is not in my top 3 either, but you can't take away what he has accomplished as a singer over 40+ years. Besides, I said he was brilliant at all of them, not in all of them. I thought he was brilliant in the way he negotiated high notes he didn't really have. Maybe I should have said he was brilliant in his approach to all of them. Who else in his era has been able to successfully perforn so many styles, languages and fachs? He is on of my list for top 10 tenors between 1970 and the early 2000s. We all have our own tastes and favorite sounds in a voice we listen for, but the fact remains we are just listeners and spectators commenting on world renown singers. You can find the flaws in every singer if that's what your looking for. You can also find the greatness in them all. Timbre, resonance, freedom, excitement, size, finess, musicality... all have different combinations and can be enjoyed for what they offered the world. I, for one, am grateful for them all!
+Calaf59
It's a bit unproductive when making distinctions, engaging in Internet
connoisseurship, expressing what singers meant the most and why, to then say all
of them can be enjoyed in different ways for what they accomplished. To do what
they have done successfully is, indeed, something wonderful and should be
valued, but then the discussion begins from that point. That's why I often come
to Domingo's defense when people in coarse and unproductive language put him
down-and he is disdained by many on the Internet. I never tried to 'take anything away from him." But that still doesn't alter
what I first said--that with all that he accomplished he rarely if ever made an
historic mark.
Look I heard him in some splendid live performances-and thought his last
phase of Wagner-Siegmund and Parsifal, was some of the best work he ever did. In
a huge house like the Met, a big, easy sound, with bronze color, musically
applied-quite satisfying. But he certainly, in the end doesn't erase the imprint
of the great, idiomatic tenors in those roles.
You make much of the fact that-"Who else in his era has been able to
successfully perform so many styles, languages and fachs?" But to me that may
have been the problem-good in much, very good in some, not great in anything. I
think in opera-if you have even a few roles that puts you in the pantheon of
your fach-then you have achieved a kind of immortality. Maybe he spread himself too thin?
If he is on your list of top 10 tenors between 1970-2000-which I don't
think anyone would argue about-but what does that say if you then try to place
him in the context of the entire tenor legacy? I used first 3 as an example, but
in most roles he would be farther down than that-which is nothing to sneeze at.
But right now with what we have on recordings, there are just so many tenors
that I'd grab first-and in some of those instances he is clearly the better
musician, stylist, but then not the best voice, or most moving.
+canio59 Pavarotti and Domingo's names will always come up when discussing tenors because of their legacy. Your analysis of these two greats is spot on BTW.
Domingo had a wonderful voice when he was young. He sang too much especially German operas which is very difficult. He forced his voice as well as Carreras in his later years. He is a triple threat LOL, a singer, pianist and conductor-what a talent! Philip Tropea tenor www.youtube.com
Who is the Turandot pictured?
Grob-Prandl
Rasturio!
@ThePavafan Sorry, but you are a fanatic and completely clueless. Please no more Pavarotti-propaganda under this video. Thanks!
SEHR GUT
Yeah, Pava was just a lyric tenor. But with his great technique he made his voice sound bigger.
@bodiloto Ma ci mancherebbe , mica posso criticare questa fantastica esibizione .. ho semplicemente detto che non è un Do ma un Si...
The most solid sound of a tenor i ever heard,but please do not compare him or any other tenor with Caruso..lol..
Why not? He is a better sounding tenor than Caruso.
Before commenting I listened to this recording quite a few times. The voice itself is full, ringing, but it is a boring interpretation. Minimal dynamics( forte. more forte and fortissimo a few mezzo fortes). Dove la poesia? Dove il misterio? Non exiiste. Forte and forte. Where are the colors? It seems he was aspiring for the way Del Monaco sang it. Brazen sounds. Roaring leon. Declamatory style. Perhaps great for Chenier Improvisso. But that is not Calaf. Calaf is a mystery.Instead. I was expecting every moment "Ora per sempre addio" from Otello.... Sorry guys.for me this is just a display of a beautiful instrument which could be used with so much more finesse.
Agreed. This is the end of his career though, and he was well capable of that finesse you’re looking for. Check out his 1947 Rigoletto.
@@AfroPoli I listened to a 1946 film version. Indeed there he has all the finesse needed. And there is also an unforgettable Gobbi. A pity they cut out Possente amor. Filippechi was well able to do it. There is also another thing. I think the first half of the 20th century up to the middle of the Fifties was more under stylistic influences of Caruso, Fleta, Lazaro, Gigli and later Bjorling. The heavier singing invaded around the end of Fifties- Sixties with singers that sang with less finesse and more sound owing also to some techniques that became more prevalent during those times. So, volume became modern. Also, orchestras and conductors became more and more loud. Some mixing of Wagner into Italian singing also happened. And that is also the time where people started dividing singers more into categories. Look, Caruso, Gigli and even Schipa sang belcanto, heavier Verdi, Puccini and verismo. It was acceptable. Later people started looking more from the category and started associating specific voice categories with specific roles. The point is that when the roles were written, and as older recordings attest, that was not always the case.
@@yoramchaiter3569 very true. Much has happened since the 1930s. I do place a great deal of the blame on the recording industry. Or on those who haven’t understood that singing for the record is as different from singing on stage as acting for a TV camera is from being on stage in a theater. The record created a taste: rounder, louder, heavier etc… it did not work so well on stage. Usually, people don’t take into consideration how much tampering went into the records, even in the 50s. Nilsson complained to Culshaw that her voice wasn’t loud enough in Götterdämmerung. Culshaw wrote that, if anything, her voice had already been blown out of proportion prior to her complaint. But she wanted to sound even bigger and she got her way.
And so it goes…
un altro drammatico con quel registro acuto non c'è mai stato...non parlatemi di del monaco...non sapeva cantare...e aveva un gusto osceno...nn riesco a sentirlo...
Obscene? Your statement is obscene
ma è un Si non un " do " cmq formidabile :)
Ai je le droit de penser que FRANCO CORELLI est le meilleur ?
Thank you for this gem.
Ma non è un si naturale?
Ottima voce,ma Caruso resta il più grande di tutti,non ci sono dubbi!
E vero, il timbre di Caruso e meraviglioso. Non c'e uguale! Lanza era il un grande tenore natural. Se egli ha studiato un altro anno con Enrico Rosati sarebbe fantastico. Rosati era il maestro di Lanza e Gigli, uno dei miei favoriti. Philip Tropea tenore www.youtube.com .
Si,cantava in tono,ma tutto buttato li come capitava...anche gli acuti.Bella voce ma poi...