I so agree jpvaldez. You are right. Here Pavarotti is demonstrating how to "change the color" with pianissimo, through forte, soft through loud - as the opera singer conveys so much in not only what they sing but how they sing it as part of the 'acting' of the character. It's more than the message, it is the delivery too. Opera says so much through music, but the singer emotes through acting and singing. Message, emoted through music. Pavarotti was truly a genius here. Bravo! God Bless, RIP
Please people you just keep comparing this singer and that singer, never grasping the essential. the essential for is the way we feel when we listen to Pavarotti or Domingo. for me Pavarotti had unique way of singing, you can feel emotion when we sings not just empty skills. Pavarotti in this video is showing just that to that boy, that is not only the power of the voice that counts but the emotion that we put in it. in opera we MUST know when we must singing lowly or aloud acording to the area.
part of it might be his age. basses and bass baritones usually don't really pull it together until mid 30s. his voice might just have more difficulty displaying the emotions of the piece as subtly as a fully mature voice. Pavarotti's advice helped him 10 fold though.
And what is actually your point of view on someone being an artist or cultured person with musicianship ? And who is the ultimate criterion for these categories ? The critics ? The audience ?
You are only guessing about the true meaning of Mutti's words on Pavarotti. Your interpretation is subjective and pretentious. ''The point of reference'' means that one is a paradigmatic role model for everyone to come. Are you suggesting that Mutti is talking about Callas' and Tebaldi's technic as well because they are in the same line as Pavarotti ? I don think so. He is talking about the general artistic impact of three great artists.
I don't find it very convincing to state that a great artist lacks musicianship and Pavarotti was a great artist whether someone likes it or not. At least the great majority of his audience believes that. The purpose of every art is to send a message in an adequate way and if we can judge it by the quantity of the audience Pavarotti was the most convincing of all tenors in sending that kind of message. In other words he knew how to send a message and to do that you have to be an artist.
Maybe it is true what lacaf1 says about ''Master class in Modena 1991''. But this not an argument about Pavarotti's general lack of musicianship. I am a student of philosophy and there is a similar story about Heidegger who once attended a symposium on Nietzsche. He quoted Nietzsche but it was obvious for anyone in the audience that the quotation was completely wrong. In other words, here we have a great tenor and a great philosopher making an impressive flaw. So what ?
You are only guessing about the true meaning of Mutti's words on Pavarotti. Your interpretation is subjective and pretentious. ''The point of reference'' means that one is a paradigmatic role model for everyone to come. Are you suggesting that Mutti is talking about Callas' and Tebaldi's technic as well because they are in the same line as Pavarotti ? I don think so. He is talking about the general artistic impact of three great artists.
The statements about Pavarotti's lack of musicianship and artistic intelligence are probably part of the ''vanity fair'' that envelops every extraordinary person in order to find some flaws and make this person more ordinary in the eyes of human vane.
Not part of the "Vanity Fair"but a fact that anyone that worked with him or attended his"masterclasses"witnessed.This does not diminishes his great talent as a singer.
And what is actually your point of view on someone being an artist or cultured person with musicianship ? And who is the ultimate criterion for these categories ? The critics ? The audience ?
I don't understand people who say that Pavarotti's musicianship was inferior. He is one of the best tenors of all time and he probably did around ten roles the best of all tenors or at least he was not surpassed by any other tenor (and this is an important number of roles). It is true he could not read any music but Caruso had that kind of ''deficit'' as well. Ricardo Mutti called Pavarotti ''the point of reference, like Callas and Tebaldi'' and I believe this point of view says it all.
Muti was refering to his technic,and that was flawless.The fact remains that he learned evrything by memory,has no musical culture and no culture in general.Great singer but quite ignorant.
I think its pretty funny that they have found some way to feel superior to Pavarotti, not by singing better Abut by rubbishing him for his 'musicality'. as others rubbish his poor acting abilities, or his size.
His many limitations never detracted from his singing, which is what he is admired, even worshipped, for. Even his most ardent fans would not suggest he was perfect in ALL things.
And what are you a "teacher of opinion"?Being a great singer does not mean that you are a superior cultured human being,on the contrary most singers are very poor culturally.
I don't find it very convincing to state that a great artist lacks musicianship and Pavarotti was a great artist whether someone likes it or not. At least the great majority of his audience believes that. The purpose of every art is to send a message in an adequate way and if we can judge it by the quantity of the audience Pavarotti was the most convincing of all tenors in sending that kind of message. In other words he knew how to send a message and to do that you have to be an artist.
I'm serious. Pavarotti had a great vocal mechanism and developed a world class vocal technique. He had personality and he had a taste for phrasing. But he was sorely lacking in basic musicianship. Had he been able to read music and learn music faster he would have performed more roles and his recorded legacy would be richer.
A singer's ability to read music is irrelevant on the stage. On the stage, musicianship is the control of the legato line, the ability to switch notes without hitting any unwritten notes inbetween, the ability to sing on pitch, rhythm and ability to stay in time etc...
Pavarotti had extremely firm control of these aspects, a better legato line, better pitch and portamento than singers who were praised for musicality, Domingo for example.
His 'basic musicianship' was not really a fault of his singing. His smaller repertoire may bother you, but I think he chose a very appropriate repertoire throughout the initial two decades of his career.
My original point was that Pavarotti was an odd choice for a master class teacher because his fame was achieved in spite of his musical limitations.
I am not the only one who holds this opinion. That's what Pavarotti himself felt. He was very nervous about these classes..
Compare Domingo's master class videos. Domingo directs the pianist with explicit citations to the score, Indeed Domingo sits down at the piano and demonstrates. Pavarotti knew he couldn't do anything like that.
A bass was singing "La Calumnia"from Barbiere and Pavarotty interrupted him 3 times asking him to sing"the real notes".The poor guy did not understand and kept repeating the same initial notes.After a while the "big maestro"sang the "real notes"and he did sing the semiquavers that are written but FOR THE ORCHESTRA!!!not the singer's.
What was so humiliating is that 3 pianists were present and none of them dared to correct the "meastro"
HAH, Well it's well known that the big P couldn't read music (at least not for the longest time, not sure if he ever learned.) He had a nice voice and good technique- he was no musical genius. If you want musicality I'd go for Kraus, Del Monaco, etc.. Not The big p.
Just because he did not read music well, it does not make him a bad singer musically. He was actually a very musical singer, incredible gift for pitch and strong sense of rhythm and phrase, with a perfect legato line.
A mark of a bad musician is sloppy portamento, when a singer slides to a pitch instead of hitting it dead on. Pavarotti didn't do this, but singers praised for 'musicality' did: Domingo, Corelli and Lanza are just three examples.
You just said all the technical Pavarotti did. While I adore the Maestro, many times I find that most agree he was not the most "musical" in the sense that other people interperet the music and convey emotion through it better.
Pavarotti may be a technique machine, but that's not the definition people here mean by "musicianship". It's being aware of the theory behind the piece and breathing life into it.
'Musicality' encompasses the technical side as well, if a singer cannot follow a score and sing legato, their performance is generally not considered musical.
Interpretively, Pavarotti was strong in my opinion. He tarnished his reputation by singing for too long and engaging in stoic, boring singing in his later years. But in his younger years, his interpretations of many roles (Rodolfo or Duca for example) is fantastic, he was expressive without sobbing, in my opinion.
Well, yes, to the first part of your reply. I'm aware that that is the truth, I was just pointing out what many others hold as their interpretation of "musicianship". I also agree that his later years seemed pretty stoic.
I think a lot of the vocal technique of the Maestro was developed to compensate for a general lack musical knowledge. It happens often with voice students who cannot read music well. They're less worried about the notes they sing, and it lets them blossom.
@Mooorhe I absolutely concur! In my opinion, Pava had no need for the "over dramatic". He allowed his voice, his facial and eye, expression to convey emotion. He added the barest of movement to tie in the action of the role. Any additional "acting" would distract from the voice, the singing--or is used, by some, even prominent singers, to "cover up" flaws in singing ability or technique, in my humble opinion.
Are you a sophist?Domingo sang incredibly complex roles such as Otello,Hoffman,Aeneas and Don Jose and he was praised by the critics and many top conductors.Pavarotti never dared to tackle any dramatically demanding role at his best he could sing musically one-dimensional characters like Rodolfo and Neronimo in the same generic way.Any decent singer could sing a good Rodolfo but Otello is another story.
the roles that you named sung by domingo are all roles suited for dramatic voice, the opposite of that possessed by pavarotti... that's why he never sang them
He could have sang Werther and Romeo in Italian Poliuto,Pollione,Gabriele Adorno,Gennaro in Lucrezia Borgia and Carlo in Linda di Chamounix and other dramatic roles but he was too absorbed in singing the naive and interpretively undemanding characters of opere buffe.
there is no question that domingo has a wider repertoire; however, my previous comment stands. the roles you name are just too dramatic for a voice as lyrical as pavarotti's. it just doesn't sound good. even when he's singing roles such as dick johnson and andrea chenier, it's quite apparent that something is "missing." his tenor simply is not suited for dramatic roles.
Pavarotti's basic repertoire was Boheme,Fille,Elisir,Puritani,Rigoletto and Ballo. Apart from Riccardo these roles are not particularly taxing in terms of drama and interpretation.His repertoire was extremelly narrow he never sang extremelly demanding roles like Werther.
''Pavarotti never dared to tackle any dramatically demanding role at his best he could sing musically one-dimensional characters like Rodolfo and Neronimo in the same generic way.Any decent singer could sing a good Rodolfo but Otello is another story.'' Then why is Pavarotti better Rodolfo or Nemorino then Domingo ? I think you are simplifying the thing.
If Pavarotti had had the early training and experience of Domingo it would certainly have been a big advantage to him but he was a working class boy and had none of Domingo's advantages. We are lucky he got what training he did as an adult, [ by working two jobs to pay for it] or we might not have heard him at all.
''Any decent singer could sing a good Rodolfo but Otello is another story.'' Then why is Pavarotti better Rodolfo or Nemorino then Domingo ? I think you are simplifying the thing.
Maybe it is true what lacaf1 says about ''Master class in Modena 1991''. But this not an argument about Pavarotti's general lack of musicianship. I am a student of philosophy and there is a similar story about Heidegger who once attended a symposium about Nietzsche. He quoted Nietzsche but it was obvious for anyone in the audience that the quotation was completely wrong. In other words, here we have a great tenor and a great philosopher making an impressive flaw. So what ?
Bravo for this singer who wanted to escape as soon as possible from this masquerade of Pav. & friends(you know, Companies and Money). He was very honest and valiant. He has all my esteem. CONGRATULATIONS!!
I know Pavarotti wasn't a qualified teacher, but I think lessons from someone who is a brilliant singer themselves can be helpful, but in a different way.
Someone who is a performer themselves gives you different advice that is just as useful.
I would have loved to have had an opportunity like this.
...are you ignorant? Pav was the greatest of all time...to have had the opportunity to hear his advice must have been this highlight of this guy's life....moreover his advice was actually spot on!!
Pav was certainly among the greatest main stream Italian tenors of all time. However it remains true that he was very nervous about the idea of teaching a master class on TV. He didn't think he was appropriate. Domingo is a working conductor. He could help anyone with the music. Bergonzi was the master of style. Anyone could learn from him. But Pavarotti's genius was his vocal technique. He was well worth listening to on vocal issues but not on matters of interpretation.
Domingo is over-rated BIG TIME....his technique was always weak....he had a hard time even with a High B....totally bogus tenor.....Bergonzi's talent is tiny compared to Pavarotti's......No one can ever approach the perfection of the young Pav.....his incredible resonance in the passagio and above were incredible....also his voice was unique in that it was immediuately recognizable.....
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The comments for this video are silly. Pavarotti was very nervous about this TV stunt. He had failed as a teacher when he was young, he couldn't read music, and he had always had to rely on a repitituer. He was nearly the least qualified person one could imagine for a coach.
The best coaches in the world - the guy's who coached Pavarotti himself - are available to anyone for a modest hourly fee. They can use the work. The phone book is full of coaches more qualified than Pavarotti.
And your comment surely ranks among the silliest ever. A vocal coach teaches good singing, not good reading. Good singing is about how you breathe, your imposta di voce, your support and more subtle issues concerning style. Pavarotti was highly qualified to teach all this, reading is not necessary to excel in it.
This young man needs to center his voice much more and look at the composer's intention.He also needs to listen to the Golden Age of Singers such as Lawrence Tibbett, John Charles Thomas, Stracciari and more
He gives such good advice. Really, I think just watching clips of master classes will help me fix some of my own problems. And he's so amusing too. I would have given just about anything to have met Pavarotti.
Though, admittedly, if I had I probably would have been too intimidated to actually sing. I tremble when I perform in front of my school. I probably wouldn't even be able to stand at a master class!
Hey his comments are very clear, just the guy isn't looking at him or paying attention. I love the way Pavarotti demonstrates the correct technique, then hushes the audience and spontaneously grins when they applaud. His grin is precious.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Pavarotti is such a paesano, he stops the baritone by "hey". He has good instincts as a singer but as a coach Pavarotti sucks. Better watch Domingo, that's where the class is
Well, you should be so lucky as to have such a 'suck'y coach! He knows exactly what is wrong, tells him how to fix it, and checks to make sure he does it right.
To respond to an earlier comment, to say that Pavarotti is not a technician (vocally) is ludicrous. He has always been a stickler for vocal technique (perhaps not as anal as Kraus), especially in his his prime. Domingo, in contrast, might be more of a musician, but his performances have always been more about passion and performance than true bel canto.
I think Pavarotti's comments here are spot-on, and the baritone gets it -- he just doesn't believe it.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Pavarotti's phenomenon in his technique, for me he is far from being the most beautiful tenor voice but he holds an absolute rule of Italian Belcanto and has amazing consistency in his voice and personal charizma, but he is rather a cold singer in comparison to other Great Italian tenors like Caruso, Gigli etc
Brian Schexnayder later went on to have a run at the MET. He can be seen and heard in the Sextet from Luci di Lammermoor from the Met's Centennial Gala, October 22, 1983.
This i not suppose to be a singing lesson. Pav can not teach some1 in 15mins what he's been practising for years. I understand evrything he says here and if u r a singer u r suppose to understand the languge of singing which is not english or ny other language in a way.
I believe he makes some very good points. The difficulty, of course, is his trouble with english. Pavarotti has never been a technician, his voice was one of those rare gems that needed very little work to really be polished, so he doesn't have the technical insight that, say, Alfredo Kraus or Domingo have, but on the level of performance and interpretation, and dynamics, his advice is solid gold.
pavarotti has never been a technician! read a bio! he ONLY vocalized for two straight years before his first teacher let him sing his first aria with him
I can tell what Pavarotti is trying to get across but I can see how it might be hard, if you are performing up there, to get everything he's saying, first because he has the accent and knows what he wants to say, but, sometimes doesn't say it in a way that makes total sense in English, but, also because when you are performing for freakin Luciano Pavarotti, you're gonna be nervous and, sometimes, nerves get in the way of registering everything someone is telling you.
Watching this video again, I find that Pavarotti's tips are pure genius : he advises the baritone to sing pianissimo in order to "trick" the audience into the aria, and this is exactly what Germont does, appearing weak and old to trick his son into his affection again. Pav's instincts are really mind blowing, this is a very good masterclass, thx 007.
...cont..Some people are just lazy asses that were born to criticize and some others were born with the gift of singing, it is very easy to open your big mouth to critique, but I want to see you open you big mouth to sing as Pavarotti and see who does it better.
With all my respect to you all, and specific for the ones that are throwing comments that point out Pavarotti as not a good teacher and with poor pedagogy, ok, you must be better singers I believe as you have the morale and the deep and profound knowledge and expertise in vocal technique than Pavarotti..cont..
Well, speaking as someone who's sung in quite a few masterclasses, I can say that they are NOT meant to TEACH TECHNIQUE per se. I watched Marilyn Horne in a masterclass, and she only had a few little things to say about technique (and NO one can deny that's one thing she had in spades). Masterclasses are more like coaching than anything else. Pav is fine as a coach.
I don't quite agree with the negative comments. I think Pavarotti's idea of singing the beginning of the 2nd part pianissimo in order to trick the audience into the aria then going piu forte is excellent, and it's true that the baritone lacks nuance. The singer's instinct is just a very hard thing to communicate, but Pav tries his best, and it's already a lot.
Ok. I have one thing to say to the ones that say: those who can't do teach and vice versa. He is not teaching any singing here. Teaching singing, is teaching how to sing. He is merely giving tips on expresive interpretation, and frankly I think he is very sensible in what he has to say.
it's not easy for a true artist to express himself...a true musician is unique in his artistry and cannot truly "teach" his art...he can influence...but teaching is different
Of course art can be taught. Technique, in both the artistic medium and in its presentation or performance, can be taught. Of COURSE to really excel one must be unique and talented. But a teacher can help the student hone the tools he or she needs to develop and put across their unique expression and interpretation.
someone who knows who is this baritone
matheusyamato1 1 month ago
The baritone meant it has a joke i believe though Pavarotti did look a bit offended.
nice voice from the baritone funny though that Pav can even sing Bartione roles well.
jamesgatward1985 5 months ago
@jamesgatward1985 Pavarotti wasn't offended he knew that that was a joke.
ThePavafan 5 months ago
@ThePavafan
Did you ask him?
jamesgatward1985 5 months ago
@jamesgatward1985 HAHAHAHAHHA. Did you ask him?
ThePavafan 5 months ago
@ThePavafan
I said he LOOKED offended. you told us what he knew.
jamesgatward1985 5 months ago
@jamesgatward1985 What did he say anyway for the student to answer "yes i am"? I can't understand it.
ronasheton 3 weeks ago
does anyone know what this aria is called?
lifeeh 9 months ago
@lifeeh it is "Di Provenza il mar" from La Traviata, Verdi.
freddebeer 9 months ago
"Oh yes I am!" What a jackass! Seriously? Who dares to do that to Pavarotti or to anyone? This is so disrespectful!
sweetaliena 1 year ago
@sweetaliena The baritone wanted to make a joke.
ThePavafan 5 months ago
What a disrespectful student. For God's sake...
Eximius 1 year ago
I so agree jpvaldez. You are right. Here Pavarotti is demonstrating how to "change the color" with pianissimo, through forte, soft through loud - as the opera singer conveys so much in not only what they sing but how they sing it as part of the 'acting' of the character. It's more than the message, it is the delivery too. Opera says so much through music, but the singer emotes through acting and singing. Message, emoted through music. Pavarotti was truly a genius here. Bravo! God Bless, RIP
flyinmaddog117 1 year ago
What is this singer singing?
bulboflight 1 year ago
haha brian looks soooo young! haha he is my voice teacher and he is the real deal! he is soooo talented and down to earth! i love him!
sarahloman 1 year ago
I really wish I would have had the chance to do a masterclass with Master Pavarotti! :)
QuiRan82 1 year ago
@ jpvaldez
Bravo! This is exactly it :) Thank you for this!
QuiRan82 1 year ago
@ jpvaldez
Bravo! This is exactly it :) Thank you for this!
QuiRan82 1 year ago
What is the name of this Aria?
kchaks 1 year ago
"Di provenza il mar, il suol", G. Germont's aria from La Traviata.
R1xxl 1 year ago
@kchaks Di Provenza il mar from Verdi's La Traviata.
jhyounyo 1 year ago
pura pasion por la musica, eso era Pavarotti...
HOMERO1982 1 year ago
what did the pavarotti say in the end?
Pavarotti: it's not finished???
(is it that?)
felchs 2 years ago
maybe... he thought the baritone might want to sing a second thing after. often masterclass students can sing 2 pieces.
wattever333 1 year ago
1:51 XXXDDD Pavarotti's face FTW ! ^_^
bassoonboy84600 2 years ago 2
i think he means, there's not anything happening in the orchestra as far as scoring.
arabiiala02 2 years ago
He means that the orchestra is playing very softly very piano/pianissimo not that the orchestra is unimportant.
rubberduckie5 2 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What did he mean the Orchestra is nothing? The orchestra is everything
adamskyb 2 years ago
jjajajaj los mata a todos el hdp, es como el entrenador q te quiere sacar bueno como sea
155altair 2 years ago
Please people you just keep comparing this singer and that singer, never grasping the essential. the essential for is the way we feel when we listen to Pavarotti or Domingo. for me Pavarotti had unique way of singing, you can feel emotion when we sings not just empty skills. Pavarotti in this video is showing just that to that boy, that is not only the power of the voice that counts but the emotion that we put in it. in opera we MUST know when we must singing lowly or aloud acording to the area.
jpvaldez 2 years ago 12
part of it might be his age. basses and bass baritones usually don't really pull it together until mid 30s. his voice might just have more difficulty displaying the emotions of the piece as subtly as a fully mature voice. Pavarotti's advice helped him 10 fold though.
raigekimaru 2 years ago
@jpvaldez aria.Not area.
crow66693 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This a joke of a class!!
I like the "student" though
pepeelsordo 2 years ago
put subtitles please!! in spanish
panxulengazz 2 years ago
Absolutamente de acuerdo, y por favor todas las lecciones del maestro1!!
checho0882 2 years ago
I like the series, where is part 5?
j5hp 2 years ago
What a clown show!
OperaGhost1990 2 years ago
what's the name of this arias that he's singing?
mannythetrader 3 years ago
Di Provenza il mar, Germont's aria from La Traviata.
discoversounds 3 years ago
good old Pav! What a lej
flaze3 3 years ago
And what is actually your point of view on someone being an artist or cultured person with musicianship ? And who is the ultimate criterion for these categories ? The critics ? The audience ?
castorp1981 3 years ago
You are only guessing about the true meaning of Mutti's words on Pavarotti. Your interpretation is subjective and pretentious. ''The point of reference'' means that one is a paradigmatic role model for everyone to come. Are you suggesting that Mutti is talking about Callas' and Tebaldi's technic as well because they are in the same line as Pavarotti ? I don think so. He is talking about the general artistic impact of three great artists.
castorp1981 3 years ago
I don't find it very convincing to state that a great artist lacks musicianship and Pavarotti was a great artist whether someone likes it or not. At least the great majority of his audience believes that. The purpose of every art is to send a message in an adequate way and if we can judge it by the quantity of the audience Pavarotti was the most convincing of all tenors in sending that kind of message. In other words he knew how to send a message and to do that you have to be an artist.
castorp1981 3 years ago
Maybe it is true what lacaf1 says about ''Master class in Modena 1991''. But this not an argument about Pavarotti's general lack of musicianship. I am a student of philosophy and there is a similar story about Heidegger who once attended a symposium on Nietzsche. He quoted Nietzsche but it was obvious for anyone in the audience that the quotation was completely wrong. In other words, here we have a great tenor and a great philosopher making an impressive flaw. So what ?
castorp1981 3 years ago
Well that is taking it too lightly...one thing is to make a wrong quote another is to insist on a mistake and keep doing it.
susejf 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You are only guessing about the true meaning of Mutti's words on Pavarotti. Your interpretation is subjective and pretentious. ''The point of reference'' means that one is a paradigmatic role model for everyone to come. Are you suggesting that Mutti is talking about Callas' and Tebaldi's technic as well because they are in the same line as Pavarotti ? I don think so. He is talking about the general artistic impact of three great artists.
castorp1981 3 years ago
The statements about Pavarotti's lack of musicianship and artistic intelligence are probably part of the ''vanity fair'' that envelops every extraordinary person in order to find some flaws and make this person more ordinary in the eyes of human vane.
castorp1981 3 years ago
Not part of the "Vanity Fair"but a fact that anyone that worked with him or attended his"masterclasses"witnessed.This does not diminishes his great talent as a singer.
susejf 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
And what is actually your point of view on someone being an artist or cultured person with musicianship ? And who is the ultimate criterion for these categories ? The critics ? The audience ?
castorp1981 3 years ago
I don't understand people who say that Pavarotti's musicianship was inferior. He is one of the best tenors of all time and he probably did around ten roles the best of all tenors or at least he was not surpassed by any other tenor (and this is an important number of roles). It is true he could not read any music but Caruso had that kind of ''deficit'' as well. Ricardo Mutti called Pavarotti ''the point of reference, like Callas and Tebaldi'' and I believe this point of view says it all.
castorp1981 3 years ago
Muti was refering to his technic,and that was flawless.The fact remains that he learned evrything by memory,has no musical culture and no culture in general.Great singer but quite ignorant.
susejf 3 years ago
what year what this?
zevasthian 3 years ago
I just love all the schmuckperts who bash Pavarotti for his "musicianship". Go pound sand!
Ever hear him sing? Stuffy, elitist opera-snobs!
What matters is that he sang like he did IN SPITE OF this "shortcoming".
I really hope they don't call themselves "teachers of singing".
2800Hertz 3 years ago
I think its pretty funny that they have found some way to feel superior to Pavarotti, not by singing better Abut by rubbishing him for his 'musicality'. as others rubbish his poor acting abilities, or his size.
His many limitations never detracted from his singing, which is what he is admired, even worshipped, for. Even his most ardent fans would not suggest he was perfect in ALL things.
jenni4claire 3 years ago
And what are you a "teacher of opinion"?Being a great singer does not mean that you are a superior cultured human being,on the contrary most singers are very poor culturally.
susejf 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I don't find it very convincing to state that a great artist lacks musicianship and Pavarotti was a great artist whether someone likes it or not. At least the great majority of his audience believes that. The purpose of every art is to send a message in an adequate way and if we can judge it by the quantity of the audience Pavarotti was the most convincing of all tenors in sending that kind of message. In other words he knew how to send a message and to do that you have to be an artist.
castorp1981 3 years ago
wow, i was not expecting his english to be that good.
i really like the singer too.
operagirl529 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Brian Schexnayder sang 207 performances at the Met. Pavarotti sang 378.
Both studied their roles presumably with the same assistant conductors and coaches like Warren Jones.
Star tenors can be bad musicians. Second tier baritones virtually never have musical flaws - the competition is just too severe.
Pavarotti was more likely to have benefited from coaching by Schexnayder, rather than the other way around.
Agorante 3 years ago
'Pavarotti was more likely to have benefited from coaching by Schexnayder, rather than the other way around.'
Funny.
Mooorhe 2 years ago
I'm serious. Pavarotti had a great vocal mechanism and developed a world class vocal technique. He had personality and he had a taste for phrasing. But he was sorely lacking in basic musicianship. Had he been able to read music and learn music faster he would have performed more roles and his recorded legacy would be richer.
Agorante 2 years ago
Musicianship is much more than reading music.
A singer's ability to read music is irrelevant on the stage. On the stage, musicianship is the control of the legato line, the ability to switch notes without hitting any unwritten notes inbetween, the ability to sing on pitch, rhythm and ability to stay in time etc...
Pavarotti had extremely firm control of these aspects, a better legato line, better pitch and portamento than singers who were praised for musicality, Domingo for example.
Mooorhe 2 years ago
You should go into politics. You lecture me on things I didn't write. Please read what I wrote.
I said his inability to read music and learn music quickly meant that he was restricted in the number of roles he did.
I first heard Pavarotti live in the late sixties. He didn't really know Nerorino at that time. He knew the aria but little else.
Read Breslin's book. Pavarotti was always late in learning a new role and after a while he just didn't bother.
Agorante 2 years ago
His 'basic musicianship' was not really a fault of his singing. His smaller repertoire may bother you, but I think he chose a very appropriate repertoire throughout the initial two decades of his career.
Mooorhe 2 years ago
My original point was that Pavarotti was an odd choice for a master class teacher because his fame was achieved in spite of his musical limitations.
I am not the only one who holds this opinion. That's what Pavarotti himself felt. He was very nervous about these classes..
Compare Domingo's master class videos. Domingo directs the pianist with explicit citations to the score, Indeed Domingo sits down at the piano and demonstrates. Pavarotti knew he couldn't do anything like that.
Agorante 2 years ago
@Agorante You actually MEAN that?!
MaxLuetgendorff 1 year ago
What's the name of the song??
deviljulian 3 years ago
It's the aria "Di Provenza" from Verdi's "La Traviata" sung by Giorgio Germont (baritone) on the second act.
raffles85 3 years ago
Hey thank you very much!! It's not a tenor's aria, is it? Because the hightest note is an F Sharp...
Greetz
deviljulian 3 years ago
No. As I stated on my previous comment, the character (Giorgio Germont) is a baritone, father of the tenor (Alfredo Germont).
raffles85 3 years ago
Great extraordinary singer one of the greatest technicians(togetehr with Kraus).
Having said that he has no idea of how to interpret anything simply because he had no musical education,or general culture.
lacaf1 3 years ago 2
He grew up in Modena... where daily life generally revolved around music... Of course he had culture and could interpret things.
Mooorhe 3 years ago
I respect your opinion and love your town,but if I tell you what I personally witnessed in one of those master classes you will not believe it.
lacaf1 3 years ago
i would love to hear what you witnessed! please share
Yoni89 3 years ago
Master class in Modena 1991
A bass was singing "La Calumnia"from Barbiere and Pavarotty interrupted him 3 times asking him to sing"the real notes".The poor guy did not understand and kept repeating the same initial notes.After a while the "big maestro"sang the "real notes"and he did sing the semiquavers that are written but FOR THE ORCHESTRA!!!not the singer's.
What was so humiliating is that 3 pianists were present and none of them dared to correct the "meastro"
He had no musical education.
lacaf1 3 years ago
HAH, Well it's well known that the big P couldn't read music (at least not for the longest time, not sure if he ever learned.) He had a nice voice and good technique- he was no musical genius. If you want musicality I'd go for Kraus, Del Monaco, etc.. Not The big p.
Yoni89 3 years ago
Absolutely right!
lacaf1 3 years ago
Finally someone admits to my rightness. :D
Yoni89 3 years ago
Del Monaco for musicality over Pavarotti?
Right.
Just because he did not read music well, it does not make him a bad singer musically. He was actually a very musical singer, incredible gift for pitch and strong sense of rhythm and phrase, with a perfect legato line.
A mark of a bad musician is sloppy portamento, when a singer slides to a pitch instead of hitting it dead on. Pavarotti didn't do this, but singers praised for 'musicality' did: Domingo, Corelli and Lanza are just three examples.
Mooorhe 2 years ago 2
You just said all the technical Pavarotti did. While I adore the Maestro, many times I find that most agree he was not the most "musical" in the sense that other people interperet the music and convey emotion through it better.
Pavarotti may be a technique machine, but that's not the definition people here mean by "musicianship". It's being aware of the theory behind the piece and breathing life into it.
tggold 2 years ago
'Musicality' encompasses the technical side as well, if a singer cannot follow a score and sing legato, their performance is generally not considered musical.
Interpretively, Pavarotti was strong in my opinion. He tarnished his reputation by singing for too long and engaging in stoic, boring singing in his later years. But in his younger years, his interpretations of many roles (Rodolfo or Duca for example) is fantastic, he was expressive without sobbing, in my opinion.
Mooorhe 2 years ago
Well, yes, to the first part of your reply. I'm aware that that is the truth, I was just pointing out what many others hold as their interpretation of "musicianship". I also agree that his later years seemed pretty stoic.
I think a lot of the vocal technique of the Maestro was developed to compensate for a general lack musical knowledge. It happens often with voice students who cannot read music well. They're less worried about the notes they sing, and it lets them blossom.
tggold 2 years ago
@Mooorhe I absolutely concur! In my opinion, Pava had no need for the "over dramatic". He allowed his voice, his facial and eye, expression to convey emotion. He added the barest of movement to tie in the action of the role. Any additional "acting" would distract from the voice, the singing--or is used, by some, even prominent singers, to "cover up" flaws in singing ability or technique, in my humble opinion.
appeace1 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Are you a sophist?Domingo sang incredibly complex roles such as Otello,Hoffman,Aeneas and Don Jose and he was praised by the critics and many top conductors.Pavarotti never dared to tackle any dramatically demanding role at his best he could sing musically one-dimensional characters like Rodolfo and Neronimo in the same generic way.Any decent singer could sing a good Rodolfo but Otello is another story.
cer1n 2 years ago
the roles that you named sung by domingo are all roles suited for dramatic voice, the opposite of that possessed by pavarotti... that's why he never sang them
HMW 2 years ago 2
He could have sang Werther and Romeo in Italian Poliuto,Pollione,Gabriele Adorno,Gennaro in Lucrezia Borgia and Carlo in Linda di Chamounix and other dramatic roles but he was too absorbed in singing the naive and interpretively undemanding characters of opere buffe.
cer1n 2 years ago
there is no question that domingo has a wider repertoire; however, my previous comment stands. the roles you name are just too dramatic for a voice as lyrical as pavarotti's. it just doesn't sound good. even when he's singing roles such as dick johnson and andrea chenier, it's quite apparent that something is "missing." his tenor simply is not suited for dramatic roles.
HMW 2 years ago
Pavarotti's basic repertoire was Boheme,Fille,Elisir,Puritani,Rigoletto and Ballo. Apart from Riccardo these roles are not particularly taxing in terms of drama and interpretation.His repertoire was extremelly narrow he never sang extremelly demanding roles like Werther.
cer1n 2 years ago
that's because the role of werther isn't suited to the lyric nature of his tenor!
HMW 2 years ago
''Pavarotti never dared to tackle any dramatically demanding role at his best he could sing musically one-dimensional characters like Rodolfo and Neronimo in the same generic way.Any decent singer could sing a good Rodolfo but Otello is another story.'' Then why is Pavarotti better Rodolfo or Nemorino then Domingo ? I think you are simplifying the thing.
castorp278 2 years ago
Any singer could have learned something meaningful from Pavarotti. The wisdom he had to offer from his incredible career experiences are precious.
All those who constantly compare Pavarotti and Domingo in the way shown below are only showing how little they know about great singers.
ScarboLives 2 years ago 3
If Pavarotti had had the early training and experience of Domingo it would certainly have been a big advantage to him but he was a working class boy and had none of Domingo's advantages. We are lucky he got what training he did as an adult, [ by working two jobs to pay for it] or we might not have heard him at all.
jenni4claire 2 years ago 2
''Any decent singer could sing a good Rodolfo but Otello is another story.'' Then why is Pavarotti better Rodolfo or Nemorino then Domingo ? I think you are simplifying the thing.
castorp278 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Maybe it is true what lacaf1 says about ''Master class in Modena 1991''. But this not an argument about Pavarotti's general lack of musicianship. I am a student of philosophy and there is a similar story about Heidegger who once attended a symposium about Nietzsche. He quoted Nietzsche but it was obvious for anyone in the audience that the quotation was completely wrong. In other words, here we have a great tenor and a great philosopher making an impressive flaw. So what ?
castorp1981 3 years ago
Bravo for this singer who wanted to escape as soon as possible from this masquerade of Pav. & friends(you know, Companies and Money). He was very honest and valiant. He has all my esteem. CONGRATULATIONS!!
GLauriVolpi 3 years ago
I know Pavarotti wasn't a qualified teacher, but I think lessons from someone who is a brilliant singer themselves can be helpful, but in a different way.
Someone who is a performer themselves gives you different advice that is just as useful.
I would have loved to have had an opportunity like this.
thelouisfanclub 3 years ago 4
this guy is a freakin douche. he didnt deserve this opportunity with pavarotti.
iltenoredramatico 3 years ago
The lyrics of the song please...
Haristotel 3 years ago 2
He has no intent when he sings.
writer8788 3 years ago
Agorante:
...are you ignorant? Pav was the greatest of all time...to have had the opportunity to hear his advice must have been this highlight of this guy's life....moreover his advice was actually spot on!!
GEVORK6 3 years ago
Pav was certainly among the greatest main stream Italian tenors of all time. However it remains true that he was very nervous about the idea of teaching a master class on TV. He didn't think he was appropriate. Domingo is a working conductor. He could help anyone with the music. Bergonzi was the master of style. Anyone could learn from him. But Pavarotti's genius was his vocal technique. He was well worth listening to on vocal issues but not on matters of interpretation.
Agorante 3 years ago
Domingo is over-rated BIG TIME....his technique was always weak....he had a hard time even with a High B....totally bogus tenor.....Bergonzi's talent is tiny compared to Pavarotti's......No one can ever approach the perfection of the young Pav.....his incredible resonance in the passagio and above were incredible....also his voice was unique in that it was immediuately recognizable.....
GEVORK6 3 years ago
you are talking big shit!!! can you sing better than him? i guess not!!! so shut upp you fucking idiot!!!
kindino 3 years ago
It always brightens my day to receive a carefully thoughtout and sensitive reply like this.
Agorante 3 years ago
I agree with you...im a tenor and i listen to pavarotti for vocal advice but interpretation must go to domingo...and bergonzi is genius
chopin8826 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The comments for this video are silly. Pavarotti was very nervous about this TV stunt. He had failed as a teacher when he was young, he couldn't read music, and he had always had to rely on a repitituer. He was nearly the least qualified person one could imagine for a coach.
The best coaches in the world - the guy's who coached Pavarotti himself - are available to anyone for a modest hourly fee. They can use the work. The phone book is full of coaches more qualified than Pavarotti.
Agorante 4 years ago
And your comment surely ranks among the silliest ever. A vocal coach teaches good singing, not good reading. Good singing is about how you breathe, your imposta di voce, your support and more subtle issues concerning style. Pavarotti was highly qualified to teach all this, reading is not necessary to excel in it.
cornificius22vain 3 years ago 2
no thats a voice teacher. vocal coaches emphasize the finer points of the song. Dynamics, language, stylistic markings etc...
searnold56 3 years ago
1/2 i agree with you...but i think you over did it
septichka 3 years ago 3
It is a pleasure watching Luciano if I did not already love it, I would do now at the latest ..
modenacon 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this guy covers too much.
MusashiTzu 4 years ago
You're faulting PAV for being TOO THOROUGH?
writer8788 3 years ago 2
This young man needs to center his voice much more and look at the composer's intention.He also needs to listen to the Golden Age of Singers such as Lawrence Tibbett, John Charles Thomas, Stracciari and more
796824 4 years ago
Atleast we agree on this.
musiqmarquis 4 years ago
He gives such good advice. Really, I think just watching clips of master classes will help me fix some of my own problems. And he's so amusing too. I would have given just about anything to have met Pavarotti.
Though, admittedly, if I had I probably would have been too intimidated to actually sing. I tremble when I perform in front of my school. I probably wouldn't even be able to stand at a master class!
APhantomPhan 4 years ago 2
beautifull
radudanann 4 years ago
God Bless You!!!
rambo2012 4 years ago
Hey his comments are very clear, just the guy isn't looking at him or paying attention. I love the way Pavarotti demonstrates the correct technique, then hushes the audience and spontaneously grins when they applaud. His grin is precious.
theinric 4 years ago 2
Pavarotti... he's so funny! :D lol
He really looks more than human, when he smiles and shows all those typical Italian face expressions, I adore him!
ILoveTobin 4 years ago 5
HE needs more "trumpet" as pavarotti says, more sharpness to his baritone
tamlac00 4 years ago
what is this aria called...sorry im new at this whole opera thing.
imranakhan7 4 years ago
di provenza il mar, of "Traviata" de verdi.
chrisvetera 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Pavarotti is such a paesano, he stops the baritone by "hey". He has good instincts as a singer but as a coach Pavarotti sucks. Better watch Domingo, that's where the class is
Cesaare 4 years ago
Well, you should be so lucky as to have such a 'suck'y coach! He knows exactly what is wrong, tells him how to fix it, and checks to make sure he does it right.
RossiniSoprano 4 years ago 9
Pavarotti is amazing. Beautiful! He looks more than human. *sigh*
jjcbss 4 years ago
pause it on 01:50,he looks like he's constipated
luisacart 4 years ago
pls erase this comment. my brother used my ID when he posted that.
luisacart 4 years ago
LOL! was this the only video he posted on?
jjcbss 4 years ago
To respond to an earlier comment, to say that Pavarotti is not a technician (vocally) is ludicrous. He has always been a stickler for vocal technique (perhaps not as anal as Kraus), especially in his his prime. Domingo, in contrast, might be more of a musician, but his performances have always been more about passion and performance than true bel canto.
I think Pavarotti's comments here are spot-on, and the baritone gets it -- he just doesn't believe it.
josanbabu 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Pavarotti's phenomenon in his technique, for me he is far from being the most beautiful tenor voice but he holds an absolute rule of Italian Belcanto and has amazing consistency in his voice and personal charizma, but he is rather a cold singer in comparison to other Great Italian tenors like Caruso, Gigli etc
Cesaare 4 years ago
only God is perfect
yasowako 4 years ago
Brian Schexnayder later went on to have a run at the MET. He can be seen and heard in the Sextet from Luci di Lammermoor from the Met's Centennial Gala, October 22, 1983.
sketL 4 years ago
This baritone has his voice placed too far back in the throat. He will never project.
796824 4 years ago
Yeah, Brian's pretty awesome. "Will never project?!" ...lordy...
Watch him "never project" in the Turandot Placido/Marton DVD..
asiansarecool 4 years ago
He sounded very monotone and I think Pav was trying to get him to change it up in certain parts.
lorilee32 4 years ago 2
This i not suppose to be a singing lesson. Pav can not teach some1 in 15mins what he's been practising for years. I understand evrything he says here and if u r a singer u r suppose to understand the languge of singing which is not english or ny other language in a way.
#
mojopum 4 years ago
I believe he makes some very good points. The difficulty, of course, is his trouble with english. Pavarotti has never been a technician, his voice was one of those rare gems that needed very little work to really be polished, so he doesn't have the technical insight that, say, Alfredo Kraus or Domingo have, but on the level of performance and interpretation, and dynamics, his advice is solid gold.
Merryjest 4 years ago
pavarotti has never been a technician! read a bio! he ONLY vocalized for two straight years before his first teacher let him sing his first aria with him
ah332 4 years ago
I can tell what Pavarotti is trying to get across but I can see how it might be hard, if you are performing up there, to get everything he's saying, first because he has the accent and knows what he wants to say, but, sometimes doesn't say it in a way that makes total sense in English, but, also because when you are performing for freakin Luciano Pavarotti, you're gonna be nervous and, sometimes, nerves get in the way of registering everything someone is telling you.
jasmineblossom84 4 years ago
Watching this video again, I find that Pavarotti's tips are pure genius : he advises the baritone to sing pianissimo in order to "trick" the audience into the aria, and this is exactly what Germont does, appearing weak and old to trick his son into his affection again. Pav's instincts are really mind blowing, this is a very good masterclass, thx 007.
archiloque 4 years ago 2
...cont..Some people are just lazy asses that were born to criticize and some others were born with the gift of singing, it is very easy to open your big mouth to critique, but I want to see you open you big mouth to sing as Pavarotti and see who does it better.
marcobaratta 5 years ago 3
Amen.
Redboy4 4 years ago 2
With all my respect to you all, and specific for the ones that are throwing comments that point out Pavarotti as not a good teacher and with poor pedagogy, ok, you must be better singers I believe as you have the morale and the deep and profound knowledge and expertise in vocal technique than Pavarotti..cont..
marcobaratta 5 years ago
exactly right. the point of a masterclass is not to teach specifically technique, but rather--to teach. whether it be style, diction, technique...
ah332 5 years ago
Well, speaking as someone who's sung in quite a few masterclasses, I can say that they are NOT meant to TEACH TECHNIQUE per se. I watched Marilyn Horne in a masterclass, and she only had a few little things to say about technique (and NO one can deny that's one thing she had in spades). Masterclasses are more like coaching than anything else. Pav is fine as a coach.
BeauTenor 5 years ago 2
Does anyone know the title of this piece?
It's beautiful and I would like to get the music for it.
Spaceboy06 5 years ago
"Di Provenza il mar, il suol", it's an aria of Germont La Traviata, I think at the end of act II.
archiloque 5 years ago
End of Act II, Scene I.
VivaCallas 5 years ago
I don't quite agree with the negative comments. I think Pavarotti's idea of singing the beginning of the 2nd part pianissimo in order to trick the audience into the aria then going piu forte is excellent, and it's true that the baritone lacks nuance. The singer's instinct is just a very hard thing to communicate, but Pav tries his best, and it's already a lot.
archiloque 5 years ago
Agreed.
TEgnoto89 5 years ago
Ok. I have one thing to say to the ones that say: those who can't do teach and vice versa. He is not teaching any singing here. Teaching singing, is teaching how to sing. He is merely giving tips on expresive interpretation, and frankly I think he is very sensible in what he has to say.
barmanjoe 5 years ago 2
The year is 1979, Luciano is a young teacher, it's normal that he's not so good.
bytaking 5 years ago
it's not easy for a true artist to express himself...a true musician is unique in his artistry and cannot truly "teach" his art...he can influence...but teaching is different
tromba25 5 years ago
Of course art can be taught. Technique, in both the artistic medium and in its presentation or performance, can be taught. Of COURSE to really excel one must be unique and talented. But a teacher can help the student hone the tools he or she needs to develop and put across their unique expression and interpretation.
LailaRaqs 2 years ago 12
yes you are such a DUMB! i can't believe what a dumb you are. just a huge, big dumb.
scy2200j 5 years ago 2
lolol
Speedy2k42 5 years ago
I like Pavarotti very much but when he sing,not when is teaching how to sing. It's clear that you are a beginer and a dumb
mariusz26 5 years ago
What a good Conduducter but such a foul teacher.:))
mariusz26 5 years ago
We get it. You don't like Pavarotti, but stop being an idiot. He's a fine teacher, considering he's teaching professionals.
ArrSee 5 years ago
He's as foul teacher as you're a correct speller lol
barmanjoe 5 years ago