Battistini's voice was apparently not as large as those who followed him, like Ruffo, Amato and Stracciari. Yet his full, clear sound in these records suggest that it carried very well:) --
Thank you, MrC, for this amazing and beautiful recording. Even considering how inadequate the recording equipment of the time was, Battistini's voice is powerful and clear. It disgusts me how modern baritones and bassos sing with such a thick-tongue sound that, even with the best recording equipment available, you can hardly understand what they are singing, or even very often what pitch they are on. And this is the standard that many modern listeners and critics use to judge singers.
@MrCafiero and @lewashcliffe - right on, guys!! Singing this kind of music with the modern "woofy" sound that most singers today employ is like playing lute music on an electric guitar.
@lewashcliffe/MrCafiero Completely agree. Nowadays people seem to mistake all kinds of softened, rounded hot-air blowing whispering for real singing and want to hear it from the records, and horrifyingly true, it is becoming a standard. Even opera houses are full of that kind of singers, even though their voice hardly carries. Clarity and resonance like which is displayed here, in real bel canto, hopefully remains cherished.
@MrCafiero the world's greatest "baritone" can sing as high as a tenor with no problem but can't sing below a bass's middle C (the one that is one octave above Low C and one octave below middle C). Caruso had better low notes than him.
@MrCafiero wow! now owning his complete recordings is not sufficient? one must have been there in 1880-1900 to appreciate his art? well sorry but that's too much to ask.
on the other hand, there are lots of baritones who have good low notes, including Ruffo, etc. and we hear them ON records.
@wattever333 OK, so lets use our brains here. Firstly, Battistini recorded earlier than Ruffo so the equipment was not as good. Secondly, everyone who knows anything about the recording equipment used at that time also knows that it did not fully capture the sound - and the singers were made to back up, go forward, sing into a horn etc. Everyone who heard him - including those who have much more authority than you do - agrees that he was amazing. Lastly, Ruffo was know to also be weak lower.
@wattever333 Because you are arguing nonsense, trying to insult one of the greatest singers in history which is patently absurd. That had already INVALIDATED anything you say.
@MrCafiero It's called a discussion. You may have heard of it. A discussion implies that both parties have not already decided that something is absolute. Nobody deserves to be on a pedestal. I don't believe in celebrity cult and diva/divo worship.
@MrCafiero That's because you worship people who lived 100 years ago as if they were untouchable gods, based strictly on texts written by other people. You are a parrot.
@wattever333 I don't worship anyone you twit. I have ears and can read - and those two skills apparently escape you. I suppose that Van Gogh and Renoir should not be revered either because they are no longer living and are from a long time ago. Get a clue and stop polluting the world with your half thought out blurbs!!!!!!
@wattever333 You don't appear to know how arguing/discussing is done. The proof is RIGHT HERE in the recordings, which multiple critics have found unassailable. "Based strictly on texts written by other people". I'm surprised people even try pulling this bs. Will say whatever random thought that crosses their mind, yet never ever dredge up a single valid criticism of the voice itself.
Ruffo jhad a magnificent upper 2/3rds of a voice. His low notes were weak. Even in a great preformance Titta Ruffo - All'erta marinar - L'Africana - Meyerbeer that is obvious.
Thank you for posting this wonderful rendition. I beg to differ with you on the falsetto subject: Battistini never used falsetto, he always used mezza voce or even the "voix mixte", which is not falsetto.
. See, for example the phrase "O dolcezze perdute o memorie". Battistini's production is not falsetto at all, but mezzavoce, because falsetto is an acoustically poor sound, while mezzavoce, on the contrary, is rich of vibrations.
There is really nothing to differ on other than semantics. I have no idea what you mean by "falsetto" unless I hear you demonstrate it. And vice versa. he definitely has falsetto coordination in the sound which is a muscular participation by the falsetto group of muscles. And training the falsetto and singing in it are two different things. On the very quiet notes on OO and EE it is falsetto. All other vowels will have some chest. But, the training of the falsetto was there to do that.
@horowitz109 He sings with wonderful morbidezza- softness of tone, meaning he can move from very soft to very loud and back again. This is the wonderful quality of mixture of so called upper and lower registers. There is definitely NO falsetto here, you're correct, but a wonderful use of soft singing because of a very gentle attack.
@Cantormatis What do you think falsetto "COORDINATES' with? There differences here in his singing softer and louder are that the louder notes are chest dominant and the softer notes are falsetto dominant. Meaning: both chest and falsetto are active pretty much at all times, but one will dominate the other based on loudness. That is how the voice works ideally and that is how these older singers sang. It is not opinion.
@MrCafiero No, I would not define falsetto the same way as true mezza voce, voix mixte or morbidezza singing. In the case of this recording anyway, and several others you have so wonderfully provided, he seems to attack gently. It isn't a forte attack. Falsetto, at least to my ears, has a different sound than mezza voce and is nearly impossible to truly crescendo upon since it is "off the voice," is it not?
@Cantormatis I ask you again, what does falsetto coordinate with? And I will repeat again: both chest and falsetto are active pretty much at all times, but one will dominate the other based on loudness. So on his quietest notes or on his mezza voce the chest is still there, but the falsetto dominates more. As he gets louder the falsetto is still there, but the chest dominates. I am talking of the falsetto group of muscles and the chest voice group of muscles and their participation.
Was Battistini a tenor who took it easy by singing baritone? I don't think so. Granted, his lowest notes were weak. But we've also had some tenors --- Caruso, Corelli, Melchior, Vickers -- who were quite strong down there. And Battistini's timbre, though lighter than those of Ruffo, Stracciari, Amato, strikes me as more baritonal then tenorial --
Furthermore, a dramatic or a lyrico spinto, if not trained properly may have difficulty in been heard in a large theatre even though he may have a "bigger" voice than a leggiero.
It is interesting to compare this rendition to one by Fernando de Lucia - both are very similar in style, which is indicative of the manner people used to sing at the later part of the 19th century. It is also astounding to see a baritone having the same level of flexibility and dexterity in his voice as a (fantastic) tenor. Both these renditions are equally superb, and dwarf modern follow-the-score interpretations.
In te rapito, al suon de la tua voce Lungamente sognai, E de la terra ogni affanno, ogni croce In quel giorno scordai. Torna, caro ideal, torna un istante A sorridermi ancora, E a me risplenderà nel tuo sembiante Una novell'aurora. ... una novell'aurora. Torna, caro ideal, torna, torna!
Persechini, it should be remembered, did not create Ruffo's voice. Rather he thought that Ruffo was a bass, and Ruffo left after only a short time. It may be that Persechini prefered lighter, sweeter baritone voices. Like Fischer-Diescau or Hampson.
Caruso at about this time, was introducing what we now recognize as the modern dark powerful voice for verismo. Ruffo had this kind of new baritone sound. Battistini was of the earlier style. He sounds a little old fashion to many people today.
The really interesting thing is that if you look at Verdi's music you will notice that the darker style voices do not sing what is written most of the time. They simply do not have the flexibility and dynamic control to sing like Battistini, the heavier your voice the thicker the chords the less flexible. But at the same time you have to recognise that the acoustic recording method makes voices sound much smaller and lighter than they actually are.
Yes this is all true. BTW I never suggested that Battistini had a small voice, I'm quiet sure he had a big free voice that carried well in the theater. The contemporary witnesses all say so.
Ingvar Wixell, for example, on stage made Pavarotti sound wimpy, but on records they seem to be well matched. I imagine something similar was going on with Battistini.
People always think Pavarotti's voice was bigger than it was in all actuality. He was a lyric tenor. And Ponselle wrote in her autobiography that his voice was smaller than Di Stefano who was also a lyric tenor.
Having heard both Di Stefano and Pavarotti live, I would suggest that both voices were very similar in volume and weight.
Pavarotti's tone, like Lauri-Volpi's, was very well focused and clear. It carried very well, especially the top, which had a typical Italian squillo. This made his voice, LIVE, sound bigger than it was.
The same is true of Cesare Valletti and Juan Diego Florez. LIVE, their clear, focused voices sound bigger than they are in actual decibels.
FLorez does not sound big live. It is very small and thin. I too heard Pavarotti live and it did carry, but when I heard him in the Met it was not hugely squillante. And Ponselle said Di Stefano's voice was bigger. I am not sure that you heard Di Stefano in his prime, but probably rather late in his career when he had lost squillante.
"Big" is your word. What I said is that Florez sounds bigger live than the impression he makes on recording. I did not say that he sounds like Mario Del Monaco.
Florez sounds, as a matter of fact, about the same weight as Nicolai Gedda. I heard them both LIVE in La Sonnambula.
Florez sounds way smaller in person than on the recordings unless he has been enhanced. There is no way on earth that Florez sounds the same "weight" (or whatever adjective you want to use) as Gedda. He was probably enhanced when you heard him. It is a leggiero thin voice.
There is little point in this discussion. Each voice is different. It may be dramatic or leggero or lyric but what matters is its clarity. I have heard Florez live and you are wrong. He does not need any inhancement to be heard in a theatre of 3000 spectators.
Of course clarity matters. Who said it didn't. Florez has clarity, but the voice is very small and very thin. It is leggiero. The *POINT* is that if it sounds much bigger than that - like comparable to Gedda or a bigger lyric - it has probably been enhanced. So there is a POINT to the discussion.
It is lyric - leggiero and I doubt it has ever been enhanced at least in the recordings and concerts I listened to. And as others have pointed out "big" is not a proper term to characterise a voice.
If you think singers are enhanced then I don't know what to tell you. They 100% factually are. Bartoli was enhanced at the Met and many others have been. I know people who have watched people being mic'd there and other places. That is why opera doesn't change. Until people realize that these singers they like don't *REALLY* sound that in person unless they are enhanced, nothing will change.
Darker, bigger voices should not be any less flexible to sing Verdi's music. And historically they were not inflexible. Ruffo had the biggest voice ever and was extremely flexible. But he had a properly developed technique and registration. The same with Warren, Merrill and MacNeil in his prime. They were not inflexible.
first off...he's singing it in a higher key..makes it sound easier than a lot of the tenors. Even though it's an old recording you can hear the depth and warmth of his voice.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I've never understood the fascination of critics for Bastianni. Here he demonstrates a lot of flaws. The voice itself is kind of gritty and contrary to what the poster wrote he does not blend full voice with falsetto very well. But the worst thing about his singing is the rhythmic unsteadness. That just ruins this song.
Read Ruffo's autobiography "Mia Parabola". Persechini seems a fool. He thought Ruffo was a bass!!! Ruffo quit.
Maybe if you heard in person you would have a different opinion. I do not, as a teacher and singer, agree with your assessment in the least. Persechini also taught De Luca. Battistini and De Luca are two of the greatest baritones in history, let alone Ruffo. I would hardly call him a fool. Battistini's vocal registration was world class.
In my youth when LP transfers of old recordings were bad, defenders would claim that it was just the bad recording that made these former stars sound so bad. Now with good digital restorations these defenders claim that I needed to hear them live. Nonsense! No one alive today has heard Battistini live.
I love De Luca and Ruffo but Battistini - no. Persechini as a conservatory teacher got the best students. My opinion of him comes from Ruffo. It makes no sense to give him credit for Ruffo
So you mean to say that you think that Battistini's true voice shows on the recordings you have? And that all other historic singers, conductors and critics who hailed him as amazing were wrong because you can actually hear it better than they could? I think that your comments and assessments are more a reflection of *you* than of Battistini.
Some roughly contemporary baritones like De Luca sound very good on records. You not only have to explain why the recording process made Battistini sound worst than he really was, but also why that process didn't affect De Luca. You hear the same sort of argument about thirties tenors to explain why so many famous singers don't sound very good. Yet Bjorling and Gigli always sound great.
You attack me because I dare to listen for myself rather than rely on the opinions of authorities.
I am not attacking you because you dare to rely on yourself. I am simply asking you why you think you are right over other great singers, conductors, critics and voice teachers who all agree that Battistini was simply amazing? The things you are claiming about his voice are just simply not there. His registration was top notch. He recorded earlier than De Luca and Ruffo so those comparisons do not hold true.
Again argument from authority. Martinelli and Gobbi had all sorts of rave testimony but neither was capable of really good singing. Gobbi was a brilliant actor but the voice itself was hollow at the top and lacked warmth. Martinelli was the best the Met could afford during the Great Depression. Gigli and Pertile went back to Italy where the fees were bigger.
My all time favorite baritone - Stracciari. I also like Bastianini a great deal more than Battistini.
I don't know of anyone who has argued that Martinelli and/or Gobbi had great vocal technique. They were great artists, great expression, great actors, but not great vocally...technically. Battistini is far beyond most everyone, especially Gobbi.
Martinelli was not a dramatic tenor first of all. Secondly, there just aren't that many to begin with. Check out Bernardo de Muro or Franz Völker. Both were amazing dramatic tenors.
I appreciate de Muro, but if you think he's a real dramatic tenor you'll have problems trying to convince someone that Martinelli, who sang Otello many times, as well as Siegmund and Tristan past his prime was not a dramatic tenor. Sorry.
Well, you can accept facts or not. I don't have to convince you. Martinelli was a true spinto which means he could sing both lyric and dramatic roles. A true dramatic cannot really sing lyric roles convincingly; e.g. Del Monaco. So of course Martinelli could sing Otello and Siegmund, but he could also sing Rodolfo if he wanted. The voice was not a true dramatic tenor.
that's some food for fun. So to be considered a dramatic tenor you have to be inapt and bawl your head off all the time like del Monaco? Probably every single dramatic out of Wagner repertoire sang the same roles as Martinelli: Ernani, Aida, Pagliacci, etc. So they all were actually spinti pushing their lungs out. So Windgassen wasn't a heldentenor because he sang Tamino, neither Jadlowker because he could do roulades.
Now a real fact to you: being a dramatic tenor is a matter of: first: stamina, second: projection, and not necessarily volume. Not being able to scale down your voice tells more about one's inaptitude than one's fach. You don't measure dramatic tenors by how badly he sings lightly. That's childlike induction.
WRONG! A dramatic tenor has a darker timbre with more core to the sound than a lyric or even spinto. It is a heavier voice due to thicker vocal folds and larger resonators. Secondly, tessitura and range are what determine fach. A dramatic tenor will have a baritonal quality and stronger low notes than a lyric. They also have to sing stronger high notes more often. You are off base. Yet again another person who thinks they know all about voice, but they really don't.
So it's a louder and more resonant voice, doesn't mean that is darker. By your standards Tamagno with his silvery timbre is not a dramatic. Vicker with his short upper range also can't be a dramatic tenor, right?
And of COURSE you have to have *VOLUME*. Read the score and see how heavy the orchestration is for dramatic voices. How the heck will someone hear you over a Wagner orchestra without volume? Whoever is teaching you is not doing a good job.
with PROJECTION, harmonics. Amplitude for itself can't get through an orchestra. You can't even understand ondulatory and nature of sound, I'm really sorry. You're probably going to say that Windgassen isn't a dramatic tenor as well because he wasn't shouty.
Projection and heaviness of sound are not the same thing. I know much more about this than you do I guarantee you. It has to do with the weay the formants are set up, but ALSO how many decibels one can put out. A dramatic voice is bigger, heavier, and fuller and richer low notes. It is that simple. Börling had a small voice, but could project because he had a lot of singer's formant. That doesn't mean he had a heavy dramatic voice alla De Muro.
OF COURSE ARE NOT, this is exactly what I said. If you have volume but not projection you don't have anything. Volume is important to dramatic singers because SOMETIMES fits the music, sometimes doesn't.
So you have to have *BOTH* volume and projection. Dramatics have a heavier voice which is able to soar over a big orchestra. Lyrics cannot. Spinto's can sing both lyric roles and dramatic roles. Dramatics only sing dramatic roles. Simple.
Your assertion that a dramatic has to be a bulldozer unable to sing lightly is total NONSENSE. Just read the score of Otello or Peter Grimes - there are plenty moments when the singer should sing as lightly as a lyric role. You probably doesn't know that because you're listening too much del Monaco.
Your assertion that I ever said that a dramatic voice should be a "bulldozer unable to sing lightly" is an outright LIE. I never wrote that anywhere. Of course they should be able to. When you have to make up something it shows you don't really have an argument to stand on. Any voice should be able to sing fully or quietly. That doesn't change the *FACT* that a dramatic voice is heavier and bigger. Hence the word "DRAMATIC". LOL!
After the stock market crash the two best Italian tenors of the time Gigli and Pertile left America because the pay at the Met wasn't as good as what was available in Italy. They returned to join Lauri-Volpi at La Scala. This left all the big roles for Martinelli at the Met. I've never liked Martinelli's basic sound, but tastes differ. IMHO Italy had all the really good Italian tenors at the time.
When I was young I loved MDM. Later I thought his records were crude. Now I love him again.
What must you think of Melba, who, on many recordings, does not sound so good tonally? But how can one explain that the same singer has an angelic tone on other recordings? For example, her 1906 recordings sound better than those made in 1907. Certain voices didn't record as well as others. But due to what? Eames talks about cross-vibrations that the old recording process did not pick up in her voice. Nor in Melba's or Sembrich's. But Tetrazzini sounds much better. Same argument for male voices?
I don't know Melba's recordings well enough to form an opinion. Even today recording voices is a little mysterious. Another factor may be just human variability. The Three Tenors for example were very, very reliable. They seldom had "off" days but most top tenors - including: Aragall, McCracken, and Kollo often had such days.
It sounds to me as if this type of music calls for just the kind of very flexible rubato displayed here. Modern singers are more cautious in this respect; whether this means that they are better, or just that the original verismo style has been lost, is a debatable point.
Singers are definitely much worse today. Vocally speaking especially. They are not even close to the golden age of singing. Stylistically I think you must do what the composer asked for and many of these pieces were written with these singers in mind.
Agorante: He blends registers perfectly, just listen to his Iago (btw, he was Verdi's choice for Iago). You don't like Battistini "edgy" sound and I think Stracciari sounds as if he has a handful of cotton in his mouth. It's subjective.
Very excellent, thanks for sharing. The only thing I didn't like was the sped up delivery at 2:35, it sounds very nice but I think it serves the lyrics better to draw that about a bit more. Small complaint though.
One of my two favorite performances of this beautiful Tosti song, the other being Bjorling's. What vocal poise and serenity! Battistini is a truly unique singer.
гениально!
svjatazarov 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hello everybody. Welcome to my blog - forgottenoperasingers.blogspot.com
My name is Ashot Arakelyan, I’m a private record collector. This blog is for those, who is interested in an art of forgotten old opera singers.
Regards
Ashot
Giovanni6091 4 months ago
Elegant in appearance and in his vocal art. He was really "special."
gmmix 5 months ago
Battistini's voice was apparently not as large as those who followed him, like Ruffo, Amato and Stracciari. Yet his full, clear sound in these records suggest that it carried very well:) --
stevevandien 7 months ago
Sublime!!! Un incanto assoluto!
lirica2011 8 months ago
simplement magnifique !!
tidaliumpelo 11 months ago
Thank you, MrC, for this amazing and beautiful recording. Even considering how inadequate the recording equipment of the time was, Battistini's voice is powerful and clear. It disgusts me how modern baritones and bassos sing with such a thick-tongue sound that, even with the best recording equipment available, you can hardly understand what they are singing, or even very often what pitch they are on. And this is the standard that many modern listeners and critics use to judge singers.
lewashcliffe 1 year ago 3
@lewashcliffe Agreed! I cannot stand that thick or WOOFY sound. It is unnatural and bizarre sounding.
MrCafiero 1 year ago
@MrCafiero and @lewashcliffe - right on, guys!! Singing this kind of music with the modern "woofy" sound that most singers today employ is like playing lute music on an electric guitar.
MUSICALLAN 8 months ago
@lewashcliffe/MrCafiero Completely agree. Nowadays people seem to mistake all kinds of softened, rounded hot-air blowing whispering for real singing and want to hear it from the records, and horrifyingly true, it is becoming a standard. Even opera houses are full of that kind of singers, even though their voice hardly carries. Clarity and resonance like which is displayed here, in real bel canto, hopefully remains cherished.
Bonvivant666 1 year ago
Extremely beautiful.
Herur22 1 year ago
King of the Baritones... Great! Thanks MrCafiero...!
thonycg93 1 year ago
Magnifico!
Juliet0307 1 year ago
It seems a shame that I had to read through quite a few commentaries before anyone said anyting about this marvellous singer ie Battistini.
voicemad 1 year ago
I'm with MrCafiero on this one. These oldies have a lot that the newer singers do not have.
seektheforce 1 year ago 4
so a baritone is a tenor without low notes?
wattever333 1 year ago
@wattever333 What makes you ask that?
MrCafiero 1 year ago
@MrCafiero the world's greatest "baritone" can sing as high as a tenor with no problem but can't sing below a bass's middle C (the one that is one octave above Low C and one octave below middle C). Caruso had better low notes than him.
wattever333 1 year ago
@wattever333 Of course he could sing lower than that. Caruso was better than just about everyone.
MrCafiero 1 year ago
@MrCafiero Not sure if the "he" in your first sentence is Caruso or Battistini.
If you mean Battistini, sure he could sing them, but he didn't make a real sound, it's completely hollow. I have his complete recordings.
wattever333 1 year ago
@wattever333 Obviously I am referring to Battistini. You did not hear him live.
MrCafiero 1 year ago
@MrCafiero wow! now owning his complete recordings is not sufficient? one must have been there in 1880-1900 to appreciate his art? well sorry but that's too much to ask.
on the other hand, there are lots of baritones who have good low notes, including Ruffo, etc. and we hear them ON records.
wattever333 1 year ago
@wattever333 OK, so lets use our brains here. Firstly, Battistini recorded earlier than Ruffo so the equipment was not as good. Secondly, everyone who knows anything about the recording equipment used at that time also knows that it did not fully capture the sound - and the singers were made to back up, go forward, sing into a horn etc. Everyone who heard him - including those who have much more authority than you do - agrees that he was amazing. Lastly, Ruffo was know to also be weak lower.
MrCafiero 1 year ago
@MrCafiero why does it have to turn into insults? this conversation has just been completely invalidated.
wattever333 1 year ago
@wattever333 Because you are arguing nonsense, trying to insult one of the greatest singers in history which is patently absurd. That had already INVALIDATED anything you say.
MrCafiero 1 year ago
@MrCafiero It's called a discussion. You may have heard of it. A discussion implies that both parties have not already decided that something is absolute. Nobody deserves to be on a pedestal. I don't believe in celebrity cult and diva/divo worship.
wattever333 1 year ago
@wattever333 Nonsense. Nothing you just wrote makes any sense.
MrCafiero 1 year ago
@MrCafiero That's because you worship people who lived 100 years ago as if they were untouchable gods, based strictly on texts written by other people. You are a parrot.
wattever333 1 year ago
@wattever333 I don't worship anyone you twit. I have ears and can read - and those two skills apparently escape you. I suppose that Van Gogh and Renoir should not be revered either because they are no longer living and are from a long time ago. Get a clue and stop polluting the world with your half thought out blurbs!!!!!!
MrCafiero 1 year ago
@wattever333 You don't appear to know how arguing/discussing is done. The proof is RIGHT HERE in the recordings, which multiple critics have found unassailable. "Based strictly on texts written by other people". I'm surprised people even try pulling this bs. Will say whatever random thought that crosses their mind, yet never ever dredge up a single valid criticism of the voice itself.
demosj 1 year ago
@wattever333
Ruffo jhad a magnificent upper 2/3rds of a voice. His low notes were weak. Even in a great preformance Titta Ruffo - All'erta marinar - L'Africana - Meyerbeer that is obvious.
.
65attila 1 year ago
@wattever333
In this performance The Tuba and other low wind instruments performs the Low Notes usually sung by the baritone
Titta Ruffo - Aria from L'Africana (electric)
65attila 1 year ago
Thanks, it's great to hear this again! For me, Battistini sets the standard for singing Tosti. Great Stuff! Thank You!
robertwbecker 1 year ago
Thank you for posting this wonderful rendition. I beg to differ with you on the falsetto subject: Battistini never used falsetto, he always used mezza voce or even the "voix mixte", which is not falsetto.
. See, for example the phrase "O dolcezze perdute o memorie". Battistini's production is not falsetto at all, but mezzavoce, because falsetto is an acoustically poor sound, while mezzavoce, on the contrary, is rich of vibrations.
horowitz109 1 year ago
There is really nothing to differ on other than semantics. I have no idea what you mean by "falsetto" unless I hear you demonstrate it. And vice versa. he definitely has falsetto coordination in the sound which is a muscular participation by the falsetto group of muscles. And training the falsetto and singing in it are two different things. On the very quiet notes on OO and EE it is falsetto. All other vowels will have some chest. But, the training of the falsetto was there to do that.
MrCafiero 1 year ago
@horowitz109 He sings with wonderful morbidezza- softness of tone, meaning he can move from very soft to very loud and back again. This is the wonderful quality of mixture of so called upper and lower registers. There is definitely NO falsetto here, you're correct, but a wonderful use of soft singing because of a very gentle attack.
Cantormatis 1 year ago
@Cantormatis What do you think falsetto "COORDINATES' with? There differences here in his singing softer and louder are that the louder notes are chest dominant and the softer notes are falsetto dominant. Meaning: both chest and falsetto are active pretty much at all times, but one will dominate the other based on loudness. That is how the voice works ideally and that is how these older singers sang. It is not opinion.
MrCafiero 1 year ago
@MrCafiero No, I would not define falsetto the same way as true mezza voce, voix mixte or morbidezza singing. In the case of this recording anyway, and several others you have so wonderfully provided, he seems to attack gently. It isn't a forte attack. Falsetto, at least to my ears, has a different sound than mezza voce and is nearly impossible to truly crescendo upon since it is "off the voice," is it not?
Cantormatis 1 year ago
@Cantormatis I ask you again, what does falsetto coordinate with? And I will repeat again: both chest and falsetto are active pretty much at all times, but one will dominate the other based on loudness. So on his quietest notes or on his mezza voce the chest is still there, but the falsetto dominates more. As he gets louder the falsetto is still there, but the chest dominates. I am talking of the falsetto group of muscles and the chest voice group of muscles and their participation.
MrCafiero 1 year ago
Was Battistini a tenor who took it easy by singing baritone? I don't think so. Granted, his lowest notes were weak. But we've also had some tenors --- Caruso, Corelli, Melchior, Vickers -- who were quite strong down there. And Battistini's timbre, though lighter than those of Ruffo, Stracciari, Amato, strikes me as more baritonal then tenorial --
stevevandien 1 year ago
Великий баритон!!!
irakli220570 2 years ago
I agree, Paul! We should enjoy a very fine singing voice and leave it at that!
CanadaPisces 2 years ago 2
Can't we all just get along? Happy New Year to all
paulostroff99 2 years ago
The effect of a lyrico -leggiero voice may be as impressive as that of a lyrico spinto if there is proper training.
AnastasioFranco 2 years ago
"Effect"? What does that mean? Not size, certainly. Maybe clarity, but not size.
MrCafiero 2 years ago
Furthermore, a dramatic or a lyrico spinto, if not trained properly may have difficulty in been heard in a large theatre even though he may have a "bigger" voice than a leggiero.
AnastasioFranco 2 years ago
That is true. No one said anything otherwise. You are talking about something else.
MrCafiero 2 years ago
It is interesting to compare this rendition to one by Fernando de Lucia - both are very similar in style, which is indicative of the manner people used to sing at the later part of the 19th century. It is also astounding to see a baritone having the same level of flexibility and dexterity in his voice as a (fantastic) tenor. Both these renditions are equally superb, and dwarf modern follow-the-score interpretations.
IliyaSigal 2 years ago
Francesco Paolo Tosti /Carmelo Errico
Io ti seguii come'iride di pace
Lungo le vie del cielo;
Io ti seguii come un'amica face
De la notte nel velo.
E ti senti ne la luce, ne l'aria,
Nel profumo dei fiori;
E fu piena la stanza solitaria di te,
dei tuoi splendori.
jbeer82 2 years ago
Does anyone know where I can get the sheet music for this? It is amazing!
raphaelhudson 2 years ago
Were you after piano?
jbeer82 2 years ago
piano vocal
raphaelhudson 2 years ago
jbeer82 2 years ago
Comment removed
jbeer82 2 years ago
I do not think he was similar to Caruso.
On the contrary, Caruso was similar to
Battistini because Battistini was older.
Both sang like angels anyway.
Rigelcentauri58 2 years ago
Estupendo, maravilloso, extraordinario,
romántico. Uno de los mejores, o tal
vez EL MEJOR!!!
Rigelcentauri58 2 years ago
This is the school of singing and stylistic similarities that make for a sound and style similar to Caruso.
Interesting though that today the critics might think of it a indulgencies...
Just to show how much more "cold" we came to be.
chaiter1 2 years ago
Don't you think in the first few bars he is a little ike Caruso, his great friend and colleague?
tagliavini 2 years ago
Mi dispice ho sbagliato la parola!!!!!
tlinev 2 years ago
Que pezzo di tenore questo Battistini!!! Paragonarlo con vari Domingo, Villazon ect...... Madonna Santa come siamo scesi di gusto e di studio!!
tlinev 2 years ago
scusi caro.... battistini e stato un grandissimo baritono...... man cantato da tenore. questa e una canzone..
dagodemuro 2 years ago
Persechini, it should be remembered, did not create Ruffo's voice. Rather he thought that Ruffo was a bass, and Ruffo left after only a short time. It may be that Persechini prefered lighter, sweeter baritone voices. Like Fischer-Diescau or Hampson.
Caruso at about this time, was introducing what we now recognize as the modern dark powerful voice for verismo. Ruffo had this kind of new baritone sound. Battistini was of the earlier style. He sounds a little old fashion to many people today.
Agorante 2 years ago
The really interesting thing is that if you look at Verdi's music you will notice that the darker style voices do not sing what is written most of the time. They simply do not have the flexibility and dynamic control to sing like Battistini, the heavier your voice the thicker the chords the less flexible. But at the same time you have to recognise that the acoustic recording method makes voices sound much smaller and lighter than they actually are.
raphaelhudson 2 years ago
Yes this is all true. BTW I never suggested that Battistini had a small voice, I'm quiet sure he had a big free voice that carried well in the theater. The contemporary witnesses all say so.
Ingvar Wixell, for example, on stage made Pavarotti sound wimpy, but on records they seem to be well matched. I imagine something similar was going on with Battistini.
Agorante 2 years ago
People always think Pavarotti's voice was bigger than it was in all actuality. He was a lyric tenor. And Ponselle wrote in her autobiography that his voice was smaller than Di Stefano who was also a lyric tenor.
MrCafiero 2 years ago
Agreed.
Agorante 2 years ago
Having heard both Di Stefano and Pavarotti live, I would suggest that both voices were very similar in volume and weight.
Pavarotti's tone, like Lauri-Volpi's, was very well focused and clear. It carried very well, especially the top, which had a typical Italian squillo. This made his voice, LIVE, sound bigger than it was.
The same is true of Cesare Valletti and Juan Diego Florez. LIVE, their clear, focused voices sound bigger than they are in actual decibels.
AulicExclusiva 2 years ago
FLorez does not sound big live. It is very small and thin. I too heard Pavarotti live and it did carry, but when I heard him in the Met it was not hugely squillante. And Ponselle said Di Stefano's voice was bigger. I am not sure that you heard Di Stefano in his prime, but probably rather late in his career when he had lost squillante.
MrCafiero 2 years ago
"Big" is your word. What I said is that Florez sounds bigger live than the impression he makes on recording. I did not say that he sounds like Mario Del Monaco.
Florez sounds, as a matter of fact, about the same weight as Nicolai Gedda. I heard them both LIVE in La Sonnambula.
AulicExclusiva 2 years ago
Florez sounds way smaller in person than on the recordings unless he has been enhanced. There is no way on earth that Florez sounds the same "weight" (or whatever adjective you want to use) as Gedda. He was probably enhanced when you heard him. It is a leggiero thin voice.
MrCafiero 2 years ago
There is little point in this discussion. Each voice is different. It may be dramatic or leggero or lyric but what matters is its clarity. I have heard Florez live and you are wrong. He does not need any inhancement to be heard in a theatre of 3000 spectators.
AnastasioFranco 2 years ago
Of course clarity matters. Who said it didn't. Florez has clarity, but the voice is very small and very thin. It is leggiero. The *POINT* is that if it sounds much bigger than that - like comparable to Gedda or a bigger lyric - it has probably been enhanced. So there is a POINT to the discussion.
MrCafiero 2 years ago
It is lyric - leggiero and I doubt it has ever been enhanced at least in the recordings and concerts I listened to. And as others have pointed out "big" is not a proper term to characterise a voice.
AnastasioFranco 2 years ago
If you think singers are enhanced then I don't know what to tell you. They 100% factually are. Bartoli was enhanced at the Met and many others have been. I know people who have watched people being mic'd there and other places. That is why opera doesn't change. Until people realize that these singers they like don't *REALLY* sound that in person unless they are enhanced, nothing will change.
MrCafiero 2 years ago
Darker, bigger voices should not be any less flexible to sing Verdi's music. And historically they were not inflexible. Ruffo had the biggest voice ever and was extremely flexible. But he had a properly developed technique and registration. The same with Warren, Merrill and MacNeil in his prime. They were not inflexible.
MrCafiero 2 years ago
great voice!
Thank you for sharing, James! (CanadaPisces)
LoveBeautifulMusic 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I subscribe, thank you CanadaPisces!
AugustaRomania 2 years ago
Just beautiful, so musical...
And simple, not affected like so many singers. A delight for the ears and the soul.
freespiritQC 2 years ago
I wish modern singers could only sing
half as better as Mr. Battistini did.
Such a Richnness in a voice is very rare.
When I die, if I go to heaven, I want him to
receive me singing Ideale!!.
Rigelcentauri58 2 years ago
Agorante...are you kidding me?
first off...he's singing it in a higher key..makes it sound easier than a lot of the tenors. Even though it's an old recording you can hear the depth and warmth of his voice.
turkishdelight6983 2 years ago
Le plus chanteur de tous les temps et je pèse mes mots !
tidaliumpelo 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I've never understood the fascination of critics for Bastianni. Here he demonstrates a lot of flaws. The voice itself is kind of gritty and contrary to what the poster wrote he does not blend full voice with falsetto very well. But the worst thing about his singing is the rhythmic unsteadness. That just ruins this song.
Read Ruffo's autobiography "Mia Parabola". Persechini seems a fool. He thought Ruffo was a bass!!! Ruffo quit.
Agorante 2 years ago
Maybe if you heard in person you would have a different opinion. I do not, as a teacher and singer, agree with your assessment in the least. Persechini also taught De Luca. Battistini and De Luca are two of the greatest baritones in history, let alone Ruffo. I would hardly call him a fool. Battistini's vocal registration was world class.
MrCafiero 2 years ago
In my youth when LP transfers of old recordings were bad, defenders would claim that it was just the bad recording that made these former stars sound so bad. Now with good digital restorations these defenders claim that I needed to hear them live. Nonsense! No one alive today has heard Battistini live.
I love De Luca and Ruffo but Battistini - no. Persechini as a conservatory teacher got the best students. My opinion of him comes from Ruffo. It makes no sense to give him credit for Ruffo
Agorante 2 years ago
So you mean to say that you think that Battistini's true voice shows on the recordings you have? And that all other historic singers, conductors and critics who hailed him as amazing were wrong because you can actually hear it better than they could? I think that your comments and assessments are more a reflection of *you* than of Battistini.
MrCafiero 2 years ago
Some roughly contemporary baritones like De Luca sound very good on records. You not only have to explain why the recording process made Battistini sound worst than he really was, but also why that process didn't affect De Luca. You hear the same sort of argument about thirties tenors to explain why so many famous singers don't sound very good. Yet Bjorling and Gigli always sound great.
You attack me because I dare to listen for myself rather than rely on the opinions of authorities.
Agorante 2 years ago
I am not attacking you because you dare to rely on yourself. I am simply asking you why you think you are right over other great singers, conductors, critics and voice teachers who all agree that Battistini was simply amazing? The things you are claiming about his voice are just simply not there. His registration was top notch. He recorded earlier than De Luca and Ruffo so those comparisons do not hold true.
MrCafiero 2 years ago
Again argument from authority. Martinelli and Gobbi had all sorts of rave testimony but neither was capable of really good singing. Gobbi was a brilliant actor but the voice itself was hollow at the top and lacked warmth. Martinelli was the best the Met could afford during the Great Depression. Gigli and Pertile went back to Italy where the fees were bigger.
My all time favorite baritone - Stracciari. I also like Bastianini a great deal more than Battistini.
Agorante 2 years ago
I don't know of anyone who has argued that Martinelli and/or Gobbi had great vocal technique. They were great artists, great expression, great actors, but not great vocally...technically. Battistini is far beyond most everyone, especially Gobbi.
MrCafiero 2 years ago
about Martinelli: just point for me a italian dramatic tenor that surpasses his 20's recordings. Just don't mention del Monaco PLEASE.
caribolas 2 years ago
Martinelli was not a dramatic tenor first of all. Secondly, there just aren't that many to begin with. Check out Bernardo de Muro or Franz Völker. Both were amazing dramatic tenors.
MrCafiero 2 years ago
I appreciate de Muro, but if you think he's a real dramatic tenor you'll have problems trying to convince someone that Martinelli, who sang Otello many times, as well as Siegmund and Tristan past his prime was not a dramatic tenor. Sorry.
caribolas 2 years ago
Well, you can accept facts or not. I don't have to convince you. Martinelli was a true spinto which means he could sing both lyric and dramatic roles. A true dramatic cannot really sing lyric roles convincingly; e.g. Del Monaco. So of course Martinelli could sing Otello and Siegmund, but he could also sing Rodolfo if he wanted. The voice was not a true dramatic tenor.
MrCafiero 2 years ago
that's some food for fun. So to be considered a dramatic tenor you have to be inapt and bawl your head off all the time like del Monaco? Probably every single dramatic out of Wagner repertoire sang the same roles as Martinelli: Ernani, Aida, Pagliacci, etc. So they all were actually spinti pushing their lungs out. So Windgassen wasn't a heldentenor because he sang Tamino, neither Jadlowker because he could do roulades.
caribolas 2 years ago
Now a real fact to you: being a dramatic tenor is a matter of: first: stamina, second: projection, and not necessarily volume. Not being able to scale down your voice tells more about one's inaptitude than one's fach. You don't measure dramatic tenors by how badly he sings lightly. That's childlike induction.
caribolas 2 years ago
WRONG! A dramatic tenor has a darker timbre with more core to the sound than a lyric or even spinto. It is a heavier voice due to thicker vocal folds and larger resonators. Secondly, tessitura and range are what determine fach. A dramatic tenor will have a baritonal quality and stronger low notes than a lyric. They also have to sing stronger high notes more often. You are off base. Yet again another person who thinks they know all about voice, but they really don't.
MrCafiero 2 years ago
So it's a louder and more resonant voice, doesn't mean that is darker. By your standards Tamagno with his silvery timbre is not a dramatic. Vicker with his short upper range also can't be a dramatic tenor, right?
caribolas 2 years ago
are you guys stupid or what??? battistini e stato uno del pui grandi baritoni di tutti i tempi...... e basta!!!
dagodemuro 2 years ago
That is right, Battistini is one of the greatest of all time, hands down, period. Anyone who would argue anything else IS stupid.
MrCafiero 2 years ago
And of COURSE you have to have *VOLUME*. Read the score and see how heavy the orchestration is for dramatic voices. How the heck will someone hear you over a Wagner orchestra without volume? Whoever is teaching you is not doing a good job.
MrCafiero 2 years ago
with PROJECTION, harmonics. Amplitude for itself can't get through an orchestra. You can't even understand ondulatory and nature of sound, I'm really sorry. You're probably going to say that Windgassen isn't a dramatic tenor as well because he wasn't shouty.
caribolas 2 years ago
Projection and heaviness of sound are not the same thing. I know much more about this than you do I guarantee you. It has to do with the weay the formants are set up, but ALSO how many decibels one can put out. A dramatic voice is bigger, heavier, and fuller and richer low notes. It is that simple. Börling had a small voice, but could project because he had a lot of singer's formant. That doesn't mean he had a heavy dramatic voice alla De Muro.
MrCafiero 2 years ago
OF COURSE ARE NOT, this is exactly what I said. If you have volume but not projection you don't have anything. Volume is important to dramatic singers because SOMETIMES fits the music, sometimes doesn't.
caribolas 2 years ago
So you have to have *BOTH* volume and projection. Dramatics have a heavier voice which is able to soar over a big orchestra. Lyrics cannot. Spinto's can sing both lyric roles and dramatic roles. Dramatics only sing dramatic roles. Simple.
MrCafiero 2 years ago
Your assertion that a dramatic has to be a bulldozer unable to sing lightly is total NONSENSE. Just read the score of Otello or Peter Grimes - there are plenty moments when the singer should sing as lightly as a lyric role. You probably doesn't know that because you're listening too much del Monaco.
caribolas 2 years ago
Your assertion that I ever said that a dramatic voice should be a "bulldozer unable to sing lightly" is an outright LIE. I never wrote that anywhere. Of course they should be able to. When you have to make up something it shows you don't really have an argument to stand on. Any voice should be able to sing fully or quietly. That doesn't change the *FACT* that a dramatic voice is heavier and bigger. Hence the word "DRAMATIC". LOL!
MrCafiero 2 years ago
After the stock market crash the two best Italian tenors of the time Gigli and Pertile left America because the pay at the Met wasn't as good as what was available in Italy. They returned to join Lauri-Volpi at La Scala. This left all the big roles for Martinelli at the Met. I've never liked Martinelli's basic sound, but tastes differ. IMHO Italy had all the really good Italian tenors at the time.
When I was young I loved MDM. Later I thought his records were crude. Now I love him again.
Agorante 2 years ago
What must you think of Melba, who, on many recordings, does not sound so good tonally? But how can one explain that the same singer has an angelic tone on other recordings? For example, her 1906 recordings sound better than those made in 1907. Certain voices didn't record as well as others. But due to what? Eames talks about cross-vibrations that the old recording process did not pick up in her voice. Nor in Melba's or Sembrich's. But Tetrazzini sounds much better. Same argument for male voices?
meltzerboy 2 years ago
@meltzerboy
I don't know Melba's recordings well enough to form an opinion. Even today recording voices is a little mysterious. Another factor may be just human variability. The Three Tenors for example were very, very reliable. They seldom had "off" days but most top tenors - including: Aragall, McCracken, and Kollo often had such days.
Agorante 2 years ago
It sounds to me as if this type of music calls for just the kind of very flexible rubato displayed here. Modern singers are more cautious in this respect; whether this means that they are better, or just that the original verismo style has been lost, is a debatable point.
Matt75003 2 years ago
Singers are definitely much worse today. Vocally speaking especially. They are not even close to the golden age of singing. Stylistically I think you must do what the composer asked for and many of these pieces were written with these singers in mind.
MrCafiero 2 years ago
Agorante: He blends registers perfectly, just listen to his Iago (btw, he was Verdi's choice for Iago). You don't like Battistini "edgy" sound and I think Stracciari sounds as if he has a handful of cotton in his mouth. It's subjective.
caribolas 2 years ago
Vocal poise, serenity, endless breath supply, a uniquely sustained soft "sul fiato" singing, and marvelous, aristocratic enunciation. WHAT a singer.
AulicExclusiva 3 years ago 2
Very excellent, thanks for sharing. The only thing I didn't like was the sped up delivery at 2:35, it sounds very nice but I think it serves the lyrics better to draw that about a bit more. Small complaint though.
ShawDAMAN 3 years ago
sorry, I meant "draw that out a bit more." :-P
ShawDAMAN 3 years ago
One of my two favorite performances of this beautiful Tosti song, the other being Bjorling's. What vocal poise and serenity! Battistini is a truly unique singer.
meltzerboy 3 years ago