@lilemokidjordan It's because we don't always... KNOW how we do it. Hahahaha
Pavarotti would always try to teach his master classes and just say "Just DO it." He had no idea how alot of what he did worked. Most good singers don't. They just take their voice-teacher's word for it
Pavarotti's technique WAS natural...and his technique was CONSCIOUSLY natural. He understood how his natural voice worked...how it resonanted...how he supported it...how he reached the top correctly thru the passaggio. It was a supremely natural voice...and lasted throughout his live BECAUSE it was CONSCIOUSLY executed in that way. The end result...his perfect voice...was LEARNED. He worked very hard to learn how to sing naturally in this way. No other way will last.
Ironic that Villazon is presenting it-because he is an example of a tenor who self-destructed more quickly than any in history. He clearly had bad technique-and beyond that sang roles too heavy for his voice too quickly-others did that- Carreras, di Stefano etc- but went on for yrs.
Villazon doesn't know nothing about technique, Pavarotti is not looking inside but creating a complex imagine with his mind, and some simple thoughts about how the vowels must sound, the basics of his technique is not using the voice like Villazon, how can be villazon the one to talk about Luciano? he should talk about Plácido or Di Stefano, from the singers of today only Alvarez or Giordani can talk about his technique...
sir it is not my intention to diminish the importance of techinique because obvioulsy a singer cant sing very well without it. But there are singers who have very good technique who I cant stand to listen to. This interaction began because I said Pavarrotti had a beautiful voice w less than perfect technique to which you took exception. We both know this is a forum in which people feel compelled to show how much they know while revealing the opposite..I respect your opinion and your intentions
This is why Villazon is finished: he couldn't never get over passaggio with confidence because he never had a solid technique, as his fellow José Cura too (both sponsored by Domingo).
@Labienus I answered to "This is why Villazon is finished: he couldn't never get over passaggio with confidence because he never had a solid technique, as his fellow José Cura too (both sponsored by Domingo)."
Domingo had the "better" voice comparing to Villazon and Cura.
i think pavorottin had one of the great natural voices , certainly of the last 5 years, but to suggest that he was a great singer, w a flawless or nearly perfect technique, is a great mistake, He sang beautifully in spite of a less than great technique, and this was reflected in his struggles later in his carreer . I loved his sound, but he was simply not in the same class w bjorling, wunderlch schipa gigli caruso and correlli or mackormack. sorrry pavarotti fans, but the truth is what it is
@operalament Without technique, there is NO voice. Voice IS technique. If you feel that Pav had a great natural sounding voice, it's because his marvelous technique overcame the technical difficulties that would otherwise interfere with the free function of his voice. He didn't have that voice to begin with, it took years of exercises to achieve. If I gave you a Stradivarius violin, & you can't play, you'll get nothing but scratchy notes. But the potential of the instrument remains the same.
@hiyadroogs Sir, when you say voice is technique, you are about as wrong as it is possible to be. there are four aspects that make up a singer. Voice , technique, musicianship and artistry. All who would qualify as a singer possess these qualities in varying degrees. To suggest that technique and voice are one and the same reveal a total misunderstanding of what makes a singer . Montserrat Caballe understood this and is why she described herself as a good singer with a fair voice. but thank you
@operalament A singer does require other gifts such as musianship & expression of course, but I refer to the complex laryngeal control that forms the singing voice itself, without which, the other gifts have no purpose. There is no physiological difference between a non singer & a great singer whatsover. The difference lies in the control of the voice. This is why I used the Stradivarius example. The potential of the instrument remains the same. Yet to reveal it, one must know how to play it.
@operalament One can have wonderful timing, musicianship, rubato, artistry, personality, charm, musicality & sensitivity, profound understand of text, nuance, & great acting skills. & still not know how to sing a note.
@hiyadroogs True for the most part, though I wouldn't agree completely. Several tenors with poor vocal technique got by for a few years relying mostly on their natural voices - di Stefano, Raimondi, Carerras to name a few. They didn't last long, but they did sound good (for the most part) before their voices burned out.
@GermanOperaSinger Hi. Carreras openly admits that he sang full on open white notes that destroyed his top. But said he liked it that way?? He unbalanced his early natural technique by abuse. Di Stefano had superb technique by nature, which is why he never sought tuition, & could fine away a full voice high C to pianissimo. However, he abused this vocal freedom later by making his voice much too dramatic. The point being; even the most subtle change in style is also altering the technique.
@GermanOperaSinger Cont'. I believe it's a mistake to assume that if a singer hasn't undertaken study that he has no technique. Most singers have to learn to guide & develop their voices to comfortably span 2 & a half octaves or more. But some extremely lucky individuals can do this by a gift of nature. Just as most students have flawed technique, some can have perfect technique without necessarily knowing what they are doing consciously. Di Stefano was such a singer.
@GermanOperaSinger Agreed. Tenors (lots of singers Bryn Terfel is an example of a Bass Baritone) can get by on poor techniques and great voices. But it catches up with them. And those of us with solid palates for hearing voices can hear the excesses that will inevitably lead to demise. A sound without chiaroscuro and appoggio is readily heard. Even among the greatest voices with good technique, the excesses can be heard and the outcome foreseen (e.g. Pav opening too much).
@operalament There are many people who would disagree with you on that note, and it frankly isn't right for you to come in and parade your opinion around as a fact. Your opinion is just that, an opinion. Just because you say it doesn't make it an indelible truth, you should try to remember that.
I'm not trying to start some internet war, I'm just stating what I think on the subject.
@tenor220 sir dont worry , I take no offense at your comment, but im afraid I dont really know what you are referring to because I made a few comments. But when you say there are many people who would disagree with me , Im sure you are right, Im just not sure what you mean .
Pavarotti was a lirico-spinto and Kraus was a light lyric, comparing them won't be very accurate. However, they are both excellent examples of perfect technique for their individual voices.
What are you talking about? Since when are Aida, Pagliacci, Ballo, Turandot considered leggero-roles? The man hade a huge lirico-spinto voice with great squillante, especially during 70's. The man sung heavy verismo roles for centuries without wavering or showing any signs of wear, his WAS a lirico-spinto.
The fact that Domingo had a career at all (from a vocal perspective) still amazes me. Incredible actor, random/amateur singer (in relation to others during this time). My point still remains though; check any recordings of Pava from the 1960-1970's and you'll see that his voice is anything but light.
@Honken I wouldn't call Domingo an "amateur singer", his technique actually is good, just not Top class technique like Pavarotti or Corelli. I don't think it requires a top class technique to be a professional singer both in artistic term and in terms of how the real world works. As long as a performance can make the audience feel the emotion and artistry then it is great. It is always like that whether it is opera or not, just the audience's tastes keep changing in the whole opera history.
@bodiloto Assolutamente vero, aveva un timbro argentino, poi il tempo gli ha allargato il repertorio, non sempre con risultati eccelsi. Il primo Pavarotti era da antologia...ma non cantava da tenore eroico o verista...
Juan Diego Flores why don't you just admit that Luciano Pavarotti was the maestro and was the example of the greatest technique ??!!
no bullshit bla bla bla,just say it that he was one of the greatest !!!!!!!
ka2shi7 2 days ago
haha mr bean
TheZuoyou 1 week ago
why do singers always spew out bullshit about "searching your soul", why don't they just tell you how to actually sing with the correct technique?
lilemokidjordan 2 weeks ago
@lilemokidjordan It's because we don't always... KNOW how we do it. Hahahaha
Pavarotti would always try to teach his master classes and just say "Just DO it." He had no idea how alot of what he did worked. Most good singers don't. They just take their voice-teacher's word for it
avajie 2 weeks ago
Pavarotti's technique WAS natural...and his technique was CONSCIOUSLY natural. He understood how his natural voice worked...how it resonanted...how he supported it...how he reached the top correctly thru the passaggio. It was a supremely natural voice...and lasted throughout his live BECAUSE it was CONSCIOUSLY executed in that way. The end result...his perfect voice...was LEARNED. He worked very hard to learn how to sing naturally in this way. No other way will last.
Operanobility 1 month ago
@Operanobility YES! Thank you, glad to know there are others out there with a brain
aroncooker 1 week ago
THE MAN, THE VOICE, LUCIANO FOREVER!
Takken1256 1 month ago
I've never heard him speak before lol
sidowninc 1 month ago
That asshole ignorant that calls himself a tenor(Villazon)describes in a horrible English what he could not ever achieved: a good decent technique.
TheVengador60 2 months ago
Ironic that Villazon is presenting it-because he is an example of a tenor who self-destructed more quickly than any in history. He clearly had bad technique-and beyond that sang roles too heavy for his voice too quickly-others did that- Carreras, di Stefano etc- but went on for yrs.
Labienus 2 months ago
Is it just me or the guy at 0:52 looks like Mr. bean?
UltraGuyAE 2 months ago
Villazon doesn't know nothing about technique, Pavarotti is not looking inside but creating a complex imagine with his mind, and some simple thoughts about how the vowels must sound, the basics of his technique is not using the voice like Villazon, how can be villazon the one to talk about Luciano? he should talk about Plácido or Di Stefano, from the singers of today only Alvarez or Giordani can talk about his technique...
WeissmanSilvia 4 months ago
sir it is not my intention to diminish the importance of techinique because obvioulsy a singer cant sing very well without it. But there are singers who have very good technique who I cant stand to listen to. This interaction began because I said Pavarrotti had a beautiful voice w less than perfect technique to which you took exception. We both know this is a forum in which people feel compelled to show how much they know while revealing the opposite..I respect your opinion and your intentions
operalament 4 months ago
This is why Villazon is finished: he couldn't never get over passaggio with confidence because he never had a solid technique, as his fellow José Cura too (both sponsored by Domingo).
MisterPapageno 5 months ago 15
@MisterPapageno
Domingo often had problems with the high notes, but he had the better voice
Kronos14293 3 months ago
@Kronos14293 Yes, he always had trouble with the top. But he had the "better'' voice compared to whom?
Labienus 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Kronos14293 Yes, he often had trouble with the top. He had the "better" voice compared to whom?
Labienus 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Labienus I answered to "This is why Villazon is finished: he couldn't never get over passaggio with confidence because he never had a solid technique, as his fellow José Cura too (both sponsored by Domingo)."
Domingo had the "better" voice comparing to Villazon and Cura.
Kronos14293 2 months ago
i think pavorottin had one of the great natural voices , certainly of the last 5 years, but to suggest that he was a great singer, w a flawless or nearly perfect technique, is a great mistake, He sang beautifully in spite of a less than great technique, and this was reflected in his struggles later in his carreer . I loved his sound, but he was simply not in the same class w bjorling, wunderlch schipa gigli caruso and correlli or mackormack. sorrry pavarotti fans, but the truth is what it is
operalament 5 months ago
@operalament Well if you say so...
Chessczar 5 months ago
@operalament Without technique, there is NO voice. Voice IS technique. If you feel that Pav had a great natural sounding voice, it's because his marvelous technique overcame the technical difficulties that would otherwise interfere with the free function of his voice. He didn't have that voice to begin with, it took years of exercises to achieve. If I gave you a Stradivarius violin, & you can't play, you'll get nothing but scratchy notes. But the potential of the instrument remains the same.
hiyadroogs 4 months ago 27
@hiyadroogs Sir, when you say voice is technique, you are about as wrong as it is possible to be. there are four aspects that make up a singer. Voice , technique, musicianship and artistry. All who would qualify as a singer possess these qualities in varying degrees. To suggest that technique and voice are one and the same reveal a total misunderstanding of what makes a singer . Montserrat Caballe understood this and is why she described herself as a good singer with a fair voice. but thank you
operalament 4 months ago
@operalament A singer does require other gifts such as musianship & expression of course, but I refer to the complex laryngeal control that forms the singing voice itself, without which, the other gifts have no purpose. There is no physiological difference between a non singer & a great singer whatsover. The difference lies in the control of the voice. This is why I used the Stradivarius example. The potential of the instrument remains the same. Yet to reveal it, one must know how to play it.
hiyadroogs 4 months ago
@operalament One can have wonderful timing, musicianship, rubato, artistry, personality, charm, musicality & sensitivity, profound understand of text, nuance, & great acting skills. & still not know how to sing a note.
hiyadroogs 4 months ago
@hiyadroogs True for the most part, though I wouldn't agree completely. Several tenors with poor vocal technique got by for a few years relying mostly on their natural voices - di Stefano, Raimondi, Carerras to name a few. They didn't last long, but they did sound good (for the most part) before their voices burned out.
GermanOperaSinger 3 months ago
@GermanOperaSinger Hi. Carreras openly admits that he sang full on open white notes that destroyed his top. But said he liked it that way?? He unbalanced his early natural technique by abuse. Di Stefano had superb technique by nature, which is why he never sought tuition, & could fine away a full voice high C to pianissimo. However, he abused this vocal freedom later by making his voice much too dramatic. The point being; even the most subtle change in style is also altering the technique.
hiyadroogs 3 months ago
@GermanOperaSinger Cont'. I believe it's a mistake to assume that if a singer hasn't undertaken study that he has no technique. Most singers have to learn to guide & develop their voices to comfortably span 2 & a half octaves or more. But some extremely lucky individuals can do this by a gift of nature. Just as most students have flawed technique, some can have perfect technique without necessarily knowing what they are doing consciously. Di Stefano was such a singer.
hiyadroogs 3 months ago
@GermanOperaSinger Agreed. Tenors (lots of singers Bryn Terfel is an example of a Bass Baritone) can get by on poor techniques and great voices. But it catches up with them. And those of us with solid palates for hearing voices can hear the excesses that will inevitably lead to demise. A sound without chiaroscuro and appoggio is readily heard. Even among the greatest voices with good technique, the excesses can be heard and the outcome foreseen (e.g. Pav opening too much).
honestopera 3 months ago
@hiyadroogs THANK GOD SOMEBODY FINALLY UNDERSTANDS THE POINT OF IT ALL. THANK GOD! :D I think I'll quote you someday :D
KoNjire 1 month ago
@KoNjire seriously!
aroncooker 1 week ago
@aroncooker i was serious too :D
KoNjire 1 week ago
@hiyadroogs couldnt agree with you more! Nicely put!
aroncooker 1 week ago
@operalament There are many people who would disagree with you on that note, and it frankly isn't right for you to come in and parade your opinion around as a fact. Your opinion is just that, an opinion. Just because you say it doesn't make it an indelible truth, you should try to remember that.
I'm not trying to start some internet war, I'm just stating what I think on the subject.
tenor220 4 months ago
@tenor220 sir dont worry , I take no offense at your comment, but im afraid I dont really know what you are referring to because I made a few comments. But when you say there are many people who would disagree with me , Im sure you are right, Im just not sure what you mean .
operalament 4 months ago
Technique: Pavarotti or Kraus?
1212625bear 6 months ago
@1212625bear
Pavarotti was a lirico-spinto and Kraus was a light lyric, comparing them won't be very accurate. However, they are both excellent examples of perfect technique for their individual voices.
Honken 6 months ago
@Honken Pavarotti dal vivo aveva la voce del tenore lirico leggero.
bodiloto 6 months ago
@bodiloto
What are you talking about? Since when are Aida, Pagliacci, Ballo, Turandot considered leggero-roles? The man hade a huge lirico-spinto voice with great squillante, especially during 70's. The man sung heavy verismo roles for centuries without wavering or showing any signs of wear, his WAS a lirico-spinto.
Leggiero: Kraus, Blake, Kunde, Florez, Brownlee ect.
Honken 6 months ago
@Honken hai sentito la voce di Pavarotti senza microfono negli anni 60-70?
Io,si.
La registrazione e una dolce illusione...
Anche Domingo cantava Otello,Aida,Pagliacci,Turandot...purtroppo non aveva una voce drammatica...
bodiloto 6 months ago
@bodiloto
I meant the 1970's haha. Colpa mia!
The fact that Domingo had a career at all (from a vocal perspective) still amazes me. Incredible actor, random/amateur singer (in relation to others during this time). My point still remains though; check any recordings of Pava from the 1960-1970's and you'll see that his voice is anything but light.
Honken 6 months ago
@Honken I wouldn't call Domingo an "amateur singer", his technique actually is good, just not Top class technique like Pavarotti or Corelli. I don't think it requires a top class technique to be a professional singer both in artistic term and in terms of how the real world works. As long as a performance can make the audience feel the emotion and artistry then it is great. It is always like that whether it is opera or not, just the audience's tastes keep changing in the whole opera history.
tmtstudio1983 4 months ago
@bodiloto Assolutamente vero, aveva un timbro argentino, poi il tempo gli ha allargato il repertorio, non sempre con risultati eccelsi. Il primo Pavarotti era da antologia...ma non cantava da tenore eroico o verista...
numetutelare 4 months ago
Comment removed
bodiloto 6 months ago
@1212625bear Technique: Caruso or Fleta or De Lucia?...
bodiloto 6 months ago
@1212625bear Kraus !
bodiloto 1 week ago
Gli acuti di L.P. non sono certi quelli che mi fanno esaltare . . . . Si e' ben sempre saputo accattivarsi il pubblico!!
lafca88 9 months ago
amazing.. thanks
juandatocas 1 year ago
senza parole...
MrDiabo76 1 year ago
This is brilliant,and you were so quick uploading ! Thank you so much!
m0e4g2 1 year ago
MANY THANKS!
teresa59 1 year ago