@MrCafiero Yup. Look up Thill singing this, there's a difference between souffle (breath, breeze) and soufflé (you know, that French dish). It just sounds kind of funny.
@Slayerplsko LOL! I am more thrilled by his voice than by picky diction. Having French friends I know they don't find an issue with the pronunciation. Are you French?
@seektheforce It isn't a bad thing. Your voice is what it is. It is only bad when it is due to a bad technique. He did have squillante. But certainly a big beautiful voice is even better.
@MrCafiero Isn't it a little flawed, logically, to say that a bigger voice is always better? The comparison can go very far, and it is not as objective as people think, but two voices can never be equally beautiful, because if they were trained right they would not sound the same - only share the same characteristics. It is cheesy to say, but in that respect beauty is really in the eye of the beholder as different voices could be equally technically skilled and yet one might be more succesfu no?
@Jaaakob What is flawed is starting an argument about size and ending up changing it to being about beauty. Which one are you talking about? Beauty or size?
@Jaaakob And, actually, if you bother to read what I wrote closely, I did *NOT* write that, "a big voice is always better." Please quote me accurately before arguing. Otherwise you are only arguing against a point that you, yourself, have made up. What I wrote was that a BIG, *BEAUTIFUL* voice is better than a small, beautiful voice.
@MrCafiero But that is exactly what I find to be so flawed. I know what you wrote and I tried to cover it in the measly 500 letters youtube offers. What I mean is: if we have two voices that could be called beautiful with equally good technique, and one is bigger than the other that does not make it better. Because even if they are both considered beautiful, they CANNOT beautiful in the exact same way. Therefore one voice, even though smaller, might be more appealing b/c of it's characteristics.
@Jaaakob That is not flawed at all. Opera is meant to be sung over an orchestra in an opera house. The bigger the voice, all else being equal, the more thrilling the performance will be because of that fact. It is part of what makes opera what it is. A bigger voice can bring more catharsis and thrill. And that is the whole point of opera. If a smaller voice is beautiful that is good, but it cannot dominate the orchestra and hit you in the same way in the hall.
@MrCafiero That isn't neccesarily true. If a voice carries well over the orchestra it can express catharsis and drama, if the musical expression and use of the instrument is used in such a way. If you like a big voice better then that is a preference. It cannot be translated into a standard or golden rule in singing.
If the size of a singers voice is not a frequent subject of critical discussion, then I don't think the audience or the experts think it is a concern or a loss, be it small or big!
@Jaaakob Your first statements make my point. "IF the voice carries well." What does that mean? That you can hear it? BIG DEAL. A voice that can DOMINATE the orchestra and have much bigger affect do to that )CATHARSIS) is better. It is just blatantly obvious. Even to a child. Opera is a BIG production in every way. There are no mics. Simple. and even the small voices today don't sing well.
@MrCafiero I disagree, and it doesn't help your case to type in big letters, I can read. And you are not sticking to my arguments at all. A voice that carries well is _well_ heard, if that satisfies your need for clarity. And that is not a feat exclusive to big voices, as you well know. Catharsis is only one of the many aspects of opera and it is not measured in decibels by any known defintions, but in expression. And I wasn't talking about contemporary singers, no matter what you thought.
@Jaaakob You make no sense. one of the cornerstones of opera, and a mjor component that defines opera, is that it is big singing. No mics, big singing. so the bigger the voice, all else being equal, the better. Because that is what opera is about...BIG, BEAUTIFUL, singing. clarity alone is pointless. You can be clear and unmoving or unmusical. The point of all this is that the best thing is to be big, beautiful, musical etc. all together. Which is what the greats had. The end.
@MrCafiero If I don't make sense then how have you been able to answer my points several times? And why have you continued this conversation? Do yourself a favor and just admit that our tastes might differ and that I am no lesser than you because of it.
You are contending everything is measureable. IMO, beauty of timbre is not.
The rest of your reply is what doesn't make sense. I have not talked about mics once for example.
Bjoerling is not great b/c he didn't have a big voice, correct?
@Jaaakob I never said that everything is measurable, but enough stuff is to separate great from good from bad. Björling was a great singer, but Caruso was better.
@MrCafiero That's cherry picking. When it comes to those greats, it's all a matter of taste, and also they're not even the same type. Bjorling is Lyric and Caruso is Dramatic, so a comparison is unfair. Lastly, we don't know how Caruso sounds in real life. Those old recording don't tell us much, although he is one of the greatest of all time.
@Jaaakob And, why don't you look at history Jaaakob? The BIGGEST voices are most often the most beloved. In every genre actually. Not that there are not some smaller ones that people love, but most of the greatest singers had big voices. Ruffo, Caruso, Tebaldi, Ponselle, Mardones, Ghiaurov, Siepi, Corelli, Del Monaco, Callas, Nilsson, Flagstad and on and on.
@MrCafiero Operatic voices are all big, in a way. And if each and everyone of those voices were big, then they must have distinguished themselves from the wide array of singers through artistry, timbre and such mastery. Not size. So that argument isn't exactly waterproof IMO.
@Jaaakob So you mean, ALL the big voices were "BIG'. LOL! No kidding. But today they are all small. And much smaller than they used to be. That would be the point you are so good at missing. And it is due to bad teaching. No one is talking about giving up artistry for size. that would be stupid. It should go together like the hundreds of great singers of the past had.
Realize this; I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE VOICES OF TODAY. It was you who brought that up. The subject of discussion were voices of all sizes, from the "golden age" if you will. As clearly as possible: There were probably thousands of big or even huge voices when Corelli, MDM, Tebaldi et al sang, and I think their fame and what set them apart was due more to other assets.
@Jaaakob Wow. So we have come full circle. The big voices of the past were definitely set apart artistically. I mean, no one wants to hear a big voice who is out of tune or off pitch or unexpressive right? That is pretty obviously. And no one wants to hear a BIG voice of the "golen age" that isn't beautiful either. And that goes right back to my original point which you had a problem with; i.e., there is nothing better than a big, beautiful voice.
Dear jtsanin, I guess you got the wrong comment,it was not me that mentioned Miguel Fleta, but sure I consider him one of the greatest tenors ever. In the other hand Jerry Hadley even if dying so young, I guess he made enough for us, in order to be for always remembered, as one of the best tenors we heard. Thanks anyhow for writting me.Best regards.
He sure was one of the greatest tenors!!!!. He performs this aria in a so rounded voice and full voice, that it makes it appear as if it was easy !!! It is a pity he is not around with us physically , but sure his spirit will survive us!!!!!...thanks for posting and sharing this wonderful talent of Jerry Hadley Bravoooo!!!!
You are right: Miguel Burró Fleta (1 December or 28 December 1892, Albalate de Cinca, Huesca Province, Spain - 28 May or 30 May 1938, A Coruña) was a Spanish operatic tenor.
Remember what I said, ithis is not a competition for tenors, but a selection of arias.
I saw Jerry sing this role in Pittsburgh several years before he died. In view of his tragic death, it is very painful to hear. But, it is so gorgeous, that I listen again and again, anyway, and just wipe away the tears. May he rest in peace. He was a dear friend and my all time favorite singer and person. I'll miss him the rest of my life. Lea Frey
@tommieboy1657 Not sure of the exact date; MrCafiero (the poster) can give you that information. In case you didn't know, Jerry Hadley committed suicide three years ago at the age of 55. RIP
@meltzerboy Yes I know very well... He's one of my favourite tenors, although I haven't seen him live. It's such a pity, he was so good at what he did.
Just one thing. It's souffle de printemps - wind of spring, not spring soufflé.
Slayerplsko 1 week ago
@Slayerplsko What do you mean? That he is pronouncing it incorrectly?
MrCafiero 1 week ago
@MrCafiero Yup. Look up Thill singing this, there's a difference between souffle (breath, breeze) and soufflé (you know, that French dish). It just sounds kind of funny.
Slayerplsko 1 week ago
@Slayerplsko LOL! I am more thrilled by his voice than by picky diction. Having French friends I know they don't find an issue with the pronunciation. Are you French?
MrCafiero 1 week ago
Madonna se canta aperto! Un dilettante con un bel timbro.
frtrpp 2 weeks ago
Nicely done!
MrMattpozdol 3 months ago
MrCafiero, what do you think of Jussi Bjoerling?
seektheforce 1 year ago
@seektheforce I think he had a great voice and talent. It was a small voice though.
MrCafiero 1 year ago
@MrCafiero Is having a small voice a bad thing? I was told by some people that he had a lot of squillo.
seektheforce 1 year ago
@seektheforce It isn't a bad thing. Your voice is what it is. It is only bad when it is due to a bad technique. He did have squillante. But certainly a big beautiful voice is even better.
MrCafiero 1 year ago
@MrCafiero Isn't it a little flawed, logically, to say that a bigger voice is always better? The comparison can go very far, and it is not as objective as people think, but two voices can never be equally beautiful, because if they were trained right they would not sound the same - only share the same characteristics. It is cheesy to say, but in that respect beauty is really in the eye of the beholder as different voices could be equally technically skilled and yet one might be more succesfu no?
Jaaakob 1 year ago
@Jaaakob What is flawed is starting an argument about size and ending up changing it to being about beauty. Which one are you talking about? Beauty or size?
MrCafiero 1 year ago
@Jaaakob And, actually, if you bother to read what I wrote closely, I did *NOT* write that, "a big voice is always better." Please quote me accurately before arguing. Otherwise you are only arguing against a point that you, yourself, have made up. What I wrote was that a BIG, *BEAUTIFUL* voice is better than a small, beautiful voice.
MrCafiero 1 year ago
@MrCafiero But that is exactly what I find to be so flawed. I know what you wrote and I tried to cover it in the measly 500 letters youtube offers. What I mean is: if we have two voices that could be called beautiful with equally good technique, and one is bigger than the other that does not make it better. Because even if they are both considered beautiful, they CANNOT beautiful in the exact same way. Therefore one voice, even though smaller, might be more appealing b/c of it's characteristics.
Jaaakob 1 year ago
@Jaaakob That is not flawed at all. Opera is meant to be sung over an orchestra in an opera house. The bigger the voice, all else being equal, the more thrilling the performance will be because of that fact. It is part of what makes opera what it is. A bigger voice can bring more catharsis and thrill. And that is the whole point of opera. If a smaller voice is beautiful that is good, but it cannot dominate the orchestra and hit you in the same way in the hall.
MrCafiero 1 year ago
@MrCafiero That isn't neccesarily true. If a voice carries well over the orchestra it can express catharsis and drama, if the musical expression and use of the instrument is used in such a way. If you like a big voice better then that is a preference. It cannot be translated into a standard or golden rule in singing.
If the size of a singers voice is not a frequent subject of critical discussion, then I don't think the audience or the experts think it is a concern or a loss, be it small or big!
Jaaakob 1 year ago
@Jaaakob Your first statements make my point. "IF the voice carries well." What does that mean? That you can hear it? BIG DEAL. A voice that can DOMINATE the orchestra and have much bigger affect do to that )CATHARSIS) is better. It is just blatantly obvious. Even to a child. Opera is a BIG production in every way. There are no mics. Simple. and even the small voices today don't sing well.
MrCafiero 1 year ago
@MrCafiero I disagree, and it doesn't help your case to type in big letters, I can read. And you are not sticking to my arguments at all. A voice that carries well is _well_ heard, if that satisfies your need for clarity. And that is not a feat exclusive to big voices, as you well know. Catharsis is only one of the many aspects of opera and it is not measured in decibels by any known defintions, but in expression. And I wasn't talking about contemporary singers, no matter what you thought.
Jaaakob 1 year ago
@Jaaakob You make no sense. one of the cornerstones of opera, and a mjor component that defines opera, is that it is big singing. No mics, big singing. so the bigger the voice, all else being equal, the better. Because that is what opera is about...BIG, BEAUTIFUL, singing. clarity alone is pointless. You can be clear and unmoving or unmusical. The point of all this is that the best thing is to be big, beautiful, musical etc. all together. Which is what the greats had. The end.
MrCafiero 1 year ago
@MrCafiero If I don't make sense then how have you been able to answer my points several times? And why have you continued this conversation? Do yourself a favor and just admit that our tastes might differ and that I am no lesser than you because of it.
You are contending everything is measureable. IMO, beauty of timbre is not.
The rest of your reply is what doesn't make sense. I have not talked about mics once for example.
Bjoerling is not great b/c he didn't have a big voice, correct?
Jaaakob 1 year ago
@Jaaakob I never said that everything is measurable, but enough stuff is to separate great from good from bad. Björling was a great singer, but Caruso was better.
MrCafiero 1 year ago
@MrCafiero That's cherry picking. When it comes to those greats, it's all a matter of taste, and also they're not even the same type. Bjorling is Lyric and Caruso is Dramatic, so a comparison is unfair. Lastly, we don't know how Caruso sounds in real life. Those old recording don't tell us much, although he is one of the greatest of all time.
petion2010 10 months ago
@petion2010 What is cherry picking? Quantifiable things cannot be "cherry picked" as they are factual. Caruso started as a lyric.
MrCafiero 10 months ago
@Jaaakob And, why don't you look at history Jaaakob? The BIGGEST voices are most often the most beloved. In every genre actually. Not that there are not some smaller ones that people love, but most of the greatest singers had big voices. Ruffo, Caruso, Tebaldi, Ponselle, Mardones, Ghiaurov, Siepi, Corelli, Del Monaco, Callas, Nilsson, Flagstad and on and on.
MrCafiero 1 year ago
@MrCafiero Operatic voices are all big, in a way. And if each and everyone of those voices were big, then they must have distinguished themselves from the wide array of singers through artistry, timbre and such mastery. Not size. So that argument isn't exactly waterproof IMO.
Jaaakob 1 year ago
@Jaaakob So you mean, ALL the big voices were "BIG'. LOL! No kidding. But today they are all small. And much smaller than they used to be. That would be the point you are so good at missing. And it is due to bad teaching. No one is talking about giving up artistry for size. that would be stupid. It should go together like the hundreds of great singers of the past had.
MrCafiero 1 year ago
@MrCafiero I am not talking about:
a) giving up artistry for size
b) the voices of today
Realize this; I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE VOICES OF TODAY. It was you who brought that up. The subject of discussion were voices of all sizes, from the "golden age" if you will. As clearly as possible: There were probably thousands of big or even huge voices when Corelli, MDM, Tebaldi et al sang, and I think their fame and what set them apart was due more to other assets.
Jaaakob 1 year ago
@Jaaakob Wow. So we have come full circle. The big voices of the past were definitely set apart artistically. I mean, no one wants to hear a big voice who is out of tune or off pitch or unexpressive right? That is pretty obviously. And no one wants to hear a BIG voice of the "golen age" that isn't beautiful either. And that goes right back to my original point which you had a problem with; i.e., there is nothing better than a big, beautiful voice.
MrCafiero 1 year ago
Dear jtsanin, I guess you got the wrong comment,it was not me that mentioned Miguel Fleta, but sure I consider him one of the greatest tenors ever. In the other hand Jerry Hadley even if dying so young, I guess he made enough for us, in order to be for always remembered, as one of the best tenors we heard. Thanks anyhow for writting me.Best regards.
tenorschofield 1 year ago
He sure was one of the greatest tenors!!!!. He performs this aria in a so rounded voice and full voice, that it makes it appear as if it was easy !!! It is a pity he is not around with us physically , but sure his spirit will survive us!!!!!...thanks for posting and sharing this wonderful talent of Jerry Hadley Bravoooo!!!!
tenorschofield 1 year ago
@tenorschofield
You are right: Miguel Burró Fleta (1 December or 28 December 1892, Albalate de Cinca, Huesca Province, Spain - 28 May or 30 May 1938, A Coruña) was a Spanish operatic tenor.
Remember what I said, ithis is not a competition for tenors, but a selection of arias.
jfsanin 1 year ago
I saw Jerry sing this role in Pittsburgh several years before he died. In view of his tragic death, it is very painful to hear. But, it is so gorgeous, that I listen again and again, anyway, and just wipe away the tears. May he rest in peace. He was a dear friend and my all time favorite singer and person. I'll miss him the rest of my life. Lea Frey
leafrey 1 year ago
Gosh, sounds like he ha masses of ring in that voice
Mooorhe 1 year ago
@Mooorhe Oh yeah!
MrCafiero 1 year ago
Beautiful performance of a very fine singer...thanks to post this recording and share with us.
69brancaleone 2 years ago
Caruso died at 48, Fleta at 38 and this very good tenor at 55. If they would live more, they could give much more, since their talent was
huge. Thank for posting. 10/10 ***
jfsanin 2 years ago 2
@jfsanin Fleta wasn't 38, he was around 45. Still, it's very young to die.
You forget Mario Lanza and Fritz Wunderlich (among many others who died too soon) who were, in my opinion very good tenors. It's just tragic.
tommieboy1657 1 year ago
@tommieboy1657 Jussi Bjoerling died young as well.
seektheforce 1 year ago
Very beautiful singing from the late Jerry Hadley. And the French is more than passable. Thanks so much for sharing this.
meltzerboy 2 years ago
@meltzerboy when was this recorded? Because you say "the late" Jerry Hadley.
He was just great...
tommieboy1657 1 year ago
@tommieboy1657 Not sure of the exact date; MrCafiero (the poster) can give you that information. In case you didn't know, Jerry Hadley committed suicide three years ago at the age of 55. RIP
meltzerboy 1 year ago
@meltzerboy Yes I know very well... He's one of my favourite tenors, although I haven't seen him live. It's such a pity, he was so good at what he did.
I hope he's at a better place...
tommieboy1657 1 year ago