Criticism of L. Pavarotti

Pavarotti had a voice that was extensive, fresh, and bright, with a technique attentive to the covering of notes in the passaggi range. Furthermore, he was born in a land where melodrama is rooted in popular culture and he "breathed" the air of opera even within his family (his father was an appreciated amateur tenor). These factors, combined with an extroverted and jovial temperament, contributed to creating one of the greatest tenors of the twentieth century, but also a personality that went far beyond the strictly lyrical realm to become an international star, a positive representative of Italian identity in the world.
As an opera singer, he was of the highest caliber, even if he cannot be counted among the absolute greatest of all time.

To give a few examples, his technique had some shortcomings in the phonation of mezzo-voce; his diction, excellent in Italian, was approximate in foreign languages; and his taste, especially in the second half of his career, sometimes indulged in a cheap theatricality.
But in the first fifteen years of his career, his privileged color combined with a summary but rigorous stylistic sobriety led to extraordinary results

I agree with both; I only add that Pavarotti had a formidable ear (far from "arrhythmic"!), which allowed him to learn parts with ease, even without an accurate analysis of the score. He sang with the greatest conductors of his time; it may be that some did not like him, but without a doubt he achieved memorable productions and recordings with many of them.

A me era molto simpatico (lo ho anche conosciuto di persona), però effettivamente negli ultimi anni ha assecondato forse troppo questo gusto un po' "kitsch", volto ad assecondare un pubblico vasto e non acculturato: forse per questo ha suscitato alcune reazioni negative. Ma i suoi meriti artistici restano indiscutibili, secondo me.

I agree and disagree, on different points.

First of all, I say that Gilda has probably read an article by Paolo Isotta, a famous critic, still active today, who caused a scandal by saying this and that about Pavarotti, even post-mortem. What can be said, Isotta is hated by practically everyone I know, even fellow critics speak ill of him, but if one wants to fight wrong critical opinions, it must be done with data. And Pavarotti's career demonstrates, in itself, that Pavarotti was not arrhythmic (assuming that means anything). Pavarotti was the son of a teaching tradition, which still persists today, which wants singers to be "ignorant" from a musical standpoint. Even today, very often singers do not truly study the scores, but rather "by ear," meaning with an accompanist pianist who, during long hours of study, tries to teach the part "by ear." By current standards, this is a heavy flaw, but especially in Italy, it is still "tolerated" if, on the other hand, there are noteworthy singing talents.

Pavarotti had exceptional singing talents. So much so that I find myself in total disagreement with Luciano when he says that Pavarotti was not among the top-tier singers, among the "very best of all time." Pavarotti was without a doubt one of the greatest tenors in history, for the impact he had on the world of singing and opera, for his technical skill, and for his vocal talents. From my point of view, there are arguments that work like "litmus tests." To understand when a singer was truly a great singer, in my opinion, one must find at least one role in which they were an example. Pavarotti's repertoire was not vast; today, a tenor with an international career would have many more roles in their repertoire. But Pavarotti went down in history for being practically the best Pollione (Norma) ever, tendentially one of the best Bellinian tenors ever (although this is a particular subject, because the interpretation of Bellini has changed much over the years), one of the best Nemorino (L'elisir d'amore) ever, the main architect of the return of La fille du régiment (Donizetti) to the repertoire, one of the best Andrea Chénier ever (and it is crazy, considering that they were sung by spinto tenors), probably the best Rodolfo ever (and considering that Bohème is an "over-sung" opera, we are talking about the best among thousands), and certainly the best Riccardo (Un ballo in maschera) ever.

thallo wrote:

but if one wants to fight wrong critical opinions, it must be done with data..

... and in effect I have been quite precise

I agree with Thallo.....who also hit the nail on the head regarding the article I read: it was indeed by Isotta. I repeat that I am not an expert in this discipline, but I had the good fortune of listening to an old 1972 recording at the Metropolitan in New York, and (as luck would have it) with Pavarotti in "La fille du régiment (Donizetti).....hallucinating...to me he seemed like a monster of skill, enough to make your skin crawl. Those 9 high notes taken with complete naturalness, with absolute clarity and grace... but aside from the high notes etc... his voice, his timbre.....it is difficult to find them and who knows how long we will have to wait to see stars of this caliber born. Anyway, it surprises me that such nastiness can be said when it is in stark contrast to the opinion of almost everyone, using as an excuse the fact that he diminished art by going through stages here and there. I have the feeling that it is the usual envy towards the greats....unfortunately....and as always we clash there. I don't think Pavarotti took anything away from music; on the contrary, he gave so much. Another recording that I had the grace to listen to is Verdi's Requiem Mass, also together with Renata Scotto, conducted by our dear Maestro Abbado: a marvel there too. How can Isotta say that he was arrhythmic (he had no sense of rhythm...so he says), in a Requiem Mass like Verdi's it is impossible to perform without having a sense of rhythm. His entries (even sudden ones) were perfect, as were the pauses. The dialogues were clear and perfect both in phrasing and in respect for the music.....And he clearly read the score, turning the pages at the right moment, i.e., along with everyone else, and therefore he could not have been a musical illiterate. For me, it is these mean criticisms that take much away from art by not giving due credit to a great artist like Pavarotti...I only had the misfortune of not being able to listen to him live.

LucianoP wrote:

... and indeed I was quite precise

I wasn't referring to you with that phrase :-) it was a way of saying that, regardless of the like or dislike one might have for Isotta (whom I also dislike), the best way to counter an adverse critical opinion is to bring data in favor of one's own opinion :-)

GILDA wrote:

I agree with Thallo.....who also hit the nail on the head regarding the article I read: it was indeed by Isotta. I repeat that I am not an expert in this discipline, but I had the good fortune to listen to an old 1972 recording at the Metropolitan in New York, and (as luck would have it) with Pavarotti in "La fille du régiment (Donizetti).....hallucinating...to me he seemed a monster of skill, enough to make your skin crawl. Those high notes were taken with complete naturalness, with absolute clarity and grace... but aside from the high notes etc... his voice, his timbre.....it is difficult to find them and who knows how long we will have to wait to see stars of this caliber born. Anyway, it surprises me that such nastiness can be said when it is in stark contrast to the opinion of almost everyone, using as an excuse the fact that he diminished art by going through stages here and there. I have the feeling that it is the usual envy towards the greats....unfortunately....and as always we clash there. I don't think Pavarotti took anything away from music; on the contrary, he gave so much. Another recording I had the grace to listen to is Verdi's Requiem Mass along with Renata Scotto, conducted by our dear Maestro Abbado: a marvel there too. How can Isotta say that he was arrhythmic (he had no sense of rhythm...so he says), in a Requiem Mass like Verdi's it is impossible to perform without having a sense of rhythm. His entries (even sudden ones) were perfect, as were the pauses. The phrasing and respect for the music were clear and perfect.....And he clearly read the score, turning the pages at the right moment, i.e., along with everyone else, and therefore he could not have been a musical illiterate. For me, it is these mean criticisms that take much away from art by not giving due merit to a great artist like Pavarotti...I only had the misfortune of not being able to listen to him live

Regarding the score, well, there are levels and levels of reading ;-) I assure you that Pavarotti read poorly :-) but that was his business. How should I say it, if I had a strange allergy to paper, those are my problems, I will study differently; the important thing is that the result of my study is acceptable. If Pavarotti could afford to study with assistants and the result was still outstanding, then good for him! He certainly had the decency not to sing repertoires that were too difficult musically speaking. But we are talking about a person who sang every day in the greatest theaters in the world. One should understand what all this means before giving contemptuous judgments like Isotta...