Hello, everyone!
I know, I haven't posted anything in quite a while, and it's quite shameful. But I will say, I've been having a very busy summer, and I most humbly offer my apologies to whatever nonexistent "following" I have here on Blogger.com.
So, I believe the last promise I managed to make in my blog was to review the new copy of "Lucia di Lammermoor" I bought on Amazon. I've been giving it a lot of thought, and here it goes.
If you take a look back at the entry "Bloody Lucia," you'll find a summary of the plot and a couple of different recommendations. One of them was a recording with the following cast:
Lucia-- Beverly Sills
Edgardo-- Carlo Bergonzi
Enrico-- Piero Cappucilli
Raimondo-- Justino Diaz
Arturo-- Adolf Dallapozza
Alisa-- Patricia Kern
Normanno-- Keith Erwen
Now, there are lots of good things to say about this recording, but I would say that there are also a couple of very minor issues as well. Of course, I've been listening to the Sutherland/Pavarotti/Milnes one for a long time, and naturally, I've become accustomed to it. Carlo Bergonzi is no Pavarotti, And Justino Diaz is no Ghiaurov. BUT! This is not a criticism, it's an honest fact. These singers are different and unique and special in their own ways. They don't need to be alike, because they're all good, just in different ways.
Now, I'd like to say a few things. I have come to appreciate certain aspects of the different singers. As much as I love the tone and pitch and airy quality of Beverly Sills's voice, she adds a lot of unnecessary and sometimes confusing ornamentation. Simultaneously, as much as I don't like the pitch of Joan Sutherland's voice in her later career, I do like that she kept things relatively simple, straightforward, and accurate to the original score. And another thing-- Pavarotti was truly an amazing singer, one of the greatest tenors who ever lived. Naturally, after hearing his heartfelt rendition of Edgardo, Bergonzi isn't quite the same, but aforesaid, that isn't necessarily a bad thing. There were only two things that really bothered me about Bergonzi's performance. First, he uses the "glottal" effect excessively. It honestly gets a little annoying after the first few times he does it. Also, it is difficult for the listener to hear what emotions Bergonzi is using when he sings. I would like to imagine that he is acting, but it's very difficult to tell. It my personal opinion (and I have heard professional singers say similar things) that if a singer doesn't believe in his character and make a conscious decision to "become" his character, there's no magic. There's nothing to make us want to hear the story, in fact, there's no story at all. How can there be a story without characters? If we can't understand or at least care about the characters, how can we care what happens to them?
Pardon me, I just went off on a tangent. But it is something that needs to be said, and it's something that applies to all singers, past, present, and future.
Similarly, I thought Diaz's performance was a trifle cold at times, and the glass harmonica... oh the glass harmonica... I would like to say a few words in regards to the infamous glass harmonica. The instrument was played by the estimable Bruno Hoffman. I will not tell a lie; I have heard many, many people play the instrument more skillfully. When Hoffman plays it, one hears quite a lot of a most wretched scratching sound. I don't know what goes on to make such a sound, but it is most certainly NOT what a glass harmonica is supposed to sound like. If you want a good example of what they're supposed to sound like, look up Robert Tiso on Youtube. Anyway, Hoffman somehow managed to pull himself together with this recording of the Mad Scene-- it really wasn't half bad! The first few times I listened to it, I was using a faulty speaker system and thought the sound was too "scrapey" and too soft. However, I gave it another listen recently, and found that it really wasn't so bad. So beyond the other (again, very slight) problems I mentioned, I have no complaints. On the contrary, I find it incredibly enjoyable. I especially liked the fact that it was recorded in such a fashion that every singer can be distinctly heard. There's hardly ever a time when every single voice cannot be individually heard and told apart from the others, and it makes for such a crystal clear and easy-to-understand rendition of the opera. I love it!! I also love Cappucilli's performance of Enrico. It was thrilling, absolutely thrilling.
So, now I have kept my promise and reviewed the Sills/Bergonzi/Cappucili recording of "Lucia di Lammermoor." I hope you found it helpful and insightful, and I hope you don't think me too presumptuous and snobby.
I remain, as ever, your friend and fellow opera lover,
~R.M.
