Search - Gioachino Rossini, Angelo Manzotti, Tatjana Korovina :: Rossini - Aureliano in Palmira / Manzotti, Korovina, D. George

Very Interesting, Beautifully done, but dull

07/24/2003

(4 out of 5 stars)

"This recording is not the first of this opera, nor is it necessarily the best. However, it is NOT the worst. Overall the recording is quite lovely. The orchestra accompanies the singers well, they make the music soar, and basically everything seems fine. The singers even do very admirable jobs at tackling the music. The problem is one is not moved at all. It is like one is listening to some "study" of a work, not a really involved rendition of it. The is no evidence that the singers actually feel their roles, or are part of their characters (now in all fairness, all the characters are one dimensional to the extreme). Manzotti's achievement as a "sopranist" is remarkable. He sings the notes, and has a very good range. Unlike most countertenors, there is a bit more freedom in his voice, and it does hold its own well with the other singers. Yet, even with all his great accomplishments, his technigue is flawed. Firstly, having the score, I found it nearly impossible at times to have any idea what he was singing about. This opera is not as elaborate of later Rossini (he still relied on a singer to decorate things), so that wasn't the reason (besides, Manzotti's colorature is quite good, so that is not a problem). We often complain that Dame Joan was impossible to comprehend, well, this singer is even worse than she. There were times one heard a hard, nearly "angry" sound that was to represent feeling, but it didn't do anything but sound angry and scratchy. Manzotti's voice is also very "wooly." There seems to be little focus, and its basic sound (no matter what he calls himself) is still that of a countertenor. Though there is space around a note so it can sound more freely than the average countertenor, it still lacks that "ping" singers seek that give the voice a penetrating quality so needed in bel canto singing. Most singers learn that it is necessary to support the voice well, and focus it into the upper teeth when singing low passages so that the words will not be lost, and they won't be covered by the orchestra (this is called singing on the words, letting the diction carry the voice). This is a skill I would recommend Manzotti try and add to his technique, for it will give his sound more presence, more personality, and help with his diction. There are many places his support drops out, particularly in descending passages, and there are many places one is given the impression he has run short of breath (he may not have, but the last note of a phrase is not given the same intensity as the rest of the phrase; this doesn't mean volume, one can sing the tiniest pianissimo, like Caballe does quite often, but the support, the intensity of the sound just remain the same or the phrase sounds like it is falling off). This skill is called "singing on the breath." The breath is supported, and nothing more than the smallest amount is needed to send the tone flying. When there is a sense of dropping support one then starts to sing "with the breath" which leads to either forcing the voice through muscles, or to the tone dying and becoming lifeless. If he works on these things, he will truly start to communicate something with his audience, more than just skill and a very pleasant sound.

Everyone seems to lack any form of expression, even though they sing extremely well, and very beautifully. And when it comes to trills, well, few of them are that good, and none of Manzotti's sound at all. He begins a trill correctly, but as soon as it is "let loose" to sound, the different notes become one note, it becomes nothing. The real drawback of this opera has nothing whatever to do with how it is performed, but rather with the work itself. Rossini was terrible when it came to borrowing from himself, and nearly all this opera can be heard in other operas (particularly the Barber of Seville: right from the overture to most of the solo pieces and many duets; slightly different, that is true, but still very recognizable). What is at times irritating is you recongnize the piece, as we are used to hearing it, then you hear it in a way that is far less exciting, far less involving, and you sort of just sit there wondering when the piece is going to come together. We must remember this opera was written before all his reworking of those pieces into the exciting forms we are used to them now, and it does take considerable effort to listen to the work for what it was, and for its originality. This is a charming work, and this is a wonderfully sung performance of it. I can't say if it is authentic in its rendition (who can?), but it is worth the listening to. However, unless you are someone who really loves this sort of opera, I am not sure I would buy it before listening to it. I know for me, it isn't a work I will play very often, simply because it is not one that I find all that interesting. I much prefer later Rossini, and I like his more serious operas more than his comic ones, and I like dizzing displays of colorature by singers who know how to make it mean something. As good as this recording is (that is why I rated it highly), it isn't completely my cup of tea."