FRANCO
CORELLI (1921 - 2003) -- RECOLLECTIONS AND REFLECTIONS
--
Geoffrey Riggs
Since
a lion's share of leading tenor roles, in the Italian rep especially,
are either fighters or lovers -- when they aren't both -- any
artist therefore who can fuse the two in one and the same voice
is automatically rare and valuable. Possibly some of the keenest
commentary on Corelli that I've yet read is Paul Jackson's in
his second volume on the MET b'casts: he spotlights this mercurial
aspect to Corelli's singing right away. For me, that is maybe
Corelli's greatest asset. Simply contrasting his "Si, fui
soldato" with his "Io non ho amato ancor" in Andrea
Chenier makes this point better than anything I could say.
Beyond
this, Corelli may be unique (even though some very murky cylinders
of De Reszke suggest Corelli may not be alone in this) in the
astonishing capacity to combine the heroic and the amorous within
one and the same phrase through veritably heightening the sweetness
of his tone even as he swells it. How many other dramatic tenors
*increase* the lyricism in their timbres while swelling the tone?!
One thinks of dramatic tenors like Caruso, Melchior, Lauri-Volpi,
Del Monaco, Vickers, Vinay, Urlus, Tamagno, etc. -- all of these,
for the most part (however adept *some* *of* *them* may be in
combining the lyrical and heroic styles), *usually* forfeit lyrical
coloring when going for the grandest tones of all. Yes, Caruso,
Melchior, Lauri-Volpi, Vickers -- they all sing quite tenderly
when they want to. But the intrinsic coloring of their voices
*usually* preclude tenderness when opening out for the "trumpet
blast" (yes, there are a few tender fortissimos in the Caruso
canon, but they are mostly from his earlier records when the voice
was not yet a full dramatic, IMO).
For
a few, this predominantly tender quality that Corelli sustains
even at his most clarion marks him as the greatest tenor of all,
for others it ends up as a handicap, making his singing a bit
cloying. For me, I became a diehard Corelli fan during the '60s,
because I found the generous "vocal face" (to use John
Steane's phrase) exceptionally vulnerable and moving, particularly
in the context of so much intrinsic vocal power. There was genuine
interpretive inwardness *in* *the* *voice*, a feeling of a soul
laid bare despite the glorious vocal armor and squillo, stirring
and intriguing one through its touching contrast of abundant vocal
power versus human susceptibility. During the '60s, no other tenor
that I had yet heard in person affected me the same way.
That
said, there are reasons why I might demur, many years later, at
the idea of according him the title of Greatest Tenor.
There
were nights when he clearly was not on top of his music.
There
were nights when a fidgetiness overtook what could sometimes be
a marvelously concentrated and focused interpretive approach.
Overwhelming but artistically focused spontaneity of feeling alternated
with utter lack of self-control or self-discipline. Yes, there
were some nights when even Corelli's less disciplined phrases
still rang emotionally true and did not seem at all self-indulgent,
but there were, conversely, nights when self-indulgence was the
dominant impression. Mind you, even today, I prize an undisciplined
emotional engagement with the character *marginally* more than
a deliberately calculated, self-preserving restraint. But the
balance of preference, for me, is a close one.
There
is also -- and this is putting it mildly, IMO -- his highly individual
diction to consider. Many will stoutly maintain -- and no doubt
this is true -- that this was strictly a matter of regional dialect,
not something that was necessarily under Corelli's control at
all. At the same time, many find it assuming distinctly eccentric
proportions in his studio recordings, where closer miking is generally
the rule (even a very few of his "live" recordings bring
this out as well).
I
can only say that this was not so noticeable in the hall, and
I was never so bothered by it, since I brought primarily what
I had heard in the hall to the experience of hearing his studio
recordings at the time, where I usually latched on more to those
aspects that had already dominated in the hall, recognizing and
focusing on those aspects of his singing for which I would make
an eager purchase of his studio recordings in the first place
(in those days, I was innocent of "live" recordings).
It
has to be recognized, though, that for future generations the
diction will probably bulk larger, for the simple reason that
it bulks larger in many of the studio recordings than it did in
the hall. This is a shame and doesn't give a proportional picture
of his artistry in person. But it is a fact, nevertheless, and
those of us who heard him have to reconcile ourselves to the fact
that posterity's picture of Corelli will always be affected to
a degree by an exaggerated impression of this dialect of his.
Lastly,
when one recalls how assured a Melchior, a Lauri-Volpi, a Vickers,
what-have-you, still sound in their 50s, Corelli, however durable
his *voice*, makes a disturbing contrast in, IMO, his inconsistent
*technical* control from about 1968 on, when he is only 46 (turning
47 in April)! Yes, there are still some exciting evenings after
that, but they are fewer and farther between, IMO. Of course,
he is one of the finest tenors of the century all the same, and
I would never regret having seen him in his prime. It's just that
a greater discipline and musicianship would have extended his
career so much longer. It's a shame.
(By
way of shameless proselytizing, I would like to add that impeccable
musicianship need never preclude "stem-winding" emotional
spontaneity: vide the musician's musician Richard
Tauber, whose emotional effect on his audiences, amply confirmed
by his heartfelt recordings, was legendary.)
I'd
say, for the sake of argument, that there would be three main
factors in judging vocalism apart from the instrument itself:
abundance of tonal coloration, basic musicianship, resiliency
in the long term. These are separate and apart from matters of
interpretation, intelligence, etc.-- these are purely to do with
one's physical mastery of the instrument itself.
Corelli
had an infinite array of colors and dynamic shading. For some,
he actually overdid the sheer contrasts, but I admit I was, perhaps,
a "sucker"(?) and I found it thrilling. Recently, Ed
Rosen put Corelli's '66 Nessun dorma on his web site, and it conveys
a very accurate impression of what I recall in person: seamless
legato in the opening phrases, the supple reigning in of dynamics
at "speranza", the effortless opening out at the "Ma
il mio mistero" lines culminating in a "bocca lo diro"
of dazzling freedom and a "Quando la luce" utterly free
of the throat. As if this isn't enough, "splendera"
is given a tender pianissimo, evoking the hushed stillness of
dawn. "[F]a mia" is given a similar pianissimo, and
so on.
When
it comes to basic resiliency and musicianship, those factors emerge
more sharply through a retrospective of Corelli's career and some
of the extant recordings we have of him.
His
best years, IMO, were really seasons. Apparently, he would "retool"
his voice through diagnostic sessions with a tape recorder (sic!)
every summer or so. I remember suspecting something of this kind
before I even knew for sure he really did this. I would notice
that there would be marked improvements in his singing from time
to time around the early fall or during summer appearances. And
things would start getting a little sloppy by late winter/early
spring the following year. Clearly, there were always exceptions
to this, but the general pattern seemed to hold. So for me, I've
come to think of Corelli in terms of '60/61 versus '68/69 and
so on, not '60 versus '69 or what-have-you.
Corelli
started out with an occluded vowel production and a fast vibrato
(*not* a tremolo) in the 1950s. As his career progressed during
that decade, his production grew more open, sweeter, and much
steadier. He hit his stride in the '60/61 season, though there
were occasions in the '50s when one could guess the (positive)
path his development was taking at that time (the Frazzoni Fanciulla
['56], the Cerquetti Norma ['58], the Olivero Adriana Lecouvrer
in '59, etc.).
His
Poliuto, opening the '60/61 Scala season, maintains this more
forward, sweeter quality to a greater extent than any earlier
performance.
I've
always thought that Corelli's achievement in the Poliuto, a role
written specifically for the practically superhuman Adolf Nourrit,
is one of the more amazing things ever put on disc. True, I could
wish this production had not opted for certain cuts (that missing
"Fu macchiato" hurts). But no other Poliuto I've heard
combines the same tenderness in the last act with the dark coloring
in some of the earlier scenes, the physical ease across a big
range, the variety of dynamics throughout, the vivid "face"
needed in the voice for the mercurial shifts in Poliuto's remarkably
volatile character, the easy strength and sweep in the great confrontation
in the temple that closes Act II.
Unfortunately,
his partner, Callas as Paolina, can sound pretty tentative, IMO,
alongside Corelli's brilliantly moody and assured impersonation.
He defers to Callas in one respect, and certainly not a negligible
one for this opera: easy suppleness. But even here, adept as some
of Callas's singing is, too many tricky sequences such as her
cabaletta, for instance, still find her uncomfortable in other
respects, making her undoubted suppleness less the point, sad
to say.
I
do not necessarily believe either artist to be superior to the
other. But with an historic achievement like Corelli's Poliuto
to consider, arguably the most expressive rendering available
of one of the most demanding tenor roles yet written, this seems
a clear instance where Corelli overshadowed Callas rather than
the other way around. Yes, her quiet lower-lying artistry in the
"Qual preghiera" solo, for instance, is highly distinctive
and a balm for the ears as well as the soul. Would that all of
Paolina's music could have been like that the whole evening! It's
frustrating to think that in later performances of this run, Leyla
Gencer, then at her peak, took over, while Corelli's growing confidence
in this opera spurred him on to a triumphant optional high D (a
note nowhere in his discography, SFAIK) at the conclusion of the
Temple Scene! Yet I'm not aware of a single note having surfaced
from this later pairing.
A
related "What-if?", if I may: Personally, I regret Corelli's
having never sung Otello. I think he would have had no problem
with it. In fact, he would have thrived on it, IMHO.
Since
I am one of those who feels that it's axiomatic that Poliuto is
fully as heavy as Otello (before Otello, Poliuto was a specialty
of Tamagno's) -- while being even more difficult because of its
requirements for greater suppleness -- I feel that Corelli had
already "crossed the Rubicon" in doing Poliuto in 1960.
He was already 39 years old at that time. The essential nature
of his voice was pretty much set. Having survived -- in fact,
triumphed, IMO -- in Poliuto, Otello might not have been much
of a stretch for him after all.
I
recall that Ponselle in her autobiography speaks of her having
been momentarily at sea after having mastered Norma -- in effect,
"where can you go after Norma?!" Corelli may have felt
the same way about Poliuto -- "what could trump Poliuto?!"
So after doing one other big Nourrit role, Raoul in Huguenots
(or Ugonotti in Italian), Corelli branched out in more lyric repertoire
instead rather than attempt a futile(?) duplication of his Poliuto
triumph with Otello or with its equivalent. The chief remaining
Nourrit role we will never hear him in now is Arnold in Rossini's
Guillaume Tell, arguably more of a complement to the staggering
Poliuto than the marginally more lyrical Raoul. In a way, I regret
the absent Arnold as much as the absent Verdi Otello.
As
an artistic achievement, Poliuto stands as probably the most ambitious
accomplishment of Corelli's career. But his instrument, while
having reached a significant plateau with this role, was not yet
as completely free and open as it would later become.