What? Are you believing in fantasy? Important Fact: Standing Bodies Of Water are *always* level (level means no elevation or deviation from the starting point to the end). This is a scientific fact because this is observable, testable, repeatable, measurable, demonstrable by every single human being alive. This fact alone destroys the mathematical concept and religious idea known as the "heliocentric model". More specifically, this fact alone makes it impossible for us to live on an exterior of a pear-shaped sphere spinning at fantastical speeds going nowhere. Just before you start to attach straw man fallacies on to me, keep in mind these important things: There are three different sciences: Natural Science (which deals with the Objective World) Social Science (deals with societies and the relationship between people in societies) Formal Science (deals with languages such as mathematics which bares no connection to the Objective World) "What is the shape of the earth I stand upon?" this is a Natural Science question. Science does not belong to an institution or a group of people. It belongs to every single human being alive. We live in the present. Not in the past or the future. History can never be considered as a fact of reality in any way shape or form because of obvious reasons. We can't directly experience the past or the future. Just observing something is not a fact that something exists. We need observable, testable, repeatable, measurable, demonstrable practical proofs for something to be considered as a fact. This is also known as the Scientific Method. There is a difference between the corporeal world (the physical world) and the visible world. The reason why we can't conclude something as a fact based on our observations is because we know things get smaller based on how far they're from us when we see them through our eyes. If I see a railroad, the lines look like they're converging, but we know that's impossible because people measured the lines, and the lines are parallel. The lines don't actually meet in real life, it's just how we see things. Our eyes are spherical, we see euclidean (planar) world through spherical eyes. Without physically testing, repeating, measuring, and accessing something in full three dimensions, it's impossible to know exactly what it is that we're trying to quantify. Looking up at the sky does not give you measurable proof of the earth you stand upon. It's like looking up at the light in your room and then measuring the floor based on that light. It's absurd. Images and videos are never considered as scientific proofs because of obvious reasons. Images and videos can be manipulated, they're not tangible. We can't directly experience them. Mathematical equations bare no relation to the Objective World. Mathematics is just a language, like English. Just because something is mathematically correct does not make it real. It's like saying "I'm flying!", even though the sentence is grammatically correct, I'm obviously not flying right now. "Gravity" is a mathematical concept, its pseudoscience. It does not have any practical proofs. Magical pulling forces don't exist in the Objective Reality. Motion only happens if something presses on something else (pressure variants). Pull is just a term for taking something closer to someone. Things falling down has got nothing to do with the shape of the earth. In the simplest sense things that weigh more than air fall, and things that weigh less than air float. Why do things even fall? No one has any practical proof for why things even have weight. The mathematical theorists are making assumptions about why things are falling, but understand that those are just assumptions, not facts. The sky, the Moon, the Sun, and the Stars are all intangibles. If every single human being can't observe, test, repeat, measure, demonstrate something in a practical fashion, it is considered a belief, or pseudoscience. Does every single human being has access to these lights in the sky? Obviously not. Not to mention stars look like flashing lights when looked through a Nikon COOLPIX P900 (It's still not a proof of anything because we can't move around them in full three dimensions). Admitting to yourself that you truly don't know something is the most honest realization you could have, it is how you progress further. For example, I do not know what the Sun is. The mathematical theorists are making assumptions of what the Sun is, and where it is located. They don't know what the Sun actually is, or where it is located. Unless I could move around the Sun in full three dimensions, the only possible stance I can have is "I don't know". Anything beyond that will be a belief. For example, if I say "The Sun is a cylinder-shaped object moving in the sky", it is just a belief because I can't move around the Sun in full three dimensions to know if it's a cylinder or a circle. The only thing I know is that it's a light in the sky moving in a straight line across the sky (because of how our eyes work it looks like the Sun is moving in an arc across the sky, but the Sun is actually moving across the sky in a straight line). Another example, "I know the full dimensions of earth" is also a belief because I never explored the whole world to know the full dimensions. Remember, something only becomes a fact if it's observable, testable, repeatable, measurable, demonstrable by every single human being alive. In this case, each and every individual should explore the Objective World to it's fullest extent, listening to "authorities" is just a belief. The world "map" is also a concept, because every single human being didn't explored the whole world to verify or falsify the map. People are believing in whatever the "governments" say or show. People are literally believing in complete strangers and thinking the official "world map" is true and there is nothing more to explore because they see a blue sphere on their TV. Just because the majority of the population are believing something exists doesn't mean something actually exists in the Objective World. Once again, we need OTRMDPPs for something to be considered a fact of the Objective Reality. Letters before your name does not mean anything. Direct experience is the most important thing. If we can't experience something directly then most of the time it's useless for us. I can only represent myself. Personalities are OUT of the question. If I drop a brick on my head I know what's going to happen. The objective reality does not change based on your subjective opinions or beliefs. It is what it is. Why is this important? Well, the government and its associations are BLATANTLY lying about our existence, the shape of the world, and the dimensions of the world. What's more important than finding out how far the world extends? Full exploration is needed for further understanding of life's most important questions: where we are, why we're here, and what's it all about. Without knowing where we are everything we do is just a concept. For example, if I give you a board, and without giving you any instructions or rules, I want you to play a game, what game are you going to play? The government and its associations are telling you what you're suppose to do, what's expected of you, what you're not suppose to do. Who agreed to their "law" book? I certainly did not. How is it fair that the government and its associations (the police and the military) are imposing their subjective rules onto the human beings? Everyone has different rules about different things, subjective rules are personal, they're NOT objective. These governments, police, military are imposing their SUBJECTIVE rules onto others, this is nothing short of tyranny. Why can't we freely explore the objective world as much as we like? Why is there a physical, and mental restriction by the police, the military, and by psychopaths known as the governments? Remember, no one rules if no one obeys. "People are arguing and fighting over what game to play when they don't even know the board they're playing on" -Del (Beyond the imaginary curve youtube channel: ua-cam.com/channels/vswlgeHodOejVN21TWweLw.html) (People are arguing about what to do without knowing the full dimensions of the world) Another analogy: if I erase your memory and put you in a confinement, what is the first thing you're going to look for? Where's the exit. But if I put some actors to distract you by showing you books and telling you there is no exit, then you'll never try to even think about the exit, there will be other brainwashed people just like you who'll brainwash you even more. Then some other actors will tell you what to do, what's expected of you, what you're not suppose to do, and what's the punishment for breaking their god-given "law" book, some other brainwashed people will also have weapons so that common people like you will forcefully follow my law book, which makes my job incredibly easy by making you a slave if that's what I was ever up to. Why should we accept slavery? Why should we accept strangers imposing their subjective versions of what's good and what's bad onto us? If you have OTRMDPPs (Observable, Testable, Repeatable, Measurable, Demonstrable Practical Proofs) that large Standing Bodies Of Water can bend, (sounds absurd to even think about it) please feel free to email me at MysteriousPlane@pm.me, but understand that I should be able to demonstrate your claims in a practical fashion, because that's how the Objective World works. No offense, but If your claims does not have any practical proofs, then I'm afraid I have to conclude that you're either blatantly lying or you're really stupid (Or for some reason you want to defend your religious beliefs, because the Earth being a sphere is a religious belief, a mathematical concept, it has no practical proofs, it has no relation to the Objective World, that being real life).
@@santoshpss We are talking about singing here, not the shape of the earth. If you want to talk about that, I suggest you go to the comment section of a National Geographic video.
@@Tenore1921 I know that, dude. What I'm saying is that, in the real-world, if that metaphor were real, it would be impossible. What the governments claim is that up there is a vacuum. But unfortunately for them, you can't have two opposing pressure systems without a concrete barrier. Make a vacuum, put gas, water, earth, and other stuff in it. See what happens. Will all of that magically come together to form a ball? Nope. Standing water is always level in the real-world. But in the CGI world, they show it as bending. I'm just trying to understand the Objective World we all share.
As a classical voice student, and a lírico spinto tenor myself, I have the greatest of respect and devotion to this man. The passion, the color of the voice, the TRUTH in the emotion, the easiness, and that tone... People often talk about Franco because of his crazy power, or the steel like quality of his high register, the beautiful diminuendos (E lucevan in Parma 67...), but come on... What about his lows??? The intonation was amazing, the weight, the phrasing, the color... I guess Franco is my favorite tenor because of his resemblance to some baritones, because I LOVE baritone voices!!! The warmth and depth of low voices is something I miss in most tenors. But he had it as well!!! 😄
You will love the baritenors, then, if you've heard of them.... Strength, depth and warmth of a normal baritone, but instead of normal baritones they can also sing as high as the Heldentenor/spinto tenor can as well if asked. they usually start off as normal baritones, but with some training become capable of singing the high tenor notes as well while maintaining the baritone strength and stamina. Thomas Borchert is another good example of a grand baritenor. How do i know? I'm a baritenor as well, though i only sing in the local choir and never studied it, but my singing technique and sound is very opera like.
@@martenspitzner408 Franco Corelli was actually classified as a baritone-tenor by Rodolfo Celetti. He did start as a baritone. However, he was obviously a tenor. The baritenor works well in music theatre, where you can use mixed voice. But it doesn’t necessarily work well in opera. The baritone-tenor type of voices usually struggles with high notes and they often don’t have ringing top notes. There are a few heldentenors in this type of category and they are not very well suited to Italian heavy repertoire. Of course there are exceptions here and there, but that is what you generally get.
Thanks for this. I hadn't heard it before. Corelli is my all-time favorite tenor for a myriad of reasons, not the least of which is I simply like the quality of his voice the most and if I could sing like the best of them, this is the way I would like to do it.
He never was a baritone but at the beginning of his vocal education he thought he is. When he was passing exams to the Conservatory of Pesaro he wrote in an application form that his type of voice is a baritone. His vocal teacher Arturo Melocchi changed his mind. But he resingned later because the studies were too expensive for him. He returned to Ancona but his friend, a baritone, a pupil of Melocchi at the time was giving him privet lessons what he learned with Melocchi.
@@HammondDER Corelli had lessons with Lauri-Volpi in the mid of 1950s when he already was after his debut. The lessons with Melocchi were about ten years earlier.
There are a lot of tenors who begin their training erroneously thinking they are baritones. I was one of them, but I’m actually a very high tenor. I just had passaggio issues.
Lo eran, aunque Franco se inició como barítono :) Lo que ocurre es que conservo una oscuridad y dramatismo en sus graves que se echan muchísimo de menos en tantísimos tenores... Sus agudos eran penetrantes al extremo, con una facilidad encomiable. Pero se suele olvidar la belleza y calidez de su registro bajo, que era increible
Sempre grande e insuperabile! Grazie a tutte le persone che condividono questo ricordo unico!!il prossimo anno sarà centenario nascita!! Cosa possiamo fare? Siamo tanti!Ti diamo il benvenuto negli appunti di Gboard, in cui verrà salvato il testo copiato.
He is generally known as a dramatic spinto. Sometimes spinto's are placed in two categories, lyric or light spinto and full spinto or dramatic spinto. These rankings are often about the roles you play. Franco Corelli did a lot of spinto roles. Spinto roles requires a bigger voice but they also often require very good high notes as well. Dramatic tenors are not always expected to have good B4 and C5 notes. But Franco Corelli also did dramatic tenor roles as well. I think he could easily be classified as a dramatic spinto or just a dramatic tenor. Franco Corelli had a really big voice, his voice was bigger and louder then almost all dramatic tenors, (Mario Del Monaco's middle register was louder then Franco Corelli mid range). But people might say that his voice had a slightly lighter colour, and a warmer tone then many dramatic tenors. His voice also had a certain ping and squillio that you can associate with a spinto tenor. Brigit Nilsson who obviously sang Turandot alongside him many times, said he had the most powerful high notes of all singers. So I guess a lot of it comes down to roles, Othello is the most revered role for a dramatic tenor, and Franco never did the role, but if he had the time he could likely easily have done the role very well.
I'm not Italian but I really like Franco Corelli, Luciano Pavarotti and many others, I also like this powerful music, but please if you could provide me with the English translation I would be grateful... I really am eager to know the lyrics...
"Monastery of Santa Chiara, my heart is so dark. why? Because everynight I think about how Naples was and how it is now" It's basically an after war song and the guy is going back to his city (Naples), but he's afraid of not finding the usual beauty but war ruins.
Spyres is good, but he's nowhere near as good as Corelli. Corelli is also naturally a baritenor, as he was trained as a baritone. His lows are comparable to a baritone's aswell. But his highs are bigger than any tenor's lol. The Melocchi method really is something else
"Transition from Baritone to Tenors" There is no such a thing. Just because he has resonance down there that means he has good chest technique as it should be. There is this misconception a tenor isn't capable of doing resonant A#2. They should be they are men after all.
Wait! But Florez didn't _taught_ that you shouldn't sing like this? That the audience listening to you is just a minor part of singing? That a tenor _shouldn't sound like a tenor_ what about like a baritone! Blasphemy!
la voz de RUDY es mucho más pesada y heroica, la voz de CORELLI, dramática, jamás baritonal, los dos tenores di forsa, spinto, KUFMANN no tiene cabida aquí, la voz de RUDY ciertamente más grande, no se trata de alcanzar notas altas, impresionantes voces tanto cono BONISOLI y LANZA.
Who is Rudy, I hope you are not referring to Rudy Park? Vocal voice size is very deceptive, darkness of the voice has nothing to do with the size of the voice. Kaufman has a small voice he is lyric tenor with a depressed lowered larynx, making his voice dark. but he is a lyric tenor in vocal size. Bonisolli had a medium sized voice, he was a true spinto tenor but he never had much squillo. When Lanza performed roles live, he was a light lyric tenor. Corelli had a massive voice, he had one of the biggest and loudest tenor voices of past 100 years. Squillo and metal in the voice makes a dramatic voice really loud, it is the squillo that can cut through orchestras and choirs. The weight of the voice will not make the voice the travel within an opera house, loud. I will show you how this works with Nessun Dorma, that is really Rudy Park's signature aria, ua-cam.com/video/jtzSZjDMr4s/v-deo.htmlsi=ErGvYw0t0Oi1xONc. What I see from Rudy Park is that he purposely places far too much weight on the middle register, he is trying to create a big sound in the middle register. But because of all the force and the weight he adds to his middle register, he has no flexibility or dynamics. He doesn't have legato or good phrasing. A tenor's high notes should be free, it should be louder then the rest of the voice even if the tenor does not have squillo. Parks puts in a massive effort but there is no actually loud sound there, and this is not even the full orchestra that is used with Turandot. He sounds muffled. Lets compare it to Corelli, his version is a pirate or bootleg recording ,it not the best recording technology although the sound is pretty good for a bootleg. This was taken during a live performance of the full opera of Turandot, from La Scalla 1966. So this is a much bigger orchestra that was used then on the Rudy Park version. ua-cam.com/video/03mV-5TxsDE/v-deo.htmlsi=I68KHrwLMObcegR3 You will clearly hear that Corelli's voice is much louder then Rudy Park's voice. Corelli's voice is louder because his voice has metal and also squillo, that is what makes dramatic voices huge. Corelli does the opposite of Park, he lightens his middle register, and sings long and smooth legato lines, his breathing is miles ahead Park, he connects lines seamlessly together in one breath. His voice is far more flexible (and Corelli never had one the most flexible voices), but he is like a leggero tenor against Park. And the reason is because Park overblows his middle register giving him no flexibility. Corelli even adds pianissimo in the middle. Corelli's high notes are huge, they are free, loud and ringing. Corelli always had a very big voice, as a result he did not have to force his voice or add more eight to his voice, he could sing lightly and he knew his voice would still sound big. Rudy park forces his voice to add more weight, in order to create the illusion that his voice is big. His voice is likely medium sized. He is nowhere near the same stratosphere of Corelli. But a big part of the reason is because he was taught the wrong techniques, he does have a pleasant voice underneath the issues. He does his best with the technique he has.
comprendo vuestro punto, pero no me inquieta en nada la voz de RUDY, como voz decís, su vibrato es un tanto pesado, escasos armónicos, y pocos colores, he aquí la sutileza de CORELLI, donde supero por mucho a DEL MONACO, nunca sutil y solo considerado como el más grande tenor dramático, pero CORELLI como el más grande , con lo cual estoy de acuerdo, aun y cuando su voz no es la primera en mi lista, la voz de CORELLI ciertamente es inmensa, no es más pesada, inclusive, LANZA poseyó una voz más pesada que CORELLI y DEL MONACO, pero más pura líricamente hablando, su fraseo saludable y una voz flexible y noble, ciertamente BONISOLI no poseyó una voz media, y el problema con LANZA es simplemente de apreciación, poseyó la más hermosa vos de todos ellos y por lo tanto a algunos no les pareciese realmente tan grande como era, DEL MONACO, GIACOMINI, PERTILE, VICKERS, tampoco por asi decirlo CARUSO, no poseyeron voces hermosas, me apasiona WUNDERLICH, FLETA, DI STEFANO, GIGLI, BORLING aunque también su vibrato en ocasiones era muy pesado, pero su técnica era imbatible, nadie como el cantaba en 6 idiomas en una sola noche , y su acento y dicción en todos estos idiomas era cuando menos ideal o perfecto. !SALUDOS!
No weakness throughout the range of notes sung here but the transition to the higher tessitura and climb to the high C sounds SPECTACULAR 👏
That entire voice was like a Ferrari... amazing Franco!
What's the song is,please😘
@@vitalylaletin4646 +
@@vitalylaletin4646 munastera e santa chiara
No! Not a Ferrari, he crashed a few of those.
@@MindyLeahWilkinsonrespectfully, you are remembering Mario del Monaco. Had a passion for fast cars and was injured seriously in a crash
Hard to believe! The rocket goes from space to another galaxy! Incredible!
What? Are you believing in fantasy? Important Fact:
Standing Bodies Of Water are *always* level (level means no elevation or deviation from the starting point to the end). This is a scientific fact because this is observable, testable, repeatable, measurable, demonstrable by every single human being alive. This fact alone destroys the mathematical concept and religious idea known as the "heliocentric model". More specifically, this fact alone makes it impossible for us to live on an exterior of a pear-shaped sphere spinning at fantastical speeds going nowhere.
Just before you start to attach straw man fallacies on to me, keep in mind these important things:
There are three different sciences:
Natural Science (which deals with the Objective World)
Social Science (deals with societies and the relationship between people in societies)
Formal Science (deals with languages such as mathematics which bares no connection to the Objective World)
"What is the shape of the earth I stand upon?" this is a Natural Science question.
Science does not belong to an institution or a group of people. It belongs to every single human being alive.
We live in the present. Not in the past or the future. History can never be considered as a fact of reality in any way shape or form because of obvious reasons. We can't directly experience the past or the future.
Just observing something is not a fact that something exists. We need observable, testable, repeatable, measurable, demonstrable practical proofs for something to be considered as a fact. This is also known as the Scientific Method.
There is a difference between the corporeal world (the physical world) and the visible world. The reason why we can't conclude something as a fact based on our observations is because we know things get smaller based on how far they're from us when we see them through our eyes. If I see a railroad, the lines look like they're converging, but we know that's impossible because people measured the lines, and the lines are parallel. The lines don't actually meet in real life, it's just how we see things. Our eyes are spherical, we see euclidean (planar) world through spherical eyes.
Without physically testing, repeating, measuring, and accessing something in full three dimensions, it's impossible to know exactly what it is that we're trying to quantify.
Looking up at the sky does not give you measurable proof of the earth you stand upon. It's like looking up at the light in your room and then measuring the floor based on that light. It's absurd.
Images and videos are never considered as scientific proofs because of obvious reasons. Images and videos can be manipulated, they're not tangible. We can't directly experience them.
Mathematical equations bare no relation to the Objective World. Mathematics is just a language, like English. Just because something is mathematically correct does not make it real. It's like saying "I'm flying!", even though the sentence is grammatically correct, I'm obviously not flying right now.
"Gravity" is a mathematical concept, its pseudoscience. It does not have any practical proofs. Magical pulling forces don't exist in the Objective Reality. Motion only happens if something presses on something else (pressure variants). Pull is just a term for taking something closer to someone.
Things falling down has got nothing to do with the shape of the earth. In the simplest sense things that weigh more than air fall, and things that weigh less than air float. Why do things even fall? No one has any practical proof for why things even have weight. The mathematical theorists are making assumptions about why things are falling, but understand that those are just assumptions, not facts.
The sky, the Moon, the Sun, and the Stars are all intangibles. If every single human being can't observe, test, repeat, measure, demonstrate something in a practical fashion, it is considered a belief, or pseudoscience. Does every single human being has access to these lights in the sky? Obviously not. Not to mention stars look like flashing lights when looked through a Nikon COOLPIX P900 (It's still not a proof of anything because we can't move around them in full three dimensions).
Admitting to yourself that you truly don't know something is the most honest realization you could have, it is how you progress further. For example, I do not know what the Sun is. The mathematical theorists are making assumptions of what the Sun is, and where it is located. They don't know what the Sun actually is, or where it is located. Unless I could move around the Sun in full three dimensions, the only possible stance I can have is "I don't know". Anything beyond that will be a belief. For example, if I say "The Sun is a cylinder-shaped object moving in the sky", it is just a belief because I can't move around the Sun in full three dimensions to know if it's a cylinder or a circle. The only thing I know is that it's a light in the sky moving in a straight line across the sky (because of how our eyes work it looks like the Sun is moving in an arc across the sky, but the Sun is actually moving across the sky in a straight line).
Another example, "I know the full dimensions of earth" is also a belief because I never explored the whole world to know the full dimensions. Remember, something only becomes a fact if it's observable, testable, repeatable, measurable, demonstrable by every single human being alive. In this case, each and every individual should explore the Objective World to it's fullest extent, listening to "authorities" is just a belief. The world "map" is also a concept, because every single human being didn't explored the whole world to verify or falsify the map. People are believing in whatever the "governments" say or show. People are literally believing in complete strangers and thinking the official "world map" is true and there is nothing more to explore because they see a blue sphere on their TV.
Just because the majority of the population are believing something exists doesn't mean something actually exists in the Objective World. Once again, we need OTRMDPPs for something to be considered a fact of the Objective Reality.
Letters before your name does not mean anything. Direct experience is the most important thing. If we can't experience something directly then most of the time it's useless for us.
I can only represent myself. Personalities are OUT of the question.
If I drop a brick on my head I know what's going to happen. The objective reality does not change based on your subjective opinions or beliefs. It is what it is.
Why is this important? Well, the government and its associations are BLATANTLY lying about our existence, the shape of the world, and the dimensions of the world. What's more important than finding out how far the world extends? Full exploration is needed for further understanding of life's most important questions: where we are, why we're here, and what's it all about. Without knowing where we are everything we do is just a concept.
For example, if I give you a board, and without giving you any instructions or rules, I want you to play a game, what game are you going to play? The government and its associations are telling you what you're suppose to do, what's expected of you, what you're not suppose to do. Who agreed to their "law" book? I certainly did not. How is it fair that the government and its associations (the police and the military) are imposing their subjective rules onto the human beings? Everyone has different rules about different things, subjective rules are personal, they're NOT objective. These governments, police, military are imposing their SUBJECTIVE rules onto others, this is nothing short of tyranny.
Why can't we freely explore the objective world as much as we like? Why is there a physical, and mental restriction by the police, the military, and by psychopaths known as the governments?
Remember, no one rules if no one obeys.
"People are arguing and fighting over what game to play when they don't even know the board they're playing on" -Del (Beyond the imaginary curve youtube channel: ua-cam.com/channels/vswlgeHodOejVN21TWweLw.html) (People are arguing about what to do without knowing the full dimensions of the world)
Another analogy: if I erase your memory and put you in a confinement, what is the first thing you're going to look for? Where's the exit. But if I put some actors to distract you by showing you books and telling you there is no exit, then you'll never try to even think about the exit, there will be other brainwashed people just like you who'll brainwash you even more. Then some other actors will tell you what to do, what's expected of you, what you're not suppose to do, and what's the punishment for breaking their god-given "law" book, some other brainwashed people will also have weapons so that common people like you will forcefully follow my law book, which makes my job incredibly easy by making you a slave if that's what I was ever up to.
Why should we accept slavery? Why should we accept strangers imposing their subjective versions of what's good and what's bad onto us?
If you have OTRMDPPs (Observable, Testable, Repeatable, Measurable, Demonstrable Practical Proofs) that large Standing Bodies Of Water can bend, (sounds absurd to even think about it) please feel free to email me at MysteriousPlane@pm.me, but understand that I should be able to demonstrate your claims in a practical fashion, because that's how the Objective World works. No offense, but If your claims does not have any practical proofs, then I'm afraid I have to conclude that you're either blatantly lying or you're really stupid (Or for some reason you want to defend your religious beliefs, because the Earth being a sphere is a religious belief, a mathematical concept, it has no practical proofs, it has no relation to the Objective World, that being real life).
@@santoshpss We are talking about singing here, not the shape of the earth. If you want to talk about that, I suggest you go to the comment section of a National Geographic video.
@@marciokobayashi1795 Have you read the first comment?
Santosh P.S.S. He was talking about his voice, and how it’s like a rocket that goes from space to a another galaxy. It’s a metaphor
@@Tenore1921 I know that, dude. What I'm saying is that, in the real-world, if that metaphor were real, it would be impossible. What the governments claim is that up there is a vacuum. But unfortunately for them, you can't have two opposing pressure systems without a concrete barrier.
Make a vacuum, put gas, water, earth, and other stuff in it. See what happens. Will all of that magically come together to form a ball? Nope.
Standing water is always level in the real-world. But in the CGI world, they show it as bending.
I'm just trying to understand the Objective World we all share.
His voice went from 0 to 100 real quick 🤯😱😱
100 to 100000
Well, that's ... Corelli!..
Thank you for the post.
As a classical voice student, and a lírico spinto tenor myself, I have the greatest of respect and devotion to this man.
The passion, the color of the voice, the TRUTH in the emotion, the easiness, and that tone...
People often talk about Franco because of his crazy power, or the steel like quality of his high register, the beautiful diminuendos (E lucevan in Parma 67...), but come on... What about his lows???
The intonation was amazing, the weight, the phrasing, the color...
I guess Franco is my favorite tenor because of his resemblance to some baritones, because I LOVE baritone voices!!! The warmth and depth of low voices is something I miss in most tenors. But he had it as well!!! 😄
What's the song is,please😘
You will love the baritenors, then, if you've heard of them.... Strength, depth and warmth of a normal baritone, but instead of normal baritones they can also sing as high as the Heldentenor/spinto tenor can as well if asked. they usually start off as normal baritones, but with some training become capable of singing the high tenor notes as well while maintaining the baritone strength and stamina. Thomas Borchert is another good example of a grand baritenor.
How do i know? I'm a baritenor as well, though i only sing in the local choir and never studied it, but my singing technique and sound is very opera like.
@@martenspitzner408 Franco Corelli was actually classified as a baritone-tenor by Rodolfo Celetti. He did start as a baritone. However, he was obviously a tenor. The baritenor works well in music theatre, where you can use mixed voice. But it doesn’t necessarily work well in opera. The baritone-tenor type of voices usually struggles with high notes and they often don’t have ringing top notes. There are a few heldentenors in this type of category and they are not very well suited to Italian heavy repertoire. Of course there are exceptions here and there, but that is what you generally get.
Thanks for this. I hadn't heard it before. Corelli is my all-time favorite tenor for a myriad of reasons, not the least of which is I simply like the quality of his voice the most and if I could sing like the best of them, this is the way I would like to do it.
Está en el rango de tenor desde su grave a su agudo impresionante. Tenor Tenor sin dudas.
Assolutamente unico, nessuna parola potrà mai descrivere questa bellezza.
What's the song is,please😘
@@vitalylaletin4646
The song : Munasterio 'e Santa Chiara...
lo penso anche io...
My goodness, this was.incredible!!!
Che meraviglia!
Gigante...
He never was a baritone but at the beginning of his vocal education he thought he is. When he was passing exams to the Conservatory of Pesaro he wrote in an application form that his type of voice is a baritone. His vocal teacher Arturo Melocchi changed his mind. But he resingned later because the studies were too expensive for him. He returned to Ancona but his friend, a baritone, a pupil of Melocchi at the time was giving him privet lessons what he learned with Melocchi.
Corelli never studied with Melocchi.
@@HammondDER He had just few lessons.
@@andrzejzborowski4920 So why you say that Melocchi was his teacher? His teacher was Lauri-Volpi.
@@HammondDER Corelli had lessons with Lauri-Volpi in the mid of 1950s when he already was after his debut. The lessons with Melocchi were about ten years earlier.
There are a lot of tenors who begin their training erroneously thinking they are baritones. I was one of them, but I’m actually a very high tenor. I just had passaggio issues.
Las notas graves de Corelli son de tenor.
Cualquier tenor debe tener bien desarrolladas ambas partes del registro.
Ellos fueron únicos. Una voz con matiz dramático es hoy en día eacasa en el tenor. Pero mis respetos
Lo eran, aunque Franco se inició como barítono :)
Lo que ocurre es que conservo una oscuridad y dramatismo en sus graves que se echan muchísimo de menos en tantísimos tenores...
Sus agudos eran penetrantes al extremo, con una facilidad encomiable. Pero se suele olvidar la belleza y calidez de su registro bajo, que era increible
What's the song is,please😘
Breath taking
Marvelous😍!
Just the best tenor ever✨
❤❤❤El divino Corelli…qué maravilla, madre mía!!!
Sempre grande e insuperabile! Grazie a tutte le persone che condividono questo ricordo unico!!il prossimo anno sarà centenario nascita!! Cosa possiamo fare? Siamo tanti!Ti diamo il benvenuto negli appunti di Gboard, in cui verrà salvato il testo copiato.
Can you please let me know the English translation of what Corelli sung in this video?
Miraculous Corelli...
Unbelievable
Such a wild tamed eruption to thrill all bravo 👏
Magnificent.
Con esto solo confirma que era el más chingón , el mejor , nadie lo supera 👍
What's the song is,please😘
@@vitalylaletin4646 monastero e santa Ciara ( monasterio de Santa clara)
Takes my breath away.
Suena tenoril en toda la tesitura
A voice like a Cannon
Tenor
Impresionante,que voz tan potente !
Unico!
un verdadero Tenor
No Bariton just a great Tenor!!!!!!!
A GREAT LOW TENOR & HIGH TENOR .....
Simplemente Corelli 😍😍
"Gigionata"di grande effetto!!!
What's the name of the song? Kindly assist
Damn!
Holy God in Heaven! This guy is incredible.
Can any one tell me franco is not given a rank of dramatic tenor. I couldnt understand that
He is generally known as a dramatic spinto. Sometimes spinto's are placed in two categories, lyric or light spinto and full spinto or dramatic spinto. These rankings are often about the roles you play. Franco Corelli did a lot of spinto roles. Spinto roles requires a bigger voice but they also often require very good high notes as well. Dramatic tenors are not always expected to have good B4 and C5 notes. But Franco Corelli also did dramatic tenor roles as well. I think he could easily be classified as a dramatic spinto or just a dramatic tenor. Franco Corelli had a really big voice, his voice was bigger and louder then almost all dramatic tenors, (Mario Del Monaco's middle register was louder then Franco Corelli mid range). But people might say that his voice had a slightly lighter colour, and a warmer tone then many dramatic tenors. His voice also had a certain ping and squillio that you can associate with a spinto tenor. Brigit Nilsson who obviously sang Turandot alongside him many times, said he had the most powerful high notes of all singers. So I guess a lot of it comes down to roles, Othello is the most revered role for a dramatic tenor, and Franco never did the role, but if he had the time he could likely easily have done the role very well.
💖👏👏
Volcano voice!
I'm not Italian but I really like Franco Corelli, Luciano Pavarotti and many others, I also like this powerful music, but please if you could provide me with the English translation I would be grateful... I really am eager to know the lyrics...
Haha I can relate 😹
"Monastery of Santa Chiara, my heart is so dark.
why? Because everynight I think about how Naples was and how it is now"
It's basically an after war song and the guy is going back to his city (Naples), but he's afraid of not finding the usual beauty but war ruins.
Spyres or other full baritenors would probably do this a bit better but for someone who ISNT a natural baritone/baritenor this was really good
Mr “Baritenor” is a joke! In theater he high notes are very small! Only in miked concert he sounds good! It’s an artificial sound!
Spyres is good, but he's nowhere near as good as Corelli. Corelli is also naturally a baritenor, as he was trained as a baritone. His lows are comparable to a baritone's aswell. But his highs are bigger than any tenor's lol. The Melocchi method really is something else
God
Which film is this from?
Can I please know the translation of the lyrics in English?
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
Come on! Someone please! What is the English translation of this? :(
soy tenor lírico spinto. pero no soy famoso ni salgo en ningún lado. mi maestro siempre será franco corelli.
What is the name of this song ?
Munasterio e' Santa Chiara 😁
AMAZING ...
HOWEVER NOT BARITONE...
I meant the range that he sung! Not that he is a baritone!
Yep that's right!
WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAT
😳😳😳😳🤪🤪🤪🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Not bad for an accountant!
COMO SE LLAMA LA CANCIÓN??
munasterio 'e santa chiara - Roberto Murolo
@@alvarodecampostabacaria4223 Thank you very much! I was searching for this from so long! I'm grateful for your help... thank you...
@@santoshpss pleasure. Music from Naples is great
...azzo
Can anyone please let me know the English translation of this? I've been asking from a long time!
Im sorry but I dont know it!
@@OperaMyWorld oh... that's really unfortunate...
"Transition from Baritone to Tenors"
There is no such a thing. Just because he has resonance down there that means he has good chest technique as it should be.
There is this misconception a tenor isn't capable of doing resonant A#2. They should be they are men after all.
They can if they tried. I mean sometimes people can do a fach change. But I think Corelli was likely a tenor all along.
@@bradycall1889 he sang the baritone Repertoire for many years before he was famous
Which aria is this from.
Munasterio e' Santa Chiara 😁
@@JavierGomez-bm6fc Thanks.
허허 ㅋㅋㅋ 사람한테서 어떻게 이런소리가나는가
Still doesn’t sound the same a true baritone lol. But that’s okay because he didn’t need good low notes! He's already an amazing tenor!
Minchia.
Wait! But Florez didn't _taught_ that you shouldn't sing like this? That the audience listening to you is just a minor part of singing? That a tenor _shouldn't sound like a tenor_ what about like a baritone! Blasphemy!
Hahahahaha!!! If they (the audience) can’t hear you it’s their problem!!!
Florez es la nada frente a Corelli. Saludos cordiales ❤❤❤❤
la voz de RUDY es mucho más pesada y heroica, la voz de CORELLI, dramática, jamás baritonal, los dos tenores di forsa, spinto, KUFMANN no
tiene cabida aquí, la voz de RUDY ciertamente más grande, no se trata de alcanzar notas altas, impresionantes voces tanto cono BONISOLI y LANZA.
Who is Rudy, I hope you are not referring to Rudy Park? Vocal voice size is very deceptive, darkness of the voice has nothing to do with the size of the voice. Kaufman has a small voice he is lyric tenor with a depressed lowered larynx, making his voice dark. but he is a lyric tenor in vocal size. Bonisolli had a medium sized voice, he was a true spinto tenor but he never had much squillo. When Lanza performed roles live, he was a light lyric tenor.
Corelli had a massive voice, he had one of the biggest and loudest tenor voices of past 100 years. Squillo and metal in the voice makes a dramatic voice really loud, it is the squillo that can cut through orchestras and choirs. The weight of the voice will not make the voice the travel within an opera house, loud. I will show you how this works with Nessun Dorma, that is really Rudy Park's signature aria, ua-cam.com/video/jtzSZjDMr4s/v-deo.htmlsi=ErGvYw0t0Oi1xONc. What I see from Rudy Park is that he purposely places far too much weight on the middle register, he is trying to create a big sound in the middle register. But because of all the force and the weight he adds to his middle register, he has no flexibility or dynamics. He doesn't have legato or good phrasing. A tenor's high notes should be free, it should be louder then the rest of the voice even if the tenor does not have squillo. Parks puts in a massive effort but there is no actually loud sound there, and this is not even the full orchestra that is used with Turandot. He sounds muffled.
Lets compare it to Corelli, his version is a pirate or bootleg recording ,it not the best recording technology although the sound is pretty good for a bootleg. This was taken during a live performance of the full opera of Turandot, from La Scalla 1966. So this is a much bigger orchestra that was used then on the Rudy Park version. ua-cam.com/video/03mV-5TxsDE/v-deo.htmlsi=I68KHrwLMObcegR3
You will clearly hear that Corelli's voice is much louder then Rudy Park's voice. Corelli's voice is louder because his voice has metal and also squillo, that is what makes dramatic voices huge. Corelli does the opposite of Park, he lightens his middle register, and sings long and smooth legato lines, his breathing is miles ahead Park, he connects lines seamlessly together in one breath. His voice is far more flexible (and Corelli never had one the most flexible voices), but he is like a leggero tenor against Park. And the reason is because Park overblows his middle register giving him no flexibility. Corelli even adds pianissimo in the middle. Corelli's high notes are huge, they are free, loud and ringing.
Corelli always had a very big voice, as a result he did not have to force his voice or add more eight to his voice, he could sing lightly and he knew his voice would still sound big. Rudy park forces his voice to add more weight, in order to create the illusion that his voice is big. His voice is likely medium sized. He is nowhere near the same stratosphere of Corelli. But a big part of the reason is because he was taught the wrong techniques, he does have a pleasant voice underneath the issues. He does his best with the technique he has.
comprendo vuestro punto, pero no me inquieta en nada la voz de RUDY, como voz decís, su vibrato es un tanto pesado, escasos armónicos, y pocos colores, he aquí la sutileza de CORELLI, donde supero por mucho a DEL MONACO, nunca sutil y solo considerado como el más grande tenor dramático, pero CORELLI como el más grande , con lo cual estoy de acuerdo, aun y cuando su voz no es la primera en mi lista, la voz de CORELLI ciertamente es inmensa, no es más pesada, inclusive, LANZA poseyó una voz más pesada que CORELLI y DEL MONACO, pero más pura líricamente hablando, su fraseo saludable y una voz flexible y noble, ciertamente BONISOLI no poseyó una voz media, y el problema con LANZA es simplemente de apreciación, poseyó la más hermosa vos de todos ellos y por lo tanto a algunos no les pareciese realmente tan grande como era, DEL MONACO, GIACOMINI, PERTILE, VICKERS, tampoco por asi decirlo CARUSO, no poseyeron voces hermosas, me apasiona WUNDERLICH, FLETA, DI STEFANO, GIGLI, BORLING aunque también su vibrato en ocasiones era muy pesado, pero su técnica era imbatible, nadie como el cantaba en 6 idiomas en una sola noche , y su acento y dicción en todos estos idiomas era cuando menos ideal o perfecto. !SALUDOS!