he had that and more, they were a great match, but he had more going for him, perfect diction, a beautiful natural fulsome voice to begin with. training, total control and concentration, and huge frame with unusually large resonating chambers.

Seemed more mean-spirited and full of gossip.

agreed❤️

Mr tomtalker: I think you should tweak your comment since one cannot discuss operatic tenors before the invention of recorded sound. We do not know how much better Pavarotti was than a tenor like Adolphe Nourrit.

@@sutherland9 yes we do because there are people that are absolute experts and they say he is the best male voice of all time, some things are just so self evident and don't require discussion.

@@ellenlyons7413 If I were to show you a newspaper clipping from 1835 in which the reviewer (considered "an absolute expert") wrote "Adolphe Nourrit is the best male voice of all time" then which would you choose? How would you choose?

@@ellenlyons7413 You wrote "he is the best male voice of all time". "All time" includes both the past and future. Unless you have a crystal ball you cannot say that in the future there will not be a tenor better than Pavarotti. How many times did you hear Pavarotti sing live? I heard him sing live many times over a span of 25 years. His voice was on the small side and his artistry was on the small side. Placido Domingo's performances of "Otello" artistically surpassed all the evenings I heard Pavarotti sing

@Jay Taylor It's not about fandom it's about her place in operatic history. Pavarotti had a superb voice and, encouraged by his management, poplarised both himself and, to a certain extent, opera. Joan had a phenomenal freakish voice, and together with Bonynge, following Callas and Serafin, worked to herald the revival of bel canto. Also, her recorded legacy is second to none. Fandom is ephemeral; legacy eternal.

Bonynge was an asshole in this interview.

Some self-important opera buffs don't like Bonynge for a number of reasons. They thought he wasn't the greatest conductor in the world and made his own career off of his wife Dame Joan. They also think he kept her from working with other great conductors who could have/would have demanded more diction or other interpretations from her? They believe Richard indulged her and let her get away with sloppy singing. There may be "some" truth to all of this - but like all things in life- it isn't an either/or situation...

His truth may not be * the* Truth. In later years applauses for Pavarotti were far more resounding - when they sang together- than Dame Joan‘ s . This might explain some of the comments.

You must be thrilled sniffing your own farts.

@@machovoce6826 How very ugly of you!

pat30d - I heard Pavarotti sing many times over the span of two decades. I do not agree with your judgement that Pavarotti had a "powerful voice". Although he did sing Manrico in "Il Trovatore" and "Otello" the moments that required powerful singing were underwhelming. I agree with Mr. Bonynge's assessment in this interview that Pavarotti's voice was not big.

Right. It took a great deal of effort and thought to make that happen. Baritone Jake Gardner once told me in frustration that he got a comment from a critic in the newspaper that he had a "natural" voice (dismissing him). Jake said, "Do you know how much time I spent to make that happen?!" So your comment is spot on. What's surprising is that Bonynge had absolutely no idea what goes into making a good singer, and he was married to one. Of course, Joan Sutherland was trained in the conservatory system run by instrumentalists and Pavarotti wasn't...

Mel Dedara Really, Maestro Bonynge is jealous and bitter because Pavarotti wasted great opportunities, because of not learning a role (due to laziness), the “Maria Stuarda” recording had to be interrupted and all the equipment, staff and singers reassembled a year later at great inconvenience, because the same thing happened with “Adriana Lecouvreur” (but fortunately, thank God, the great Carlo Bergonzi was available), because Richard Bonynge admires talent and Pavarotti wasted his and created problems for others. In fact, Maestro Bonynge was polite and complimentary about the tenor’s strength and weaknesses. Please read how Pavarotti controlled the editing of “Otello” over Georg Solti’s decisions to understand how restrained the comments were. E Buon Natalie ma preferisco Carlo Bergonzi. C’e un artista e tenure Italians. (But I read that it wasn’t Corelli singing “Lucia” in Florida with Dame Joan but Renato Cioni who was released from the contract to sing with Callas in “Tosca”.)

Kirsi Mikkola: So that you know, Bonynge did purposely undermine Pavarotti’s technique. He used to acknowledge and compliment Pav’s superb technique. Their relationship did went sour. One honesty Bonynge did display was his biased resentment that could hardly escape any audience.

He seems full of resentment and many of his comments were mean-spirited, petty, and gossipy.

I wholeheartedly agree. I had two long conversations with Bonynge (well, truthfully only 30 minutes each). He loved Pavarotti, but was bitter that he was so misguided by Breslin and the Hungarian guy (can’t recall his name). Bonynge thought that if Pav had continued with bel canto, he would’ve been considered for posterity as one of the truly great artists.

@@wotan10950 the Hungarian guys is Tibor Rudas.5(the one that started with the arena concerts and was the promotor of the three tenors) And Breslin in his book kinda says the exact same thing ( apparantly even Breslin did never think of those mega events, he did operacontracts and the recitals and the duo and trio concerts, the man was at home in classical music, not in the event business) : that Pavarotti had a supreme voice and a very good technique but was very lazy and didnt knew anything about the technical things involved with music. And Bonynge is right. Those were managers in the bussines for the money NOT for the arts. All that Popstuff and huge arena concerts Yess it made him famous and rich and itmade them rich. But as a singer and from musicians and artlovers point of vieuw: that didnt earn him any respect. What Bonynge means is that if he would have stayed in his voicefach and repertoire and would have stopped a bit earlier he would be also be remembered as a great musician. Those later years were something that kinda did some harm to his reputation. And I think Bonynge feels that is a pity. NOT that Pavarotti wasnt as good as eveyone thinks. If you don't know the whole story and what happend behind the scenes it might seem like that, but it isnt.

Still "Maestro" Bonynge is a bit TOO negative about the great Luciano Pavarotti, and GRATUITOUSLY SO. Pavarotti was correct in taking on heavier reputable especially since his so-called rival Placido Domingo, a hugely FLAWED singer (ludicrously bad too notes, little " legato"), did this repertoire in such a mediocre fashion

Yeah. This may sound stupid, but don’t understand what an “intellectual” singer is.

@@charlescoleman5509 A singer that follows everything by the books. Nothing is instinctive on those singers. Which is what most, if not all singers are today in the opera world.

@@charlescoleman5509 Well, Bonynge uses that word in the context of the mediocre interviewer's question as to whether or not Pavarotti was influenced, in his early years, by another tenor. So, in the context of Bonynge's answer, I think Bonynge is using the phrase to indicate that Pavarotti was NOT influenced by any tenor in particular, and did not deeply analyze or study any other tenor's performances or interpretations (I actually doubt that's the case). His usage of the term is a little different from that I've seen and heard more often, which usually refers to a singer who thinks about the philosophical and/or cultural and/or political meaning of what he's singing, develops serious back stories for all of his characters, etc. etc. But I don't think that's what Bonynge means, based on the question he's answering.

@@charlescoleman5509 he is quoting what maestro says in the interview...he explains what he means by it...listen again. its really good.

Singers are mostly dumb. Especially tenors. Hard to find an intellectual singer among them. I prefer German repertoire because I find there intelligent and versatile singers. In Italian repertoire is all about just the technique and the voice. - most of the times. To me it can be boring, because art is more complex - every art.

Leone Magiera was Mirella’s husband for a while until they divorced. And was also a conductor who was a very good friend of Luciano’s and directed, both Mirella and him several times. But Leone was not a singing teacher. The teacher you are talking about was Ettore Campogalliani. Both Mirella and Luciano went to that same teacher during the last years of his vocal training times. Pavarotti first trained with Arrigo Pola.

Ettore Campogalliani was the singing teacher they both went to. Mirella Freni and Arrigo Pola both studied with Luigi Bertazzoni.

and he was very quick witted and humorous.

Sometimes.

I do disagree about one thing, is that he didnt have a big voice. I read where someone was listening to him ten feet away, at a free concert, without music and the ground shook. His voice sounds very very powerful to me.

@@ellenlyons7413 Everything is relative. He had a huge voice compared to a normal person. He had a small voice compared to someone like Franco Corelli.

@@JohnDavidDunlap I do not know, he just is moving beyond anyone else, it's as if he is saying, dare you not love me?!! He had a great act, an enormous personality and character enough for ten super sized Lucianos. Im a little biased, dont you see? Boyne's wife, Dame Edith, could belt out with the best of them.

More often than not, but everyone lies, everyone.

I think the positive outweighed the negative. If the truth contained some criticism, so be it. I'd always rather hear the truth than fluff. Bonynge has no reason to lie. Joan Sutherland was known for her hard work and professionalism and taking her work very seriously, so when Pavarotti didn't, and became more interested in making money than creating great art, it had to have left a very negative impression on Bonynge. I learned to love opera because of Pavarotti, so I will always have a special place in my heart for him. He introduced me to Dame Joan, whom I consider the greatest voice I've ever heard. So for that alone i'm grateful.

@@Eiswirth1 I would concur. There is no real malice here. Bonygne adored Pavarotti in certain things and freely admits more than once the specialness of his instrument. When asked "are there any tenors today that have that same naturalness?" we hear crickets. If you think Richard is being mean in this interview - that should tell you something. Pavarotti was an amazing singer and without peer in some roles where his natural Italianate sound shines clear and true. But Richard's criticisms are well-founded. Luciano's French was horrible- he didn't work hard at learning new music - at least not like some of his contemporaries- Domingo, Carraras, Kraus, Gedda and the like. Especially after 1985- he sang the same handful of Italian arias that fit his voice very well and that he could roll out of bed and sing. This was the money-making part of his career- but not artistic... His singing at the end of his career was like another great pop singer Frank Sinatra- horrible and a shadow of what had been. But there were lots of folks who wanted to say "I heard the great Pavarotti (or Frank) sing before they died." --so, they kept singing. I'm sure Pavarotti will be remembered more for his early singing and the wonderful ease and color he brought to his best roles. His last 20 years will hopefully be ignored.

Bonynge is a typical instrumentalist and sees everything from that perspective. So Pavarotti didn't do any work in learning how to sing because Bonynge bought his instrument and didn't need to make it himself -- so to Bonynge, Pavarotti just had a "natural" voice. It took a great deal of work to make it appear so; Bonynge didn't understand that. Bonynge also places a great deal of importance on reading music because he had to do that as an instrumentalist. Pavarotti had to spend a great deal of time understanding the text. Instrumentalists don't have to do that. So because Bonynge didn't understand anything about singing, he dismisses Pavarotti as someone who was lazy and had a natural voice. He also looks down on singers who have pitch problems (instrumentalists just tighten a string or pull out a slide). This is a typical instrumentalist-conservatory perspective. I find it annoying. He never should have been allowed to conduct an opera if he didn't understand what it takes to be a singer.

@@AindriasHirt wholeheartedly agree.

@@AindriasHirt Bonynge probably understood better than any other conductor in his lifetime "what it takes to be a singer," both technically and musically. Where on earth did you get the notion that he was ignorant in that area? This is also about the fairest and most precise account of Pavarotti's work available anywhere. He is quite generous about the aspects that were good, and he takes the trouble to steer back to those, and while he states the limitations and misjudgments frankly, he does it without spite. Good interview.

@@AindriasHirt What the heck did I just read?.

@@goscinnydyrygent No. Playing a piano to accompany your wife just doesn't cut it. He road his wife's shirttails his whole musical life. Singing and playing are two very different things. The best opera conductors are singers, not instrumentalists. There is a sharp distinction. I know. I have been directed by both. Look at Bernstein's direction of Christa Ludwig and you can see the gap. He's terrible. Bonynge's the same way. Music structures the voice. The voice comes first. The insane amount of work that goes into singing was totally ignored by both. 95% of the work that goes into singing is completely alien to the thought process of instrumentalists. Reading music written on paper is simply not important to a singer. It takes 6 months to learn a leading role. That whole time is spent on text and understanding in sieme. Reading music is not a part of that process.

Absolutely correct. Bye, Bye, Bel Canto!

He studied with both Arrigo Pola and Ettore Campogalliani, going several times a week in an old car from Modena to Mantova for those lessons, and often with Mirella Freni with whom he also shared the same voice teacher!

I believe that's Bonynge's home in Switzerland. The upholstery was all hand stitched by Joan. She was something of a genius in needlepoint.

Marc Allen That's nice to read. Only one time I was so fortunate to work in a production with Dame Joan (and Maestro Bonynge, but he came in later in the process), and throughout rehearsals she was absolutely a trouper and a fun, friendly colleague to all, without regard to rank or status. The large rehearsal hall was not exactly cushy, being an old warehouse, and she had fairly long periods of waiting, sitting on a metal folding chair, while blocking and business were worked out with others. She could have, with reason, objected to the situation, that this work that didn't involve her hadn't been done before, without her having to wait around for the scenes in which she was involved. Instead, she sat and did handwork (probably needlepoint and, I think, knitting--not sure of my memory's exactness), watching with a smile from time to time, and telling bawdy jokes and enjoying the company during the breaks. She and her husband were delightful, down to earth artists, a joy to work with.

I "Met" them both in autograph lines. Richard didn't sign, but he was very charming and willing to be photographed. In the receiving line, Joan was grouchy about something (not to fans, but to her assistant), but, when my friend Wendy (who is 6 feet tall) presented her program for a signature , Joan glanced up, smiled that big smile and said, "Now THERE'S a big GIRL!" Wendy and I could NOT have been more charmed! She also had very beautiful skin. You can't see that in photos.

I think it was their home in Switzerland, -- and I'll bet Dame Joan did the needlework on the chairs and cushions in the background !

+Boo Nell I think it may have been in their apartment in Sydney. The interviewer is from an Australian publication.

Agree entirely. The problem with some people is that they just cannot accept any criticism of their "idols" which of course is ridiculous. I have the highest respect for Richard Bonynge some of his recordings are a real object lesson on how to conduct 19th c. opera.

cameronpaul totally agree. pff fanatics

We benefit from having various commentators on the voice and career of a great phenomenon like Pavarotti, and Richard Bonynge is merely one of those commentators. He's entitled to his own views as we all are, and after all, he worked with Pavarotti for a very long time and saw him very close up during that time. Other people who worked with Pavarotti, or knew him, might have different views, but we all gain insight from an amalgam of these differing viewpoints. Some thought Toscanini a tyrant, others a genius. There's some truth in both viewpoints.

To answer your question, there are legions of dolts and morons on YT who hardly know A from B.

As an orchestral musician I performed a concert with Pavarotti. He was really obnoxious, a real prima donna sort of attitude, not nice at all. This would have been in the 1990s. Everyone in the orchestra thought he was an asshole. (It was a professional orchestra.)

In a different orchestra I did some recordings conducted by Bonynge. He was nice enough, but not a very good conductor in my opinion. I think my colleagues felt the same way. This was in the late 70s in Australia.

@@machovoce6826 great to hear these views, Pavarotti I am sure was no angel, but he seemed to be interested in helping many people, and you cant dispute his voice was more than angelic.

@@absdyna Correct. I don' think he taught Pavarotti how to sing opera. Pavarotti studied with excellent teachers long before he met Bonynge. Pavarotti's career was already beginning when Bonynge and Sutherland were looking for a "tall tenor." They needed one because Sutherland was 6'2". Any tenor too much shorter looked unconvincing in romantic roles. Pavarotti and Sutherland had great careers because they were outstanding operatic performers. Neither of them needed Bonynge to put them at the top. They would have gotten there anyway. That is not to take anything away from the contributions of Bonynge. Back to the interview. As a professional conductor, Bonynge can certainly discuss Pavarotti as a performer. INHO (In My Humble Opinion), he should have restricted his commentary to precisely that. People can either accept or reject his professional opinion. But once he begins speaking of Pavarotti outside of his professional opinion of him as a performer, and includes disrespectful comments about Pavarotti as a man, as a human being, then he calls into question his "professional opinions," specifically his negative ones. People legitimately ask, "Why is Bonynge doing this?" To me, there is only one plausible reason: Bonynge wants to diminish Pavarotti's opera legacy by disrespecting him as a person. In this interview, Bonynge has diminished his own professional credibility by including those disrespectful comments about Pavarotti as a human being. Bonynge opened the door for us to see what probably was one of the primary purposes of this interview.

I know right 🤣

Exactly! I think people keep saying Pavarotti was a natural singer and that really takes away from the fact that he did study! For a while too! In his masterclasses he always mentions covering the Passagio and always says something along the lines of: it's easy, after you've been practicing for 10 years! That doesn't happen 'naturally'! By and large Bonynge's comments are actually quite accurate...

He's definitely harbouring some serious resentment though :/

Bonynge def hitched a ride on his wife's career (and p.s. did everyone know that Pavarotti was basically hired to sing w/ Sutherland as she was extremely tall. They were literally looking for a tall tenor to go with. He was singing well...but this was def important for his career trajectory as he was heard a lot.). I love the recordings they all made together...I used to hold Bonynge in higher regard but after watching the way he treated singers in masterclasses I thought he was such an absolute twat. He's not such a great conductor-completely average. It was all about the singers in those recordings (Milnes, Pavarotti, Sutherland etc;) It pisses me off too that he makes Pavarotti sound like a lazy fat idiot. Pavarotti was an incredible artist and Bonynge should be thankful his status was elevated by being associated with these people. He was not the one singing the damn notes.

Of course, it's obvious. There's a subtle way of expressing it. That's why people don't get it. I totally do. It's disgusting. What a detestable person!

@@violingirl2 If there's an absolute twat here it's you. And you don't know what the fuck you're talking about - which is why you have so much to say.

Understanding is always easy initially. In terms of full on theory however, it becomes a serious endeavor. I've seen theory, and some of it is beyond me. I just figure play music by ear, and make it easy on myself.

“The Randall Evans way to read music immediately and forever! Yes you can!

Poor you.

What are you talking about with "everyone remembers Pavarotti and not Richard Bonymge?" One of the great opera conductors of our time ... Everyone knows Pavarotti, as everyone knows Placido Domingo because of the "Thee Tenors" concerts. That's when they became household names. Before that, they were known only to opera lovers.

@@cevicentevideos three tenors franchise started in 1990. Before that pavarotti was a regular on TV talk shows as Letterman's. That means he was well known by everyone.

@@cevicentevideos three tenors franchise started in 1990. Before that pavarotti was a regular on TV talk shows as Letterman's. That means he was well known by everyone.

@@cevicentevideos Offcourse, as every other operasinger is. Go on the street and ask who Diana Damrau and Jonas Kauffman are ( just to name two at random). Ask a 1000 people. Maybe 2 will know. Those are the operalovers. Do the same With Michael Jackson and Celine Dion. They probably all will know. Even if they dont specially love their music. The operalovers know who Richard Bonynge is !

Seriously. Even Breslin said that its possibly the biggest joke Pavarotti ever appeared in. Apparantly the recording isnt that bad. But it already isnt his repertoire: Otello requires a huge dramatic voice. AND he didnt learn his role. Offcourse they did cut all of this out in a recording, but he didnt knew his lines, his cues,... he knew everything very vague. So at the concerts ( it was concerts with Solti not even a stageproduction) he sat on a huge throne, and behind that was a repetitor. Shouting all his entrances and cueword. Like: Essultate... in Three , two , one..... NOW. I guess that is what Bonynge means: if you are such a great singer with a marvelous voice.... Why would you do that? And even worse: why would you not even try to get your role prepared when you know its difficult. In the later years he kinda got an attitude and a confidence that was out of place. As a singer who gets older you should even work harder. He didnt. And thats sad. Thats what Bonynge is sad about to !

We have no way of knowing if Joan Sutherland would have had a great career or not without her husband. She had a great voice so it's likely she would have had a great career, maybe an even better one, who knows.

Pavarotti himself said he was lazy.

@@myknittingblog Sutherland was headed toward the dramatic/Wagner repertoire, and she probably would’ve had a distinguished career. But she would never have had the wildly successful fame she gained from her bel canto career, if not for Bonynge. She herself admitted that she didn’t know much about coloratura singing, and didn’t dare go above high-C. In many interviews, she said that she couldn’t imagine singing high-Ds or Es.

You don't?

Personally, IMO he was being honest in his own way. I do understand that some people can come across very crude and harsh. I can see if this man simply talked solely negative about Pavarotti during his entire interview in which he didn't. He simply stated from his experiences things that we did not see. He obviously stated positive things about him. Again, I am a Luciano Pavarotti fan and I believe he was one of the best Voices out there but most of Richard's comments dealt with Pavarotti's professionalism and personal life rather than attacking his voice which he repeatedly gave him credit for.

Santiago James You can see my original reaction to the interview above Honest in his own way,but thatg included a real a whiff of jealousy-he criticizes and then praises. But he found him professional and cooperative in the years he worked with him. If you keep saying it's all natural-the assumption is that he's saying the man was not smart, just god given etc. He seemed to have mixed feelings-and should have been more gracious about it all-IMO

I do agree with you that He may have been too crass about his responses. As I have stated in my previous comment some people (especially from my experiences) do not have the graciousness to say things that are less rude and harsh because that is how they always have been. Another way I see it is that it was not jealousy but I think it was a sign of disappointment in Pavarotti. As a singer myself that sings Opera one of the things that they look for is people to be well rounded musically. I too have received the same criticisms because I have been complemented about my voice but I could not read music and that slowed some things down and frustrated my conductors which they were not happy about. Pavarotti had a good ear and obviously a great voice (as Richard acknowledged) but He could not read music and that is what limited his opportunities to expand and excel far beyond what He has already done and that is what Richard seemed to pounce on. He never said Pavarotti was incapable of learning but rather chose not to and in reality that is a sign of Laziness. Not that Pavarotti was a bad person but again I think Richard was bothered by the fact that Pavarotti did not tap into his musical potential rather he depended solely on his natural talent that did get him far but not far enough. IMO!

Just out of curiosity and I do not ask this for any other reason than curiosity and that is "Do you sing or play any music?

truth hurts. overrated tenor.

lol... Idiot. @@joserivas1257

@@joserivas1257 Trolling or just stupid?

@@flav2689 There's life beyond the three tenors. Listen to others! Listen to Maestro Bonynge. He knows what he is talking about. Ignorance is bold. Stupid?? Stupid your.............

@@joserivas1257 Assuming a lot, I see. I’m quite familiar with other opera stars, including tenors. Björling, Gedda, Volpi, Corelli, Kraus and Bergonzi to name a few - and I respect them all and acknowledge their great skills. Still my favourite tenor is Pav - for many reasons that I’m just not gonna list for someone who neither sees it nor cares. Not worth it. I’m just saying every succesful singer has their own strength. The previous names don’t diminish Pav’s reputation or his value as a tenor. People can disagree and have different opinions but saying he is ”overrated” is a bit much. You mean the fact that people outside the opera genre adore him and his singing and don’t care for others - what is your point there exactly? That there have possibly been even better tenors in one way or another? And...? He’s still amazing. Popularity shouldn’t mean being overrated.

+lorenzo marco I agree totally with you

+lorenzo marco Yes and no....I think he was fair to a point but his resentment for appealing opera to the wider audience is crazy! Us younger opera singers need that to help pay the bills today....it may not be the purist ideal but it involves people that wouldn't normally hear opera and attracts them to something new! I think P went along way to try to and involve more people! B called it the "Arena".....I think "Gallary vs Diamond Horse Shoe" which Caruso had to deal with at the Met! Do we resent Lanza's popularist approach! Although I agree with B that he became a very difficult man to work with and health is essential to maintaining a good working instrument!

Lanza's approach was very commercialized... Pav's approach was commercialized too, but not to such an extent. He also succeeded in bringing opera to the masses. I wouldn't have discovered the beauty of opera, had it not been for him! I wouldn't have discovered the voices of Filippeschi or Giacomini whom I admire very much, if I hadn't started out listening to his recordings.

EVERY THING Lorenzo Pointed out as stated by R. Boynge was actually stated by MAESTRO LUCIANO PAVORITTI HIMSELF.. He was a Natural HUMAN BEING Of all Characters Luciano mostly associated with NEMORINO "ELIXIR D'AMORE". So I can NOT call it a 'Hit Piece' Like that NASTY fomer manager of Luciano (I won't even mention his name; doesn.t deserve recognition)..

Yes Zubair Hossain Lanza was the PUREST form of Conceit.. I witnesseth that Hot Dog Event by him.. That Piece of BIO of Caruso was NINETY NINE (99%) FABRICATION.. Luciano had a LONGER CAREER That Either/Both Lanza & Caruso Had even LIVED..

For someone who missed oportunities, i think he did very well

Freni never learned to read music...

​@Jay Taylor I've heard mixed opinions on this point. Someone somewhere said he developed a method of reading music that involved his own notations. It functioned well for him. I've also heard he had perfect pitch and an excellent memory. As far as the power of his voice is concerned, he was not a Corelli. That is not a value judgment. Two different types of tenor voices. I read someone reported that during a rehearsal, I think it was a rehearsal, he was able to hear Pavarotti clear past the top seating tier of the Met. His voice was so loud, so clear, that it made this person feel as if his hair was standing on end. The correct word, I believe, is projection. I've tangled with someone who is commenting here on another webpage, and I don't propose to do it again here. I agree with Ross D above regarding "missed opportunities." Why is it so tempting for some to focus on what might have been rather than focus on what is? You can't take what you believe might have been and apply it to what actually happened. What actually happened is Pavarotti. No one has the ability to conclude what could have happened "if only." To me, going on record and pointing out "defects" and "flaws" of someone who many consider to be the greatest tenor voice of the 20th century is ... Well, I just can't even think of the right word. To me, Bonynge is trying to make himself seem so important that he has to stoop to degrade Pavarotti--who is long dead and cannot speak for himself--rather than give him the accolades he deserves for so many accomplishments. He deserves accolades for performing free of charge opera to over 500,000 people in Central Park to bring opera to the people; for raising millions of dollars for charities worldwide, particularly for children in war-torn countries; and for giving to the world that beautiful, clear, rounded, gorgeous, golden, Italian bel canto voice.

@@valasina2015 Well I also heard he had a VERY bad memory. Hence the cuecards in The wings. The notation system is trough: colours, phonetical notation and just put more letters when notes are long. Vin- Ceeeeeeeee- rooo. Offcourse he had no perfect pitch. Because that would mean he could name the notes. And if you can do that reading music is VERY easy. And given the fact he sometimes sings notes so long that there are already other chords inder it, he doenst have perfect pitch ( I guess you mix up with Domingo: excellent ears, excellent memory that apparantly remembers every name of all the operastaff he ever met around the world, plays piano, speak a lot of languages,.... ) What the languages concern I think I know the explaination for that. Italians are chauvinistic: and not a bit , no a lot. Whats important: Italian food: all the rest is rubbish, same goes for culture, fashion, music, the country itselve,etc.... And the same goes for their language. They don't think they need it. If you come to Italy...speak Italian. Whatever part of the world your off. I used to work a lot of Italian collueges and most of them: only Italian. Even the younger generation The ones who were really internationally on stage: Mostly some French because its also a Roman language. But any German.... oooh hardly. English..... Ai speaka littla bitta offa the Englisha ma non é molto. I guess Modena is a relativly small town and in those times they spoke only Italian there. So you kinda can blame his enviroment in his youth for the lack of interest in Languages

+arrassip Joan was there and was not above an acid comment herself. But Bonynge says not one thing here that's nasty or regrettable.

Even though he supposedly was unable to read music, he had a natural singing ability that was cultivated from an early age. He sang in the Corale Rossini as a young man with his father and then studied exclusively with Arrigo Pola for many years before starting his operatic career in 1961. Maybe in his later career he became lazy in that he stopped learning new roles, etc...but it is a bit harsh and inaccurate to say that he didn't work hard during his career. You cannot simply make it on natural ability and luck, you have to train the voice and study roles, etc. Up until the early 80's, Pavarotti was regarded as one of the greatest tenors on the stage as well as the fact that he was an essential part of many fine recordings -- Rigoletto, Boheme, La Fille -- which are still regarded by opera cognoscenti as some of the best ever. It is true that from 1985 or so to the end of his life, he moved away from the opera stage to arenas and made some questionable musical decisions, but, ultimately, it was his voice, his career and if the critics didn't like it, it is really not up to them to decide what he should do.

@@EndoftheTownProductions Agree completely!

I've seen a photo--a pretty big one--of Pavarotti looking over sheet music with a conductor. Looks like Mehta. It might even be an orchestral score. Can't be sure. I've also seen a video --I think it was a master class--where he goes over to a piano and does a bit of playing. Now that last comment doesn't mean he read music, of course, but he obviously had some keyboard knowledge--if I could call it that. When he was studying singing, I don't think there would be any way to get around associating a note on the keyboard with a sound in his head. Hope this makes sense. I'm not a musician, but I have some basic knowledge. I think you are correct about his ability to read music. However, as I said in another post here, I have also read he had his own notation system which, when combined with the sheet music, or whatever kind of sheets of paper he was using as musical "guides"--I don't know another word--served his purpose.

Well its not because he had a music stand in front of him and there are papers on it that he could read music. He couldnt. The text is also on there. And later he kinda knew that when the dots go up it means higher etc... But thats about it. He kinda knew the strict minimum. And yes he could hit a note on a piano to get his tuning. But no he couldnt really play piano. His own notation sytem: yes that existed: Huge cue cards in the wings with phonetically spelled te lyrics. And some kind of lines that would indicated the duration of notes. Like Vin- cé- ro, Vin-cee-roo .... Vin CEEEEEEEEEEE rooooooo.

@@marcvdbosch1802 Marc, your input is intriguing. I just find it hard to believe the he couldn't read music.....because it is so easy to do. He memorized entire operas . Reading a vocal line is so basic...literally anybody could do it.

@@stevenburton7922 Believe it or not there are more singers in the past that couldn't and at a very high level. There was a Belgian baritone with a gorgeous voice and he did all the big Wagner parts...... and his repetitor earned his money very well. They hammered every note in there ! And the man was very insecure at times. Off course he was: because at rehearsals he sometimes was clueless. And still today there exist a few that still can't read. It totally depends on how you started: did a singer play an instrument as a kid, or did you parents. Or did they start in choir? Then they had musicall theory also. Because choirparts are a bit more difficult to get memorized. Some didnt. there is a voice and they start singing and solovocal lines can and mostly must be memorised easily so they don't care about reading.

that's what l thought too XD RB was a little too direct maybe

+ajhiflyer I had the same feeling about the interviewer the first time l heard this interview. I just listened to it for the second time today and it didn't come across as harsh as the first time. But as Dadcomero said, he was maybe too direct, especially since I believe this interview was recorded shorty after Luciano's death. Old age can bring out the feisty in some of us.

+William maddox Judging by all other interviews on camera, especially with his wife, I've always thought he was somewhat opinionated but hey, he was a gifted and much experienced man, I would love to hear what all else he has to say about the business. I reckon personality is very much to the fore here and I don't get all the bashing that comes his way. Do I remember correctly where Dame Joan herself when speaking of the Maria Stuarda recording wasn't too impressed with Pav's preparation for the role?

No this interview was NOT recorded shortly after Pavarotti's death, in fact Bonynge's wife, Dame Joan was also deceased by the time of this interview. .

Indeed, hypocrates and liers! But mosquito changed repertoire much more yers ago... It is not about 20 years of his "career". He think, that Calaf, Manrico, Cavaradossi, Radames, Canio is suitable for him. But, of couse not! He has a weak voice to do this. He never do a really heavy roles, he ruined his voice and Opera. A disaster of Opera and bad representing! A paper legend!

Rubbish!

he is just speaking the truth

I'm not exactly sure he's critical, but he does to a degree sound a bit either resentful or just irritated, maybe just knowing Luciano personally gave him more knowledge on his personality that the public eye cannot see. I have indeed heard Luciano was a very unpleasant man to work with, let alone talk to. It's like some of these famous actors and celebrities who are completely off their rocker and treat their staff with enough disrespect to stir even a buddha's patience. It's not uncommon, but Luciano was a phenomenal singer regardless, and despite his poor attitude, was in my opinion, one of the 5 greatest tenors in history.

@@wx811 maybe the fact his wife s fame was overshadowed by Luciano’s that Dame Joan had helped in his initial years might be what brings about the somewhat harsh comments.after Bonynge, Pavarotti worked for almost all of his career with Mo Magiera ( Freni’s first husband) that had also been pivotal in his musical education. Magiera does not share the same viewpoints as Bonynge on Luciano .

@@joserivas1257 which I m sure you know, and therefore confirm?

Very, very well said. You won't find anyone today willing to devote 10 years of their life to sing opera.

The great basso Ezio Pinza never learned to read music either!

True. I just started to listen to recordings of him and Sutherland because we started to do more Bel Canto. And its remarkable: its is difficult to keep the singers and orchestra togheter: he did that PERFECTLY ! Also the feeling for the style is just remarkable. He follows the singers, makes sure all the ornamention is tastefull and in style and the orchestra has the chords in the right place. Its a thing not many conductor could get done.

Whatever that means! Bonynge was a child prodigy and could play piano concertos before his tenth birthday. He was so knowledgeable that theaters and museums sought his advice. And he had the gift of being able to accompany a singer in any key. Pavarotti was a guy with a beautiful voice who captured the public’s heart. Bonynge is saying here that he could’ve done much more with his talents.

+Patrick Boyle I agree on the Otello comment. Pavarotti sang with too much "joy" in his voice, and his voice was not large for such a role or "mean" enough as a "man of war". The fact is though, Luciano did have a tremendously beautiful voice

@@daved3713 Well it has nothing to do with to much joy or not mean enough. Yes he had a beautifull voice but in singing you have something called " fach" and that is the type of your voice. Pavarotti was a light Lyrical tenor and in contrary to believe not such a huge voice ( people think he was because they only heard it with microphones).However he had good squillo so he could very well heard, the voice projected well. And that has nothing to do with how big or loud it is. Otello is at least a spinto or even better a dramatic tenor. Heavy dark voices. The role is writte for that. Yes some singers can go outside of there "Fach". But that has moderations. But not from one end of the spectrum to the other. He did try that. You can compare it to a sprinter who trys to run the marathon. Yes its both running, but a completly different technique and other use of muscles and natural abillities. Well the different voices for singers is just the same.

@@marcvdbosch1802 He was only a light lyric in the beginning. His voice was much bigger than say a Juan Diego Florez for example. He didn't have the size of Corelli or Mario Del Monaco, but that doesn't mean his voice was "light". Richard Tucker, one of the giant and large voices, said in an interview "we all start out as lyrics"

@@daved3713 Well every voice gets havier with age. But that doesnt means that a light bel canto tenor can become a spinto or a dramatico. And you maybe can sing one aria of an opera, but not the whole part when you are not in the right voicetype. A lyric doing to much dramatic parts: kills the voice. Goes the other way around to. It can be compared with a boxer that tries to compete in a weightcategory or two above his own. ( funny thing mentioning weightcategory in a pavarottitopic: e propbably was the extra haveweightcategory) There is one man who never did that: Afredo Kraus. He stuck to his voicetype and the suitable repertoire. Well guess what.... the man sang untill high age, sang great untill high age and never lost his top notes. Imagine if pavarotti did that, and never sang Otello, Calaf, Radames,etc but stayed with Bel Canto and early Verdi. He probably would have remained in excellent voice at his 70's to.

Australians in fact.

Bonynge has every reason to feel superior. He was responsible for the careers of quite a few notable artists, and he was such a font of musical knowledge that theaters and museums sought out his advice. Pavarotti had a great gift, but he was essentially lazy and disinterested.

Seriously. Sure the Italians may think that. And they yell that loudly to. But I worked many times in Italy and had a lot of Italian collueges and conductors. And well.... The level of singing and music isn't as great as you would think. The greatest Verdi, Puccini and Rossini singers...... aren't Italian !! And Bonynge is Australian, as was hiswife Joan Sutherland. Two of Belcanto's greatest: not Italian. Another Famous one: Marilyn Horne: Not Italian. The great Bel canto Tenors: Gregory Cunde, Florez, Chris Meritt, Araiza: all not Italian !! The great Verdi Singers of Today: Russians, Armenians, etc.. : no Italians. The essence maybe once started there but today they neglect it !!

You are 100% correct about Von Karajan. I wouldn't argue with him!

And some people call Von Karajan the greatest butcher of music of all times. Von Karajan had some kind of Sauce and style and soundidea he put over everything he played. It could be Mozart, it could be Haendel or Beethoven. Or the opposite: Wagner or Mahler. Even stockhausen or Messiaen. Everything had the same sound of a huge orchestra with everything doubled and a huge sound with wide vibrato. Everything sounded the same: the 32 cyllinder hollywould sound as some of his memmbers from BPO called it. Breslin stated that Luciano loved some conductors and hated others. The ones he loved were the ones where he could do whatever he wanted. He could change tempo a much a he liked, he could hold notes for ages, he could sing an octave down, he could even not sing notes, they wouldnt complain.... as long as he would be there and sing. the ones he hated where the ones that persissted that he sang the correct rhytms, in tempo, did what the composer wrote and asked to follow him and asked hem to do things as rehearsed to keep the orchestratogheter. Guess what: Bonynge was in the secound group. Karajan in the first. NOW THAT speaks vollumes ;)

I totally agree. He says things like "bel can'tto". They Brits and Australians Anglicize everything.

@@operaox10 That's not the point, but what about his wife's language skills, and the lazy way she sang when it came to pronunciation... he fails to mention that Pav's Italian was exemplary-clear and precise, and Dame Joan's mushy and unintelligible

@@labienus9968 So, so right. You can always, always hear very clearly every word he is singing. Your comments about Dame Joan are well known.

But off course Luciano is Italian, logically hes going to have good promounciation. What are you guys comparing?

@@alexj.denton7453 a singer’s clarity of pronunciation has much more to do with their training and vocal production than whether they are a native speaker or not. Another example is Jessye Norman, whose diction was always flawless regardless of the language she sang in.

+Tullius Agrippa He did not make up anything here. If left out a lot of the bad. At the end of the day, Pavarotti was an incredible singer.

William maddox I was not suggesting that he had made up stuff. I merely commented that he was rather unkind about Luciano. If the truth be told, Bonynge is not the greatest of conductors and many opera houses did not sign up Joan because Joan insisted on her and Richard as one package. So I found it ironic that the less than mediocre Bonynge should say such unkind things about the utterly remarkable Luciano.

Name one important opera house that wouldn't sign up Joan because of Richard! She sang in every important opera houses in the world. Unless you can show your resume of important conducting assignments that you have accomplished I respectfully suggest you sit down and keep quiet.

Larry Woods Good logic there. Only a good conductor can evaluate conductors. Everyone else must sit down and keep quiet. Well, that probably discounts your opinion stated in the previous comment. Well done.

Not hardly Agrippa. Having sung with Krips, Berstein, Ozawa, and others might give me a little insight over the regular arm chair critic posting here. So I will stand up if you don't mind.

You have said it so well!