At the same time, I don't mean to speak slightingly of Del Monaco's detractors. Clearly there were major, fundamental flaws in his method of voice production, as even his best qualified critics (Olivero, Celletti...) have complained. But it seems to me (a) that every type of voice is more suited to doing some tasks than others, and (b) that a sufficiently charismatic performer can, by sheer vibrancy of performance, persuade some (not all) listeners to accept them even in a role to which their voice is fundamentally unsuited.
It also seems to me that provocatively extreme views are the lifeblood of good criticism, or at least an inescapable ingredient in that lifeblood. Why do we keep reading the music criticism of Berlioz and Bernard Shaw when a thousand more temperate critics are forgotten? Partly because they say outrageous, extravagant things that stick in the memory and help to sharpen our understanding even when we don't totally agree with them. Therefore I am glad that great critics have great allergies, and that one person's Schreier is another person's Del Monaco. Vive la différence!
Thank you for taking part in the MusicWeb International Forum.
Len Mullenger - Founder of MusicWeb