Talk:Luciano Pavarotti

Find sources: "Luciano Pavarotti" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images

Tax evasion between 1989-95

Why is their no mention of his tax evasion between 1989-95 in which he was fined 4.55 million and had to pay 11 million in back taxes. this seems like a big omission

[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.105.59.110 (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

"Most successful singer"

See also: Talk:Phil Taylor#"The Greatest" NPOV dispute

Pavarotti isnt the most sucessful tenor of all time commercially, It is Bocelli who is the biggest selling tenor and classical singer of all time so stop giving wrong information just because you like Pavarotti and hate Bocelli whether you like it or not, he is the biggest selling one and he only did it in 5 years! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmad123987 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Ahmad, please note that my entry is that Pavarotti is [NOTE WORDING} "POSSIBLY ONE of the Greatest of all-time". I am an English teacher, Ahmad. I think I know what is required for accurate entry and representation of the facts into encyclopedic form.

In stating this, it is general consensus, if you know much of the operatic/singing world, that Pavarotti is an 'all-time Great' in it. One of the first to make such observation, in fact, was one of the most highly-celebrated and respected pianists of the 20th Century - Arthur Rubinstein. But it is now more generally accepted anyway. The claim is nt necessarily that he is "The Greatest".

But in assessing 'greatness': firstly, sales itself certainly does not establish literal "Greatness". Regardless of that fact, however, my words included, "possibly" - in fact, that word actually led the statement. Most importantly, however, I did not say that 'he was the Greatest"; I merely entered him as "ONE of the greatest"; so was Caruso, likewise Bjorling, etc., etc.

Further, you made some claim on being POV. May I say that ANY assessment of one's ability is POV - including that he is one of the greatest of his era, which is basically how it was previously entered in the article. Bocelli can be "the Best", if you will ... but that has no bearing at all on the fact that Pavarotti is still among the greatest of all-time, which is what is stated in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.229.181 (talk) 05:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe you are talking about my edit summary,[2], not Ahmad's. It's inappropriate to say that he not only "established himself as one of the top classical singers of his era, but, possibly, one of the greatest of all-time" – especially in the lead. As it stands now, it is an unreferenced personal opinion. The addition of "possibly" actually makes it look even more like a personal opinion, and is unencyclopedic. I'm not saying this out of any dislike of Pavarotti. I personally think he was a wonderful singer. But sentences like that actually reduce the credibility of the article rather than enhance it. One could just as easily say that Enrico Caruso or Plácido Domingo were "possibly" the greatest singers of all time. In fact, Domingo was actually named as such by a panel of critics on BBC Music Magazine. [3]. Not that I set much store on those kinds of things, and I actually think that attempts to name "the greatest singer of all time" are pointless, but at least it's documented.

It would be much better to find a source where Pavarotti was actually described as one of the greatest singers of all time. Then write something like: "He was described by X as one of the greatest singers of all times" and reference it to the source. If published specialist writers share your opinion, then it should be very easy to find a reference in a reliable source. Alternatively find a published reliable source for Rubenstein's assessement of him. If one can't be found, it remains your personal opinion and conjecture and doesn't belong in the lead to the article. As I said in the edit summary, I'm not going to edit war about it. But unless it is referenced, sooner or later someone else will remove it – and rightly so. Voceditenore (talk) 07:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

There's more about this issue at Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms. Voceditenore (talk) 07:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes; thank you very much, Voceditenore.

I can only conclude that, seeing there is already some fair conjecture over the greatness of Pavarotti among the tenors - and I have heard quite some debate myself upon the topic, the term I have used on other articles, which I have seen others similarly use, is "arguably". Using that term generally tends to get us all out of trouble.

As I pointed out to Ahmad [and yes, I initially did have the wrong person, but obviously, the fact that he previously battled over that point means someone previously stated Pavarotti as the greatest: I cannot remember whether I previously visited the topic or not] ... as I was saying before, I did not say "THE GREATEST"; I merely said "ONE of the greatest". I do take your point, however, that the word "possibly" might detract from the point or authority of the whole statement. Yes.

BTW, it is interesting about that BBC report you mentioned on Domingo, concerning the recent 'Big three', I have heard preferences for each of the three, but I have certainly heard more for Pavarotti than either of the other two, and I know I am not alone in considering him greater than Caruso. So the point is certainly, very 'arguable' indeed, reference or no reference. Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.229.181 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 5 June 2009

Actually, "arguably" doesn't get anyone off the hook. It still represents a personal opinion. It's not encyclopedic and invites a tag like this: Wikipedia is not a primary source. It reports what other published sources have said, not what you or I or people you've talked to think. Also, do remember to indent your comment in a thread and to sign your comments on talk pages. It makes the talk page much easier to follow. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments there, Voceditenore, and thanks for indirectly giving me the idea to seek clues re indentation. I think I see it.

What bothers me in all this, "Voceditenore", you do not seem to be aware of the place in the music world that that is attributed to Luciano Pavarotti. No; I don't have written reference; but it is not only heard on television and in general print from time to time, but via various professionals and musos around the music world, also. Note, again, that my statement is not that he is necessarily, 'The Greatest". Yet as 'a linguist', you just seem quite slow on the uptake re this: it has just not been digested at this point at all. There would be little dispute, except from the occasional one-eyed opponents that always exist against anyone from place to place, that Pavarotti is among those greats.

You mentioned earlier re the lead in the Pavarotti article: you seem to bear objections to entries on the basis of POV more than anything. I suggest you read almost any article on any other singer, and you will see that most points of opinion are just not referenced.

I suggest, as case in point, you read the opening paragraphs of the Caruso article, for instance. I mean - consistency please! It is riddled with almighty POV build-up and adulation - virtually none of which is print-referenced, yet we all know it exists, and we know of his greatness in the tenor world. So no one complains. One cannot "reference" their lives away on everything they may say, Voceditenore: the world would just not move forward at all if such was the case. Many things in life and its various fields are taken as "given" by those who have any real familiarity with the field at all. What is probably not appropriate is that I state what I see in his singing - that WOULD be too POV. But Most would claim him "a Great". Now if you don't, well, there are, of course, variants from the norm, but that should not impede the path of the assessments of the great many connected with the world of opera, or of singing, generally. Many of us are "professional" connoisseurs, and really know 'our stuff'(Denidowi (talk) 02:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC))

What makes you think I'm not a "connoisseur" of opera? What makes you think I "don't know my stuff" or am unaware of the specialist literature? What makes you think I don't consider Pavarotti a great singer? I personally think his voice had the most luminious, limpid, beautiful, timbre I have ever heard. And yes, I've heard it live, in an opera house. In the bel canto repertoire he was far superior to Caruso in my personal opinion. This isn't about that. It's about what makes a well-written, balanced, scholarly article that puts its subject in an informed historical perspective. There are plenty of print assessments of the quality of Pavarotti's voice and his technique, and quite detailed ones, many of which agree with my and obviously your personal opinions. They should be in the article. There are also quite a few that call him one of the great singers of the 20th century. You probably won't find any that call him "one of the greatest singers of all time" (my bolding) because no knowledgeable scholar of the voice and operatic performance would make such an empty statement. As for the Caruso article, its flaming prose, inadequate referencing and factual inaccuracies are far worse. But really, the reaction to my one small attempt to keep this article from going down the road of Caruso's is exactly why I prefer to stay away from articles about singers in living memory. Everyone has an opinion, but few are prepared to show the reader someone's importance and place in history rather than simply declare it. Anyhow, I've pointed out how the article could be improved. Take the ball and run with it, or not. I shall return to working on Julián Gayarre. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 08:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Voceditenore, again I thank you for your reparation of my unsuccessful attempt at maintaining indentation on here. I managed to get them working the first few paragraphs, but then they stopped responding to the same command. So I don't know how you succeeded ... but thanks.

I do want to apologize to you and say to you that I am of your mind on this, but I do not know of published references which could back up that statement to which you were alluding: re one of the best of the 20th Century; surely my wording was somewhat loose there. I know the entire sentence needs re-vamping, because all I did was to disturb the original as little as possible ... and you will probably see this if you compare the change with the former. Partly, I have simply left it as is to see if you wished to make some suggestions of your own as to the type of re-wording you envisioned; but I see you haven't touched it.

Anyway, if you have such a reference as you were speaking of, or some thoughts on the new format of the sentence, I would be interested to hear them. Thank you.

PS I too, have personally heard him sing. Well, you didn't think I'd miss his voice personally, for all the tea in China! Did you??  :) Kindly,(Denidowi (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC))

• Comment: I would replace this sentence:

He made numerous recordings of complete operas and individual arias, and not only established himself as one of the top classical singers of his era, but, possibly, one of the greatest of all-time.

With this one:

He made numerous recordings of complete operas and individual arias, and established himself as one of the finest tenors of the 20th century.

The second sentence can be referenced by adding the following after the full stop:

<ref>''[[The Times]]'' [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/obituaries/article2400534.ece Obituary: Luciano Pavarotti], 6 September 2007</ref>

Having said that, I really am not going to get into detailed and timewasting negotiations over the wording of a single sentence, which I still consider unnecessary in the lead. So the choice is up to you whether or not you take my advice. Effort would be far better spent actually adding a section on "critical appreciation" and the specific qualities of his voice and his interpretation, which should include both the the positive and the negative. All singers have vocal limitations and Pavarotti was no exception, e.g. his mezza-voce, and occasional lack of fine-shading. I find it bizarre that this article focuses almost entirely on his death, his marriages, his tax problems, and how much money he left and to whom and not on what he will really be remembered for. In any case, analyses of his voice (in greater or lesser detail) can be found in:

• Rodolfo Celletti, Voce di Tenore, ISBN 8870821277
• J.B. Steane, Singers of the Century, ISBN 1574670409
• Peter G. Davis, Luciano Pavarotti: 1935–2007, Opera News, November 2007, vol 72, no. 5
• Michael J. Moravcsik, et al., Musical sound: an introduction to the physics of music, pp. 201-202, ISBN 0306467100
• Tom Sutcliffe, Luciano Pavarotti, The Guardian, September 6, 2007
• Rupert Christiansen, Pavarotti: Opera great with a popular touch, The Daily Telegraph, 6 September 2007

– Voceditenore (talk) 07:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Voceditenore. Yes, that sentence sounds quite reasonable to me.

One thing I can say about his singing: he had a head voice virtually incomparable. I believe some of this extraordinary capacity in sound may have been due to the dome breadth and resonance capacity of his skull (which acts as a sound board for the voice). But even here, you have to use that potential physical advantage very skilfully. That he certainly did. I have never heard a tenor use the breadth of vocal texture and control as well as he - from soft, delicate - even heady - notes right through to powerful, rich, raw soaring sonority.

Voceditenore, it'll probably take me some days, but I'll try to go over your references. I'd like to get rid of the "Days of our Wives" effect in the article also. But I don't know how much luck I'll have - people love their gossip mags too much today ... despite that this is supposed to be encyclopaedic. ;) (121.220.70.45 (talk) 13:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC))

Here's an article from the New York Times referring to his perfect pitch. I would suggest removing the citation needed portion from the page. http://www.nytimes.com/1988/10/19/garden/eating-out-with-luciano-pavarotti-for-pavarotti-the-proof-s-in-the-pasta.html Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.39.130.188 (talk) 01:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The article you have suggested to cite Pavarotti as having perfect pitch is inappropriate to use in this instance. It reads as merely a lead in to the article and appears to be the authors (likely uneducated) opinion. In order to say that Pavarotti had perfect pitch, it should come from an article of musical academia. Bryan Miller, the author of the cited work, is a Food Critic and does not have the academic pedigree to make such a claim as fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doleary1 (talk • contribs) 09:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't saying Bocelli is the greatest, that kind of opinion is subjective. I was saying he is the most commercially successful classical singer of all time, which means he has sold more records that any other (which I can prove if you would like). So saying Pavarotti was the most successful tenor or classical singer ever is wrong, but saying one of is perfectly fine.--Ahmad123987 (talk) 03:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected

I've semi-protected this article because all the recent edits by unregistered users have been vandalism. Let me (or any other admin) know if you'd like it to be unprotected. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Marriage(s)

The article says that he married Adua Veroni in 1961, and then later that they had three daughters and were married for 34 years-- but it fails to make any mention of the end of this marriage in 1995 or thereabouts. How did it end? Divorce? Death? siafu (talk) 23:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

They were divorced. It attracted a lot of press coverage at the time as it was very protracted. They separated in 1995 and filed for divorce, but the final settlement wasn't reached until 2000.[4] I'm surprised the article doesn't make that clear. Actually, the whole article could use a lot of improvement. It's very "bitty" Voceditenore (talk) 09:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Also. two references to Nicoletta Mantovani redirect back to the Pavarotti article, and after the last mention to Nicoletta Mantovani, was added "(above, with Pavarotti)", but there is no such picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geporto (talk • contribs) 06:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 12.183.71.67, 20 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Please change

  He also sang with U2, in the band's 1995 song "Miss Sarajevo," 

to

  He also sang with U2, in the band's 1995 song Miss Sarajevo, 

in order to provide a direct link to the song, the album, performances, etc.

12.183.71.67 (talk) 18:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Y Done Rodhullandemu 18:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 174.57.249.163, 5 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} In the second-to-last paragraph in the section "1980's - 1990's", when the subject is of the Saturady Night Live episode with Vanessa L. Williams, would you kindly include the Philadelphia Boys Choir and Chorale as well? If you see any video of the clip, a portion of the PBCC is shown quite clearly.

Thanks!

Shadowgodlordking (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. That's the kind of thing that we can't reliably pick out from a video alone (how can we identify the PBCC versus another choir?). If you have a reliable source, though (such as the actual episode, if the choir is listed in the credits), then we can add; feel free to make another edit request then. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Lack of entry on Recordings

I think the article needs to mention his various recordings. They are hardly referred to. yet his very few movies and other minor activities. For example, his recording with Dame Joan Sutherland of Turandot was ground breaking. Robauz (talk) 11:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Pavarotti and Sepultura

Should we mention that they worked together in the song roots bloody roots? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.83.44.55 (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Pavarotti Did Not Have Perfect Pitch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uo6dDQiBGyI This video, in which Pavarotti asks for an F#, proves that he didn't have perfect pitch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.238.202 (talk) 01:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.41.47.147, 13 June 2011

Sort of a small thing, but in the "1980s–1990s" section please replace "Grammy Legend Award" with "Grammy Legend Award". 24.41.47.147 (talk) 05:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the suggestion. Voceditenore (talk) 05:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

Could someone set up a musical artist infobox for Pavarotti? I would but I don't know too much about the genres he falls into, etc...Capt Jim (talk) 23:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Opera. And yes, I will. Spidey665 03:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC) Per WikiProject Opera, you cannot add an infobox. Spidey665 03:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from an IP user, 29 October 2011

Please replace {{Kennedy Center Honorees}} with {{2001 Kennedy Center Honorees}}, which is more specific and not so incredibly large in size. 64.134.125.128 (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Done and thanks for suggesting that. The other one was absurd! Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Someone has reverted my edit without explanation. It seemed a sensible thing to replace it with the more specific template (which has been around since 2009) and as far as I could see was used in the articles for the other nominees from that year. If the massive full template is to be used, it should hve its default state set to collapsed. I have changed it back and invited the editor to explain the rationale here. Voceditenore (talk) 06:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the full template is too large. Not only should we have the default state collapsed, but we should also have an option to restrict the output to only the row for that year. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Much better. :) Voceditenore (talk) 05:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Voceditenore, the only reason I did that is because the IP was running a bot and I reverted all of their edits. Besides, at that time, it was easier to just group the templates so that they would eventually get deleted as a five link template is in and of itself absurd. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 February 2012

Please add this to the 1960s to 1970s portion of the page. Pavarotti is a Sinfonian and therefore should be represented as so on his page. "In 1978 Pavarotti was initiated as an honorary member of the University of Miami’s Beta Tau Chapter of Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia, a fraternity dedicated to the advancement of music in America."

Rouquayro (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? Voceditenore (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

N Not done, unless a source is provided--Jac16888 ^Talk 21:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Even if a reference were provided, this is quite trivial information about a non-notable event. It pertains to a local chapter of a college social fraternity (albeit one whose members are interested in music). Organizations like this often bestow "Honorary Memberships" as they add prestige to the organization. Pavarotti has received a Grammy Legend Award, Kennedy Center Honors, the Order of Merit of the Italian Republic, his country's highest honour, and numerous other notable awards. So I'd say that this is not really a useful addition to the article at all. I suggest you add his name to a list of honorary members at the Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia article, properly referenced, of course. Voceditenore (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)