I have spent a lot of time here reading all the different reviews of Andrea Bocelli's recordings and I do not really understand what is so important about his voice being technically perfect. I have listened to lots of opera music and have not had the same reaction as I have with Bocelli. My daughter first introduced me to Andrea Bocelli and I really wasn't that interested, thinking he was just another tenor. Was I ever wrong! I have enjoyed Pavarotti's Nessum Dorma, but when I heard Andrea Bocelli, sing it I wept, quite unexpectedly. I do think that perfection is highly overrated. Being technically perfect doesn't make you better, just more technical. I enjoy music because it moves something in me. Quite frankly Andrea Bocelli does that better than any other tenor I have heard. I will enjoy his opera music, his pop music and his sacred music because he moves me in a way I have never been moved before, and I think that his soul must be just as wonderful. Yes I do think that if God was singing that is what he would sound like!

Although a conservatory-trained musician, I never enjoyed opera until I heard Andrea Bocelli. His voice has a purity of tone that is far more compelling than the mega-vibrato of most opera stars. He sings each aria with a passion that clearly communicates the emotion of the operatic scene to the listener who may not understand the words. To me, his recordings are the epitome of what a performance should be-a musical experience that deeply moves anyone fortunate enough to hear it. Bravo!

As a lover of music, from one end of it's spectrum to the other, I find it very difficult to knock Andrea Bocelli's work. His album, "Romanza" is enjoyable, and his popular success is justifiable. In this particular effort however, Andrea is out of his element, he is -- at least, at the moment -- reaching too far; he's much better suited to ballads and "opera-like" works. While he possesses a very good voice, he sounds rather flat and unemotional on this CD; the collective interpretations sound homogeneous.

The music itself isn't very impressively played; I got the notion that a world-class orchestra wouldn't work with him. Perhaps it was Bocelli that didn't feel up to the task (or financial considerations wouldn't allow it), since I find it hard to believe that, say, the Vienna Philharmonic wouldn't "stoop" to collaborate with such a hot ticket.

Microphones weren't meant to be used in opera, but it's interesting to note that it's reverberative effects provided some pleasing moments, as well as some unappealing ones.

While purists object to Andrea's operatic work, I appluad it. Certainly, there are better collections of arias, by more gifted and classically trained singers, but how many of them have made such an impact in people's desire to listen to opera? As tastes mature, newcomers to the genre will likely venture past his brand of opera anyway. (Although there's nothing wrong with sticking with him.) Exposure of this sort can only benefit all of us.

Ever since I first heard Andrea Bocelli I have been captivated by the beauty and richness of his voice. Viaggio is another example of his wonderful versatility, and his ability to make the listener feel the music. Another vocal masterpiece. Celine Dion, who dueted with Andrea on his Sogno album said "If God had a voice, this would be it"....Need I say more?

Despite orchestral support that is barely adequate, Bocelli's beautiful tenor manages to rise above the lackluster accompaniment. In a delightful mix of Arias, popular Canzoni, and a few sacred pieces, the heartbreaker of Tuscany delivers a superb performance. The Lamento di Federico--never an easy piece--is performed with great emotion and power. All the selections, in fact, show a voice capable of handling difficult and subtle material. The Panis Angelicus is particularly affecting; as a lifelong "secular person," I must admit I was prepared to dislike it. I was won over with the first note out of Bocelli's throat. It is hard to say why this album seems to have sold the fewest of all his offerings. The title doesn't exactly prompt one to try it. Perhaps some of the negative remarks made by people who enjoy tearing down public figures has something to do with the lagging sales. An opera-goer for decades, I am not so much of a "purist" that I cannot enjoy the entry into the opera field of a former pop singer (How dare he!) Was this held against Rene Kollo, and many other tenors and sopranos? Then there are the pop fans who lament one of their own passing into the classical world. Surely this is just another kind of snobbery. Listening to and understanding arias is an acquired taste for many. (Do people still say that about beer?) The same can be said of the process of passing from junk novels to fine literature, drama, and poetry. We want was is easy, short, and quick. Certain critics, professional and amateur, even while understanding the "investment" of thought and time that serious music requires, seem to delight in trashing this singer. It is a mystery but, as I recently told a friend, this may constitute a case of the deaf misjudging the blind. No one--I said NO ONE--who listens to this singer carefully, and honestly, with no fear of expressing his emotional side, can fail to appreciate him. Those who hold up Pavarotti as a "real" tenor (and he is, of course) should be aware that Luciano has nothing but praise for Bocelli. And could there be a more profound "critic" than the Primo Tenore of the last two decades? I think not. Andrea Bocelli stands poised to enter the pantheon of great singers. His name shall follow that of Caruso, Gigli, Schipa, Martinelli, Tauber, Del Monaco, DiStephano, Bergonzi, Wunderlich, Tagliavini (perhaps the closest in style and beauty of voice), and Pavarotti. Into that august company he will be welcomed with enthusiasm--of this I have no doubt.