Bob Draper wrote about the film "Farinelli: Il Castrato":

>Firstly, there is the portrayal of Handel as some king of ogre.  It
>seems, he was determined to get the castrato to sing for him at any cost.
>He is always shown to be irascible, never smiling and generaly of a poor
>disposition.  I don't know much about the life of Handel but I always had
>the impression that he was a genial fellow for some reason.

It's been awhile since I've seen the movie (I have a video of it at home
and can correct that condition quickly), but my impression was that Handel
was portrayed not so much as an ogre but as someone who was dedicated to
the power of music.  HIS music, to be sure, but he serves as a useful foil
for the drama nonetheless.  I don't know how true the facts are in this
movie's story regarding Farinelli and Handel, though.  And it never was my
impression from reading the bios that GFH was particularly jocular (see
below).

>Secondly, the music of Broschi and Porpora is dismissed as of lower
>value than Handel's.  Not surprising perhaps, but the reason given is that
>these two composers wrote in too florid a manner.  Their music was too
>complicated with too many frills (too many notes?) and hence was unable to
>convey emotion.  However, Handel's simpler style resulted in much deeper,
>more moving music.  In the context of recent discussions here about emotion
>in music this is certainly very interesting.

Ornamentation by itself doesn't make or break good music.  Perhaps it was
because the other composers simply couldn't compose such great music as
Handel could? The scene where one of the brothers (I believe Farinelli?)
eavesdrops on Handel playing the organ and the effect the music has on him
tells a lot.  There have been stories in the bios about Handel's run-ins
with opera singers for his London company who didn't hew to his line
regarding how his music should be sung--even one episode of holding a
soprano out of a window and threatening to drop her!  Not always genial:-)

>The other interesting thing about the film is the use of a computer
>generated castrato voice.  This was achieved by blending male and female
>voices.  The result is certainly fascinating.  In fact I found it beautiful.

The results were discussed quite a bit on the Early Music List, and there's
a link describing the technique at the Early Music FAQ, which Todd McComb
keeps.  It seemed a way to combine the power of a male voice with the
sweetness (and register!) of a female soprano.

>So why can't we have "authentic" recordings of castrato music created this
>way.  Obviously it would be impractical for a live performance.  But in the
>studio it might add a new dimension and perhaps prompt a re-evaluation of
>some works written for this voice.

My guess is that the results have been controversial about this, and
there's the problem of getting the other musicians in the recording to
synchronize to the "castrato-track".  Not always so easy.

>I can even visualise a CD of The Three Tenors with The Three Sopranos
>singing castrato greats, with the ensuing arguments about royalties.  Who
>should get the lion's share, the men, the women or the studio engineers?

Your idea may be closer to the reality than you think.  I don't want to
appear to be a plugger for the New York Times, but there's an interesting,
half tongue-in-cheek article about a new RCA CD of Caruso's old tracks
being "synched" with newly recorded, properly balanced orchestral
accompaniments in splendid digital sound:

http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/artleisure/022000mozart-theater.html

Some of the other possibilities are endless in this day of digital
manipulation.  Such as Caruso and Elvis, Together for the First Time....

Bill H.