I have been a little perplex reading spectacular critics about Kaufmann's performances. I agree he is a short handsome and informal dressing young tenor with a peculiar voice. But, is it permissible such a degree of squillo lack? Real high notes' lack? I remember when, a long while ago, it arrived to my hands that first Vickers' recital under Serafin. He was the opposite of Kaufmann existing a clear similarity as some kind of miniature of him in Kaufmann's general profile. But Vickers had (and has if he is still alive) a formidable squillo together with an uniform voice, as for the emission and colour. Obviously Kaufmann is very much smart. But, since Domingo, are we living and age of just smart tenors? Watching Kaufmann he makes action a lot vivid, probably too much. But voice is straightly rare. Sometimes, during piano or mezza voce parts, actually it submerges. And high notes are very much like Vickers, but felt by me as cries. As a matter of fact, I listened a B instead a C in Faust (also in Chenier), and there we are talking about a written high note, not as in the Pira. In German works he sounds for me better, but in any case, I have been unable to appreciate his exceptionallity. There are a lot of excellent tenors arround, with brave squillos and splendid uniformity of emission, as Botha and O'Neill, but they arn't handsome and accentuate the vocal perspective with probably poor acting, not so O'Neill. I feel that Kaufmann's success is not based on his vocal qualities, but on foreign perspectives that are easy to find inside the purely operatic world. It doesn't seem to me a serious attitude that promotes correct appreciation of Opera and its performers, specially for beginners. Where are Björling's, Gigli's, Del Monaco's, Vickers', Bergonzi's, Di Stefano's, Tuckers's, etc's times?