# Single Round. Early Twentieth Century Coloratura Waltz. Parla. Sutherland, Galli-Curci, Sembrich



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

For Christmas I got Sutherland's Command Performance on vinyl and was totally captivated by her singing Parla by Arditi. Sutherland seems to be the only stereo age performer to record it but it was very popular among early 20th century divas and the Bonynges dusted this fun ditty off. Both Sembrich and Galli-Curci who are new to the contests did really wonderful versions so I thought you might enjoy comparing. I hope you enjoy all these ladies like I did. Sutherland does something very unusual for her in this version. See if you spot it. 




Arditi: Parla! · Joan Sutherland · London Symphony Orchestra · Richard Bonynge 




Parla (Valse) · Amelita Galli-Curci




Parla! · Luigi Arditi · Marcella Sembrich


----------



## PaulFranz (May 7, 2019)

Sembrich the clear winner for me. Best balance, best ease, best voice. She's an all-timer.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Even to one as used as I am to the exercise of critical imagination necessary to appreciate soprano voices as they emerge emaciated from the grooves of shellac discs produced at the beginning of the 20th century (1906 sounds about right), Sembrich's recordings are a bit of a trial. Given her obvious technique and great popularity, I'd love to know what she actually sounded like. One aspect of her singing I don't care for is the marked transition into chest voice, something we hear in many singers of her era. You can hear the break in the middle of the word "parla," among other places. She does rather dramatize this little piece in a way that probably delighted her audiences. Even the inelegance of the two highest notes probably didn't bother them.

Galli-Curci and Sutherland both sing very well, as we'd expect, but the gentle simplicity, ease, and flower-of-the-lips enunciation of Galli-Curci is special, and completely apt. We don't feel that she's trying to show off, as we do with Sembrich. I've known this recording since I inherited some 78s from my great grandfather, and I'm still fond of it. The flip side of that disc contained her performance of Tosti's "La Serenata."

No complaints about Sutherland. I just prefer Galli-Curci for the qualities I mentioned, and just for being herself. She comes across as a lovely person.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

I hope I am not the only person to notice that while everyone complains about Sutherland's often lack of good diction she seems to clearly pronounce each word very distinctly. As to whether this is acceptable Italian I know not.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Seattleoperafan said:


> I hope I am not the only person to notice that while everyone complains about Sutherland's often lack of good diction she seems to clearly pronounce each word very distinctly. As to whether this is acceptable Italian I know not.


Her diction is indeed good here. When was the recording made?


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Her diction is indeed good here. When was the recording made?


The year after my usual cut off date with this crowd. 1963.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

I had a feeling we could end up with a three way tie as all three ladies are really wonderful. This is one of the happiest songs I know of.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

I’m giving this to Sutherland because I don’t like the squeaky voices and because her diction is actually clearer than Galli-Curci’s (perhaps the recording make her sound slightly slurred) in places, and because I like a heftier sound in these _bagatelles _and because Sutherland is so astonishing.


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

Granted that we all have slightly differently tuned nervous systems, it's hard to me to imagine thinking of Galli-Curci's voice as "squeaky" except in very high staccato phrases. Her voice is bright, surely, but there is a deep mellowness that the brightness rides on top of. It is not an insipid voice. Moreover, her voice is agile, and the emission easy and natural, which is not true of Sutherland. Sutherland may emphasize certain consonants more, but I never get the sense that she is speaking. I have massive respect for Sembrich, who had a truly great voice and was extremely skilled. But I enjoyed Galli-Curci most here, and it is the only of the three recordings I would return to for the pleasure of listening to it, as opposed to study in the case of Sembrich.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

vivalagentenuova said:


> Granted that we all have slightly differently tuned nervous systems, it's hard to me to imagine thinking of Galli-Curci's voice as "squeaky" except in very high staccato phrases. Her voice is bright, surely, but there is a deep mellowness that the brightness rides on top of. It is not an insipid voice. Moreover, her voice is agile, and the emission easy and natural, which is not true of Sutherland. Sutherland may emphasize certain consonants more, but I never get the sense that she is speaking. I have massive respect for Sembrich, who had a truly great voice and was extremely skilled. But I enjoyed Galli-Curci most here, and it is the only of the three recordings I would return to for the pleasure of listening to it, as opposed to study in the case of Sembrich.


"never get the sense that she is speaking". But she is singing.


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

Sembrich. Poor recording but excellent technique and she kept loses attention when the other two didn't; I'm not overly enthused about this music.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Op.123 said:


> Sembrich. Poor recording but excellent technique and she kept loses attention when the other two didn't; I'm not overly enthused about this music.


You are more evolved than me and want meaningful music. Sometimes I just want to have fun like Cyndi used to singI think more from this group are in your camp than me .Others have expressed dismay over showy coloratura without meaning. I think this was designed to be an encore aria to show off . I like show offs😳


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

I really detest this stuff so maybe it isn't fair for me to vote. I don't even like The Merry Widow either. (bah humbug!!)
So by process of elimination and because she sounded the clearest, I give the rose to La Stupenda.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

nina foresti said:


> I really detest this stuff so maybe it isn't fair for me to vote. I don't even like The Merry Widow either. (bah humbug!!)
> So by process of elimination and because she sounded the clearest, I give the rose to La Stupenda.


I think I am the only frivolous person in the forum who loves fun coloratura stuff that has no meaning other than joy and showing off. I shall try to keep it to a minimum. I was excited by this piece as Sutherland had such really clear diction here which this crowd requires and so many great turn of the century singers sang this so I could present some great singers I normally can't. I hope you can forgive my shallowness that is antithetical to the group which comes out occasionally. Everybody here is so so so text oriented whereas I enjoy coloratura because there are no words, only lovely music to listen to. I should go to the back of the room I am the only person on this forum I think that can appreciate opera as a form of entertainment sometimes without it having to be all about something that has deep meaning. Back to serious music.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Woodduck said:


> Even to one as used as I am to the exercise of critical imagination necessary to appreciate soprano voices as they emerge emaciated from the grooves of shellac discs produced at the beginning of the 20th century (1906 sounds about right), Sembrich's recordings are a bit of a trial. Given her obvious technique and great popularity, I'd love to know what she actually sounded like. *One aspect of her singing I don't care for is the marked transition into chest voice,* something we hear in many singers of her era. You can hear the break in the middle of the word "parla," among other places. She does rather dramatize this little piece in a way that probably delighted her audiences. Even the inelegance of the two highest notes probably didn't bother them.
> 
> Galli-Curci and Sutherland both sing very well, as we'd expect, but the *gentle simplicity, ease, and flower-of-the-lips enunciation of Galli-Curci is special,* and completely apt. We don't feel that she's trying to show off, as we do with Sembrich. I've known this recording since I inherited some 78s from my great grandfather, and I'm still fond of it. The flip side of that disc contained her performance of Tosti's "La Serenata."
> 
> No complaints about Sutherland. I just prefer Galli-Curci for the qualities I mentioned, and just for being herself. She comes across as a lovely person.


This post sums up my thoughts, especially the sections I put in bold.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Seattleoperafan said:


> You are more evolved than me and want meaningful music. Sometimes I just want to have fun like Cyndi used to singI think more from this group are in your camp than me .Others have expressed dismay over showy coloratura without meaning. I think this was designed to be an encore aria to show off . I like show offs😳


Maybe because I grew up with Galli-Curci's recording, I never thought of this as a coloratura showpiece. She made singing sound natural, like speech (as vivalagentenuova suggests), and her coloratura sounds deceptively easy. This piece comes across as a graceful waltz with pretty decoration; it makes me think of old books of sentimental poems, with engraved ornamentation in the margins (and, of course, flowers pressed between the pages). It's a kind of music I wouldn't ordinarily listen to, but in my youth the lovely Amelita could always draw me back between bouts of Beethoven and Wagner.


----------



## BBSVK (10 mo ago)

I choose Galli Curci, it was the clearest, most comfortable listening.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Is there anything more camp than this? I don't know, but I LOVE it.

I know the Sutherland version and so will enjoy that one. It will surprise no one if I say that the diction could be better here. However, it's nice to hear a big voice with flexibility sing this rather than a wan song bird. Very good and SUCH fun!

Galli-Curci has one of the most inoffensive voices there is and there's no doubt that her technique and singing of this is impeccable. However, I find her voice less interesting than Joan's AND I can't make out her diction either.

Sembrich is another canary of the same colour (to coin a phrase). I'm not sure, any of these could win. I choose Joan for having a voice of an individual timbre.

N.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Do I have to? I listened to a little bit of each, but I'm afraid none of theme really interested me, which I ascribe to the music rather than the singers. If pushed, I'd probably say Galli-Curci, but none of them interested me and it really isn't their fault.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Tsaraslondon said:


> Do I have to? I listened to a little bit of each, but I'm afraid none of theme really interested me, which I ascribe to the music rather than the singers. If pushed, I'd probably say Galli-Curci, but none of them interested me and it really isn't their fault.


I knew you wouldn't like it. It has no deep meaning and no salient emotions. God made you the way you are  I just enjoy being entertained here. Back of the room for me.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

The Conte said:


> Is there anything more camp than this? I don't know, but I LOVE it.
> 
> I know the Sutherland version and so will enjoy that one. It will surprise no one if I say that the diction could be better here. However, it's nice to hear a big voice with flexibility sing this rather than a wan song bird. Very good and SUCH fun!
> 
> ...


I'm likely stupid but I thought especially at the start Joan really sounded Italian but I don't know the language. It is one of the reasons I chose this as her diction sounded unusually crisp for her. What do I know? I'm happy if she just sings la la la frankly but I'm shallow.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Seattleoperafan said:


> I'm likely stupid but I thought especially at the start Joan really sounded Italian but I don't know the language. It is one of the reasons I chose this as her diction sounded unusually crisp for her. What do I know? I'm happy if she just sings la la la frankly but I'm shallow.


Well others found her diction quite good (and I didn't find Galli-Curci as easy to understand as normal, so maybe it's just the song!)

N.


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

Seattleoperafan said:


> "never get the sense that she is speaking". But she is singing.


I guess what I mean is that when Galli-Curci sings, it strikes me as if she doing so a) as naturally and spontaneously as if she were speaking, and b) with the same degree of intention in her inflection and phrasing as someone would have when speaking. Sutherland is very clearly a singer doing singing. Galli-Curci is just speaking, and it happens to sound like an operatic voice. That's the best way I can describe the aesthetic experience at the moment.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

vivalagentenuova said:


> I guess what I mean is that when Galli-Curci sings, it strikes me as if she doing so a) as naturally and spontaneously as if she were speaking, and b) with the same degree of intention in her inflection and phrasing as someone would have when speaking. Sutherland is very clearly a singer doing singing. Galli-Curci is just speaking, and it happens to sound like an operatic voice. That's the best way I can describe the aesthetic experience at the moment.


You are so much more knowledgeable than me I like to clarify what you say as I pay attention to your posts. That makes sense.


----------

