# What is a "Dramatic Coloratura Soprano"



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

according to Wikipedia:
_"A coloratura soprano with great flexibility in high-lying velocity passages, yet with great sustaining power comparable to that of a full spinto or dramatic soprano. Dramatic coloraturas have a range of approximately "low B" (B3) to "high F" (F6)."_

imo, when people mean "dramatic coloratura soprano", they're usually referring to one of three types of voices

1) a voice with a similar weight and color to a full lyric soprano, but capable of singing with great agility and hitting a few notes above high C (though the roles themselves are typically a bit "saucier" than a typical lyric role)
*singers:* Mariella Devia, Montserrat Caballe, June Anderson
*roles:* Donna Anna (Don Giovanni), Konstanze (Die Entführung aus dem Serail), Elisabetta (Maria Stuarda), Violetta (La Traviatta)

2) a dramatic soprano or spinto soprano with greater than average agility, but who still sings in the tessitura of a dramatic or spinto soprano
*singers:* Lilli Lehmann, Marisa Galvany, Julia Varady, Leyla Gencer
*roles:* Abigaille (Nabucco), Lady Macbeth (Macbeth), Leonora (Il Trovatore), Odabella (Attila), Reiza (Oberon)

3) a voice which sings in the tessitura of a lyric coloratura soprano, with same effortless top and spinning high notes, but with the ability to sing with much greater weight and drama. usually the timbre with be like a a lyric coloratura in the upper register, but like a brighter spinto or dramatic soprano in the middle range 
*singers:* Dame Joan Sutherland, Edda Moser, Rita Shane
*roles:* Esclarmonde (Esclarmonde), Queen of the Night (The Magic Flute)

thoughts?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Way overly fussy, or to many declensions which are not necessary.

Dramatic soprano, or "Dramatic," period: 
darker tone, perhaps "larger sounding,"* otherwise covers what a soprano does as well (plain soprano, brighter tone, maybe "smaller sounding." *
* there are no implications of anything like actual greater vocal strength, amplitude, or even any real variance of the general tessiturae _what is being characterized are all qualitative, not quantitative._

Coloratura: 
again, may be applied to a singer _within any Fach_, is about a far greater than average ability to sing agilely and quickly, florid passage work, etc.
So there's that taken care of.

Lyric: 
(any range) is a notably non-strained ability to smoothly sing (without a audible shift of timbre or technique) within the named expected range as well as anywhere from an octave to an octave and a half above what is the more average range expected of soprano, alto, bass, tenor, etc.
(Implies a bit of the coloratura quality, i.e. very fluid use of the voice throughout the range, and also can perform that somewhat at good speed.)

Spinto: 
a darker 'smokier' timbre to the voice; again it may apply to any Fach.

No reason to complicate things, _Wiki._

Edit add: Bellini Lover's post is also quite on the money, while it is more pointed toward the more conventional associations of types with their qualities (and what is written, and for whom). This would of course have coloratura sopranos associated with the higher and highest of sopranos, those _almost_ always the smaller and lighter of sopranos, that making the ease of production on the higher and stratospheric passage work more readily possible. Dame Joan Sutherland was singular in that she had a very full (and large) soprano voice which she more than successfully cultivated to do (astonishing) coloratura singing. Jessye Norman, with a truly enormous voice, has so far defied one blanket categorization, debates still probably raging _Just beware of thinking of any of these types and descriptors as set in stone_, the very reason I gave the most general definitions of those types and descriptors is they will serve you well, no matter what voice type you run across.)

There are also dozens, literally, of more minutely specific names for any number of combinations of qualities for all of the Fachs, often those terms are in Italian.

The more common the occurrence of an available voice type and qualities found together (none of them are average, in a way) those are the ones you will find composers most often anticipate when writing. There are many instances, though, of a composer writing specifically for a singer with particular or somewhat singular abilities, outside of a general type.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

That's a coincidence, as I just posted about dramatic coloraturas in your other thread. Anyway, I agree with your definitions and your choices, though I haven't actually heard every soprano on your list. To me a "dramatic coloratura soprano" is Callas or Sutherland or June Anderson -- any big-voiced soprano who specializes in roles like Norma or Lady Macbeth or the Donizetti Queens but who could also sing parts like Lucia, Adina, Elvira (PURITANI), Violetta, Queen of the Night, and Gilda. I would tend to classify _young_ Renata Scotto as a dramatic coloratura, too; in later years I guess she was a spinto.

A "coloratura soprano," on the other hand, has a smaller, lighter voice and couldn't even consider singing Norma, Lady Macbeth, or Anna Bolena; she might even sound slightly underpowered (though accurate) as the Queen of the Night. Examples would be Roberta Peters, Sumi Jo, Kathleen Battle, Natalie Dessay, and Edita Gruberova (though I'm not positive about that last name, as I can't tell for sure how big her voice actually was/is -- I've heard some people say it was an exceptionally big voice, and of course she has sung all three Donizetti Queens).


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

PetrB said:


> Way overly fussy, or to many declensions which are not necessary.


I will admit it's somewhat semantic (I've attempted to keep it basic for this reason), but necessarily so because it has very real implications. the reason why vocal fach exists is so that singers
1) sing the repertoire they sound best in
and
2) sing repertoire which won't hurt their voice (opera history is jammed full of singers who ignored this and permanently damaged their voices)

June Anderson and Marisa Galvany are both considered dramatic coloratura sopranos, but they would wreck their cords trying to sing each other's rep.



> Dramatic soprano, or "Dramatic," period:
> darker tone, perhaps "larger sounding,"* otherwise covers what a soprano does as well (plain soprano, brighter tone, maybe "smaller sounding." *
> * there are no implications of anything like actual greater vocal strength or amplitude, _these are all qualities, not quantities._


fach is primarily about _weight_, and _tessitura_ not color. a darker voiced lyric soprano (say, Kiri te Kanawa or Anna Netrebko) is still a lyric soprano because that is where their voice sits most comfortably. color is strongly correlated (you'd be hard pressed to find many contraltos with dark voices or dark voiced lyric tenors), but it is not a make/break factor



> Coloratura:
> again, may be applied to a singer _within any Fach_, is about a far greater than average ability to sing agilely and quickly, florid passage work, etc.
> So there's that taken care of.


this is true for most voice types, but in the case of the soprano, I interpret "coloratura soprano" to be a completely different type of voice from a lyric, spinto, etc. the tessitura is about a 3rd higher and there is an ease in the upper register not present in others sopranos.



> Lyric:
> (any range) is a notably non-strained ability to smoothly sing (without a audible shift of timbre or technique) within the named expected range as well as anywhere from an octave to an octave and a half above what is the more average range expected of soprano, alto, bass, tenor, etc.
> (Implies a bit of the coloratura quality, i.e. very fluid use of the voice throughout the range, and also can perform that somewhat at good speed.)


agreed



> Spinto:
> a darker 'smokier' timbre to the voice; again it may apply to any Fach.
> No reason to complicate things, _Wiki._


again, color is secondary. _vocal weight_ is the key.



> Edit add: Bellini Lover's post is also quite on the money, while it is more pointed toward the more conventional associations of types with their qualities (and what is written, and for whom). This would of course have coloratura sopranos associated with the higher and highest of sopranos, those _almost_ always the smaller and lighter of sopranos, that making the ease of production on the higher and stratospheric passage work more readily possible.* Dame Joan Sutherland was singular in that she had a very full (and large) soprano voice which she more than successfully cultivated to do (astonishing) coloratura singing.*


rare? yes
singular? no, check out this power house of a coloratura soprano





slightly less powerful, but still a formidable voice







> Jessye Norman, with a truly enormous voice, has so far defied one blanket categorization, debates still probably raging _Just beware of thinking of any of these types and descriptors as set in stone_, the very reason I gave the most general definitions of those types and descriptors is they will serve you well, no matter what voice type you run across.)


she is totally a dramatic mezzo, but I'll save that for another discussion 
and I agree that it's not black and white, the problem is that you seem to be implying this makes it insignificant.



> There are also dozens, literally, of more minutely specific names for any number of combinations of qualities for all of the Fachs, often those terms are in Italian.


it's true, and I wish many of these terms would make their way to English, because I'm tired of hearing hipster divas singing completely the wrong rep and not sounding right



> The more common the occurrence of an available voice type and qualities found together (none of them are average, in a way) those are the ones you will find composers most often anticipate when writing. There are many instances, though, of a composer writing specifically for a singer with particular or somewhat singular abilities, outside of a general type.


this is a good point


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Lol. Do you even consider hipster divas in all of this?

Yes 'weight' is a real and important acoustic phenomenon and factor. The larger and lower the voice (instruments too) the more air has to be moved, and that much more force put to moving the mass. This makes it increasingly difficult to play or sing rapid passages or flurries of notes -- it is literally that much more mass to move at speed. Timbre is not always exactly about weight, but can as easily be, again not quite as black and white.

Fach categorization is a later phenomenon, and a most practical one. It saves going through reams of reading or recording to recall which singer is best suited for the role who can also sing it regularly (and consistently over several performances) without either simply fatiguing and delivering a bad performance _and or_ actually damaging their instrument in the trying. Like anything which gets down to such fine degrees of 'sorting' and 'typing,' if it is adhered to without much other thought behind it, it can make for oversight of some otherwise completely worthy, interesting and capable candidates --which was all I was hoping to at least allude to.

Yeah, too, Madame Norman is a dramatic soprano (mainly, or basically, lol) but using the following word in a completely non-pejorative sense for those remarkable and exceptionally flexible singers, they are _freak_ voices, somewhat _akin to a sport of nature_, like a Pavarotti or a Joan Sutherland. They just cannot be so neatly pigeon holed, as can the singers whose voices fall more neatly within the parameters of one category or t'other.

At any rate, many have no idea at all that coloratura is about a quality, not any given specific range (while of course the majority of that is found in the higher and lighter soprano fachs, and there is probably even another specific term for an alto with the same agility (ex: Stravinsky's and Auden's Baba the Turk), that spinto is not a quality unique to only the female voice, etc. and since I worked as accompanist for so many singers and choirs, and for the pupils of teachers in voice studios, I learned all of this from a number of horse's mouths, as it were. They were alternately as meticulous to fastidious about all the minutia, and at the same time taught me many of those terms were simultaneously attributable to more than voices of one gender, fach, or type.

The more fluidly you know the word parts and their attributes, the less confusing when you run across a 'dramatic spinto coloratura mezzo soprano,' for example


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

PetrB said:


> Lol. Do you even consider hipster divas in all of this?


yes, because they are the ones who need to pay more attention to the fach system lol



> Yes 'weight' is a real and important acoustic phenomenon and factor. The larger and lower the voice (instruments too) the more air has to be moved, and that much more force put to moving the mass. This makes it increasingly difficult to play or sing rapid passages or flurries of notes -- it is literally that much more mass to move at speed. Timbre is not always exactly about weight, but can as easily be, again not quite as black and white.


indeed, that was my point. (often times, the exceptions are my favorite. ie: dark, velvety lyric sopranos like Anna Moffo or brighter, heroic dramatic sopranos like Regine Crespin)



> Fach categorization is a later phenomenon, and a most practical one. It saves going through reams of reading or recording to recall which singer is best suited for the role who can also sing it regularly (and consistently over several performances) without either simply fatiguing and delivering a bad performance _and or_ actually damaging their instrument in the trying. Like anything which gets down to such fine degrees of 'sorting' and 'typing,' if it is adhered to without much other thought behind it, it can make for oversight of some otherwise completely worthy, interesting and capable candidates --which was all I was hoping to at least allude to.


I'm not disagreeing with this. the issue is, as I said, when you have _very_ different types of voices classified within the same fach.

to use a previous example Marisa Galvany vs June Anderson










....these voices are meant for completely different repertoire.



> Yeah, too, Madame Norman is a dramatic soprano (mainly, or basically, lol) but using the following word in a completely non-pejorative sense for those remarkable and exceptionally flexible singers, they are _freak_ voices, somewhat _akin to a sport of nature_, like a Pavarotti or a Joan Sutherland. They just cannot be so neatly pigeon holed, as can the singers whose voices fall more neatly within the parameters of one category or t'other.


actually, Joan Sutherland is a textbook example of dramatic coloratura soprano and Pavarotti fits fairly neatly into lyric tenor (a somewhat bigger lyric tenor, but still a lyric tenor. when you compare him to, say, Jonas Kaufmann, Franco Corelli or even John Alexander, the difference is obvious)

In general, I think of Fach as a sort of "home base" for the singer, but some singers have a wider base and can dip into other territories (in fact, I'm about to make a thread on this).



> At any rate, many have no idea at all that coloratura is about a quality, not any given specific range (while of course the majority of that is found in the higher and lighter soprano fachs, and there is probably even another specific term for an alto with the same agility (ex: Stravinsky's and Auden's Baba the Turk), that spinto is not a quality unique to only the female voice, etc.


honestly, I almost wish there was a coloratura equivalent to every voice type. sounds more complicated, but it would make easier if there were a coloratura and non-coloratura variety of each voice type. 
ex:
light lyric coloratura soprano
spinto coloratura soprano
dramatic coloratura baritone
lyric coloratura tenor
coloratura contralto
dramatic coloratura bass (Samuel Ramey says hi lmao)
etc
with sopranos in particular, I think there is a coloratura version of each of the fachs traditionally listed



> that spinto is not a quality unique to only the female voice, etc. and since I worked as accompanist for so many singers and choirs, and for the pupils of teachers in voice studios, I learned all of this from a number of horse's mouths, as it were.


I often wish more people would use this term with baritones. for example, I would consider Robert Merrill, for instance, to be more of a "spinto" baritone, being right between lyric and dramatic (but not high enough to be a Verdi Baritone)



> The more fluidly you know the word parts and their attributes, the less confusing when you run across a 'dramatic spinto coloratura mezzo soprano,' for example


point taken XD


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

After reading all of the above posts, or as much of them as my brain could handle before I went catatonic, I have just two questions: 1. Do composers write music according to vocal fachs, or do they just write it for whoever can sing it? 2. Should singers build their careers by thinking about what fach they belong to and then choosing music written for those fachs, or should they try singing music that seems to suit their capabilities and then specialize in the music that feels and sounds best in their voices?

I think it's pretty clear that the latter is true in both cases. And if it is, to whom, other than a statistician, is the concept of fach even necessary? If you can sing it and you find that it's good for you, sing it. If you can't, don't.

Reality - in this case the human voice - doesn't break down into rigid categories. That's a game our minds play. There's always a limit to its usefulness.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Maria Callas and Joan Sutherland are all you need to know. It is one of the very rarest of vocal types.No one since Sutherland was in her league.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> After reading all of the above posts, or as much of them as my brain could handle before I went catatonic, I have just two questions: 1. Do composers write music according to vocal fachs, or do they just write it for whoever can sing it? 2. Should singers build their careers by thinking about what fach they belong to and then choosing music written for those fachs, or should they try singing music that seems to suit their capabilities and then specialize in the music that feels and sounds best in their voices? I think it's pretty clear that the latter is true in both cases.


I think the answer is more "a little bit of both" (though I am not a composer, so I wouldn't know for sure).



> _And if it is, to whom, other than a statistician, is the concept of fach even necessary_? If you can sing it and you find that it's good for you, sing it. If you can't, don't.


*looks at the countless examples of singers who got arrogant and wrecked their voices singing the wrong repertoire* 
I'd say it's useful to a good many people



> Reality - in this case the human voice - doesn't break down into rigid categories. That's a game our minds play.


no, it doesn't break down into _rigid_ categories. however, it does, break down into lose, but important categories. for example, if you are a lyric soprano, that doesn't mean "_only_ sing music written specifically for the lyric soprano voice", but it does mean "don't even think about singing Turandot or Gioconda. you will make a fool of yourself at best and wreck your instrument at worst". it also means "if you are singing outside of your fach, you need to be a bit more careful". there are, for instance, plenty of bigger lyric sopranos who can sing Tosca or Cio Cio San, but is it a good idea to sing them over and over again in a large opera house with a loud orchestra? probably not.



> There's always a limit to its usefulness.


naturally, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have uses

again, it's not like _every_ singer is going to fit neatly into only one category (one need look no further than Shirley Verrett, who could switch from dramatic mezzo to singing coloratura soprano passages up to a high D and make both sound natural). in fact, some fachs regularly dip into each other's music (plenty of spinto sopranos sing large lyric roles, dramatic sopranos and dramatic mezzos sometimes sing each other's rep), but the dramatic coloratura soprano fach is too broad imo and needs to be broken down.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Seattleoperafan said:


> Maria Callas and Joan Sutherland are all you need to know. It is one of the very rarest of vocal types.No one since Sutherland was in her league.


this is kinda my point. to my ear, Joan Sutherland and Callas had virtually nothing in common other than similar range. Sutherland was a bright, heroic, very high voice which struggled in the lower register and had to transpose parts of specific arias upward. Callas was a dark, steely voice with a cavernous lower register. she could give most dramatic mezzos a run for their money, but anything high C or above was unstable and wobbly after the beginning of her career and sounded strained.

two great singers, but couldn't be more different.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> I think the answer is more "a little bit of both" (though I am not a composer, so I wouldn't know for sure).
> 
> *looks at the countless examples of singers who got arrogant and wrecked their voices singing the wrong repertoire*
> I'd say it's useful to a good many people
> ...


I understand and sympathize with the intellectual pleasure of making distinctions and categorizing things. Without that pursuit the natural sciences, among other disciplines, would never have come into being. It helps us orient ourselves in the world and generates terminology that allows us to think, communicate, and pass knowledge along. So long as we remember that categories are an expedient of our own creation, little harm is done. But we always need to remember that behind our categories is a world of phenomena indifferent to them, a universe filled with interparticipation, gradation and change, and that a thing is what we have named it only until it becomes something else and requires a different name, or until we learn something about it which forces us to alter our nomenclature.

The number of categories to which we assign things - including singers - can be broken down as finely as we wish. We may enjoy the game of creating and assigning "fachs." We might, theoretically, create a special fach for nearly every singer, since few singers are likely to be equally suited to exactly the same roles. As I say, this can be a fun game for us to play. But when it comes right down to the business of singing, every singer is going to have to figure out what his vocal peculiarities and skills enable him to do, and no effort on his, or our, part to categorize him is going to give him that information. When a singer is out there in front of an audience struggling with a performance, it will do little good for him to think "I must be in the wrong fach," or "this role was written for a different fach." That singer needs to figure out what specific aspects of that specific role are problematic for his specific voice, and then figure out whether he can accommodate its requirements with a different vocal or dramatic approach or would be better off dropping the role altogether. He might then look at roles that appear to have similar requirements and decide whether to attempt them or not - but at no point is it necessary for him to ask whether those roles are "written for such and such a fach" or whether his voice is categorizable as being "in" that "fach." It's safe to say that when Nellie Melba lost her voice attempting to sing Brunnhilde she did not need to say to herself "evidently I am just not a hochdramatische sopran" in order to understand what had happened to her or to figure out how not to let it happen again.

Your statement that "if you are a lyric soprano, that doesn't mean only sing music written for the lyric soprano voice" assumes that there is something in reality called a "lyric soprano" and that composers write music for it. But in reality there are an unlimited number of actual singers, all different, with voices differing in range, tone color, amplitude, and flexibility, and an unlimited variety of music with different requirements with respect to all those vocal capabilities. Voices do not inherently inhabit our categories - "lyric," "spinto," "lyrico-spinto," "coloratura," "lyric-coloratura," etc., etc., and neither, I can assure you absolutely, do composers write music with such categories in mind. We like to talk about "Wagnerian sopranos" and "Verdi baritones," but when we hear such diverse singers as Marjorie Lawrence and Birgit Nilsson both successfully inhabiting the one "fach," and Mattia Battistini and Leonard Warren the other, I think it's pretty clear that our categories tell us little of interest about actual singers and what music they ought to be singing. We might ask what Wagner and Verdi would have said on the subject, and in fact we do have some information about that; I'll mention only that Wagner expected bel canto technique from his singers, including portamento and trills, at neither of which Brunnhildes of recent memory have particularly excelled, but of which Frida Leider was quite capable. Given that, should we classify both Leider and, say, Varnay as "Wagnerian" or "_hochdramatische_" sopranos? Personally, I couldn't care less what we call them. I care only that one of them possessed specific technical skills useful in the execution of specific musical works, and the other didn't. And no amount of "faching" will tell me a thing I can't hear with my own ears, or tell those singers whether they should be out there onstage trying to convince us that that's where they belong.

P.S. Let me just add to the above that I have no problem with the use of "fach" terminology for convenience or in a context where precise distinctions do not matter. It's perfectly reasonable to refer to both Callas and Sutherland as "dramatic coloraturas" as a rough way of distinguishing them from, say, Lily Pons and Helen Traubel. They both had big, flexible voices, and they sang a number of the same roles. But, beyond that, assigning them to various "fachs" and "subfachs" tells us virtually nothing of interest, and arguing about how to categorize them is a waste of time.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> this is kinda my point. to my ear, Joan Sutherland and Callas had virtually nothing in common other than similar range. Sutherland was a bright, heroic, very high voice which struggled in the lower register and had to transpose parts of specific arias upward. Callas was a dark, steely voice with a cavernous lower register. she could give most dramatic mezzos a run for their money, but anything high C or above was unstable and wobbly after the beginning of her career and sounded strained.
> 
> two great singers, but couldn't be more different.


Which period exactly do you mean by the beginning of Callas's career. Her main career started in 1947, and in *Anna Bolena* in 1957 she can still sing a huge, powerful sustained top D at the end of the Act I Finale. Her top is pretty impressive too in the live *Un Ballo in Maschera* from the same year. As Amina in Cologne the same year she cadenzas up to an top Eb off impressive dimensions, effecting a diminuendo on this stratospheric note; something I've never heard from any other singer including Sutherland. It is after this that the problems become noticeable, though she is still in remarkably firm voice as Medea in Dallas in 1958.

Sutherland and Callas do indeed sound very different, but what I think Seattleopera fan is pointing out that these were two very large voices, with incredible facility in coloratura. That is what a dramatic coloratura is. A singer with a large voice that has enormous flexibilty, and they are extremely rare.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> I understand and sympathize with the intellectual pleasure of making distinctions and categorizing things. Without that pursuit the natural sciences, among other disciplines, would never have come into being. It helps us orient ourselves in the world and generates terminology that allows us to think, communicate, and pass knowledge along. So long as we remember that categories are an expedient of our own creation, little harm is done. *But we always need to remember that behind our categories is a world of phenomena indifferent to them*, a universe filled with interparticipation, gradation and change, and that a thing is what we have named it only until it becomes something else and requires a different name, or until we learn something about it which forces us to alter our nomenclature.


I'm aware of this. it doesn't mean that opening them up for discussion is a bad thing



> But in reality there are an I'll mention only that Wagner expected bel canto technique from his singers, including portamento and trills, at neither of which Brunnhildes of recent memory have particularly excelled, but of which Frida Leider was quite capable. Given that, should we classify both Leider and, say, Varnay as "Wagnerian" or "_hochdramatische_" sopranos? Personally, I couldn't care less what we call them. I care only that one of them possessed specific technical skills useful in the execution of specific musical works, and the other didn't. And no amount of "faching" will tell me a thing I can't hear with my own ears, or tell those singers whether they should be out there onstage trying to convince us that that's where they belong.


*Frieda Lieder is amazing!* and yeah, I wish today's Wagnerian singers would actually work on their technique instead of acting like doing so is a luxury. my ears can't handle any more shrieking or wobbly high notes 



> P.S. Let me just add to the above that I have no problem with the use of "fach" terminology for convenience or in a context where precise distinctions do not matter. It's perfectly reasonable to refer to both Callas and Sutherland as "dramatic coloraturas" as a rough way of distinguishing them from, say, Lily Pons and Helen Traubel. They both had big, flexible voices, and they sang a number of the same roles. But, beyond that, assigning them to various "fachs" and "subfachs" tells us virtually nothing of interest, and arguing about how to categorize them is a waste of time.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> this is kinda my point. to my ear, Joan Sutherland and Callas had virtually nothing in common other than similar range. Sutherland was a bright, heroic, very high voice which struggled in the lower register and had to transpose parts of specific arias upward. Callas was a dark, steely voice with a cavernous lower register. she could give most dramatic mezzos a run for their money, but anything high C or above was unstable and wobbly after the beginning of her career and sounded strained.
> 
> two great singers, but couldn't be more different.


Alas, you have not heard Callas in her prime obviously. 



. Her high D's and E's in this opera are ginormous. Sutherland began as a mezzo and her early recordings could show a lovely lower register, as one can see in this clip from Othello:


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Seattleoperafan said:


> Alas, you have not heard Callas in her prime obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> . Her high D's and E's in this opera are ginormous. Sutherland began as a mezzo and her early recordings could show a lovely lower register, as one can see in this clip from Othello:
















06:35-7:02.

Game over.

"Everyone has a plan. . . until they're hit." - Mike Tyson


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> I'm aware of this. it doesn't mean that opening them up for discussion is a bad thing
> 
> *Frieda Lieder is amazing!* and yeah, *I wish today's Wagnerian singers would actually work on their technique instead of acting like doing so is a luxury. my ears can't handle any more shrieking or wobbly high notes *


We are in total agreement on that point! Every aspiring _heldensaenger_ should listen hard to Leider's free, flexible voice executing Brunnhilde's battle cry exactly as Wagner wrote it, and then hear her and Melchior make glorious music in the love duet from _Tristan_. What singing! We have heard nothing comparable in our time. Leider had the technique to sing Italian opera beautifully as well, and she was supposedly a fine actress. Leider's predecessors in the big Wagner roles were, so far as we can determine from old recordings and contemporary reports, technically fine singers too - I'm thinking back to Lilli Lehmann (who could evidently sing everything), Johanna Gadski, Olive Fremstad, and Lillian Nordica. Leider's successor Flagstad had a glorious instrument but less flexibility, and the downward trend in technical proficiency continued with Helen Traubel, Birgit Nilsson, Astrid Varnay and Martha Modl; the former pair at least had free, exciting voices, but I find the heavy, strenuous singing of the latter two difficult to enjoy. Frankly, I don't know where we stand now, as I haven't paid much attention to recent Wagner performances. If anyone happens to stumble on a truly great Wagnerian soprano, I should love to hear about it!


----------



## messadivoce (Apr 18, 2014)




----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

...like any other soprano but insists on flowers in her dressing room.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> this is kinda my point. to my ear, Joan Sutherland and Callas had virtually nothing in common other than similar range. Sutherland was a bright, heroic, very high voice which struggled in the lower register and had to transpose parts of specific arias upward. Callas was a dark, steely voice with a cavernous lower register. she could give most dramatic mezzos a run for their money, but anything high C or above was unstable and wobbly after the beginning of her career and sounded strained.
> 
> two great singers, but couldn't be more different.


If you check out the early live recordings of Callas when she was fat, her high notes were very secure and were more massive than even the great Joan Sutherland's. Listen how she dominates the orchestra and chorus with her high Eb at the end of the Triumphal Scene in Aida. It is astounding. Even in her first Lucia just after her weight loss she still had massive high notes. They quickly began to fade in power and in quality.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

messadivoce said:


>


This simply gave me chills and brought tears to my eyes. I have never before heard Ponselle in performance. This is not recording, this is life, and she lives every note. The way she rips into "Sempre libera" at a tempo you doubt she can manage, and then with her huge voice sings all the coloratura so cleanly and fearlessly, capturing all the mad defiance of Violetta's determination not to let love clip her wings... Absolutely riveting! Apparently (according to YouTube) Ponselle was suffering from a cold and insisted on a downward transposition of the "Sempre libera, which would account for the odd modulation preceding it, accompanied by a moment of vague pitch. But no matter. It's incredible singing - dramatic coloratura by anyone's definition - and something the like of which we've been waiting a long time to hear again.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> This simply gave me chills and brought tears to my eyes. I have never before heard Ponselle in performance. This is not recording, this is life, and she lives every note. The way she rips into "Sempre libera" at a tempo you doubt she can manage, and then with her huge voice sings all the coloratura so cleanly and fearlessly, capturing all the mad defiance of Violetta's determination not to let love clip her wings... Absolutely riveting! Apparently (according to YouTube) Ponselle was suffering from a cold and insisted on a downward transposition of the "Sempre libera, which would account for the odd modulation preceding it, accompanied by a moment of vague pitch. But no matter. It's incredible singing - dramatic coloratura by anyone's definition - and something the like of which we've been waiting a long time to hear again.


I believe Ponselle always made a downward transposition in _Sempre libera_. Tebaldi did the same in the theatre (though not in her studio recording), though Tebaldi's singing of the coloratura is sketchy, and nowhere near as accurate as Rosa.

I agree that the singing is amazing, but personally I find it all a bit hectic. Callas, with half as much voice, or maybe because she has half as much voice, is infinitely more subtle, especially at Covent Garden in 1958. No downward transposition of course, and she still goes for an Eb _in alt_, which is somewhat strained, though she didn't really need to sing it anyway. It's always a thrill and a privilege to hear Ponselle, but Callas sounds to me the more natural Violetta.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Scripting and code all botched.

Post deleted.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Coding and scripting still botched.

Post deleted a second time.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> I believe Ponselle always made a downward transposition in _Sempre libera_. Tebaldi did the same in the theatre (though not in her studio recording), though Tebaldi's singing of the coloratura is sketchy, and nowhere near as accurate as Rosa.
> 
> I agree that the singing is amazing, but personally I find it all a bit hectic. Callas, with half as much voice, or maybe because she has half as much voice, is infinitely more subtle, especially at Covent Garden in 1958. No downward transposition of course, and she still goes for an Eb _in alt_, which is somewhat strained, though she didn't really need to sing anyway. It's always a thrill and a privilege to hear Ponselle, but Callas sound to me the more natural Violetta.


I don't really disagree, and I wouldn't regard this as necessarily the "best" performance I've heard or can imagine. What gets me is the way Ponselle's huge, deep-toned instrument can "rip" into music like this with no compromise of tonal quality. It's as if someone had crossed Kirsten Flagstad with Beverly Sills! I feel myself in the presence of a natural phenomenon, much like the young Sutherland but with richer tone, better diction, and sharper dramatic instincts. It is a bit hectic, but in live performance this could come across as quite appropriate to the character at this moment. Callas may give us more refinement in places, but even for one who reveres her as I do, the aural results don't always fall as pleasantly on the ear.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> I don't really disagree, and I wouldn't regard this as necessarily the "best" performance I've heard or can imagine. What gets me is the way Ponselle's huge, deep-toned instrument can "rip" into music like this with no compromise of tonal quality. It's as if someone had crossed Kirsten Flagstad with Beverly Sills! I feel myself in the presence of a natural phenomenon, much like the young Sutherland but with richer tone, better diction, and sharper dramatic instincts. It is a bit hectic, but in live performance this could come across as quite appropriate to the character at this moment. Callas may give us more refinement in places, but even for one who reveres her as I do, the aural results don't always fall as pleasantly on the ear.


Sure.

I can agree to that.

Callas may not have the more beautiful _sound_; but then, Ponselle isn't so beautifully-_expressed_ as Callas, either.

Ponselle impresses.

Callas _slays_.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> I don't really disagree, and I wouldn't regard this as necessarily the "best" performance I've heard or can imagine. What gets me is the way Ponselle's huge, deep-toned instrument can "rip" into music like this with no compromise of tonal quality. It's as if someone had crossed Kirsten Flagstad with Beverly Sills! I feel myself in the presence of a natural phenomenon, much like the young Sutherland but with richer tone, better diction, and sharper dramatic instincts. It is a bit hectic, but in live performance this could come across as quite appropriate to the character at this moment. Callas may give us more refinement in places, but even for one who reveres her as I do, the aural results don't always fall as pleasantly on the ear.


I don't disagree. Ponselle is always a pleasure to listen to, and it is amazing that such a large, rich toned voice could have such flexibility.

Interestingly, Callas recommended to one of her students singing _Ernani involami_ that she should listen to Ponselle in the aria, and indeed Ponselle is admirably secure with an excellent trill, her voice notably more agreeable than Callas's by the time she came to record it. However Callas's style and phrasing is more suavely elegant, and she sings the cabaletta with more accuracy and delicacy. Altogether it is a much more subtle and refined performance. Swings and roundabouts, I suppose.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> I don't really disagree, and I wouldn't regard this as necessarily the "best" performance I've heard or can imagine. What gets me is the way Ponselle's huge, deep-toned instrument can "rip" into music like this with no compromise of tonal quality. It's as if someone had crossed Kirsten Flagstad with Beverly Sills! *I feel myself in the presence of a natural phenomenon, much like the young Sutherland but with richer tone, better diction, and sharper dramatic instincts.* It is a bit hectic, but in live performance this could come across as quite appropriate to the character at this moment. Callas may give us more refinement in places, but even for one who reveres her as I do, the aural results don't always fall as pleasantly on the ear.


imo, the major difference was that Sutherland's voice was significantly higher. Ponselle had a rich lower register and trouble singing C6 and above. Sutherland was the opposite, having trouble in the chest register but easy high notes and an ability to hang out in the upper reaches of the soprano voice for prolonged periods of time.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> imo, the major difference was that Sutherland's voice was significantly higher. Ponselle had a rich lower register and trouble singing C6 and above. Sutherland was the opposite, having trouble in the chest register but easy high notes and an ability to hang out in the upper reaches of the soprano voice for prolonged periods of time.


Effective range was certainly a difference between Ponselle and Sutherland, but I wouldn't call it the major difference between them. I'd say style and articulation count for as much. Sutherland at her most mush-mouthed and droopy is musically far away from the direct, clean incisiveness of Ponselle (or Callas). And as far as range itself is concerned, Ponselle was tonally consistent and splendid from the bottom to the top. Sutherland's low notes never had much color or expressive capability.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Effective range was certainly a difference between Ponselle and Sutherland, but I wouldn't call it the major difference between them. I'd say style and articulation count for as much. Sutherland at her most mush-mouthed and droopy is musically far away from the direct, clean incisiveness of Ponselle (or Callas). And as far as range itself is concerned, Ponselle was tonally consistent and splendid from the bottom to the top. Sutherland's low notes never had much color or expressive capability.


Sutherland past the late fifties and very early sixties doesn't much interest me either, though there are the occasional exceptions.

All the same, in her prime, she was an SR-71 Blackbird in the_ outer stratospheric ranges _that _no one else could touch _in terms of intonation, timbre, legato, and accuracy. . . except of course for You Know Who.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Sutherland past the late fifties and very early sixties doesn't much interest me either, though there are the occasional exceptions.
> 
> All the same, in her prime, she was an SR-71 Blackbird in the_ outer stratospheric ranges _that _no one else could touch _in terms of intonation, timbre, legato, and accuracy. . . except of course for You Know Who.


Though here too there is a difference. I'd say Callas's top notes at her vocal peak, say the 1952 Florence *Armida*, had a diamond-like brilliance. Sutherland's warmer tones remind me more of pearls!


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> Though here too there is a difference. I'd say Callas's top notes at her vocal peak, say the 1952 Florence *Armida*, had a diamond-like brilliance. Sutherland's warmer tones remind me more of pearls!


I think that's a beautiful way of putting it. Sassy. . . but beautiful.

I completely agree.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Effective range was certainly a difference between Ponselle and Sutherland, but I wouldn't call it the major difference between them. I'd say style and articulation count for as much. Sutherland at her most mush-mouthed and droopy is musically far away from the direct, clean incisiveness of Ponselle (or Callas). And as far as range itself is concerned, Ponselle was tonally consistent and splendid from the bottom to the top. Sutherland's low notes never had much color or expressive capability.


since this discussion is over voice type, effective range and tessitura make a very large difference, since they dictate which roles each singer is comfortable singing


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> since this discussion is over voice type, effective range and tessitura make a very large difference, since they dictate which roles each singer is comfortable singing


No disputing that.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

The only person today who I can think of that could sing stuff in this category well is Sondra Radvanovski. She was marvelous in Norma and had a brilliant high D. I've heard that she has a sizeable voice, though I doubt that Callas and Sutherland need worry.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Seattleoperafan said:


> The only person today who I can think of that could sing stuff in this category well is Sondra Radvanovski. She was marvelous in Norma and had a brilliant high D. I've heard that she has a sizeable voice, though I doubt that Callas and Sutherland need worry.


she is a spinto soprano with a bit of agility, not a true dramatic coloratura (though I agree she has a marvelous voice)


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Seattleoperafan said:


> The only person today who I can think of that could sing stuff in this category well is Sondra Radvanovski. She was marvelous in Norma and had a brilliant high D. I've heard that she has a sizeable voice, though I doubt that Callas and Sutherland need worry.


The last I heard, they rehearsing a duet album together , released on cloud 9 records :lol:
Date to be announced


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> she is a spinto soprano with a bit of agility, not a true dramatic coloratura (though I agree she has a marvelous voice)


I heard Radvanovski in Roberto Devereux today at the Met HD. She is the most impressive person I have seen in this repertoire since Sutherland. I happen to think she has a beautiful voice and has the facility to carry a really large voice above high C, which is very, very rare. She sang with some flexibility but none of the arias in Roberto Devereux were on the level with Donizetti's Lucia for dexterity, so it is hard to tell how really skilled she is. I have heard her do Sempre Libera and she was rather spectacular in it with a great Eb. A big plus is that she is one of the most gifted actresses I've seen on the opera stage.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I heard part of Devereux from the Met today and the final scene was beautifully and expressively sung, with gorgeous high notes and wonderful control of dynamics. What little coloratura there was was not bad but not great. I don't want to to nitpick, though. It's good to have her for this repertoire, and I feel that the sometimes questionable hysteria of the Met audience is probably justified.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Seattleoperafan said:


> I heard Radvanovski in Roberto Devereux today at the Met HD. She is the most impressive person I have seen in this repertoire since Sutherland. I happen to think she has a beautiful voice and has the facility to carry a really large voice above high C, which is very, very rare. She sang with some flexibility but none of the arias in Roberto Devereux were on the level with Donizetti's Lucia for dexterity, so it is hard to tell how really skilled she is. I have heard her do Sempre Libera and she was rather spectacular in it with a great Eb. A big plus is that she is one of the most gifted actresses I've seen on the opera stage.


Now you are confusing me Seattleoperafan?
As far as I recall dame Joan never touched this role, correct me if I ma wrong please


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Pugg said:


> Now you are confusing me Seattleoperafan?
> As far as I recall dame Joan never touched this role, correct me if I ma wrong please


I was referring to the Bel Canto repertoire, not the role of Roberto Deveraux. Sorry I didn't make that clear. Perhaps I should have phrased it differently. I also misspelled Radvanovsky's name. I'm from the South where everyone is named Jones or Stewart, so these slavic names are a challenge for me;-)


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Seattleoperafan said:


> I was referring to the Bel Canto repertoire, not the role of Roberto Deveraux. Sorry I didn't make that clear. Perhaps I should have phrased it differently. I also misspelled Radvanovsky's name. I'm from the South where everyone is named Jones or Stewart, so these slavic names are a challenge for me;-)


Problem solved, no worries:cheers:


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

The definition of a *true* Dramatic Coloratura for me is quite simple and unique. True voices of this fach are really rare. 
For me at least, the "Drammatico d'agilità" is supposed to be a heavy and rich voice throughout all its registers, having superior agility, and able to execute the coloratura *without losing the "thickness", heft and volume of the voice*. A voice that sounds like a Lyric coloratura in the upper register but has a richer, spinto-like quality in the middle doesn't really qualify in my opinion. The coloratura has to be dramatic.

It's hard to find a role consisting purely of Dramatic Coloratura singing the whole time. Even with true singers of this fach (Maria Callas) you definitely do not hear it all the time as they tend to go on the lighter, lyric coloratura side because, to be realistic, sustaining a true dramatic coloratura sound all the time is nearly impossible in roles that require enormous agility (Lucia for instance is basically a lyric coloratura role with some intense moments) Callas herself described her training with De Hidalgo as "Keeping the voice on the light side" and to "never weigh it down".

Here is what I would consider true dramatic coloratura in action.


----------

