# 17 year old Discussion About Greatest Singer of All Time From mid 20th Century



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

https://rec.music.opera.narkive.com...-all-time-sutherland-callas-bjoeling-flagstad
I stumbled on this old thread mainly focusing on one member of the group at that time who, because he is so much older than most of us, had heard a lot of singers in the house, especially in the 1950's when I was born. He was almost 90 when he wrote this long posting!!!! You will be hard pressed to find many opera fans today who's memories go back that far. You may not agree with him, but you might find his impressions interesting. I have a hard time agreeing with what he said about Callas from the early 50's, but I wasn't there. I think early in the 50's her voice must have been huge all the way up to the top. Enormous. After the mid 50's the high notes were not as big as they were before the weight loss. From what I have heard Callas's voice in her prime was even bigger than Sutherland's, and THAT is saying a lot. A WHOLE LOT.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

For my money, I think Sutherland's voice was great during a short period - around 1959 of _recorded history_. To me, her voice's quality started to deteriorate the following year, when that weird sinus sound started showing up in the middle register and it lost its clarity.

The clarity on top she retained for a decade after that. I saw her live starting in 1971/72 when she sang *Norma* in San Francisco. That sinus sound was less apparent than on records, or was dissipated in the atmosphere as it fled the stage. It rarely seemed _huge_, as she always reined the voice in as she produced her _roulades_, as well as lightened its tone. There was no ragged edge, or fluctuations of vibrato for her (not that it's wanted); it was like a tube of tone.

She rarely "let go," as even the high notes were controlled, well schooled. Not for her a high E snatched out of the air, or flung out with abandon. She almost always kicked the high note off a lower note: huh AAAAAAAH! A very old fashioned way to preserve the voice. So it almost didn't seem a huge voice, except in *Esclarmonde*, when it seemed she let the voice out in Sanderson fashion, via a _portamento_ (San Francisco, Oct/Nov 1974).

Later, in *Norma* a decade later, the voice thinned out on top and the performance was practiced, almost perfunctory. High notes were hit and its duration shortened - like some singers of old, who, touching the note, thought it was enough of an expenditure. As Milanov once said, "enough, they don't grow on trees."

But I like the nonagenarian's appreciation of other singers, Corelli most of all, whose titanic sound on top is well documented on live recordings.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

As for what he says about Callas's voice being "miked well" in her LIVE performances...er...what? *Nabucco*, *Armida*, almost any La Scala performance: *La Vestale*, *Alceste *, *Andrea Chenier*, etc.?


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

" I had the pleasure of hearing Callas LIVE in her prime.
She had a large voice. But sorry to disappoint some of her younger
fans who think she is the diva of all divas, Callas' voice was not
nearly the size of Sutherland even in 1952."

If there's more to singing than a beautiful voice, there's certainly more to it than a big voice. Of singers singing today the one with the biggest voice is possibly Anna Netrebko...

That said, it is clear that Sutherland's voice _was_ huge and as Mas has pointed out it was quite different pre 1961 when she made some of her best live recordings (first Lucia, Sonnambula and Puritani). I also think she was far more involved with the dramatic expression of those heroines in those live recordings as well. Then there is the period of her first studio recordings up to about 1970 (or thereabouts) which most people think of as her prime, but it really came earlier than that. Then most people seem to think that post 1970 Sutherland is best avoided, but I think there is always something worth treasuring in her singing other than in a few of her late recordings or in roles that really she didn't suit (Adriana Lecouvreur? The Trovatore Leonora?) That said, I very much enjoy a lot of her recordings.

As to the size of her voice, I never heard her live, but there was a recording on YouTube of her in Puritani recorded from the audience (top of the theatre so far away from the stage) and you can hear how it fills the house and reaches back there with a width of sound that is really impressive. I have had a look, but can't find it, but her voice must have been massive.

N.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

The Conte said:


> " I had the pleasure of hearing Callas LIVE in her prime.
> She had a large voice. But sorry to disappoint some of her younger
> fans who think she is the diva of all divas, Callas' voice was not
> nearly the size of Sutherland even in 1952."
> ...


You said: "Of singers singing today the one with the biggest voice is possibly Anna Netrebko..."

Nay, not so, sir!
Sondra Radvanovsky beats her by a country mile.
One of the singers who sang with her said that his ears hurt when he stood next to her, the voice was that powerful.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

I really enjoyed reading this, thanks for sharing!

I am by no means well versed in Sutherland's singing, but I've heard the complaints about her diction and didn't know what the fuss was about until recently. I'm learning a new role and she is the soprano on the recording. No other singer has caused me to lose my place in the score more often. She'll sing a phrase and I'll lose my place because I can't recognize what she's singing. Her voice is beautiful, but I would have trouble considering a singer who neglects the text to that extent the greatest. It's possible that I chose a recording that doesn't best represent her. I really can't say (Traviata with Bergonzi and Merrill)


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

Bonetan said:


> I really enjoyed reading this, thanks for sharing!
> 
> I am by no means well versed in Sutherland's singing, but I've heard the complaints about her diction and didn't know what the fuss was about until recently. I'm learning a new role and she is the soprano on the recording. No other singer has caused me to lose my place in the score more often. She'll sing a phrase and I'll lose my place because I can't recognize what she's singing. Her voice is beautiful, but I would have trouble considering a singer who neglects the text to that extent the greatest. It's possible that I chose a recording that doesn't best represent her. I really can't say (Traviata with Bergonzi and Merrill)


Definitely not the recording to display her gifts. I'd choose her first *Lucia*, 1961, with Cioni, or better, her first recital or better *The Art of the prima donna*, where she does pay a little more attention to the text (I suspect you don't want just the soprano arias).

She was a sensation at Coven Garden in 1959. The tenor is unbearable.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Bonetan said:


> I really enjoyed reading this, thanks for sharing!
> 
> I am by no means well versed in Sutherland's singing, but I've heard the complaints about her diction and didn't know what the fuss was about until recently. I'm learning a new role and she is the soprano on the recording. No other singer has caused me to lose my place in the score more often. She'll sing a phrase and I'll lose my place because I can't recognize what she's singing. Her voice is beautiful, but I would have trouble considering a singer who neglects the text to that extent the greatest. It's possible that I chose a recording that doesn't best represent her. I really can't say (Traviata with Bergonzi and Merrill)


Glad you found it interesting. I just marveled to read someone who's recollections of hearing live singers went back so far. We long to hear some of the great's live but must rely on descriptions of contemporaries to fill in the blanks.


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

Seattleoperafan said:


> https://rec.music.opera.narkive.com...-all-time-sutherland-callas-bjoeling-flagstad
> I stumbled on this old thread mainly focusing on one member of the group at that time who, because he is so much older than most of us, had heard a lot of singers in the house, especially in the 1950's when I was born. He was almost 90 when he wrote this long posting!!!! You will be hard pressed to find many opera fans today who's memories go back that far. You may not agree with him, but you might find his impressions interesting. I have a hard time agreeing with what he said about Callas from the early 50's, but I wasn't there. I think early in the 50's her voice must have been huge all the way up to the top. Enormous. After the mid 50's the high notes were not as big as they were before the weight loss. From what I have heard Callas's voice in her prime was even bigger than Sutherland's, and THAT is saying a lot. A WHOLE LOT.


Thanks for sharing.

I'm intrigued by StanInDrag's comments re Sutherland's voice being poorly served by the Decca recordings. I have found that the 'mushy diction' thing is sometimes less apparent on some live records, like the _Semiramide_ from La Scala in '62 than you would infer from contemporary studio recordings e.g. the _Traviata_ with Pritchard.




"Bel raggio..." from 3:13

I was surprised to really enjoy a very late live record of her in _Trovatore_ from '87 (!) - I believe her farewell from the Met -which is pretty marvellous, IMO. Much better than _Ernani_ or _Adriana Lecouvreur_ in the studio and I should add for good measure I think it surpasses her own studio _Trovatore _ from about 10 years earlier.





Regarding the volume of her voice, the "Santo di Patria" from Attila suggests more than most of her studio records how large her voice was years before _Turandot_ in the studio and _Esclarmonde_





All the same, as is a theme, it sounds a bit less articulate than her crazy live record of Elletra in _Idomeneo_. That's from '79 I think, by which time, for me at least, she had not been sounding her best in the studio for a few years.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

nina foresti said:


> You said: "Of singers singing today the one with the biggest voice is possibly Anna Netrebko..."
> 
> Nay, not so, sir!
> Sondra Radvanovsky beats her by a country mile.
> One of the singers who sang with her said that his ears hurt when he stood next to her, the voice was that powerful.


Singers who sound loud with someone standing next to them, aren't necessarily heard as well in the house. In any case, I've heard both singers live and going by my memory, Netrebko has the bigger voice. That brings me on to another thought I had reading the original linked post. The person had spent years going to the opera and comparing the size of different voices over many years and I wouldn't trust my memory over such a long time span. I have no reason to insist that my memories of Netrebko and Radvanovsky are correct either.

N.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

The Conte said:


> Singers who sound loud with someone standing next to them, aren't necessarily heard as well in the house. In any case, I've heard both singers live and going by my memory, Netrebko has the bigger voice. That brings me on to another thought I had reading the original linked post. The person had spent years going to the opera and comparing the size of different voices over many years and I wouldn't trust my memory over such a long time span. I have no reason to insist that my memories of Netrebko and Radvanovsky are correct either.
> 
> N.


That's a very good point. Maybe the writer was remembering some of Callas's later performances There is no doubt her voice lost some of its corruscating power after the weight loss but, by all accounts, up to about 1952/1953 it was pretty huge. Sutherland herself called it colossal.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Tsaraslondon said:


> That's a very good point. Maybe the writer was remembering some of Callas's later performances There is no doubt her voice lost some of its corruscating power after the weight loss but, by all accounts, up to about 1952/1953 it was pretty huge. Sutherland herself called it colossal.


Yes. I remember someone 15 years older than me having heard Callas in the late 50's in Tosca. He said even then it was the biggest voice he had ever heard, and I am sure he had heard all the big Wagnerian singers because he had a Wagner bathroom that had a letter framed that was written by Wagner.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

The Conte said:


> Singers who sound loud with someone standing next to them, aren't necessarily heard as well in the house. In any case, I've heard both singers live and going by my memory, Netrebko has the bigger voice. That brings me on to another thought I had reading the original linked post. The person had spent years going to the opera and comparing the size of different voices over many years and I wouldn't trust my memory over such a long time span. I have no reason to insist that my memories of Netrebko and Radvanovsky are correct either.
> 
> N.


It is true that we all hear with different ears and that is all we have to go by - which makes neither of us wrong nor right. 
However, many of the past critiques I have read all deemed Sondra as the most powerful soprano voice since Sutherland, Callas and Tebaldi.
All I can say is that there must be a reason Sondra is well known today as the Verdi soprano of our time.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

nina foresti said:


> It is true that we all hear with different ears and that is all we have to go by - which makes neither of us wrong nor right.
> However, many of the past critiques I have read all deemed Sondra as the most powerful soprano voice since Sutherland, Callas and Tebaldi.
> All I can say is that there must be a reason Sondra is well known today as the Verdi soprano of our time.


I've heard the same. I think she is better in Verdi than Bellini, but it must be thrilling to hear her sing above the staff with such a big sound.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Revitalized Classics said:


> Thanks for sharing.
> 
> I'm intrigued by StanInDrag's comments re Sutherland's voice being poorly served by the Decca recordings. I have found that the 'mushy diction' thing is sometimes less apparent on some live records, like the _Semiramide_ from La Scala in '62 than you would infer from contemporary studio recordings e.g. the _Traviata_ with Pritchard.
> 
> ...


I am in your debt for that Trovatore excerpt. I am a fan of late Sutherland but she has never sounded better than here in her maturity. She sounds 45 with no wobble or hootyness. This was indeed better than the studio Trovatore. Thank you so much!!!!!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Seattleoperafan said:


> I am in your debt for that Trovatore excerpt. I am a fan of late Sutherland but she has never sounded better than here in her maturity. She sounds 45 with no wobble or hootyness. This was indeed better than the studio Trovatore. Thank you so much!!!!!


You made me curious (because I'm skeptical) about that _Trovatore_, and I must say Sutherland at 60 sounds like a 60-year-old to me. That slow vibrato is a borderline wobble, the high notes are no longer easy, the diction is not her worst but still isn't clear, and the whole aria sounds listless.

None of that surprises me, but what does surprise me is that as I seek out other renditions of "D'amor sull'ali" by her, some from ten or fifteen years earlier, I'm finding that same slow, throbbing vibrato. It must be because I haven't paid close enough attention to the progression of her vocal career, and because I haven't listened much to her in recent years, that I'm surprised at what I hear. I only know for sure that her voice didn't have this heavy, lazy beat early in her career. Unfortunately there seem not to be any early recordings of this aria for comparison.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> You made me curious (because I'm skeptical) about that _Trovatore_, and I must say Sutherland at 60 sounds like a 60-year-old to me. That slow vibrato is a borderline wobble, the high notes are no longer easy, the diction is not her worst but still isn't clear, and the whole aria sounds listless.
> 
> None of that surprises me, but what does surprise me is that as I seek out other renditions of "D'amor sull'ali" by her, some from ten or fifteen years earlier, I'm finding that same slow, throbbing vibrato. It must be because I haven't paid close enough attention to the progression of her vocal career, and because I haven't listened much to her in recent years, that I'm surprised at what I hear. I only know for sure that her voice didn't have this heavy, lazy beat early in her career. Unfortunately there seem not to be any early recordings of this aria for comparison.


I agree, thankful that my ears were not deceiving me - I feared I was being overcritical, as I have a very low tolerance for her voice after 1959/60. Unfortunately, all I can hear are the "defects." This is less obvious live on stage (not live on a recorded medium).


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

I think Sutherland tends to get more flak than she deserves on this forum. However, I understand that her diction (or lack of it) puts many people off enjoying the majority of her recorded output. Her interpretation and musicality, depending on the role, can be somewhat shallow as well. That said, I don't think anyone can deny that her voice was something very special indeed and that she was a total vocal phenomenon. In that very early period of her big career (1959-61) the voice was less distinctive than latter on, but fresher and clearer and her vocal acting very satisfying. when it comes to her studio recordings (where we only get a very pale idea of the size of the voice), they tend to accentuate the cons of her art without the compensation of the full effect of the size and flexibility in coloratura passages, that must have seemed miraculous for those who heard her live.

I like a large number of her Decca recordings because she often sang rarer rep and the all round casts are often superb. I'm prepared to turn a blind eye to the mwah sound for the brilliance and distinctiveness of her voice. I don't have all her recordings and there are some roles that she really didn't suit. I like her Gilda, but Verdi's inherent dramatic, forward thrusting style isn't for her. Her Violetta and Leonora aren't for me (the studio Trovatore with Horne and Pavarotti was particularly ill-conceived). I also don't have a lot of her French recordings, but that is due to my disinterest in rare Massenet.

Her first live recordings of Lucia, Sonnambula and Puritani find her in key roles without the characteristics many don't like about her and her bel canto studio recordings are all recommendable in general. The other key recording is, of course, her Turandot.

N.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

The Conte said:


> I think Sutherland tends to get more flak than she deserves on this forum. However, I understand that her diction (or lack of it) puts many people off enjoying the majority of her recorded output. Her interpretation and musicality, depending on the role, can be somewhat shallow as well. That said, I don't think anyone can deny that her voice was something very special indeed and that she was a total vocal phenomenon. In that very early period of her big career (1959-61) the voice was less distinctive than latter on, but fresher and clearer and her vocal acting very satisfying. when it comes to her studio recordings (where we only get a very pale idea of the size of the voice), they tend to accentuate the cons of her art without the compensation of the full effect of the size and flexibility in coloratura passages, that must have seemed miraculous for those who heard her live.
> 
> I like a large number of her Decca recordings because she often sang rarer rep and the all round casts are often superb. I'm prepared to turn a blind eye to the mwah sound for the brilliance and distinctiveness of her voice. I don't have all her recordings and there are some roles that she really didn't suit. I like her Gilda, but Verdi's inherent dramatic, forward thrusting style isn't for her. Her Violetta and Leonora aren't for me (the studio Trovatore with Horne and Pavarotti was particularly ill-conceived). I also don't have a lot of her French recordings, but that is due to my disinterest in rare Massenet.
> 
> ...


I agree with you about her being something of a vocal phenomenon. My problem with her though is not just the diction but the fact that she rarely, if ever, really connects with the words. My favourite singers are all singers who will suddenly connect with the words and the music in a way that will suddenly bring a pssage into sharp relief. I find it irritating even in some of her most famous recordings, like *La Fille du Régiment*, which is why I rarely listen to her. Other people have different priorities and I recognise that, and I would certainly include her in a list of the greatest sopranos of the twentieth century, but I don't really have much interest in her.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Tsaraslondon said:


> I agree with you about her being something of a vocal phenomenon. My problem with her though is not just the diction but the fact that she rarely, if ever, really connects with the words. My favourite singers are all singers who will suddenly connect with the words and the music in a way that will suddenly bring a pssage into sharp relief. I find it irritating even in some of her most famous recordings, like *La Fille du Régiment*, which is why I rarely listen to her. Other people have different priorities and I recognise that, and I would certainly include her in but a list of the greatest sopranos of the twentieth century, but I don't really have much interest in her.


I know exactly what you mean and I certainly didn't intend that others here should like her more than they do. Her attention to the text was exactly what surprised me about those early recordings. (I wonder if Serafin's presence on two of them and Gui's on the third has anything to do with it.) She wasn't always so attentive to the text in that very early phase of the big career, though (the Glyndebourne performance of Puritani isn't as good as the Edinburgh one from the same year).

There are all sorts of reasons why we pull down recordings off the shelves and listen to some sets more than others and my fondness for bel canto even when it is chiefly sung in a vocal display mode means I probably listen to her sets more than others would.

N.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Like others here, I seem not to care for Sutherland's singing after about 1960, except perhaps in the occasional aria where brilliant high notes and dazzling coloratura are the main point. People talk endlessly about what happened to Callas after 1952 or so, and I suspect it was a confluence of factors rather than any one cause that contributed to her vocal deterioration. But what happened to Sutherland? Some have mentioned sinus problems, others the malign influence of her husband on her technique and musicianship. Does anyone have any strong opinions on this?


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

According to Wikipedia:

"Sutherland's early recordings show her to be possessed of a crystal-clear voice and excellent diction. However, by the early 1960s her voice lost some of this clarity in the middle register, and she often came under fire for having unclear diction. Some have attributed this to sinus surgery; however, her major sinus surgery was done in 1959, immediately after her breakthrough Lucia at Covent Garden. In fact, her first commercial recording of the first and final scene of Lucia reveals her voice and diction to be just as clear as prior to the sinus procedure. Her husband Richard Bonynge stated in an interview that her "mushy diction" occurred while striving to achieve perfect legato. According to him, it is because she earlier had a very Germanic "un-legato" way of singing."

However, as already pointed out, it wasn't just her diction, but general expressiveness of the text that she lost. I think we can rule out the influence of the sinus operation. Has anybody worked out when the voice made that change. In order to get a clearer idea of what happened, one would first have to identify if there was a certain point at which the voice changed, suggest a reason for the change and see if the dates/time period coincides. Could it be due to Bonynge's influence?

N.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

The Conte said:


> According to Wikipedia:
> 
> "Sutherland's early recordings show her to be possessed of a crystal-clear voice and excellent diction. However, by the early 1960s her voice lost some of this clarity in the middle register, and she often came under fire for having unclear diction. Some have attributed this to sinus surgery; however, her major sinus surgery was done in 1959, immediately after her breakthrough Lucia at Covent Garden. In fact, her first commercial recording of the first and final scene of Lucia reveals her voice and diction to be just as clear as prior to the sinus procedure. Her husband Richard Bonynge stated in an interview that her "mushy diction" occurred while striving to achieve perfect legato. According to him, it is because she earlier had a very Germanic "un-legato" way of singing."
> 
> ...


I don't know if Bonynge's influence was to blame, but it's interesting to note that he said the mushy diction was a result of her trying to achieve a perfect legato. If so it wasn't successful. Take a Puccini aria such as _Senza mamma_. Maybe I should make allowances for the fact that it was recorded quite late in her career, but she does not maintain a pure legato line and her diction, though better than it once was, is still not very good.






You only have to listen to versions by Tebaldi, De Los Angeles, Callas or Scotto to hear a true legato line, and all of them have excellent diction.


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> Like others here, I seem not to care for Sutherland's singing after about 1960, except perhaps in the occasional aria where brilliant high notes and dazzling coloratura are the main point. People talk endlessly about what happened to Callas after 1952 or so, and I suspect it was a confluence of factors rather than any one cause that contributed to her vocal deterioration. But what happened to Sutherland?


There was a definite change between, say, 1959 e.g.




...and 1962.





I am in rather a muddle as to what the changes represent. If you can excuse the long post, I've had various ideas over the years.

Sometimes, it seems to me that this was unquestionably a vocal deterioration: based, that is, on the assumption that Sutherland would have continued singing with that very bright and articulate sound _if only she could_. At that point, one might question the change of repertoire, whether she sang too frequently or was overly taxed by the upheaval of her newly international career etc.

Other times I hear it as principally a stylistic transformation. The change is so marked, I might assume there was intent behind it. It is as if Bonynge and Sutherland heard the very bright, articulate sound so characteristic of the recital in '59 and made a concerted effort to transform this into a rounder, darker, more conventional sound. If that was the case, I would argue this came at a cost.



> Some have mentioned sinus problems, others the malign influence of her husband on her technique and musicianship. Does anyone have any strong opinions on this?


The sinus explanation seems a bit dubious to me because the surgery happened before the _Art of the Prima Donna_ album, the _Don Giovanni_ with Giulini etc and triumphs like her Met debut. I'm no doctor, so perhaps someone else knows if a delayed effect is plausible?

She did start working in '62 with Bonynge near exclusively as the conductor. I assume he encouraged the homogenous vowel sounds. Only thing is, he coached her during the bright-voiced earlier years too...

I don't know if I am just imagining that she sings uncharacteristically well - more articulate, more dramatically - the few times she sang with other conductors? e.g. the _Turandot_ with Mehta, _Otello_ with Cillario, _Athalia_ with Hogwood. There were so few examples after '62 I don't know if it is just coincidence.

Even though Sutherland was a vocal phenomenon, already by '64 (I think?) she was singing such heavy parts as _Norma_ and far from infrequently: I'm pretty astonished that she could stand up to this schedule for such a long time.


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

I agree that that _Trovatore_ was not especially better than any of her other later performances. In fact, it throws into relief how odd her head voice was when she briefly goes into chest on "e tu nol sai" Suddenly the words are comprehensible, the voice is clear and focused, but it doesn't last and she returns to the muddy and in my view ugly sound she generally had post-1960. I also completely agree with Tsaraslondon about legato: if Bonynge and Sutherland thought that was necessary to achieve legato, why didn't they listen to all the bel canto singers whose legato is perfection and whose words can be clearly heard even on the scratchy and inadequate acoustic records? It seems like an intentional change in her voice.



> It is as if Bonynge and Sutherland heard the very bright, articulate sound so characteristic of the recital in '59 and made a concerted effort to transform this into a rounder, darker, more conventional sound. If that was the case, I would argue this came at a cost.


I would argue they transformed a conventional sound into an unconventional one.

To me what is sad is that Sutherland was clearly stupendously gifted, and that her talent was in fact fairly well developed into an extremely powerful and clear voice early in her career. She could certainly have continued to sing dramatic roles and still done the bel canto roles as well. Lehmann, Callas and others from further back are a clear model. To me the effect is not just bad diction, but that the odd vowels are really extremely ugly when you listen closely to them. Maybe in the house you would be so impressed by her power that you wouldn't notice.


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

vivalagentenuova said:


> I agree that that _Trovatore_ was not especially better than any of her other later performances. In fact, it throws into relief how odd her head voice was when she briefly goes into chest on "e tu nol sai" Suddenly the words are comprehensible, the voice is clear and focused, but it doesn't last and she returns to the muddy and in my view ugly sound she generally had post-1960. I also completely agree with Tsaraslondon about legato: if Bonynge and Sutherland thought that was necessary to achieve legato, why didn't they listen to all the bel canto singers whose legato is perfection and whose words can be clearly heard even on the scratchy and inadequate acoustic records? It seems like an intentional change in her voice.


Thanks for the interesting comment. I've got a couple of supplementary questions, if it is not too much of a nuisance?

Since even in '87 there were moments, as you've described, when Sutherland could still sing with greater clarity into chest - is there a time limit (barring retirement lol) on repairing a voice like Sutherland's?

Could she, for instance, have eradicated the unsteadiness which was a feature of her voice as the 1970s progressed? Do you know anyone who has rebuilt/rediscovered (I'm not sure what word would suffice?) their voice, head-voice specifically in this case, along the right lines?

She did sing a greater variety of roles as time went on, but I anticipate there would be little benefit if, in your estimation, she was singing the roles in an incorrect way.



> I would argue they transformed a conventional sound into an unconventional one.
> 
> To me what is sad is that Sutherland was clearly stupendously gifted, and that her talent was in fact fairly well developed into an extremely powerful and clear voice early in her career. She could certainly have continued to sing dramatic roles and still done the bel canto roles as well. Lehmann, Callas and others from further back are a clear model. To me the effect is not just bad diction, but that the odd vowels are really extremely ugly when you listen closely to them. Maybe in the house you would be so impressed by her power that you wouldn't notice.


It sounds like there is a chicken-and-egg thing going on where...

A voice which is in proper balance can be used in a wide repertoire and 
If you sing a wide repertoire then no part of your vocal technique is unduly neglected?

By this reckoning, Sutherland's great fame as _Lucia_ was the best thing that could happen for her in terms of fame and commercial success, but her subsequent specialism/pigeonholing might have been the biggest risk.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

I, for one, think that the sinus operation ruined her voice. It's impossible for the body to change overnight, so the effects of the surgery would necessarily be gradual.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Revitalized Classics said:


> By this reckoning, Sutherland's great fame as _Lucia_ was the best thing that could happen for her in terms of fame and commercial success, but her subsequent specialism/pigeonholing might have been the biggest risk.


Apparently Serafin thought she should have gone on to sing Lady Macbeth. If she had followed his advice her career might have gone ina completely different direction.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Tsaraslondon said:


> I don't know if Bonynge's influence was to blame, but it's interesting to note that he said the mushy diction was a result of her trying to achieve a perfect legato. If so it wasn't successful. Take a Puccini aria such as _Senza mamma_. Maybe I should make allowances for the fact that it was recorded quite late in her career, but she does not maintain a pure legato line and her diction, though better than it once was, is still not very good.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not sure using a recording form late on in her career particularly instructive (as you point out). That said, I agree that slurring the diction is the wrong solution when it comes to a lack of legato. If anything, aiming for pure, natural vowels (which by their very nature would improve the diction) would facilitate a legato line. Putting on a particular sound because that seems to produce more legato could be the explanation for the vocal change and if that's the case it is a tragedy as said above. I wonder what would have happened had Sutherland not had Bonynge and had been taken under Serafin's wing.

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

vivalagentenuova said:


> I agree that that _Trovatore_ was not especially better than any of her other later performances. In fact, it throws into relief how odd her head voice was when she briefly goes into chest on "e tu nol sai" Suddenly the words are comprehensible, the voice is clear and focused, but it doesn't last and she returns to the muddy and in my view ugly sound she generally had post-1960. I also completely agree with Tsaraslondon about legato: if Bonynge and Sutherland thought that was necessary to achieve legato, why didn't they listen to all the bel canto singers whose legato is perfection and whose words can be clearly heard even on the scratchy and inadequate acoustic records? It seems like an intentional change in her voice.
> 
> I would argue they transformed a conventional sound into an unconventional one.
> 
> To me what is sad is that Sutherland was clearly stupendously gifted, and that her talent was in fact fairly well developed into an extremely powerful and clear voice early in her career. She could certainly have continued to sing dramatic roles and still done the bel canto roles as well. Lehmann, Callas and others from further back are a clear model. To me the effect is not just bad diction, but that the odd vowels are really extremely ugly when you listen closely to them. Maybe in the house you would be so impressed by her power that you wouldn't notice.


This is a wonderful post. Therefore the change happened somewhere between 1961 and 62. I think it most likely that this was a conscious change and I agree that it is sad that Sutherland may have performed below her potential for most of her big career. I must admit I have a high tolerance for her mwah sound and lack of dramatic conviction, especially in the roles where there isn't competition from Caballe or Callas and her collaborations with the likes of Pavarotti, Milnes and Ghiaurov make those recordings worth having for her co-stars alone.

N.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

I must have no taste because I like La Stupenda both before and after the change. Sorry to be a disappointment to ya'll ;-) Even late in her career her high notes and coloratura were amazing to me. I like the round sound that she acquired after the early 60's, but like the early sound when she began as well. I believe I read where Bonynge thought it would add longevity to her voice to have a less bright sound. She did sing well till her early 60's from many people's perspective so perhaps it worked. I don't understand Italian so diction is not a factor to me like it is to many of you specialists.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

Seattleoperafan said:


> I must have no taste because I like La Stupenda both before and after the change. Sorry to be a disappointment to ya'll ;-) Even late in her career her high notes and coloratura were amazing to me. I like the round sound that she acquired after the early 60's, but like the early sound when she began as well. I believe I read where Bonynge thought it would add longevity to her voice to have a less bright sound. She did sing well till her early 60's from many people's perspective so perhaps it worked. I don't understand Italian so diction is not a factor to me like it is to many of you specialists.


I don't think liking Miss Sutherland shows any lack of taste, SOF. Some of us are pickier than others for reasons of our own. I've always maintained that I got too jaded seeing all of the greats that I experienced at the SF Opera in the years 1970 - 1990. Also, liking Callas kind of spoiled everyone else for me (I realized that I had always been looking for another soprano as good as she was). 
So I'd be happy if I could appreciate other singers in "her" repertoire. I was happy I could appreciate Radvanovsky as the *Trovatore* Leonora (Sutherland did not do it for me). She had everything needed for the role. But she was disappointing as *Norma*. (See?). 

Beyond all that, liking opera makes instant critics of us all!


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Seattleoperafan said:


> I must have no taste because I like La Stupenda both before and after the change. Sorry to be a disappointment to ya'll ;-) Even late in her career her high notes and coloratura were amazing to me. I like the round sound that she acquired after the early 60's, but like the early sound when she began as well. I believe I read where Bonynge thought it would add longevity to her voice to have a less bright sound. She did sing well till her early 60's from many people's perspective so perhaps it worked. I don't understand Italian so diction is not a factor to me like it is to many of you specialists.


You need make no apologies. As I said in my post, different people have different priorities and engagement with the text is one of my mine. I don't speak Italian either (though I have a smattering of the language picked up from listening to opera) so it's not just a question of poor diction for me.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Seattleoperafan said:


> I must have no taste because I like La Stupenda both before and after the change. Sorry to be a disappointment to ya'll ;-)


Not at all, I'm glad there are at least two of us! I like her voice at all stages of her career and her bel canto recordings fill in gaps in the rep that weren't recorded by Caballe or Callas and I have at least one recording of all her Rossini, Bellini or Donizetti roles for the reasons I've already given.

And thanks for posting this thread, it's leading to a very interesting discussion.

N.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

The Conte said:


> I'm not sure using a recording form late on in her career particularly instructive (as you point out). That said, I agree that slurring the diction is the wrong solution when it comes to a lack of legato. If anything, aiming for pure, natural vowels (which by their very nature would improve the diction) would facilitate a legato line. Putting on a particular sound because that seems to produce more legato could be the explanation for the vocal change and if that's the case it is a tragedy as said above. I wonder what would have happened had Sutherland not had Bonynge and had been taken under Serafin's wing.
> 
> N.


Well I did state that it was a late recording. However I would just add that even in their later recordings, Callas, Tebaldi and others retained their ability to sustain a long legato line. Callas continuously stressed the importance of legato in her masterclasses and I particularly remember her singing a few lines of the slow section of _Abscheulicher_. Even singing in a language unfamiliar to her (German) it doesn't impede the flow of her deep legato.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Tsaraslondon said:


> Well I did state that it was a late recording. However I would just add that even in their later recordings, Callas, Tebaldi and others retained their ability to sustain a long legato line. Callas continuously stressed the importance of legato in her masterclasses and I particularly remember her singing a few lines of the slow section of _Abscheulicher_. Even singing in a language unfamiliar to her (German) it doesn't impede the flow of her deep legato.


Yes, I agree. Assuming that Bonynge's statement about making the vowels indistinct being a conscious change with the aim of achieving better legato is correct, that's very sad indeed as legato is linked to having pure vowels, not mushy ones! The correct way to facilitate legato singing is to make the vowels as pure and clear (from the point of view of diction, I don't mean making the tone bright) as possible, whilst articulating the consonants in such a way as not to hinder the flow of the line that is sung on the vowels. Sutherland had the breath support to achieve this so it would appear that it was a problem with articulating the jaw without interrupting the flow of the line. Perhaps she should have worked on her consonants, rather than sacrificing her vowels.

N.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

I'm thrilled that the old thread I found started such a lively discussion. I thought it might. His memory went back so far! Even when we disagree, it is still so heavenly to find a group of people who truly care about opera, something rarely found in my little world. Thanks people.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

I've been doing some digging and listening to recordings of Sutherland in 1960 and 1961 to try and work out when the mushy vowels crept in. I was interested in finding out whether there was a dividing line between clarity on recordings up to a certain point and mush from a certain point on. It would appear that the change happened in 1961. Recordings from 1960 and before reveal a clear diction and mostly understandable vowels. No recital albums were made in 1961, but complete recordings of Lucia and Gilda in the summer find the mush present. The worst mush at that period comes in May 1961 at her La Scala Beatrice di Tenda:






But then over six months later the same year, she sang Sonnambula at Carnegie Hall with a clarity that is closer to her earlier recordings of the aria (although not quite as clear):






It would seem to be something that came and went depending on the performance during 1961 and by 1962 had settled in the voice. This doesn't necessarily indicate the cause for it, but I thought it interesting to define the exact period it happened in.

N.


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

The Conte said:


> I've been doing some digging and listening to recordings of Sutherland in 1960 and 1961 to try and work out when the mushy vowels crept in. I was interested in finding out whether there was a dividing line between clarity on recordings up to a certain point and mush from a certain point on. It would appear that the change happened in 1961. Recordings from 1960 and before reveal a clear diction and mostly understandable vowels. No recital albums were made in 1961, but complete recordings of Lucia and Gilda in the summer find the mush present. The worst mush at that period comes in May 1961 at her La Scala Beatrice di Tenda:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


May/August 1961 was also when Sutherland recorded _Messiah_ with Boult





A comparison which may be of interest is her next recorded Handel in English: 'With plaintive note' from _Samson_ recorded in June '63 where the change is marked.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

What isn't stressed enough is that words and their sounds are important not only for comprehension but as purely musical phenomena. Composers set words in specific ways according to their sound as well as their denotative meaning; vowels and consonants have expressive potential, and their sound can reinforce and amplify the meaning of the words as well as constitute a thing of beauty in itself. If the sounds of words are obscured by the singer the music simply isn't all there.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> What isn't stressed enough is that words and their sounds are important not only for comprehension but as purely musical phenomena. Composers set words in specific ways according to their sound as well as their denotative meaning; vowels and consonants have expressive potential, and their sound can reinforce and amplify the meaning of the words as well as constitute a thing of beauty in itself. If the sounds of words are obscured by the singer the music simply isn't all there.


I would hate to have to argue against you in a court of law.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Seattleoperafan said:


> I would hate to have to argue against you in a court of law.


:lol: ....................


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

Here's Franco Leoni's *L'Oracolo*, the weirdest Sutherland recording as far as repertoire choices go


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> What isn't stressed enough is that words and their sounds are important not only for comprehension but as purely musical phenomena. Composers set words in specific ways according to their sound as well as their denotative meaning; vowels and consonants have expressive potential, and their sound can reinforce and amplify the meaning of the words as well as constitute a thing of beauty in itself. If the sounds of words are obscured by the singer the music simply isn't all there.


True. Furthermore, the keystone to good technique is purity of vowel. I was reading something last night about Gigli giving a class in 1955 in which he stressed the importance of the five Italian vowels in singing. Fortunately Sutherland had pure vowels when she learned her technique so even when they went she could still perform vocal acrobatics.

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

And I've just found an article with the following quote from the great singing teacher G.B. Lamperti:

"in Italy, music and words are identical, so much so,

that bare speech is in itself a melody."

N.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

The Conte said:


> And I've just found an article with the following quote from the great singing teacher G.B. Lamperti:
> 
> "in Italy, music and words are identical, so much so,
> 
> ...


Diction is very important in speaking as well as singing Italian, especially with the double consonants. One of the women we met on a trip there in the '90s, was called Rossella. One of my friends who spoke no Italian, pronounced it Rozela, since spoken English doesn't recognize double consonants. She was not amused, especially since she corrected him more than once and he just couldn't do it.


----------

