# Any fans of Joan Sutherland in her 50's and 60's?



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

I worship Joan and of course she was at her peak in her thirties BUT there are some things I really enjoy in her more mature recordings. She could sing higher, with secure Eb's and E's when she was younger, BUT I like the sound of her D's better when she was later in her career. The vibrato was more defined and the sound so glorious. I have a feeling her high Eb's early in her career were really beyond the scope of the recording devices to truly capture and would have been better in the opera house. I also like the very mezzo quality she got in her middle voice after she turned 50. It was a different voice after menopause, but I felt she gained some elements which I adored later in her career. Her diction was only good in her very early coloratura recordings but she had such great legato and agility. After around 61 her very top notes started to decline, but Callas' massive notes above the staff were gone within a brief time after her massive weight loss. Joan being able to sing D's up to her early 60's is not to be sneezed at. Some complain she transposed roles down late in her career, but I would rather hear her transposed down than anyone alive today.Anyone want to sound off.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Seattleoperafan said:


> Joan being able to sing D's up to her early 60's is not to be sneezed at.


I haven't gotten into Sutherland enough to comment, but would add that another who still has her D's into her 60s is Mariella Devia. I do have a double disc of Sutherland Arias and I have her La Fille du Regiment with Pavarotti, which is a wonderful set.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Yes she still got great reviews in her 60's. My impression though was that Devia did not have a giant dramatic coloratura instrument like Sutherland had.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

I really need to explore Sutherland more. It's just that I get on certain things and have to work my way through before moving to the next. I have been on a binge with Maria Callas acquiring 30 hours of music since the new year, and now am onto Devia. But I see a very tempting box set on Sutherland at reasonable price on Amazon though. Apparently no box set of live material or operas though, so this would not be a comprehensive set, but does appear to give us Sutherland from youth to old age, and so a good set to check out the vocal changes over the years:


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

The Art of the Prima Donna is very likely the greatest studio recital of all time, and is considered so by a great many critics. I highly recommend the 3 part documentary on The Reluctant Prima Donna which had many of her very esteemed collegues SP? talking about why she was perhaps the greatest singer of all time. I can't post it but it should come up easily on Youtube. There is also a short video called: Joan Sutherland: The Greatest Singer of the Twentieth Century by John Roberts on Youtube that I did which has gotten a good many views. I don't know why I am unable to post links on this site today. The thing to keep in mind about Sutherland and Callas ( early Callas when she was fat) are that their voices were many times larger than other singers doing the coloratura roles they championed. Callas before 1954 was very different than the Callas after lost 80 pounds. Very rapidly after her weight loss the powerful, secure top started to come apart. Enjoy.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Sutherland is totally dope in my opinion. Such latitude in her vocals. 

And luckily my stepdad is obsessed with her so I can get to enjoy her any time I want.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Seattleoperafan said:


> The Art of the Prima Donna is very likely the greatest studio recital of all time, and is considered so by a great many critics.


That's the one I have!  Going to have to give it a spin (well two spins as it is two discs):


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Florestan said:


> That's the one I have!  Going to have to give it a spin (well two spins as it is two discs):


Why just have one... let's have it all!


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

A wonderful documentary about her life btw folks.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

albertfallickwang said:


> Why just have one... let's have it all!


But you also have to get this one:


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

I've heard a lot of Sutherland in her mid to late 40's -- those "second" Decca recordings of LUCIA, RIGOLETTO, and I PURITANI -- but I believe the only thing I've heard of her in her fifties is an excerpt of that Met telecast of LUCIA that's on DVD. It's my impression that as she aged she lost some of the amplitude of her voice but gained sharper diction. For instance, I've heard her first RIGOLETTO recording (the one with Cornell MacNeil), where for all the full and lovely tone she's rather "mooney" and very mush-mouthed, whereas in the second RIGOLETTO (the one with Sherrill Milnes), the voice doesn't sound as strikingly huge but she's more dramatically alert and her diction has more "bite." As a big fan of Sutherland I wouldn't want to exclude any period of her career, but if pressed I'd say I'd rather listen to her either in the very early years of her fame (1959-1960) where her enunciation was relatively clear, or in her 1970's recordings where she had a good balance of qualities -- sound, enunciation, and dramatic involvement which I think went along with an improved sense of rhythm (i.e. less "droopiness"). Of course, there are some things that for me personally are just unbeatable, like the 1960's NORMA which is tonally and technically first-rate even though she's hardly Maria Callas when it comes to acting with the voice.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

I never found her voice appealing or attractive, but she hit the note.
And her diction always sounded mushy to me.
But a great singer tho.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Callas and Sutherland are like comparing the best chocolate cake and or the finest baked bread that is still warm. Both incredible in different ways!!! Neither will ever be equaled ever ever again I fear. Go to Youtube and watch Sutherland in Giudici from Maria Stuarda in concert from Lincoln Center when she was around 60. AWESOME. The voice may have become somewhat smaller but it became darker and richer in the middle. Her top was so beautiful in this. I think she became more comfortable being dramatically involved as she was older. She became even more grande ontage, even though she was very humble in real life. Joan Sutherland: The Reluctant Prima Donna is amazing!


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Itullian said:


> I never found her voice appealing or attractive, but she hit the note.
> And her diction always sounded mushy to me.
> But a great singer tho.


I never spoke French or Itallian so I wouldn't understand good diction if I heard it, but I do know that you are a stickler for such things Joan was an anathema to hear. Callas was great with diction. I 'll take subtitles.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

i'm not a stickler.
Joan may be the greatest. Sometimes I think she was.
And a gracious lady too.
God bless her.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Seattleoperafan said:


> I never spoke French or Itallian so I wouldn't understand good diction if I heard it, but I do know that you are a stickler for such things Joan was an anathema to hear. Callas was great with diction. I 'll take subtitles.


I really enjoy only the early Sutherland. "The Art of the Prima Donna" was the first thing I heard by her, and I've subsequently felt it was about the best. There is this wonderful TV mad scene from that time, the voice fresh and clear, and even the words intelligible (many of them anyway):






When her diction became mush and her phrasing droopy I couldn't enjoy her. I've never enjoyed any singer whose diction was unintelligible, and how subtitles could ever be considered a substitute for articulation is totally incomprehensible to me. It isn't only a question of understanding the words, but also of how the singer uses their articulation musically. Words - vowels, consonants, phrases - have musical qualities that make their own effect and affect how the music itself is inflected. A singer who produces beautiful words is communicating in a personal way, is _speaking to us __and __telling us_ _something_; someone producing an undifferentiated stream of tone is telling us only "listen to me hit all these notes with my beautiful voice." When Sutherland's singing stopped speaking to me, I lost interest, and later, as her tone's shimmering purity diminished and her vibrato slowed, I just didn't care. I've always thought of her as a potentially great artist who needed guidance but got Bonynge. I guess they had a decent marriage, at least.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

I _love_ Dame Joan, but her voice didn't age the most gracefully, starting to "come apart at the seems" in the mid 70s. the top remained relatively secure (albeit it was a darker, steelier sound, like a dramatic soprano), but the lower register dried up significantly and the middle got wobbly



Seattleoperafan said:


> Yes she still got great reviews in her 60's. My impression though was that Devia did not have a giant dramatic coloratura instrument like Sutherland had.


exactly. a high D on a lighter voice is nothing special; a high D on a Wagner sized voice? .....WOW


----------

