# Joan Sutherland's dramatic Elettra in Idomeneo!



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

for all of you dissenters saying 
- "Joan Sutherland can't act!"
- "Joan never sang with any passion!"
- "Joan Sutherland was only a lyric voice. she didn't have any dramatic qualities"
- "Joan could only sing bel canto!"


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Well, it's good.

But who makes all those extreme statements? I would only say that she's not an extraordinary vocal actress, and that the voice is more of a strong lyric than that of a dramatic soprano, which really requires a fuller lower midrange and a chest register with tone and bite. Despite her volume and generalized vehemence, she doesn't make anything of the words here (not that it matters much, since they repeat over and over) and her chest voice is feeble and dry.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Well, it's good.
> 
> But who makes all those extreme statements? I would only say that she's not an extraordinary vocal actress, and that the voice is more of a strong lyric than that of a dramatic soprano, which really requires a fuller lower midrange and a chest register with tone and bite. Despite her volume and generalized vehemence, she doesn't make anything of the words here (not that it matters much, since they repeat over and over) and her chest voice is feeble and dry.


dramatic soprano capabilities: no
spinto soprano capabilities: yes, albeit placed a bit higher (I likely wouldn't approve of her singing a lot of late Verdi for example).

either way, she certainly had more vocal power and weight than true lyrics like Fleming, Te Kanawa or Moffo.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I don't know quite how to express what I hear, but I've always felt that Sutherland's timbre is mostly a brilliant mix of overtones which obscure the lack of a fundamental tone or core. The overtones become denser and more brilliant - like a starry nebula - the higher she goes, but get progressively thinner down lower until they almost disappear at the bottom, revealing the emptiness at the core of the sound. This accounts for a certain lack of "bite" in her sound despite the undeniable volume, and is the opposite of a real dramatic voice like Flagstad's, which has an utterly solid core and rich, complex overtones at the bottom and middle, though it lacks Sutherland's starry shimmer at the top. I realize this is just metaphor and a subjective impression, but it seems to express what I find lacking when Sutherland attempts dramatic repertoire like Wagner. She's certainly loud enough, but there's some solidity and edge missing in the tone, so I don't feel as if she's fully present in the music (not to mention the critical need for verbal bite in dramatic repertoire). I'm not much bothered by this when she sings Handel, Donizetti, or lighter Verdi, and I've always felt that she (and hubby) found the right repertoire for herself despite some fans' insistence that with her power she could have been a Wagnerian soprano.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> for all of you dissenters saying
> - "Joan Sutherland can't act!"
> - "Joan never sang with any passion!"
> - "Joan Sutherland was only a lyric voice. she didn't have any dramatic qualities"
> ...


There's only one La Stupenda, enough said.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Pugg said:


> There's only one La Stupenda, *enough said.*


Too bad you didn't tell me that before I said other stuff. :devil:


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> I don't know quite how to express what I hear, but I've always felt that Sutherland's timbre is mostly a brilliant mix of overtones which obscure the lack of a fundamental tone or core. The overtones become denser and more brilliant - like a starry nebula - the higher she goes, but get progressively thinner down lower until they almost disappear at the bottom, revealing the emptiness at the core of the sound. This accounts for a certain lack of "bite" in her sound despite the undeniable volume, and is the opposite of a real dramatic voice like Flagstad's, which has an utterly solid core and rich, complex overtones at the bottom and middle, though it lacks Sutherland's starry shimmer at the top. I realize this is just metaphor and a subjective impression, but it seems to express what I find lacking when Sutherland attempts dramatic repertoire like Wagner. She's certainly loud enough, but there's some solidity and edge missing in the tone, so I don't feel as if she's fully present in the music (not to mention the critical need for verbal bite in dramatic repertoire). I'm not much bothered by this when she sings Handel, Donizetti, or lighter Verdi, and I've always felt that she (and hubby) found the right repertoire for herself despite some fans' insistence that with her power she could have been a Wagnerian soprano.


I think Bonynge's upward trajectory with those jaw dropping notes above the staff likely robbed the low voice the fullness it once had when she was a mezzo and then singing Aida at Covent Garden. You can only stretch a voice so far. Yes Callas had a huge chest voice as well, but she didn't have nearly the longevity of Joan's voice by any means and that could have been a contributing factor. I think it is enough to say she was a dramatic coloratura soprano, one of the very few. No it wasn't Flagstad, but her notes above the staff rivaled Nilsson's high notes, I am told. Callas was her only competion in that regard I believe. She was certainly unique. One only has to listen to Santo di Patria by Verdi to know this was a truly gigantic voice. It wasn't perfect. But I am fond of her imperfections as they make her uniquely Joan.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Seattleoperafan said:


> I think Bonynge's upward trajectory with those jaw dropping notes above the staff likely robbed the low voice the fullness it once had when she was a mezzo and then singing Aida at Covent Garden. You can only stretch a voice so far. Yes Callas had a huge chest voice as well, but she didn't have nearly the longevity of Joan's voice by any means and that could have been a contributing factor. I think it is enough to say she was a dramatic coloratura soprano, one of the very few. No it wasn't Flagstad, but her notes above the staff rivaled Nilsson's high notes, I am told. Callas was her only competion in that regard I believe. She was certainly unique. One only has to listen to Santo di Patria by Verdi to know this was a truly gigantic voice. It wasn't perfect. But I am fond of her imperfections as they make her uniquely Joan.


Are there any recordings of her as a mezzo? I can't even imagine it. Even in the earliest recordings I've heard, she's unmistakably a soprano.


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

Seattleoperafan said:


> I think Bonynge's upward trajectory with those jaw dropping notes above the staff likely robbed the low voice the fullness it once had when she was a mezzo and then singing Aida at Covent Garden. You can only stretch a voice so far. Yes Callas had a huge chest voice as well, but she didn't have nearly the longevity of Joan's voice by any means and that could have been a contributing factor. I think it is enough to say she was a dramatic coloratura soprano, one of the very few. No it wasn't Flagstad, but her notes above the staff rivaled Nilsson's high notes, I am told. Callas was her only competion in that regard I believe. She was certainly unique. One only has to listen to Santo di Patria by Verdi to know this was a truly gigantic voice. It wasn't perfect. But I am fond of her imperfections as they make her uniquely Joan.


Bonynge only guided her to her real forte by pushing her into "canary bird" roles as she called them (and she hated them before he changed her mind.) Hers was a huge heroic but pure Coloratura voice. That explains the magnificence of her thrilling upper register and the frailness of her middle/lower weepy-crone register. She wasn't stretching her voice or anything. She was singing very comfortably and with great agility above the staff (hence the great longevity) and that was by far her greatest asset. Her voice diminished as she approached middle C and flourished as she soared around and above high C. This is the farthest thing from the definition of a Dramatic Mezzo or even a Dramatic/Spinto Soprano. 
She is definitely not meant for Verdi or the Assoluta roles and here is why: 
Abigaille, Aida, Medea, Anna Bolena, Lady Macbeth or even Norma require a singer whose chest voice can put Simionato to shame during most of the Opera, and Dame Joan simply wasn't. What makes a voice dramatic is not only the volume. Squillo and a powerful core of the voice are much more important. Sutherland didn't have either of these qualities. Her voice was just too round and soft even in her most thrilling big-voiced moments. 
I'm going to quote Maestro Muti here: (my rough translation from a speech in Italian): "_In Verdi there is such a maniacal precision in the relation between words and notes_" and this was absolutely the least of Sutherland's concerns. In the "how to sing belcanto" interview with Pavarotti and Horne, Richard and Joanie just say that words are not important at all, and on other occasions, Sutherland defends her terrible diction by saying that she always had a round sound and that it got her so far. 
Her _Santo di Patria_ is a school of vocal virtuosity. She is dazzling in that aria. But it doesn't sound like Verdi. Listening to Dimitrova and Caterina Mancini sing Odabella, one can immediately recognize the difference between a heroic Coloratura and a Verdi voice.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Are there any recordings of her as a mezzo? I can't even imagine it. Even in the earliest recordings I've heard, she's unmistakably a soprano.


I don't think so. Bonynge quickly dispelled this notion she got training with her mom as a teen. If you listen to the Willow Song from Othello on the Art of the Prima Donna you might notice that her low voice was much stronger and more beautiful early in her career:



Her voice might not have carried the drama and import of Dimitrova, but people who heard her said that she emitted a huge round sound that came at you from all over the house. Turandot is not a part for light weight sopranos, and there are quite a number of people who think she is the best recorded Turandot out there. Of course singing it in a studio is not the same thing as filling a house with your voice night after night, but she certainly sounded convincing as a dramatic soprano on disc.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Seattleoperafan said:


> I don't think so. Bonynge quickly dispelled this notion she got training with her mom as a teen. If you listen to the Willow Song from Othello on the Art of the Prima Donna you might notice that her low voice was much stronger and more beautiful early in her career:
> 
> 
> 
> Her voice might not have carried the drama and import of Dimitrova, but people who heard her said that she emitted a huge round sound that came at you from all over the house. Turandot is not a part for light weight sopranos, and there are quite a number of people who think she is the best recorded Turandot out there. Of course singing it in a studio is not the same thing as filling a house with your voice night after night, but she certainly sounded convincing as a dramatic soprano on disc.


I still hear the low notes as rather bodiless: all overtones, little core. Even Desdemona doesn't sound quite right for her, imo, until she leaps up to that outburst at "Ah! Emilia, Emilia, addio!" and the fireworks explode. Turandot is really an anomaly among dramatic parts in that the role makes its effects mostly above the staff and doesn't call for sustained phrases in the middle range or pit orchestral weight against that part of the voice. The dry-toned low notes don't matter much, especially on a recording, and so Sutherland makes a good thing of it.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> I still hear the low notes as rather bodiless: all overtones, little core. Even Desdemona doesn't sound quite right for her, imo, until she leaps up to that outburst at "Ah! Emilia, Emilia, addio!" and the fireworks explode.* Turandot is really an anomaly among dramatic parts in that the role makes its effects mostly above the staff and doesn't call for sustained phrases in the middle range or pit orchestral weight against that part of the voice. *The dry-toned low notes don't matter much, especially on a recording, and so Sutherland makes a good thing of it.


exactly, and I'm not surprised by this. Rosa Raisa herself was a fairly high voice for a dramatic soprano, and sang respectable coloratura work for most of her career. granted, there isn't really any coloratura at all in Turandot, but in all likelihood, her vocal strengths would have had a lot of similarities with Joan's, even if the timbre was quite different.

Nilsson, arguably the most famous Turandot, was also an unusually high, bright dramatic soprano voice which could flawlessly toss off pianissmo Db6s an do justice to shimmery, lyrical pieces for soprano. if I'm being honest, I don't think Turandot is even a wise choice of rep for a "normal" Italian dramatic soprano, at least not as a key part of one's rep.

side note: even so, it alludes me to this day why wikipedia refers to it as a "Wagnerian soprano role". apart from not being written by Wagner, or even a German composer, it sits in the tessitura of a high Mozart-style soprano (albeit with much more weight) while Wagner's leads were quite low by soprano standards, often flirting with or even crossing the line into mezzo territory. the term he used specifically even translates directly to "deep soprano" if I recall correctly. here again, Nilsson is the exception rather than the rule. almost every other famous Wagnerian soprano I can think of (excepting Christine Goerke) has a track record that includes at least venturing into mezzo territory, if starting there to begin with or switching to mezzo a decade or so before retirement.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> exactly, and I'm not surprised by this. Rosa Raisa herself was a fairly high voice for a dramatic soprano, and sang respectable coloratura work for most of her career. granted, there isn't really any coloratura at all in Turandot, but in all likelihood, her vocal strengths would have had a lot of similarities with Joan's, even if the timbre was quite different.
> 
> Nilsson, arguably the most famous Turandot, was also an unusually high, bright dramatic soprano voice which could flawlessly toss off pianissmo Db6s an do justice to shimmery, lyrical pieces for soprano. if I'm being honest, *I don't think Turandot is even a wise choice of rep for a "normal" Italian dramatic soprano, *at least not as a key part of one's rep.
> 
> side note: even so, it alludes me to this day why wikipedia refers to it as a "Wagnerian soprano role". apart from not being written by Wagner, or even a German composer, it sits in the tessitura of a high Mozart-style soprano (albeit with much more weight) while Wagner's leads were quite low by soprano standards, often flirting with or even crossing the line into mezzo territory. *the term he used specifically even translates directly to "deep soprano" if I recall correctly.* here again, Nilsson is the exception rather than the rule. almost every other famous Wagnerian soprano I can think of (excepting Christine Goerke) has a track record that includes at least venturing into mezzo territory, if starting there to begin with or switching to mezzo a decade or so before retirement.


Well said. My only correction would be to note that Wagner used the term "tiefer Sopran" as a synonym for mezzoish parts like Ortrud and Fricka, not Isolde or Brunnhilde. I can't remember what he called Kundry, the role that spans practically the whole female voice and that sits perfectly for very few singers of any category.

I agree: most sopranos should leave Turandot alone. It didn't take Callas too long to figure that out. Interestingly, she had the range for Kundry, and it would have been interesting had she taken on that role in German. I find her live recording of it quite interesting.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

No question Sutherland, in terms of sheer voice, was 'La Stupenda'. However, she didn't tend to be interested in the drama of an opera - rather the singing. I remember her saying in an interview that if you want drama you should go to the theatre not the Opera. "That's my opinion, anyway!" she said. Of course the roles she tended to sing where not (with some exceptions of course) the great dramatic roles but rather the coloratura roles. As well, Bonynge as her coach did not place a lot of importance to the words. As Bonynge became her conductor - he was a good musician but merely competent as a conductor - she didn't work with the great conductors of her age with whom she could have struck sparks. Note the dramatic early Donna Anna with Giulini compared with the flaccid effort with Bonynge. The Turandot with Mehta is remarkable. Even the Michaela with Schippers. Sometimes singers need a great conductor to push them to greater heights - Callas with Karajan is an example. But I think Joan was pretty single-minded and didn't want the hassle that involved. Pity really. But sheer sheer voice and technique pretty unbeatable.


----------

