# Final Round. Soprano: Son Vergin Vezzosa. Callas, Sutherland, Pagliughi



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)




----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

There's no question that Callas does more with this than any of the other sopranos in this competition. But having listened to the piece more times in a few days than I intend to in all the years remaining to me (including eternity in whatever place they decide to send me), I'm not sure that I want La Divina's abundance of _molto espressivo_ inflections, or inherently dusky timbre - or pressurized, acidulous high notes, for that matter - applied to this feather-light music. Callas is a musical wizardess, but in some things she sings I feel, even while admiring the art, that she was really made for other things, and to a degree that's the case here, especially when I've just been listening to the voices of Sutherland and Pagliughi and Sills. Yes, this aria is part of a whole role in which Callas is unquestionably supreme (who else invests "Qui la voce" with the pathos and gravitas she does?), but here the piece stands somewhat on its own, and the question is: whose singing best captures the feeling the music conveys to me, and whose, therefore, did I hear with the most unalloyed pleasure?

In this case the answer is, somewhat to my surprise, Sutherland. The youthful glamor of her voice is undeniable, her diction is acceptably clear, and everything is tossed off with effortless, joyous brilliance. She's less musically subtle than Callas, but by any lesser standard she's musically satisfying and, importantly in this music, vocally flawless.

I'm pleased to award La Stupenda first prize for a change, and I await the whoops of ecstasy that will shortly echo across the waters of Puget Sound and probably be mistaken for a minor temblor by diners in the Space Needle.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

Pagliughi is outclassed unless one likes the kind of voice and the sort of warbling such birds produce. The two other sopranos are an entirely different species altogether: large voices with enough flexibility to be able to sing this music superbly, and in the case of Sutherland, with incredible beauty of tone. Sutherland also adds many decorations to gladden the soul of lovers of filigree, and high notes for those who adore them.

While Callas does not shirk the _coloratura_ she makes music sound more than just cascades of notes. The voice was quite dark during this period (this is the Mexico season of 1952). Interestingly, Callas does not brighten or lighten her tone for the _coloratura_ and the music sounds more tragic that either of her two coevals. Her trills sound quite different than Sutherland's evenly-spaced ones - she apparently had it naturally. Callas, however, was able to trill differently depending on the occasion; her trills here are of a different sort from those of, say, Leonora in *Il Trovatore* or Constanze's in *Il Ratto del Seraglio*.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

As far as I'm concerned this is a two horse race. Pagliughi's version is just the kind of empty coloratura display that I don't like, so she's out.

As for Callas and Sutherland, I agree with everything Woodduck has to say, except that it's Callas and, despite the caveats, I still capitulate more to the way she shapes the music. Of course Callas's version is taken from a complete recording, where Sutherland's is a stand alone from her recital disc _The Art of the Prima Donna_, recorded before she made either of her complete recordings. Had we been comparing _Qui la voce_ and _vien diletto_, there is no question that Callas would win hands down. Here Sutherland sparkles more, but Callas is perhaps keeping her interpretation more in line with the slightly melancholic character of Elvira she creates.

Sutherland _is_ wonderful here, the voice limpid and responsive, forwardly produced and her diction fine. My head tells me I should be voting for her, but my heart won't let me, I'm afraid, so Callas it is, but just by a whisker. Incidentally, if Sutherland had continued to sing like this, then I'm sure I'd like her a lot more than I do.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> There's no question that Callas does more with this than any of the other sopranos in this competition. But having listened to the piece more times in a few days than I intend to in all the years remaining to me (including eternity in whatever place they decide to send me), I'm not sure that I want La Divina's abundance of _molto espressivo_ inflections, or inherently dusky timbre - or pressurized, acidulous high notes, for that matter - applied to this feather-light music. Callas is a musical wizardess, but in some things she sings I feel, even while admiring the art, that she was really made for other things, and to a degree that's the case here, especially when I've just been listening to the voices of Sutherland and Pagliughi and Sills. Yes, this aria is part of a whole role in which Callas is unquestionably supreme (who else invests "Qui la voce" with the pathos and gravitas she does?), but here the piece stands somewhat on its own, and the question is: whose singing best captures the feeling the music conveys to me, and whose, therefore, did I hear with the most unalloyed pleasure?
> 
> In this case the answer is, somewhat to my surprise, Sutherland. The youthful glamor of her voice is undeniable, her diction is acceptably clear, and everything is tossed off with effortless, joyous brilliance. She's less musically subtle than Callas, but by any lesser standard she's musically satisfying and, importantly in this music, vocally flawless.
> 
> I'm pleased to award La Stupenda first prize for a change, and I await the whoops of ecstasy that will shortly echo across the waters of Puget Sound and probably be mistaken for a minor temblor by diners in the Space Needle.


O....M...G! O........ M.......G!!! For myself, Callas and Sutherland are both wonderful in this aria and I am fine with either winning this contest, but I think at the climax of the aria Sutherland does more with it.... and for me the climax of the piece is very important. To me Callas seems too abrupt with the ending and Joan logically unfolds the drama of the end plus Sutherland's high note at the end is so beautiful. There is one other factor in the Sutherland version that has nothing to do with Sutherland herself: her version is the only one that includes the background part singing and it really adds a considerable amount to the excitement and the embellishment of the aria. There are lot's of syncopated rhythms that only come with the other voices that remind me of Rossini.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

MAS said:


> Pagliughi is outclassed unless one likes the kind of voice and the sort of warbling such birds produce. The two other sopranos are an entirely different species altogether: large voices with enough flexibility to be able to sing this music superbly, and in the case of Sutherland, with incredible beauty of tone. Sutherland also adds many decorations to gladden the soul of lovers of filigree, and high notes for those who adore them.
> 
> While Callas does not shirk the _coloratura_ she makes music sound more than just cascades of notes. The voice was quite dark during this period (this is the Mexico season of 1952). Interestingly, Callas does not brighten or lighten her tone for the _coloratura_ and the music sounds more tragic that either of her two coevals. Her trills sound quite different than Sutherland's evenly-spaced ones - she apparently had it naturally. Callas, however, was able to trill differently depending on the occasion; her trills here are of a different sort from those of, say, Leonora in *Il Trovatore* or Constanze's in *Il Ratto del Seraglio*.


Interesting insights! Thanks. I always thought of Callas as having a generally darker sound, except in some coloratura like Lucia, but do you think her voice is darker here than in her post weight loss phase, for instance.?
One point I'd like to make about this aria is I am hard pressed to think of an aria with more exciting key changes which I just love!
Sutherland had a number of ways to do trills such as full note, half note ( which she demonstrates in her Bel Canto video with Horne and Pavarotti and Bonynge) and in one instance several notes at once, but I doubt not Callas being able the emotionally shade trills.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Tsaraslondon said:


> As far as I'm concerned this is a two horse race. Pagliughi's version is just the kind of empty coloratura display that I don't like, so she's out.
> 
> As for Callas and Sutherland, I agree with everything Woodduck has to say, except that it's Callas and, despite the caveats, I still capitulate more to the way she shapes the music. Of course Callas's version is taken from a complete recording, where Sutherland's is a stand alone from her recital disc _The Art of the Prima Donna_, recorded before she made either of her complete recordings. Had we been comparing _Qui la voce_ and _vien diletto_, there is no question that Callas would win hands down. Here Sutherland sparkles more, but Callas is perhaps keeping her interpretation more in line with the slightly melancholic character of Elvira she creates.
> 
> Sutherland _is_ wonderful here, the voice limpid and responsive, forwardly produced and her diction fine. My head tells me I should be voting for her, but my heart won't let me, I'm afraid, so Callas it is, but just by a whisker. Incidentally, if Sutherland had continued to sing like this, then I'm sure I'd like her a lot more than I do.


Qui la voce is more the type of aria where Callas outstrips everyone else as it begs for an emotional reading which she excels at. To me this aria is more straight forward and more a show piece which is the type of singing where Sutherland is more in her best element. Thanks for your wonderful post.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Seattleoperafan said:


> O....M...G! O........ M.......G!!! For myself, Callas and Sutherland are both wonderful in this aria and I am fine with either winning this contest, but I think at the climax of the aria Sutherland does more with it.... and for me the climax of the piece is very important. To me Callas seems too abrupt with the ending and Joan logically unfolds the drama of the end plus Sutherland's high note at the end is so beautiful. There is one other factor in the Sutherland version that has nothing to do with Sutherland herself: her version is the only one that includes the chorus and it really adds a considerable amount to the excitement and the embellishment of the aria. There are lot's of sychopated rhythms that only come with the chorus.


The Callas, being taken from a complete stage performance of the opera in Mexico, does include chorus (though very dimly recorded), but I don't detect a chorus in the Sutherland version, which was recorded in the studio as part of a recital.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

It's interesting to compare Callas' live version (whereas that from the complete studio recording of the opera is better known to me) with these other two.

First the easy part, Pagliughi is out of the running. Yes her version is perfect, but there's no expression or any real interpretative insight.

Now for the difficult part. I find Callas' voice far more attractive than Sutherland's (I prefer darker voices) and that a voice of that size can sing so flexibly is astonishing. However, I think her Elvira sounds too melancholy here. Yes, there's a case for saying her madness can't have come out of nowhere and so the character must have had a leaning towards the tragic from the start, but this is an aria where Elvira is expressing her joy at her impending marriage to Arturo. Therefore, I'm voting for Sutherland as she has it all. Her characterisation is spot on, her coloratura dazzling and we even get a hint of the melancholy that demonstrates Elvira's romantic bent without it overshadowing her joy. (Were we looking at the mad scene Callas would probably win as nobody can do broken hearted like her.)

N.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Tsaraslondon said:


> The Callas, being taken from a complete stage performance of the opera in Mexico, does include chorus (though very dimly recorded), but I don't detect a chorus in the Sutherland version, which was recorded in the studio as part of a recital.


I am mistaken. It is more like other voices such as part singing. Still, to me it is a significant element in adding complexity to the music.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Seattleoperafan said:


> I am mistaken. It is more like other voices such as part singing. Still, to me it is a significant element in adding complexity to the music.


Picco cut around 47 bars in Mexico, including the exchanges with Henrietta. You can hear them in Callas's studio recording, under Serafin.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Tsaraslondon said:


> Picco cut around 47 bars in Mexico, including the exchanges with Henrietta. You can hear them in Callas's studio recording, under Serafin.


I always make mistakes when I don't ask for guidance on Callas. I thought she would be in great voice in the year of the recording I posted, which is why I chose it.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Seattleoperafan said:


> I always make mistakes when I don't ask for guidance on Callas. I thought she would be in great voice in the year of the recording I posted, which is why I chose it.


The studio recording is from 1953 and was her second recording for EMI (though the first to be issued in the USA). She recorded the famous De Sabata *Tosca* that year too.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Tsaraslondon said:


> The studio recording is from 1953 and was her second recording for EMI (though the first to be issued in the USA). She recorded the famous De Sabata *Tosca* that year too.


Alas Youtube rarely goes into specifics about recordings and 52 was earlier than 53 so it seemed to promise better vocal quality. I'll check next time even if it seems obviously the best.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

I won't waste any time in saying that my vote quickly goes to La Stupenda even though La Divina was a moe than competent second.


----------

