Who is the greatest singer of all time? Sutherland? Callas? Bjoeling? Flagstad?
StanInDrag
something to say on the subject of who is the greatest opera singer of
the 20th Century. I have also study voice in my early youth and I've
heard all the great ones live. Let me tell you there is nothing as
spectacular as the young Joan Sutherland's voice LIVE in a large opera
house like the old Met. I have been a poster on this board who
normally only post about the films of Laurel and Hardy, Chaplin,
etc...But I am also a huge opera fan. This is my first opera post.
Those who have not heard Sutherland LIVE in her youth do not know what
they are talking about when they say her voice was hooty. The voice
was not well recorded by Decca. To hear her in her full glory I
suggest a LIVE mono recording instead of Decca's studio recordings
that has Sutherland miked further back because when she hit a high
note the recording equipment would rattled and distorted the sound. In
my opinion, Decca never truly captured the true Sutherland sound which
is the most beautiful sound that I have ever heard...full, velvety,
rich, incredible clarity and squillo and...Sutherland's voice was
huge! While Birgit Nilsson voice is like a cannon, Sutherland's voice
is like a wall of sound that envelopes you in its glory. It is nearly
the size of Nilsson's without the edge. In it's prime of 1958-1968 it
was incomparable. The voice during that period had a lot of squillo
and her technique is superior to Galli-Curci and Callas whom I've
heard many times.
Prime Sutherland had it all vocally. Again the gorgeous sound that is
totally unique and gigantic in size. Her trill was ravishing and she
is one of the few divas who could trill on a high C and you can still
distinguish between the two notes of the trill. Her staccati and runs
were as fast and accurate as Galli-Curci and far superior than
Callas'. When you talk dramatic coloratura, she stood alone. There is
NO ONE who even came close to her high notes 1958-1968. Sutherland's
high E flat in 1960 was even more powerful than Birgit Nilsson's high
C of the same period and I am a huge fan of Nilsson. And I've heard
them both countless times.
Here are the rest of my list of whom I think were the greatest singers
of the century. With the exception of Joan Sutherland being without
question the best I've heard, the rest of the divos and divas are not
in any particular order.
Joan Sutherland: Lucia, Sonnambula, Beatrice, Puritani, Norma,
Esclamonde, Donna Anna, Daughter of the Regiment, Hugenotts. Her
greatest studio recording is her first recital for Decca and the "Art
of the Prima Donna". But she is far better in LIVE recordings.
Maria Callas: 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. She was miked well in many
of her LIVE recordings that make her sound like her voice was huge
while it was merely large. And her high notes even in her youth were
thin. It records well...but in real life, as much as I love going to
her performances, it's either a hit or miss kind of thing. When she
hits, she is supreme, when she falters she can be unlistenable. My
fondest memory was a Tosca she did in Mexico in the early 50's.
Although vocally she is no way near Sutherland or even Sills, Callas
was the most important and famous singer of our time. And she is the
greatest singing actress of the 20th Century. No one is even close.
Rosa Ponselle: One of the most beautiful voice I've ever heard.
Although her Norma is not in the class of Callas, Sutherland and
Caballe.
Amelita Galli-Curci: My favorite light coloratura. Her fioritura and
staccati was impeccable although her voice was small. She was an
admirer of Dame Joan's.
Mario Del Monaco: Incredible macho tenor who had the biggest spinto
tenor I've ever heard. Had it not been for Corelli, he would be my
favorite tenor of all time.
Zinka Milanov: A huge voice that was smooth and she was such a nice
lady.
Renata Tebaldi: Another huge voice. The biggest voice to properly sing
Mimi. She had it all except sometimes her high notes were flat and
not totally focused.
Tito Gobbi: The most compelling baritone I've seen on stage. Again, it
is not advisable to listen to his studio recordings, he is so much
better in LIVE recordings. The 1953 recording of Tosca showcase him
and Callas best.
Ettore Bastianini: I think the most beautiful baritone I've ever
heard. He could hit a high B flat and hold it. I've heard him do it in
Rigoletto.
Richard Tucker: So underrated as was Jan Peerce. They had spinto
voices with ring and very effective on the Met stage.
Richard Tauber: He is much more beautiful in person than his mono
recordings. This guy can sing anything.
Franco Corelli: Those who criticize him has not seen him on stage, how
his baritone-like tenor filled the halls of La Scala in Gli Ugonotti
you will not believe. There is a Live recording of Meyerbeer's Gli
Ugonotti(Hugenotts in Italian) done at La Scala with the young
Sutherland as the Queen that shows this divo at his best(and the
diva). He was a jealous singer though. And some said that one of the
reason he only sang with Sutherland on stage during the 1962 runs of
Gli Ugonotti was that although the Australian diva was only on stage
for a mere thirty minutes or so, the Italians gave La Stupenda 28
curtain calls! But the women threw their jewelry at Corelli at his
curtain calls.
Fritz Wunderlich: As far as lyric come, he has no equal. His voice was
pure honey and can melt even a man's heart. Unfortunately I did not
hear him more than just once LIVE in a concert but that and his studio
recordings is enough to put on the map as one of the greatest voices
of the century.
Kirsten Flagstad: Definitely the greatest Wagnerian soprano of her
time. The times I have heard her found a gorgeous voice but her high
notes have flaws.
Beverly Sills: Had a phenomenal technique but in real live the voice
was shrill and edgy. But I saw her Pamira in La Scala and on that
night she could have given Sutherland a run for her money.
Birgit Nilsson: Plain and simple...the greatest Wagnerian of ALL TIME.
She was totally effortless sailing he piercing soprano through
Wagner's huge orchestral outbursts. Bravisima!
Renee Fleming: I'm just going to say she is not where near the rest of
the list but the best we have these days.
Elizabeth Hubbell
[courtesy cc also sent to the poster]
Unfortunately, I did not catch her in person until 1975?/6? in
Esclarmonde. After that, I managed to catch her in Fille, in Lucia and
in Puritani. During those years from '75?/6? on (and I have quite an
assortment of her recordings, "live" and in the studio, between '58 and
'68, BTW) I was struck primarily be the easy "closeness" of the tone no
matter where one was sitting in the hall. No question that that alone
was thrilling in itself. Yes, listening to her was one of my biggest
thrills.
I have to say, though (and since I never heard her in the '60s, perhaps
this should be taken with a grain of salt), I was always struck by a
certain falling off of color in the tone in the lower 33% or so of her
range. Also, she did not have much variety of (yes, gorgeous) tone in
general. I cite these two aspects only to explain why I might not
necessarily regard her as the very greatest I ever heard, not because
there's any doubt that she was still one of the most thrilling vocalists
I ever heard.
What I'd like to ask, please -- and I'm talking strictly of the period
between 1958 and 1968 -- since I sense these same relatively pale
characteristics in her lower third in recordings made between '58 and
'68 as well as a certain sameness of color otherwise (gorgeous though it
is), how did her lower register personally strike you during most of the
'60s and was there the same (relative) lack of variety of color at that
time as what I heard in person during the '70s and '80s? Thank you.
> Maria Callas: 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. She was miked well in many
> of her LIVE recordings that make her sound like her voice was huge
> while it was merely large. And her high notes even in her youth were
> thin. It records well...but in real life, as much as I love going to
> her performances, it's either a hit or miss kind of thing. When she
> hits, she is supreme, when she falters she can be unlistenable. My
> fondest memory was a Tosca she did in Mexico in the early 50's.
> Although vocally she is no way near Sutherland or even Sills, Callas
> was the most important and famous singer of our time. And she is the
> greatest singing actress of the 20th Century. No one is even close.
Both Siepi and Bonynge have stated that the sheer size of Callas's voice
at her start was definitely the size of a respectable dramatic soprano
voice at least, not simply a spinto -- although I do not doubt that
Sutherland's was a bit bigger.
Unfortunately, I only saw Callas once: in 1974 at Carnegie Hall, when
only a temporarily galvanized "Voi lo sapete" gave us a true picture of
the real Callas, IMO. At that point, the tone became ample, incisive;
although, in some odd way that's hard to describe, the power somehow
seemed like a patchwork, as if there was only a narrow window within her
breath line where the power could "ride", so to speak. Sorry not to be
clearer.
I realized, even at that relative peak of the evening, that I was still
not witnessing the full power of Callas at her best. And yes, its
projection of Santuzza as a human being was still riveting,
heartbreaking. In this case, though, I'm even more grateful for the
recordings that show her at her strongest.
> Rosa Ponselle: One of the most beautiful voice I've ever heard.
> Although her Norma is not in the class of Callas, Sutherland and
> Caballe.
I have to know, please, did you see her Norma?!! If so, while I expect
it must have been quite an experience, could you explain what it
(apparently) did _not_ have that -- in your opinion -- Callas's,
Sutherland's and Caballe's did? This is an extraordinary opportunity
for me to hear someone appraise so many artists across such a broad
range of time on the basis of in-person listening!!! Sincere and urgent
thanks.
> Amelita Galli-Curci: My favorite light coloratura. Her fioritura and
> staccati was impeccable although her voice was small. She was an
> admirer of Dame Joan's.
>
> Mario Del Monaco: Incredible macho tenor who had the biggest spinto
> tenor I've ever heard. Had it not been for Corelli, he would be my
> favorite tenor of all time.
You say, he was the biggest tenor sound you ever heard: I used to know a
music lecturer at The New School and on FM radio in New York who would
claim that Del Monaco was the closest in amplitude he ever heard to
Lauritz Melchior. Please, did you ever hear Melchior in person and was
there any comparison? Again, much thanks.
> Zinka Milanov: A huge voice that was smooth and she was such a nice
> lady.
I've spoken to some who have claimed that -- at its most forte --
Caballe could be slightly more powerful, others who have said Milanov's
was still the slightly more ample sound. Please, can you recall?
> Renata Tebaldi: Another huge voice. The biggest voice to properly sing
> Mimi. She had it all except sometimes her high notes were flat and
> not totally focused.
In the Rasponi book, Tebaldi claims she was only a spinto, while Callas
and Milanov were the true dramatics. Going back, though, through your
memories of Tebaldi at her freshest, Callas's Tosca in Mexico (which was
in '52, BTW), Milanov at her best, and Caballe, is it possible for you
to say where each of these stood in tonal amplitude? (Personally, my
memories of Tebaldi's Maddalena (Chenier, '66) and her Adriana Lecouvrer
('69) bring up the "sound picture" of someone actually somewhat richer
in vocal size than the Callas of that '74 "Voi lo sapete". But again, I
realize I hardly caught Callas in representative form.)
>
> Tito Gobbi: The most compelling baritone I've seen on stage. Again, it
> is not advisable to listen to his studio recordings, he is so much
> better in LIVE recordings. The 1953 recording of Tosca showcase him
> and Callas best.
When I heard his Scarpia in '73, his presentation was mesmerizing. But
even though his singing as such was carefully controlled, I remember
being surprised at the relative smallness of his tones. They were not
ineffective nor unmusical, but he was drowned out occasionally in some
rather disconcerting moments. I still felt I had seen something that
achieved greatness anyway, but it was the context of his (scrupulous)
singing and musicality with everything else that grabbed me. And he was
ever the unflappable aristocrat. Brilliant <shiver>;-)
>
> Ettore Bastianini: I think the most beautiful baritone I've ever
> heard. He could hit a high B flat and hold it. I've heard him do it in
> Rigoletto.
>
> Richard Tucker: So underrated as was Jan Peerce. They had spinto
> voices with ring and very effective on the Met stage.
>
> Richard Tauber: He is much more beautiful in person than his mono
> recordings. This guy can sing anything.
You saw Tauber????????!!!!!!!!!! He is my favorite singer, bar none.
No, really. A winning tone, singing from the heart, a genius of an
interpreter (a sponge really, IMO) a technical wizard, the musician's
musician, even a good film actor IMO, bel canto agility, good French,
good Italian and (in the '40s anyway) utterly musical and clear if not
absolutely impeccable English. What an ear that man had. What an
imagination.
Look, Tauber trumps everything, candidly. While I would be disappointed
if you were not to respond to any of my other queries, I would be happy
if my simple question regarding Tauber were the only query you answered.
Put simply, my query is......tell me everything about him in person that
you remember: the amplitude of the instrument, the clarity of the words
inside the hall, your general impression of his stamina, what you heard
him sing, his effectiveness physically as an actor, his charisma, those
characteristics of his voice that recordings failed to capture. Try not
to leave anything out, in other words. This may be a tall order, but
I'd be deeply grateful for anything you could tell me.
Your Subject-Heading for this thread is "Who is the greatest singer".
Going strictly by my own memories of the many excellent singers I've
seen in person and those I have heard only on recordings, I truly feel
-- and I realize that this is only one man's opinion -- that Tauber
would be my choice. To me, he is the "completest" of them all. With an
engaging tone and interpretive imagination and immacculate technique, he
shows us -- IMO -- that it is possible to combine the most extroverted
and heartfelt and spontaneous style of music-making with the most
scrupulous musicianship. I sense there's too much of an ssumption in
the world of opera that that whole package cannot be combined in one
artist. For some reason, every singer must tend either more towards one
extreme or more towards the other. For me, Tauber has shown us that
this can all heard in one and the same singer.
So please, everything you can recall. I would be deeply grateful.
> Franco Corelli: Those who criticize him has not seen him on stage, how
> his baritone-like tenor filled the halls of La Scala in Gli Ugonotti
> you will not believe. There is a Live recording of Meyerbeer's Gli
> Ugonotti(Hugenotts in Italian) done at La Scala with the young
> Sutherland as the Queen that shows this divo at his best(and the
> diva). He was a jealous singer though. And some said that one of the
> reason he only sang with Sutherland on stage during the 1962 runs of
> Gli Ugonotti was that although the Australian diva was only on stage
> for a mere thirty minutes or so, the Italians gave La Stupenda 28
> curtain calls! But the women threw their jewelry at Corelli at his
> curtain calls.
And Corelli's was the most beautiful tenor voice I ever heard in person,
no question. The most ample tenor sound I ever heard was Vickers, but
Vickers' sound, though thrilling, did not have the astonishing sweetness
of Corelli's -- astonishing because one would have never expected a
sound of such size as Corelli's to have had such lyricism at the same
time. Recordings exaggerate the brazen quality of the tone and the
somewhat eccentric diction. In person, that gorgeous tone masked the
eccentric diction considerably, and there was such a mellow wistfulness
to the sound that no recording that I know of fully captures, ever.
FWIW, I've put together a brief precis of some of my thoughts on the
Corelli career that you can feel free to nitpick over if you like<G>.
It's at www.operacast.com/corelli.htm .
Thanks.
>
> Fritz Wunderlich: As far as lyric come, he has no equal. His voice was
> pure honey and can melt even a man's heart. Unfortunately I did not
> hear him more than just once LIVE in a concert but that and his studio
> recordings is enough to put on the map as one of the greatest voices
> of the century.
>
> Kirsten Flagstad: Definitely the greatest Wagnerian soprano of her
> time. The times I have heard her found a gorgeous voice but her high
> notes have flaws.
>
> Beverly Sills: Had a phenomenal technique but in real live the voice
> was shrill and edgy. But I saw her Pamira in La Scala and on that
> night she could have given Sutherland a run for her money.
Hmmm....I was lucky enough to see her Cleopatra in '66 - well, the first
two acts anyway (long story...). And I must say I didn't find it an
edgy sound at that time -- although I agree it became so by the time we
were in the '70s. In the '60s, there was a lovely shimmer, and I found
her a wonderfully precise, deeply expressive singer. Definitely one of
the greatest stage interpreters I've ever seen as well as one of the
most musical, IMO. Sadly I do go along with what seems pretty much a
consensus (Sills herself apparently agrees) that it was doing the
backbreaker of them all, the Devereux Elisabetta, that shortened her
prime. FWIW, another late '60s tour de force, the heroines in Hoffmann,
was also quite memorable, IMO.
>
> Birgit Nilsson: Plain and simple...the greatest Wagnerian of ALL TIME.
> She was totally effortless sailing he piercing soprano through
> Wagner's huge orchestral outbursts. Bravisima!
I can't stand some of her recordings, frankly. Too metallic and
cutting. Can you believe I was chump enough to try and avoid seeing her
on account of them? Then, I saw her Isolde in the '66/'67 season.
WOW!!!! This was a graaaaand voice. Every recording of Nilsson should
have been made at the Metropolitan in the back of the Balcony! Her
tones bloomed in that space. They took on a natural trajectory that was
utterly different from the angular sounds we hear in many of her recordings.
Someone once asked me which of the singers I had seen in person was
least well served by recordings. I unhesitatingly replied, "Birgit
Nilsson". My hunch is that, even in today's world, Nilsson could still
not be caught accurately by the microphone.
>
> Renee Fleming: I'm just going to say she is not where near the rest of
> the list but the best we have these days.
I like Fleming very much, but for sheer precision and that elementally
expressive quality of the truly great ones that I have seen over the
past forty years, I'd say the ones that come closest today are soprano
Karita Mattila and mezzo Lorraine Hunt Lieberson.
Keenly looking forward to your reply, I am
Respectfully yours,
Geoffrey Riggs (Assoluta Monster;-)
www.operacast.com/assoluta.htm
Premiereopera
>I have to say, though (and since I never heard her in the '60s, perhaps
>this should be taken with a grain of salt), I was always struck by a
>certain falling off of color in the tone in the lower 33% or so of her
>range.
I felt even stronger about this. There was virtually no qualiy in her voice in
that bottom 1/3 of her range. Colorless, almost toneless, and what tone there
was was that of a minor voice, And yes, it was like this in the 60's, too, as
all her recordings reveal.
Best,
Ed
Jon E. Szostak, Sr.
If I'm wrong...I apologize...but it all sounds too good to be true. Stan's
English is poor only occasionally...and really quite good where the
descriptive writing is difficult or clever. But what do I know?
Jon E. Szostak, Sr.
"StanInDrag" <keyston...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8e6c8f09.04052...@posting.google.com...
Terrymelin
>something to say on the subject of who is the greatest opera singer of
>the 20th Century. I have also study voice in my early youth and I've
>heard all the great ones live. Let me tell you there is nothing as
>spectacular as the young Joan Sutherland's voice LIVE in a large opera
>house like the old Met. I have been a poster on this board who
>normally only post about the films of Laurel and Hardy, Chaplin,
>etc...But I am also a huge opera fan. This is my first opera post.
>
>Those who have not heard Sutherland LIVE in her youth do not know what
>they are talking about when they say her voice was hooty. The voice
>was not well recorded by Decca. To hear her in her full glory I
>suggest a LIVE mono recording instead of Decca's studio recordings
I have many, many live recordings of Joan Sutherland and there was a time in
the late 1950s through about 1966 when her voice was not "hooty" and it was
pure and she sang actually sang consonants. After that time she got
increasingly "hooty" to use your word until it became so pronounced that is was
unbearable to listen to.
I don't think the case can be made that she is the greatest singer of all time.
Terry Ellsworth
Charlie Handelman
C A R U S O
My best, Charlie.
My Website dedicated to the vocal art is located at:
Tom Kaufman
Tom
Tom Kaufman
URL of web site:
<A href="www.geocities.com/Vienna/8917/index.html">Tom Kaufman's site</A>
David7Gable
>and her technique is superior to Galli-Curci and Callas whom I've
>heard many times.
Who cares? Sutherland was never one tenth as interesting a singer as
Galli-Curci or Callas.
-david gable
J.Venning
news:20040525140809...@mb-m03.aol.com...
> Who cares? Sutherland was never one tenth as interesting a singer as
> Galli-Curci or Callas.
> -david gable
singing.
J.
Charlie Handelman
Caruso
Melchior
Gigli
Flagstad
Pinza
Nilsson
Tebaldi
Ponselle
Warren
Tucker
Milanov
Stignani
Callas
Sutherland
and more.....but this is a good start...
Jon E. Szostak, Sr.
vocal technique was as near perfect as a singer can get...the big problem
came when...as you pointed out...she started modifying her vowels to suit
the ease of technique...hence the so-called 'hooty' sound.
Nilsson's technique was also nigh-on perfect...two different voices
basically.
Corelli also had a great knowledge of technique to the point that he changed
his basic sound several times during his career...and knew what he was
doing.
Melchior had a bastardized form of technique...Tom Wikman once told me he
believed that some vocal instruments where SO large...that they could
literally take a lifetime's worth of abuse and still sound great...e.g.
Melchior.
How could any discussion be complete without mentioning
Bergonzi...folks...that's what technique is all about. If you don't get it
from his sound...you never will.
Alfredo Kraus...as I've said a bunch of times already...had a phenomenal
technique...but not the most beautiful instrument. When he sang...WOW!
Although the rest had more than a passing knowledge of technique...they were
basically born with the ability to sing properly...but not necessarily know
the proper repertory to sing.
These are my smatterings of ignorance for this thread.
Jon E. Szostak, Sr.
"Terrymelin" <terry...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040525091320...@mb-m14.aol.com...
Terrymelin
>vocal technique was as near perfect as a singer can get
I think she'd have lots of competition in that department from, say,
Bjorling, Caruso, Horne, Gigli, Nilsson, Kraus, Bergonzi and many others one
could name.
>.the big problem
>came when...as you pointed out...she started modifying her vowels to suit
>the ease of technique...hence the so-called 'hooty' sound.
And sadly that happened fairly early in her career.
Terry Ellsworth
Sergio H. da Silva
was yet to be born, his name would be Placido Domingo ....
Sorry guys could not resist
StanInDrag
Sutherland had I admit a gloomy tone at times in the lower middle of
her range because she brings her middle voice all the way down to C in
some moments instead of switching to chest tone. I have read that was
to have a smoother sound and to avoid a "break" between registers.
>
> What I'd like to ask, please -- and I'm talking strictly of the period
> between 1958 and 1968 -- since I sense these same relatively pale
> characteristics in her lower third in recordings made between '58 and
> '68 as well as a certain sameness of color otherwise (gorgeous though it
> is), how did her lower register personally strike you during most of the
> '60s and was there the same (relative) lack of variety of color at that
> time as what I heard in person during the '70s and '80s? Thank you.
Sutherland's voice reached it's largest in size in 1968. I heard her
in Fille at about that time and her voice towered above Pavarotti. One
of the most incorrect description of Sutherland was that she never had
a chest voice. In 1960 she had a pretty solid chest voice. She sang
Alcina with a "pretty" chest voice that had volume but just like her
typical voice of that period, she was using a much lighter tone. Later
when she started bring her middle voice as low as she can to perserve
her voice, the chest tone became a different sound than the rest of
her voice and was smaller. One of the reason she maintain such a long
career was because she never overused her chest tone as Maria
unfortunately did.
>
> > Maria Callas: 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. She was miked well in many
> > of her LIVE recordings that make her sound like her voice was huge
> > while it was merely large. And her high notes even in her youth were
> > thin. It records well...but in real life, as much as I love going to
> > her performances, it's either a hit or miss kind of thing. When she
> > hits, she is supreme, when she falters she can be unlistenable. My
> > fondest memory was a Tosca she did in Mexico in the early 50's.
> > Although vocally she is no way near Sutherland or even Sills, Callas
> > was the most important and famous singer of our time. And she is the
> > greatest singing actress of the 20th Century. No one is even close.
>
> Both Siepi and Bonynge have stated that the sheer size of Callas's voice
> at her start was definitely the size of a respectable dramatic soprano
> voice at least, not simply a spinto -- although I do not doubt that
> Sutherland's was a bit bigger.
>
I said that Callas had a large voice but not a huge voice. It it only
when she reached the realm of D or E flat did I say she started
getting thin. I can only say that from my opinion. I have only heard
her in Lucia in Mexico and maybe she was not in good voice that day. I
remember her top notes above high C were much thinner than the rest pf
the voice. Her coloratura was excellent but not extremely impressive.
She had a lot of inaccuracies in the mad scene when she staccato --
she missed staccati and was flat a lot. She was definitely the
greatest dramatic coloratura of her time but she was not the classic
dramatic coloratura as Sutherland was in her prime.
> Unfortunately, I only saw Callas once: in 1974 at Carnegie Hall, when
> only a temporarily galvanized "Voi lo sapete" gave us a true picture of
> the real Callas, IMO. At that point, the tone became ample, incisive;
> although, in some odd way that's hard to describe, the power somehow
> seemed like a patchwork, as if there was only a narrow window within her
> breath line where the power could "ride", so to speak. Sorry not to be
> clearer.
>
> I realized, even at that relative peak of the evening, that I was still
> not witnessing the full power of Callas at her best. And yes, its
> projection of Santuzza as a human being was still riveting,
> heartbreaking. In this case, though, I'm even more grateful for the
> recordings that show her at her strongest.
>
> > Rosa Ponselle: One of the most beautiful voice I've ever heard.
> > Although her Norma is not in the class of Callas, Sutherland and
> > Caballe.
>
> I have to know, please, did you see her Norma?!! If so, while I expect
> it must have been quite an experience, could you explain what it
> (apparently) did _not_ have that -- in your opinion -- Callas's,
> Sutherland's and Caballe's did? This is an extraordinary opportunity
> for me to hear someone appraise so many artists across such a broad
> range of time on the basis of in-person listening!!! Sincere and urgent
> thanks.
>
I have to confess that I did not hear Ponselle LIVE as Norma, I only
heard recordings and to my ears she did not have the fluidity of
coloratura to be a good Norma. I have always thought that the Marilyn
Horne had a voice similar to Ponselle's in tone but much smaller than
Ponselle. Callas's Norma had so much dimensions especially in her
recitative which NO ONE could touch. She had very good fioratura for
Norma since the coloratura did not have the difficulty of a true
coloratura role like Semiramide. Overall, I prefer Callas' Norma over
Sutherland's. But in the House, Sutherland's overwhelming sound
surrounds you and when she hits the D at the end of the trio, I had
goose pimples. And that was her Met Normas with Horne in 1970 when
Sutherland had some pitch problems with some of her top notes during
the duets and Casta diva was very insecure in the middle voice.
> > Amelita Galli-Curci: My favorite light coloratura. Her fioritura and
> > staccati was impeccable although her voice was small. She was an
> > admirer of Dame Joan's.
> >
> > Mario Del Monaco: Incredible macho tenor who had the biggest spinto
> > tenor I've ever heard. Had it not been for Corelli, he would be my
> > favorite tenor of all time.
>
> You say, he was the biggest tenor sound you ever heard: I used to know a
> music lecturer at The New School and on FM radio in New York who would
> claim that Del Monaco was the closest in amplitude he ever heard to
> Lauritz Melchior. Please, did you ever hear Melchior in person and was
> there any comparison? Again, much thanks.
I forgot to add Melchoir and Corelli as having the largest sounds and
Vickers after them. I wrote this post without reviewing it and after
re-reading it I found out I left out some of the greatest singers,
Melchoir was one of them. I have heard him as Tristan and I've also
had the pleasure of hearing him in rehearsal for a movie he was doing.
The voice was not to be believed in it's volume. Yes, Melchoir had the
largest voice than any heldentenor I've ever heard. The similarities
between Melchoir and Del Monaco was they sounded like huge baritones
singing in the tenor's range. I think Mario was underrated because on
top of his huge voice, he could sing Nessum Dorma -- he had a big B
and C. I don't think Mauritz Melchoir could sing Calaf. But then
again, I don't think Mario Del Monaco could have sung Tristan.
>
> > Zinka Milanov: A huge voice that was smooth and she was such a nice
> > lady.
>
> I've spoken to some who have claimed that -- at its most forte --
> Caballe could be slightly more powerful, others who have said Milanov's
> was still the slightly more ample sound. Please, can you recall?
Milanov was strong from the bottom to the top and smoother transition
from register to register. Caballe in the seventies had develope a
Wagnerian type of high notes which were much bigger than the rest of
her voice. And by then Caballe's register breaks were annoying to me
when she sang Semiramide. Milanov and Tebaldi from my memories about
the same impact of size. I like Zinka's top notes much better than
even prime Tebaldi. Remember Tebaldi went through three periods of
voices.
>
> > Renata Tebaldi: Another huge voice. The biggest voice to properly sing
> > Mimi. She had it all except sometimes her high notes were flat and
> > not totally focused.
>
> In the Rasponi book, Tebaldi claims she was only a spinto, while Callas
> and Milanov were the true dramatics. Going back, though, through your
> memories of Tebaldi at her freshest, Callas's Tosca in Mexico (which was
> in '52, BTW), Milanov at her best, and Caballe, is it possible for you
> to say where each of these stood in tonal amplitude? (Personally, my
> memories of Tebaldi's Maddalena (Chenier, '66) and her Adriana Lecouvrer
> ('69) bring up the "sound picture" of someone actually somewhat richer
> in vocal size than the Callas of that '74 "Voi lo sapete". But again, I
> realize I hardly caught Callas in representative form.)
> >
When I heard them...from my memories, Tebaldi and Milanov were larger
in voice than Callas. They could fill every house while Callas top
notes could be thin at times. But when it came to chest tones, Callas'
was spine chilling.
If you are going to count the entire voice fro size...I will compare
them in the way of who will make the best Eva in Meistersinger. I
would say and this is a hard one and I would really have to think
about but to of my head I will say...
1. Milanov or Tebaldi
2. Caballe...the role calls for very high notes that would fit
Caballe's huge top
3. Callas
> > Tito Gobbi: The most compelling baritone I've seen on stage. Again, it
> > is not advisable to listen to his studio recordings, he is so much
> > better in LIVE recordings. The 1953 recording of Tosca showcase him
> > and Callas best.
>
> When I heard his Scarpia in '73, his presentation was mesmerizing. But
> even though his singing as such was carefully controlled, I remember
> being surprised at the relative smallness of his tones. They were not
> ineffective nor unmusical, but he was drowned out occasionally in some
> rather disconcerting moments. I still felt I had seen something that
> achieved greatness anyway, but it was the context of his (scrupulous)
> singing and musicality with everything else that grabbed me. And he was
> ever the unflappable aristocrat. Brilliant <shiver>;-)
> >
1973 is way past the great baritone's prime. At least when I heard him
his voice was large enough to have great inpact and his gestures and
use of his flawed voice is amazing.
Unfortunately I only heard Tauber LIVE once as Don Ottavio in which he
was awesome. The best Don Ottavio I've ever seen or heard. The tone of
his voice to me was just gorgeous. And he had an elegance in his
singing pair with impeccable technique. I compare that single live
performance on stage to my recordings and find the natural voice in an
opera house to be so much more exciting. He also sang with his heart.
My favorite studio recordings of him are of operetta, especially
Lehar. But his Mozart interpretation are almost incomparable.
>
> > Franco Corelli: Those who criticize him has not seen him on stage, how
> > his baritone-like tenor filled the halls of La Scala in Gli Ugonotti
> > you will not believe. There is a Live recording of Meyerbeer's Gli
> > Ugonotti(Hugenotts in Italian) done at La Scala with the young
> > Sutherland as the Queen that shows this divo at his best(and the
> > diva). He was a jealous singer though. And some said that one of the
> > reason he only sang with Sutherland on stage during the 1962 runs of
> > Gli Ugonotti was that although the Australian diva was only on stage
> > for a mere thirty minutes or so, the Italians gave La Stupenda 28
> > curtain calls! But the women threw their jewelry at Corelli at his
> > curtain calls.
>
> And Corelli's was the most beautiful tenor voice I ever heard in person,
> no question. The most ample tenor sound I ever heard was Vickers, but
> Vickers' sound, though thrilling, did not have the astonishing sweetness
> of Corelli's -- astonishing because one would have never expected a
> sound of such size as Corelli's to have had such lyricism at the same
> time. Recordings exaggerate the brazen quality of the tone and the
> somewhat eccentric diction. In person, that gorgeous tone masked the
> eccentric diction considerably, and there was such a mellow wistfulness
> to the sound that no recording that I know of fully captures, ever.
>
> FWIW, I've put together a brief precis of some of my thoughts on the
> Corelli career that you can feel free to nitpick over if you like<G>.
> It's at www.operacast.com/corelli.htm .
As said earlier, I forgot to mention that Corelli is one of the only
tenors to rival Del Monaco in shere size of the voice. I don't find
his voice particularly that beautiful, but very much baritone like and
macho with the biggest and most ringing high notes I've ever heard in
all my years as an opera goer. No one can match his dimenuendos. I had
the fortunate experience of hearing many of the Nilsson/Corelli
Turandots at the Met. They were like battle of the titans. Yes, it is
true, they constantly fight to see who can hold the high C's in
Turandot longer!
The thing about Nilsson is you must hear her in a theater to get the
impact. Her voice did not have the round Italian sound but was cold as
ice with a piercing edge that could cut through the loudest Wagnerian
orchestral passages. She is the only true Wagnerian dramatic who had
no problems with the Immolation Scene from Gotterdamerung.
StanInDrag
> C'mon...Charlie is this you? This guy 'StanInDrag' must be 105 years old.
> If I'm wrong...I apologize...but it all sounds too good to be true. Stan's
> English is poor only occasionally...and really quite good where the
> descriptive writing is difficult or clever. But what do I know?
>
> Jon E. Szostak, Sr.
>
I am NOT Charlie. And although I'm almost 90 you will never know it.
And the start of this thread is my first opera post on google. I will
do more since I received so many replies in just one day.
If you are talking about my posts of Stan and Laurel, sometimes when
my hands shake, a close friend would help me type my posts and
sometimes add their own opinions to them as welll.
I would like fans of silent comedy to read my posts of Stan and
Laurel, whom I consider to the the Kings of comedy. Just as I think
Joan Sutherland was the Queen of opera.
StanInDrag
> I have many, many live recordings of Joan Sutherland and there was a time in
> the late 1950s through about 1966 when her voice was not "hooty" and it was
> pure and she sang actually sang consonants. After that time she got
> increasingly "hooty" to use your word until it became so pronounced that is was
> unbearable to listen to.
>
> I don't think the case can be made that she is the greatest singer of all time.
>
> Terry Ellsworth
Have you heard her in a live theater before 1970? If not, you have not
heard the real Sutherland. The sound was totally different and gives
chills. I said this before, but the Sutherland soprano was like a huge
wall of sound surrounding you, in her prime, her high notes alone
would have made her a legend.
Even a Live recording is nothing comparing to hearing Sutherland in
person. Why do you think she was consider without rivals in the bel
canto reportoire throughout her career if you look at her career as a
whole. As said, unfortunately the studio recordings did not do her
justice at all. She was so much better in person that you have to have
heard her in an opera house to understand!
Those who has implied that she was at least one of the greatest singer
of the Century include Franco Zefferelli and Luciano Pavarotti. And
Domingo was rumored to have said that no one can outsing Dame Joan.
I said she was the greatest opera singer of all time because of her
phenomenal voice. Her faults were obvious, but the instrument in its
prime was so sublime that I don't think we're anything like her for at
least a hundred years.
I need to add the following divos and divas whom I forgot to add when
I started the thread. Since I posted the opening without review I
forgot a lot of great singers. My age is catching up with me...
Leontyne Price: When I first heard her in the early 60's as Leonora I
thought she had the most exciting voice I have yet heard. Then she
declined so dramatically that by the 70's the voice was a shadow of
it's once glory. At its prime she could be consider a candidate for
the most beautiful voice in the world.
Marilyn Horne: Quite simply, the greatest coloratura mezzo period. I'm
going to have people disagree, but to me, her tone reminds me of
Ponselle's except it was, of course, smaller in size.
Enzio Pinza: Now that's a bass. He can also lighten his voice as he
did in "South Pacific". He was my favorite bass and a great Don
Giovanni.
Tito Schipa: I never heard him in person. But from his recordings his
technique is second to none. In one selection of a Donizetti aria he
produced a real trill.
Luciano Pavarotti: I like him a lot and he was very entertaining. But
in real live the voice was not sizable enough for him to take on some
of the spinto roles. He got his fame through the microphone which
amplified his sound in his many concerts. He did have a beautiful
voice in the 60's and early 70's. His LP Primo Tenore was great.
Jussi Bjoeling: Had his voice not been so small, he would be the
greatest tenor vocally of the last century. He had everything, beauty
of tone, phrasing, squillo, secure high notes...everything but size.
On the LP, he may be consider by many to be the best, but on stage, he
would be blown away by the impact of Del Monaco and Corelli.
StanInDrag
I don't love an opera singer because he or she is interesting. I love
an opera singer for his or her voice. Vocally, Sutherland was in a
class of her own.
In the case of Callas, I love her for her command of the stage and her
incredible acting ability.
Lee Goodman
this thread fascinating. If the original poster truly heard all these
singers live, I am grateful for all his comments. All the more
refreshing since, at least so far, the thread has not degenerated into
a bunch of namecalling.
Thanks
OmbraRecds
>In the case of Callas, I love her for her command of the stage and her
>incredible acting ability.
Not exactly.She acted through the music which the composer was intelligent
enough to give to singers if they only have the brain to follow the music, as
written. Few do. Listen to her in her prime when she was singing Rossini's
Armida as it shall never be sung again. This isn't about acting. This is
following the composer's intentions. Her Sonnambula is fabulous because she
understood why Bellini wrote the score as he did, that all the things that
other singers would consider a chance for a vocal show, she was smart enought
to know that each marking was there for a purpose, not to show off how
"wonderful" the voice was. It is not just the sound of the voice, or the
ability to act, you must act through the music. as Maria always said, "the
composer has already seen to that."
Patrick Byrne
Charlie Handelman
singers live, I am grateful for all his comments.
I do not recall.Did I make any comments on anyone???If not,let me know the
name, and will be happy to make my comments on singers I did hear
live......from 1951....as ever CH
Charlie Handelman
born...1936...The kids..ages 11-13...enjoyed Stan and Ollie...GREATEST COMEDY
TEAM EVER...well...until Slater and Kasimer....CH
Paul Schneider
>I would like fans of silent comedy to read my posts of Stan and
>Laurel
One assumes you mean Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy.
Paul Schneider
===================================
"Some rise by sin and some by virtue fall" -- Measure for Measure
Andrew T. Kay
>was yet to be born, his name would be Placido Domingo ....
Domingo was, in fact, alive at the time you had that conversation with prime
Caruso. He was in his teens but was already singing in some small venues, and
the well-travelled Caruso would have had ample opportunity to hear and
appreciate the young Spanish dynamo's voice at its freshest. This was well
before the "b. 1941" nonsense with the cleverly faked documents started.
--Todd K
lav...@webtv.net
mostly plays non-vocal classical music. Suddenly my ears perked up,
the voice was Beverly Sills, today being her 75th (!) birthday. She
was singing "Oh quand je dors" and i stopped reading and listened to it
with rapt attention. What is it that makes some singers great? A
special quality that instantly grabs our attention, the ability to tell
a story or paint a picture in words and music, a technique that
surprises us, thrills us and seduces us. I got goosebumps listening
to Sills and it's that "goosebump" experience that usually tells me
who's great and who is merely very good. I love all of the singers
mentioned in this thread for the same reason, that goosebump thing.
(With apologies to Lily Tomlin :)
Jon
David Melnick
>
> Jussi Bjoeling: Had his voice not been so small, he would be the
> greatest tenor vocally of the last century. He had everything, beauty
> of tone, phrasing, squillo, secure high notes...everything but size.
> On the LP, he may be consider by many to be the best, but on stage, he
> would be blown away by the impact of Del Monaco and Corelli.
I've said this a few times in my three years on r.m.o, and
I bore myself bringing it up repeatedly, but the myth of
the smallness of Jussi Bjoerling's voice keeps cropping up:
Bjoerling did not have a small voice, IMO. I saw him in
opera with the San Francisco Opera in L.A. and with the
Lyric Opera of Chicago and once in recital in Orchestra Hall
in Chicago. In that recital, his voice sounded louder than
any piano or violin sounded in other recitals I saw in the
same hall, and far louder than the voices of Lisa Della Casa
and Dietrich Fisher-Dieskau, both of whom I saw there, too.
In opera he could be heard perfectly well, not drowned out
by the Aida of Rysanek, for example.
Yes, Del Monaco's and Nilsson's voices were huge. But
"He has a small voice" was not in the mind or on the lips
of anyone I knew who was with me when I heard Jussi
Bjoerling. It was, rather, "What a compelling, beautiful
voice!" and "What a great singer!"
I have also heard many singers with large voices that were
not in the least great voices, so I'm a little puzzled
by the emphasis on voice size in this thread.
Elizabeth Hubbell
[courtesy cc also sent to the poster]
I cannot say how grateful I am to have read your comments. These posts
are invaluable, and you are making a real contribution here. Heartfelt
thanks.
If I may======================>
StanInDrag wrote:
> I have to confess that I did not hear Ponselle LIVE as Norma, I only
> heard recordings and to my ears she did not have the fluidity of
> coloratura to be a good Norma. I have always thought that the Marilyn
> Horne had a voice similar to Ponselle's in tone but much smaller than
> Ponselle. Callas's Norma had so much dimensions especially in her
> recitative which NO ONE could touch. She had very good fioratura for
> Norma since the coloratura did not have the difficulty of a true
> coloratura role like Semiramide. Overall, I prefer Callas' Norma over
> Sutherland's. But in the House, Sutherland's overwhelming sound
> surrounds you and when she hits the D at the end of the trio, I had
> goose pimples. And that was her Met Normas with Horne in 1970 when
> Sutherland had some pitch problems with some of her top notes during
> the duets and Casta diva was very insecure in the middle voice.
======>And surprisingly, I remember that in the Bergonzi Norma b'cast,
there was even a flicker of uncertainty in her usually dazzling trill.
I'm sorry that the one with Franco Tagliavini (a year later) has less
circulation, since I remember feeling at the time (would I still feel
that way today, I wonder?) that she seemed surer in that b'cast than in
the earlier one. Please, did you find yourself having a preference for
one b'cast over the other? Thanks.
>
> When I heard them...from my memories, Tebaldi and Milanov were larger
> in voice than Callas. They could fill every house while Callas top
> notes could be thin at times. But when it came to chest tones, Callas'
> was spine chilling.
> If you are going to count the entire voice fro size...I will compare
> them in the way of who will make the best Eva in Meistersinger. I
> would say and this is a hard one and I would really have to think
> about but to of my head I will say...
>
> 1. Milanov or Tebaldi
> 2. Caballe...the role calls for very high notes that would fit
> Caballe's huge top
> 3. Callas
Having never heard Milanov in person, I can only speak to Tebaldi and
Caballe, and I would agree that Tebaldi had the generally bigger sound
-- but yes, Caballe's top tones could be just as overwhelming as
Tebaldi's, possibly more so?
>
> Unfortunately I only heard Tauber LIVE once as Don Ottavio in which he
> was awesome. The best Don Ottavio I've ever seen or heard. The tone of
> his voice to me was just gorgeous. And he had an elegance in his
> singing pair with impeccable technique. I compare that single live
> performance on stage to my recordings and find the natural voice in an
> opera house to be so much more exciting. He also sang with his heart.
> My favorite studio recordings of him are of operetta, especially
> Lehar. But his Mozart interpretation are almost incomparable.
Well, your having at least seen him once wouldn't seem to warrant an
"Unfortunately"<G>. I must say I do hear in the recordings much of the
winning quality in the tone that he must have had in person. And the
elegance does come through as well, IMO, as well as the almost
superhuman technique. So when you say the recordings do not reflect the
full beauty and excitement of what you heard, I can only assume that
what you heard must have been utterly dazzling! As it is, I've
frequently said that one of the earmarks of his singing is the way it
always seems to come straight from the heart, no matter what he's singing.
Many contemporary accounts strongly suggest that his Ottavio may have
been his very greatest role of all, so what you saw was plainly Tauber
absolutely in his element. Please, was this perhaps the Covent Garden
perf. immediately before the War with Ezio Pinza and Elisabeth Rethberg,
or was this some other occasion. Again, much thanks.
>
> The thing about Nilsson is you must hear her in a theater to get the
> impact. Her voice did not have the round Italian sound but was cold as
> ice with a piercing edge that could cut through the loudest Wagnerian
> orchestral passages. She is the only true Wagnerian dramatic who had
> no problems with the Immolation Scene from Gotterdamerung.
Mike Richter here has singled out a song recital (of Swedish songs, I
believe) as one of the better reproductions of her true quality, and
there's also a remarkable and sensibly miked (i.e., miked out in the
auditorium!<G>) document of some excerpts from a Scala tour in Moscow in
1964 where one can savor something of the way her tone naturally lofted
itself into the auditorium.
This has been quite a thrill, and I can't think of any other exchange of
this sort that I've found so satisfying and illuminating.
Extending best wishes,
Geoffrey Riggs
Carina
I am soooo glad that no one has done any bashing yet as I have seen in
some of the other topic discuss here. I too, am very intrigue by the
writings of the author of this topic. (I myself have a lot of opera
experiences as well) It is impressive how accurate Mr. Stanindrag's
description of the artists he has chosen to highlight in his writings.
For that reason I will take his word that he has indeed heard these
giants of opera live. I have heard several of them live myself(
Sutherland, Nilsson, Callas, Caballe, Pavarotti and more). I am biased
toward Dame Joan being an Aussie myelf so she gets my vote as the
greatest soprano of our time. However I can't call her the greatest
singer of our time since sopranos, tenors, baritones and mezzos are so
different that it's like comparing apples, oranges, bananas and Kiwi.
I would like to put in my personal list of favorite singers whom I
feel are all deserving of being named in the same breath as our Dame
Joan.
Kirsten Flagstad
Mirella Freni
Leontyne Price
Leonard Warren
James Morris
Victoria de Los Angeles
Jussi Bjoeling
Margaret Price(what a waste)
Monserrat Caballe
Early Callas
Placido Domingo
And my favorite tenor is Nicolai Gedda. If Stanindrag is still
listening, I would like to read what you think of Gedda.
Leonard Tillman
>I can't call her the greatest singer of our time
> since sopranos, tenors, baritones and
> mezzos are so different that it's like
> comparing apples, oranges, bananas and
> Kiwi.
The last four items should be blended, rather than compared. Result:
A first-rate "Smoothie" beverage.
Leonard Tillman
Jon E. Szostak, Sr.
especially in LOC's barn of an opera house. People who've never been to LOC
may not realize that the house is HUGE...really too big for opera...more
suited to miked performances...but...it's what we've got until someone
decides to build a more 'normal/intimate' sized theater dedicated to
opera/ballet.
We once had a smaller theater which was used for TV shows and much smaller
operas and as a second rehearsal stage. LOC opera school did a wonderful
production of 'the Rake's Progress' in this smaller theater...worked
beautifully. It was destroyed and is now use as a staging/storage area...a
great loss IMO.
Jon E. Szostak, Sr.
"David Melnick" <dmel...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:jWVsc.16250310$Of.27...@news.easynews.com...
Jim OlsEn
Having nothing of consequence to contribute to this thread Nutty Lenny
nevertheless chimes in with the following filler material in his endless
quest to call attention to himself and to elevate his post count:
>Re Sutherland:
Leonard Tillman>
Nutty Lenny, you owe Mr Silverman an apology, you repulsive slag.
Leonard Tillman
Shut your hole, Bole. (And wipe it.)
Leonard Tillman
Premiereopera
>>Laurel
>
>One assumes you mean Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy.
>
>Paul Schneider
Maybe he means Stan Musial and Laurel Hurley!!!!
Ed
Terrymelin
>heard the real Sutherland
Yes, I had and as I stated I have heard many, many live recordings from before
that period as well.
Even when young there was a "hootiness" to the voice which got more and more
pronounced as she got older.
>The sound was totally different and gives
>chills.
Yes, it was a great sound but it often meant absolutely nothing other than
being a "great sound."
That's enough for some people but in an art form that is needs drama I find
that her voice often lacks it completely.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>Those who has implied that she was at least one of the greatest singer
>of the Century include Franco Zefferelli and Luciano Pavarotti. And
>Domingo was rumored to have said that no one can outsing Dame Joan.
>
I am sorry but Franco Zefferelli probably thinks the cucumber is one of the
great sex toys of the century. Your point is?
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>phenomenal voice. Her faults were obvious, but the instrument in its
>prime was so sublime that I don't think we're anything like her for at
>least a hundred years.
>
Part of a phenomenal voice includes the ability to convey dramatic conviction
and she was almost never able to do that so that makes her an also ran to me.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>> greatest tenor vocally of the last century. He had everything, beauty
>> of tone, phrasing, squillo, secure high notes...
Where are you getting this one from? Jussi Bjorling didn't have a small voice
at all. That's a myth.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>an opera singer for his or her voice. Vocally, Sutherland was in a
>class of her own.
That's a shame because the most important thing, IMHO, is that a voice is
interesting not that it is large.
Terry Ellsworth
Charlie Handelman
under...There are some SUPERB singers who sang a lot in
Sydney,Melbourne,etc..and who never really got recognition here..June
Bronhill,Robert Allman,Nance Grant..I have recently gotten many of the perf.on
Cd..and of course my fav.Rita Hunter.....My best Charlie
Charlie Handelman
one of the "World's Shortest Nooks," the one that is entitled, "Speech therapy
for singers."....but this lady WAS STUPENDOUS..and,judged on her own merits, it
was one of the most amazing voices....LORD......she was a great great
singer..and in Fille..HILARIOUS also.......Not a Norma for y taste..but in the
"empty-headed repertory" she was phenomenal and WAS "La Stupenda." CH
Charlie Handelman
and she was almost never able to do that so that makes her an also ran to me.
I believe that some singers (Stimm) are noted more for the sheer voice and
others (Kunsst) are noted for their depth of interpretation...so I accept a
Sutherland as I do a Callas..in totally separate ways...I can listen for
different reasons to thousands of singers..and derive what they have to
offer...CH
Charlie Handelman
at all. That's a myth.
When I saw Jussi....50's...the voice WAS small..I feel I cannot judge him
fairly....but if the Romeo 1947 is HALF of what he was live..then he was
GODDD..But when I saw him,there was no real ring to the tone...it does not have
to be BIG...but it was really not enough for me...CH
Terrymelin
>was one of the most amazing voices....LOR
Well, just not for me. For an aria or two where she can show off the voice I
can understand that. But she couldn't create a living, breathing character in a
theater and that is not for me.
Terry Ellsworth
Jim OlsEn
"Charlie Handelman" wrote,
...it does not have
> to be BIG...but it was really not enough for me...CH >
Does this mean you're dumping Little Lenny?
David7Gable
>>an opera singer for his or her voice. Vocally, Sutherland was in a
>>class of her own.
Who cares? She was the most boring musician imaginable, the most boring vocal
actress imaginable. Bland and completely devoid of interest. It's fun enough
to hear her sing a few of the bravura pieces, but to hear her sing anything
else is enough to put me to sleep.
-david gable
and...@comcast.net
AES
"Terrymelin" <terry...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040526094553...@mb-m27.aol.com...
william d. kasimer
> When I saw Jussi....50's...the voice WAS small..I feel I cannot judge him
> fairly....
Then why do you keep repeating your unfair judgement?
Bill
Leonard Tillman
<Its emitted brown air-bubble snipped/popped>
Cauterize your hole, bole.
Leonard Tillman
Quintela Soares
We must divide by sopranos, mezzo, tenors, and so on... and even then it's a
question of...personal feeling.
"Charlie Handelman" <plac...@aol.comnojunk> escreveu na mensagem
news:20040525111653...@mb-m11.aol.com...
>
> C A R U S O
donpaolo
"Singer" was considered to be_______________
______________ Giuseppe Valachi........
DonPaolo
Carina
I like opera singers who have interesting voices as well. However, it
must be a beautiful and interesting voice. That combination is
definitively true with Dame Joan who had one of the most interesting
and beautiful voices of her era.
To look back at the so call dramatic coloratura sopranos of
Donizetti's time, some scholars are now saying that are simply lyrics
singing with a smaller orchestra. They were not really dramatic
coloraturas. The only true dramatic coloratura is Dame Joan
Sutherland. Who else can sing Esclamonde?
Leonard Tillman
"Like a boid", he sang! A later contenduh was Samuele "Da Bull"
Gravano, IIRC.
>DonPaolo
Leonard Tillman
Elizabeth Hubbell
Carina wrote:
> terry...@aol.com (Terrymelin) wrote in message news:<20040526094906...@mb-m27.aol.com>...
>
>>>I don't love an opera singer because he or she is interesting. I love
>>>an opera singer for his or her voice. Vocally, Sutherland was in a
>>>class of her own.
>>
>>That's a shame because the most important thing, IMHO, is that a voice is
>>interesting not that it is large.
>>
>>Terry Ellsworth
>
>
>
> I like opera singers who have interesting voices as well. However, it
> must be a beautiful and interesting voice. That combination is
> definitively true with Dame Joan who had one of the most interesting
> and beautiful voices of her era.
> To look back at the so call dramatic coloratura sopranos of
> Donizetti's time, some scholars are now saying that are simply lyrics
> singing with a smaller orchestra.
Actually, a surprising number of them specialized in alternating alto
with soprano parts. They may not necessarily have had the full power of
a Joan Sutherland or an Anita Cerquetti or a Rosa Ponselle, but they
evidently did have relatively darker, richer timbres at least, of a sort
not usually associated with lyrics as we understand them today.
Some writers once suggested that it was par for the course for divas of
that time to alternate repertoires in that way anyway.
Well, perhaps so, when it comes to going from dramatic soprano to lyric
soprano and back (even though they didn't necessarily have precisely
those distinctions among sopranos of that time). But not when it comes
to alternating _alto_ with soprano!
In fact, the latter actually occasioned some comment and raised eyebrows
at the time(!), suggesting that, while a select number of 19th-century
divas may indeed have done that, they were still in a distinct minority.
One need only recall other unequivocal sopranos, their contemporaries
like Lind, Sonntag, Persiani, Tadolini, or Cinti-Damoreau, and so on, to
realize that most sopranos, even then, stayed within the soprano rep.
The fact that an undue number of those darker-voiced exceptions who
proved the rule -- the Pastas, the Ronzis, etc. -- were unusually active
in _dramatic_ coloratura vehicles like Norma and Roberto Devereux would
seem to imply that the dramatic coloratura repertoire -- sometimes
termed the Assoluta repertoire -- was indeed associated with richer
voices at least, if not necessarily voices of overwhelming power.
Cheers,
Geoffrey Riggs (Assoluta Monster)
www.operacast.com/assoluta.htm
Carina
> I had the radio on low while perusing this thread, WQXR in NY which
> mostly plays non-vocal classical music. Suddenly my ears perked up,
> the voice was Beverly Sills, today being her 75th (!) birthday. She
> was singing "Oh quand je dors" and i stopped reading and listened to it
> with rapt attention. What is it that makes some singers great? A
> special quality that instantly grabs our attention, the ability to tell
> a story or paint a picture in words and music, a technique that
> surprises us, thrills us and seduces us. I got goosebumps listening
> to Sills and it's that "goosebump" experience that usually tells me
> who's great and who is merely very good. I love all of the singers
> mentioned in this thread for the same reason, that goosebump thing.
> (With apologies to Lily Tomlin :)
> Jon
My goosebumps come from Dame Joan. She will always be my one and only
favorite coloratura soprano.
Leonard Tillman
>I had the radio on low while perusing this
> thread, WQXR in NY which mostly plays
> non-vocal classical music. Suddenly my
> ears perked up, the voice was Beverly Sills,
> today being her 75th (!) birthday. She was
> singing "Oh quand je dors" and i stopped
> reading and listened to it with rapt attention.
> What is it that makes some singers great?
<A special quality that instantly grabs our
> attention, the ability to tell a story or paint a
> picture in words and music, a technique that
> surprises us, thrills us and seduces us. I got
> goosebumps listening to Sills and it's that
> "goosebump" experience that usually tells me
> who's great and who is merely very good.
>I love all of the singers mentioned in this
> thread for the same reason, that goosebump
> thing. (With apologies to Lily Tomlin :)
Beverly is certainly not generic, as are even some very competent,
qualified sopranos of today. You hear one note of hers, recognize the
voice and personality instantly, and don't want to shift your attention
for a second, lest you miss the chance to thoroughly savor this
wonderful diva's art for the aria's duration.
I'm glad she recorded some of her greatest roles whild still in or
near her prime.
Leonard Tillman
Carina
With respect to your remark, having a phenomenal voice has nothing to
do with having dramatic conviction. Voice is voice, dramatic
conviction is dramatic conviction. Dame Joan had the most magnificent
voice and technique with her own style of dramatic conviction.
La Divina was the mistress of the theater but had a faulty voice.
Using your logic, can I then say that a singer's ability to convey
dramatic conviction is nothing if she did not also have a phenomenal
voice? If that is so, Callas would have been forgotten long ago. I
pick voice over drama. You have your opinion, I have mine, both are
valid.
Dame Joan's devoted fans have made her the undisputed Prima Donna
Assoluta for several decades during one of the most competitive eras
of opera's golden age, that says something.
Terrymelin
>must be a beautiful and interesting voice. That combination is
>definitively true with Dame Joan who had one of the most interesting
>and beautiful voices of her era.
You would be in a very tiny minority on that subject. Most critics and diehard
opera fans would tell you that Joan's voice was beautiful but wasn't even
remotely interesting in any dramatic sense.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>favorite coloratura soprano.
>
I could never limit my favorites to one or two or even three singers. There are
just too many wonderful choices out there.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>do with having dramatic conviction. Voice is voice, dramatic
>conviction is dramatic conviction. Dame Joan had the most magnificent
>voice and technique with her own style of dramatic conviction.
I am sorry but I don't agree with you. In my opinion one cannot have a "great"
voice without any sense of dramatic conviction. She made nothing of the notes
other than sounds and that, to me, is not what singing is all about. If voice
is just about "voice" as you say then Jerry Vale is a great singer. I don't
think so.
>La Divina was the mistress of the theater but had a faulty voice.
>Using your logic, can I then say that a singer's ability to convey
>dramatic conviction is nothing if she did not also have a phenomenal
>voice? If that is so, Callas would have been forgotten long ago.
A singer must have both. Callas did. Listen to the way she shades and colors
her notes. That's drama and a great voice combined. Sutherland rarely, if ever,
did that.
>Dame Joan's devoted fans have made her the undisputed Prima Donna
>Assoluta for several decades during one of the most competitive eras
>of opera's golden age, that says something.
>
>
Yes, but I doubt you'd like what it says. For anyone to even remotely claim
that in an era of Nilsson, Price, Horne, and many others that she was the
"undisputed Prima Donna Assoluta" is laughable on its face.
Terry Ellsworth
donpaolo
ah, er, "artistes"....
DonPaolo
"Leonard Tillman" <tapef...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:8425-40B...@storefull-3335.bay.webtv.net...
Jon E. Szostak, Sr.
Donna Assoluta"...they all earned it and deserve the title. There is NO
best operatic voice period! Too many variables...one evening 'phenomenal'
the next 'so-so'...it's the nature of the beast we call the human voice in
opera.
By the way...you can laugh at my face anytime...I loved and continue to love
Dame Joan. I think she was a better actress in the comic stuff though.
Jon E. Szostak, Sr.
"Terrymelin" <terry...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040527091025...@mb-m14.aol.com...
David7Gable
>Assoluta for several decades
What do you mean "undisputed"? Her value as a singer is disputed in this very
thread and by more than one poster. In any case, you Sutherland fans are
welcome to her. Just don't make me listen to her.
-david gable
Terrymelin
>Donna Assoluta"...they all earned it and deserve the title. There is NO
>best operatic voice period! Too many variables...one evening 'phenomenal'
>the next 'so-so'...it's the nature of the beast we call the human voice in
>opera.
Absolutamente!
>By the way...you can laugh at my face anytime...I loved and continue to love
>Dame Joan. I think she was a better actress in the comic stuff though.
>
>Jon E. Szostak, Sr.
I always enjoying laughing in your face, Jon!
Terry Ellsworth
David7Gable
>must be a beautiful and interesting voice.
Sutherland's voice was not terribly distinctive. Beauty is in the ear of the
beholder and her technique was stupendous, but her voice distinctive? You've
got to be kidding. In any case, she was musically and dramatically boring.
>Who else can sing Esclamonde?
Not Sutherland. She had to sing it transposed down (as who wouldn't but the
woman for which the role was written).
-david gable
Charlie Handelman
intrinsic beauty of tone with OTHER great qualities..Moedl is a good example...
Sutherland was a phenomenon in HER WAY.....and what she did in many roles was
as great as let us say a Lehmann Marshallin..in HER WAY......as long as the IQ
of the character was below 30...but Joan had so much...one cannot dismiss
her...CH
Charlie Handelman
DIE to hear that level....but Sutherland in
Fille,Rigoletto,Puritani,Lucuia.....phenomenal...depends on the role...CH
lucyboring
>>With respect to your remark, having a phenomenal voice has nothing to
>>do with having dramatic conviction. Voice is voice, dramatic
>>conviction is dramatic conviction. Dame Joan had the most magnificent
>>voice and technique with her own style of dramatic conviction.
>
>
> I am sorry but I don't agree with you. In my opinion one cannot have a "great"
> voice without any sense of dramatic conviction. She made nothing of the notes
> other than sounds and that, to me, is not what singing is all about. If voice
> is just about "voice" as you say then Jerry Vale is a great singer. I don't
> think so.
>
>
>>La Divina was the mistress of the theater but had a faulty voice.
>>Using your logic, can I then say that a singer's ability to convey
>>dramatic conviction is nothing if she did not also have a phenomenal
>>voice? If that is so, Callas would have been forgotten long ago.
>
>
> A singer must have both. Callas did. Listen to the way she shades and colors
> her notes. That's drama and a great voice combined. Sutherland rarely, if ever,
> did that. .
I for one would rather listen to Sutherland sing the London Telephone
Directory than ever again hear Callas attempt Lucia, ugly, shrill hooty
bottled sound, no matter how well coloured you believe the words were.
>
>
>>Dame Joan's devoted fans have made her the undisputed Prima Donna
>>Assoluta for several decades during one of the most competitive eras
>>of opera's golden age, that says something.
>>
>>
>
>
> Yes, but I doubt you'd like what it says. For anyone to even remotely claim
> that in an era of Nilsson, Price, Horne, and many others that she was the
> "undisputed Prima Donna Assoluta" is laughable on its face.
Well she was certainly Prima Donna Assoluta of her "Fach", Caballe and
Sills notwithstanding.
>
> Terry Ellsworth
David W. Griffith
Elizabeth Hubbell
lucyboring wrote:
> I for one would rather listen to Sutherland sing the London Telephone
> Directory than ever again hear Callas attempt Lucia, ugly, shrill hooty
> bottled sound, no matter how well coloured you believe the words were.
Am curious: please, which Callas Lucia have you heard?
FWIW, at her Berlin performance in '55, she clarifies the vowels
considerably and adopts an amazingly unpressured tone. If that's the
Lucia you've heard, then you've given her Lucia an entirely fair chance,
and her Lucia is simply not for you.
If, OTOH, you've heard, say, the one with Tagliavini from 1959 (stereo),
I'd agree that's a very problematic reading. So please let us know
which one you've heard. -- Thanks much.
>>> Dame Joan's devoted fans have made her the undisputed Prima Donna
>>> Assoluta for several decades during one of the most competitive eras
>>> of opera's golden age, that says something.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, but I doubt you'd like what it says. For anyone to even remotely
>> claim
>> that in an era of Nilsson, Price, Horne, and many others that she was the
>> "undisputed Prima Donna Assoluta" is laughable on its face.
>
>
> Well she was certainly Prima Donna Assoluta of her "Fach", Caballe and
> Sills notwithstanding.
If you mean that Sutherland has to be reckoned Prima Donna Assoluta of
her "Fach" alongside Caballe and Sills, I'd emphatically agree. I
believe she mastered even her most difficult roles with the utmost
security, and she consequently -- having triumphed in roles such as
Norma! -- has to be regarded as a true Prima Donna Assoluta.
If, OTOH, you mean that she eclipsed the "Assoluta" achievements of
Caballe and Sills as some absolute fact, then that, frankly, is
ultimately a matter of opinion. I happen, for instance, to seriously
feel that Caballe comes closer to completeness in this rep -- IMHO, of
course! -- than Sutherland or Sills. But that too is my opinion. I'm
not claiming it as a fact.
Respectfully,
Terrymelin
>very
>thread and by more than one poster. In any case, you Sutherland fans are
>welcome to her. Just don't make me listen to her.
>
>-david gable
I wouldn't go so far as Mr. Gable in totally dismissing Dame Joan but he
certainly is right about the "undisputed" comment. Some of her early stuff I
find quite lovely and technically brilliant. But one doesn't live by that alone
....
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>I for one would rather listen to Sutherland sing the London Telephone
>Directory
Lucky for you. You can pick any studio recording off the shelf at the local
Tower and whether it's Lucia or Violetta or Norma it will sound just like she's
singing the London Telephone Directory.
>Callas attempt Lucia, ugly, shrill hooty
>bottled sound, no matter how well coloured you believe the words were.
That's sad for you. So filled with hate that you must make-up nonsense like
this. Callas was many things but only someone who has no ears would call her
"hooty."
>Well she was certainly Prima Donna Assoluta of her "Fach", Caballe and
>Sills notwithstanding.
That, of course, isn't what was said. But she had plenty of competition in her
fach and I'd take Scotto, Caballe, and Gencer any day of the week over
Sutherland.
Terry Ellsworth
Commspkmn
<< Lucky for you. You can pick any studio recording off the shelf at the local
Tower and whether it's Lucia or Violetta or Norma it will sound just like she's
singing the London Telephone Directory. >>
The one that always surprises me is the Turandot. She really throws herself
into the role, at least in comparison to her usual approach.
Best,
Ken
Carina
You are dead wrong on this issue. If that is the case, why is it most
critics recommend Dame Jo recordings of Lucia, Norma, Sonnambula,
Daughter of Regiment, Rigoletto and Turandot over all others versions
in their reviews of these operas? Unless the critics don't card
whether these operas are sung with any drama. Note the Penquin guide
to opera for example, Dame Joan's versions of the bel canto operas
were highly rated.
On the opera Esclamonde, Dame Joan did not transpose one note in the
entire opera which was not cut. She did not take the high G written
for Sanderson by Massenet. That G was an option, she did not have to
take it. The opera had plenty of high Ds and two Es in it for Dame
Joan to sing. It demanded a Wagnerian orchestra. Dame Joan sang it
first at the age of 48 in SF. It was a truimph of the highest
magnitude.
If you don't like dame Joan's voice, please write in your favorite
voice instead of being so critical that it almost sound mean-spirited.
Carina
GRNDPADAVE
>Assoluta for several decades during one of the most competitive eras
>of opera's golden age, that says something.
>
Actually all that says is that *her* fans idolize Joan Sutherland. Fans always
idolize their idol. Fans are, by definition, fanatic.
It says *nothing* about Dame Joan.
Partisanship in these matters I find tiresome.
Her principal accomplishment, as far as I am concerned, is that she caused
operas to be recorded that might not otherwise have been:
ESCLARMONDE
LES HUGUENOTS
BEATRICE DI TENDA
Her second I PURITANI is my favorite of her recordings, but more for the
contributions of Pavarotti, Ghiaurov, Cappuccilli than for hers.
She is, imho, superb in her FILLE DU REGIMENT. I think most opera-lovers will
acknowledge a debt to her generosity in promoting the career of Luciano
Pavarotti.
It is merely gossip, as far as I am concerned, to view singers as being in
competition with one another.
For me the only thing that matters is the opera itself and how well the artists
interpret the music.
I think Dame Joan is a lovely person, but, in most roles, a mediocre
interpreter.
==G/P Dave
Kim
hall. I have not been as lucky, I only have my recordings. JOan
Sutherland would not have been knighted La Stupenda if she did not do
the Brits proud. I bow to her long career as the great coloratura
soprano of the last century.
To give credit where credit is due, it is Maria Callas who introduce
the 20th century audiences to the bel canto operas. Then La Stupenda
took them to the next level. I am only a choir mezzo so I am not
nearly as knowledgeable as the folks who post here.
I do know what I like. The greatest opera singers of all time can not
be named. There are so many who fill that title that I can only tell
you Enrico Caruso, Luisa Tetrazzini, Benjaminio Gigli, Jussi Bjoeling,
Joan Sutherland, Leontyne Price, Regine Crespin, Birgit Nilsson,
Marilyn Horne are among them.
Thank you.
keyston...@hotmail.com (StanInDrag) wrote in message news:<8e6c8f09.04052...@posting.google.com>...
Elizabeth Hubbell
Carina wrote:
> terry...@aol.com (Terrymelin) wrote in message news:<20040527090250...@mb-m14.aol.com>...
>
>>>I like opera singers who have interesting voices as well. However, it
>>>must be a beautiful and interesting voice. That combination is
>>>definitively true with Dame Joan who had one of the most interesting
>>>and beautiful voices of her era.
>>
>>You would be in a very tiny minority on that subject. Most critics and diehard
>>opera fans would tell you that Joan's voice was beautiful but wasn't even
>>remotely interesting in any dramatic sense.
>>
>>Terry Ellsworth
>
>
> You are dead wrong on this issue. If that is the case, why is it most
> critics recommend Dame Jo recordings of Lucia, Norma, Sonnambula,
> Daughter of Regiment, Rigoletto and Turandot over all others versions
> in their reviews of these operas? Unless the critics don't card
> whether these operas are sung with any drama. Note the Penquin guide
> to opera for example, Dame Joan's versions of the bel canto operas
> were highly rated.
It could be partly their being indeed impressed with what Sutherland
herself does with these roles and partly a reflection of the generally
fine casts in most Sutherland recordings. Many of the bel canto operas
are quite hard to cast, which means that, while certain other perfectly
fine divas have also recorded this repertoire, it's unusual for their
colleagues to match them in artistic caliber. When the Bonynges are in
charge, true bel canto specialists are (usually) fielded throughout.
Cuts too are a problem. Lucia, for instance, was usually horribly cut
in recording after recording until the Bonynges came along. Then, not
only were we finally able to enjoy the uncut role of Edgardo (duel duet
included), we could savor this rarely heard music in the throats of
front-rank tenors like Luciano Pavarotti. Same is true of the
Sutherland/Pavarotti Puritani, another fine work (also premiered 1835,
BTW) that was usually terribly cut.
All of these factors have played a role in keeping many of these sets at
the top of critical esteem, generally (though not unanimously). And
there's no doubt that, for sheer vocalism, Sutherland herself occupies a
special niche all her own. Undoubtedly, her contribution plays a large
part in sustaining the high demand for most of these sets. But the
distinctiveness of other interpreters has also been acknowledged by
plenty of critics whom you may be overlooking. In the end, what we are
still talking about here is opinion, not fact.
When one looks more closely, you'll find that when it comes to more
familiar repertory, such as Rigoletto, for instance, the Sutherland
recordings (for there were two) -- even the finer second one with Milnes
and Pavarotti -- are generally judged as first among equals. The
Milnes/Sutherland has indeed been singled out _by_ _some_ as the top
choice, but just as often, the Warren/Berger and/or the Gobbi/Callas
will be singled out habitually the same way. For a bread-and-butter
piece of this sort, I'd like to see specific reviews in order to
ascertain whether or not Sutherland's own contribution -- fine as it is
-- is the chief reason why a given set is being nominated or whether it
is the general excellence of the cast overall instead.
And again, all that we're really talking about here is opinion, not
fact. Positive opinions concerning Sutherland are certainly widely
shared, but they are not the only opinions, either among opera fans of
all stripes or among published critics.
> On the opera Esclamonde, Dame Joan did not transpose one note in the
> entire opera which was not cut. She did not take the high G written
> for Sanderson by Massenet. That G was an option, she did not have to
> take it. The opera had plenty of high Ds and two Es in it for Dame
> Joan to sing. It demanded a Wagnerian orchestra. Dame Joan sang it
> first at the age of 48 in SF. It was a truimph of the highest
> magnitude.
It was a great triumph for her. That is undoubtedly true. I saw her do
it at the Met (it was the first time I ever saw her), and I can attest
to its success with the public. Her entrance pyrotechnics sent us all
crazy<G>. To state that that success was of the highest magnitude is an
opinion, albeit (again) one that was widely shared, at least by those
who were in the audience with me that night.
> If you don't like dame Joan's voice, please write in your favorite
> voice instead of being so critical that it almost sound mean-spirited.
Since this piece of advice is not addressed to me, all I can say is that
I do have a favorite of my own (unfortunately, I never attended one of
this artist's performances, having been born well after the artist was
no longer among the living). Moreover, I already have on the Net a
precis of this artist giving the reasons why I esteem this artist so
very highly. In my case too, this is merely an opinion and one that I
invite all the contributors at this forum to share at
Respectfully,
Geoffrey Riggs
Kim
> plac...@aol.comnojunk (Charlie Handelman) wrote in message news:<20040526103527...@mb-m07.aol.com>...
>
> > When I saw Jussi....50's...the voice WAS small..I feel I cannot judge him
> > fairly....
>
> Then why do you keep repeating your unfair judgement?
>
> Bill
Bjoeling was known to have a small voice. It was noted that he needed
a lot of amplification when he recorded Turandot. I don't feel having
a small voice lessens his reputation of being a wonderful tenor.
On the other hand, La Stupenda having a big voice surely made her
coloratura singing much more exciting. Along with a flawless
technique, her big voice carry her reputation as one of the greatest
coloraturas in my book.
Carina
I said coloratura sopranos only, not all singers. I have many favorite
sopranos, tenors, baritones and such. I have the right to pick one
coloratura as my fave, Dame Joan Sutherland.
Leonard Tillman
>Hay - we got the makings of a Great
> Tenor-Baritone Duets CD with these two, ah,
> er, "artistes"....
First, we've gotta dig up Valachi, and since they're Stool Pigeons, an
Upward-Transposition is necessary for the appropriate key. Presumably
it's a Low-Z, rather than C or A.
Really Low-Z singing, we may expect.
Either Pigeon, is, of course, titillating to a certain 502 Fake-ID Git
who's their Official Boinkee (see sig).
>DonPaolo
LT
"Leonard Tillman" <tapef...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:8425-40B...@storefull-3335.bay.webtv.net... From:
donp...@erols.com (donpaolo)
>I do not recall if anyone nominated him, but at
> the time, the Greatest "Singer" was
>considered to be_______________
>______________ Giuseppe Valachi........
" "Like a boid", he sang! A later contenduh was Samuele "Da Bull"
Gravano, IIRC. "
>DonPaolo
Leonard Tillman
-----------------------------------
-- Note: StinkyShorts (aka Fugue-Face) Boleman owes unlimited apologies
to TE, Mrs. E, CH, DFT, LT, Ed R., and 99.99% of RMO's readership and
the Dept. of Health for having to constantly fumigate Bole's immediate
and distant surroundings.
StanInDrag
> And my favorite tenor is Nicolai Gedda. If Stanindrag is still
> listening, I would like to read what you think of Gedda.
So many memorable evenings I have spend listening to Gedda both LIVE
and on lps. It is a gross oversight that I neglected to include him as
one the greatest tenor of all time.
Gedda was perhaps the most underappreciated tenor I know. His ease of
singing in the highest register with the purest of tones during the
earliest part of his career could eclipsed that of his more famous
rival - Luciano Pavarotti.
Later in his career, the voice developed a tremor to it that sometimes
marred his performances. Nevertheless, I will never forget what an
impact he had in the world of opera when he was in his prime. If only
we had someone of his caliber singing today...
Richard Loeb
hallmarks of a great technique. I am a great fan of her in some material but
let's not go overboard. Richard
"Kim" <lilia...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1ea4f0e6.04052...@posting.google.com...
Charlie Handelman
>
> Bill
I see you quoted the old crabcake Kasimer..he never lets up!!!All he does is
try to make negative statements about me and my ideas..meanwhile,he makes a
fool of himself every time....He should retire to some home for ancient
curmudgeons and leave the rest of us in peace instead of in pieces.....CH
Elizabeth Hubbell
Since Gedda was the first tenor I heard "live", I'm far from denying the
special niche he represented. I have very fond memories of his singing.
I'm curious, though, when it comes to a facility with the top register
and dazzling flexibility, whether Stanindrag is as struck as I am today
by Florez. Honestly, there are nights when just his technique leaves me
speechless.
Please, might Stanindrag give us his impressions of this artist,
especially given the context of the many flexible lyric tenors
Stanindrag has undoubtedly heard over the years?
Much thanks,
Premiereopera
>entire opera which was not cut. She did not take the high G written
>for Sanderson by Massenet. That G was an option, she did not have to
>take it.
No, she didn't have to. But she also had nothing approaching a high G over C
rangewise.
>take it. The opera had plenty of high Ds and two Es in it for Dame
>Joan to sing.
Sutherland rarely if ever sang E naturals on stage, and lowered arias that
included E's and F's, such as the Bell Song, and Queen of the Night aria.
Always lowered in person.
Ed
Andrew T. Kay
[Sutherland]
>Her second I PURITANI is my favorite of her recordings, but more for the
>contributions of Pavarotti, Ghiaurov, Cappuccilli than for hers.
I haven't heard it, but they're the reasons I would like to hear it,
eventually. (Especially for the great bass/baritone duet, which is not all that
well served by the singers on the best-recorded and best-played performance I
have, the Muti/EMI. Manuguerra had some fine qualities, but when I hear people
describe his buzzy, woolly voice as "beautiful," as I sometimes have, I have no
idea what they're talking about.) The reason I haven't gotten around to it so
far is that I feel I'm already well taken care of in the _Puritani_ recordings
department, and I'm not expecting to be mesmerized by the work of the Bonynges
themselves.
>I think Dame Joan is a lovely person, but, in most roles, a mediocre
>interpreter.
I agree with both assessments, and I'll give her "a superb technician" as well.
I *can* enjoy long stretches of her singing just for that remarkable agility
and technical poise, in the same way I can enjoy a pianist who isn't the most
probing interpreter but simply has an astounding technique that allows him to
"conquer" challenging passages that most can only "negotiate." But in all cases
(be it a Sutherland or a pianist, violinist, etc., who has similar strengths
and weaknesses), it ultimately isn't the kind of performance that I find most
rewarding, or that I most often want to seek out.
--Todd K
Carina
the most publicity and who received the highest fees for her singing,
no question Sutherland was the most popular Prima Donna of the era.
That's why the majority of opera buffs of the era referred to her as
Prima Donna Assoluta. Who else in her era was universally dubbed a
name such as La Stupenda? I wish you would stop calling everything
that Dame Joan did as laughable, that makes you a unconvincing critic
of her singing. I sense jealousy on your part.
terry...@aol.com (Terrymelin) wrote in message news:<20040527091025...@mb-m14.aol.com>...
> >With respect to your remark, having a phenomenal voice has nothing to
> >do with having dramatic conviction. Voice is voice, dramatic
> >conviction is dramatic conviction. Dame Joan had the most magnificent
> >voice and technique with her own style of dramatic conviction.
>
> I am sorry but I don't agree with you. In my opinion one cannot have a "great"
> voice without any sense of dramatic conviction. She made nothing of the notes
> other than sounds and that, to me, is not what singing is all about. If voice
> is just about "voice" as you say then Jerry Vale is a great singer. I don't
> think so.
>
> >La Divina was the mistress of the theater but had a faulty voice.
> >Using your logic, can I then say that a singer's ability to convey
> >dramatic conviction is nothing if she did not also have a phenomenal
> >voice? If that is so, Callas would have been forgotten long ago.
>
> A singer must have both. Callas did. Listen to the way she shades and colors
> her notes. That's drama and a great voice combined. Sutherland rarely, if ever,
> did that.
>
> >Dame Joan's devoted fans have made her the undisputed Prima Donna
> >Assoluta for several decades during one of the most competitive eras
> >of opera's golden age, that says something.
> >
> >
>
> Yes, but I doubt you'd like what it says. For anyone to even remotely claim
> that in an era of Nilsson, Price, Horne, and many others that she was the
> "undisputed Prima Donna Assoluta" is laughable on its face.
>
> Terry Ellsworth
Leonard Tillman
>I like opera singers who have interesting
> voices as well. However, it must be a
> beautiful and interesting voice. That
> combination is definitively true with Dame
> Joan who had one of the most interesting and
> beautiful voices of her era.
>You would be in a very tiny minority on that
> subject.
Whether or not that's true, is of no matter. The perception is valid to
those having it. Their enjoyment of Dame Joan's voice and style is their
right, along with their freedom to express their opinions about it,
regardless of minority/majority comparisons.
>Most critics and diehard opera fans would tell
> you that Joan's voice was beautiful but wasn't
> even remotely interesting in any dramatic
> sense.
IF that's so, "most" isn't "all", and the "minority" who disagree
aren't wrong to do so.
Leonard Tillman
> without any sense of dramatic conviction.
Ok, not having heard an opera singer with absolutely "no* sense of
dramatic conviction yet, I can't totally disagree.
Still, I'd say that, e.g., Alfredo Kraus had a far sense of dramatic
conviction than did Gino Penno or Franco Bonisolli, But the latter two
had *greater voices*. The dramatics and the vocal stuff can be and
often are mutually enhancing, but are still two differing commodities.
Leonard Tillman
> Jerry Vale is a great singer. I don't think so.
Voice, per se, IS just about "voice". There are many who'd say Jerry
Vale is a great singer, some of whom think his personality is more
appealing than his voice , which they find rather edgy, as opposed to
the smoothness of Al Martino's or Vic Damone's. Of the latter two, I
find Martino the more emotionally involved in the majority of his songs,
as well having the more beautiful voice from a tonal aspect.
It's all about personal preference as contributed to by one's
perceptions.
Leonard Tillman
"e.g., Alfredo Kraus had a far sense of dramatic conviction than did
Gino Penno or Franco Bonisolli, But the latter two had *greater voices*.
That should be "far greater sense of dramatic conviction".
GRNDPADAVE
>Date: 05/28/2004 5:45 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <6405-40...@storefull-3336.bay.webtv.net>
>
>>In my opinion one cannot have a "great" voice
>> without any sense of dramatic conviction.
>
>Ok, not having heard an opera singer with absolutely "no* sense of
>dramatic conviction yet, I can't totally disagree.
>
> Still, I'd say that, e.g., Alfredo Kraus had a far sense of dramatic
>conviction than did Gino Penno or Franco Bonisolli, But the latter two
>had *greater voices*. The dramatics and the vocal stuff can be and
>often are mutually enhancing, but are still two differing commodities.
>
>
>-----------------------------------
The comparisons are incongruous.
Kraus was essentially an elegant stylist most adept at roles requiring finesse:
Mozart, Donizetti, Bellini and the more lyrical Verdi roles.
The only role he had in common in with Bonisolli is that of the Duke of Mantua.
My preference here is for Kraus.
As for Penno and Bonisolli having "greater voices" than Kraus: only if greater
= louder.
Sutherland used pretty much the same sound for all her dramatic roles: her
Lucia is no different from her Elvira (Puritani) or her Micaela. Callas
adapted her voice to the role at hand providing more vivid characterizations.
The question posed in the title of this thread is essentially meaningless. One
can speak of "favorite" singers, but "greatest" (?) simply invites flame wars
and little by way of grounds for rational discussion.
==G/P Dave
Commspkmn
<< Kraus was essentially an elegant stylist most adept at roles requiring
finesse:
Mozart, Donizetti, Bellini and the more lyrical Verdi roles.
The only role he had in common in with Bonisolli is that of the Duke of Mantua.
My preference here is for Kraus. >>
If you're limiting your comparison to commercial recordings, Dave, Kraus and
Bonisolli also both sang Alfredo in La traviata.
Other roles I know both Kraus and Bonisolli sang in performance include Faust,
Nemorino, des Grieux (Massenet) and Hoffman. I suspect there are others as
well.
Best,
Ken
GRNDPADAVE
>Date: 05/28/2004 6:37 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20040528073718...@mb-m20.aol.com>
Excellent points, Ken.
When it comes to discussing performances -- as far as I'm concerned -- only
recordings provide a factual basis for carrying on a discussion.
Memories are unreliable and essentially solipsistic.
It is nice to know that Bonisolli had a wider repertory than I had realized. I
especially enjoyed his virile Benvenuto Cellini.
I'd have loved to hear his Faust.
==G/P Dave
Terrymelin
>into the role, at least in comparison to her usual approach.
>Best,
>Ken
>
Agree with you completely on that one -- you'll notice I didn't mention it as
one of her London Telephone Directory roles.
But one great recording in a career of so many mediocre ones just isn't enough
for me. Although I'm glad to have it!
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>critics recommend Dame Jo recordings of Lucia, Norma, Sonnambula,
>Daughter of Regiment, Rigoletto and Turandot over all others versions
>in their reviews of these operas? Unless the critics don't card
>whether these operas are sung with any drama. Note the Penquin guide
>to opera for example, Dame Joan's versions of the bel canto operas
>were highly rated.
>On the opera Esclamonde, Dame Joan did not transpose one note in the
>entire opera which was not cut. She did not take the high G written
>for Sanderson by Massenet. That G was an option, she did not have to
>take it. The opera had plenty of high Ds and two Es in it for Dame
>Joan to sing. It demanded a Wagnerian orchestra. Dame Joan sang it
>first at the age of 48 in SF. It was a truimph of the highest
>magnitude.
>If you don't like dame Joan's voice, please write in your favorite
>voice instead of being so critical that it almost sound mean-spirited.
>
>Carina
I perfer to make up my own mind than to mindlessly listen to some provincial
English critics who think every utterance from a Commonwealth singer is somehow
gold.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>>interpreter.
>
I happen to have met her a few times and I agree. With both statements.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>Sutherland would not have been knighted La Stupenda if she did not do
>the Brits proud. I bow t
Huh? I didn't realize that was a recognized order of English knighthood.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>a lot of amplification when he recorded Turandot. I don't feel having
>a small voice lessens his reputation of being a wonderful tenor.
Known by whom? This is pure nonsense. You shouldn't say something as if it were
fact when it isn't.
>On the other hand, La Stupenda having a big voice surely made her
>coloratura singing much more exciting. Along with a flawless
>technique, her big voice carry her reputation as one of the greatest
>coloraturas in my book.
Big voice, big hair, big head, big body. No personality on stage.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>sopranos, tenors, baritones and such. I have the right to pick one
>coloratura as my fave, Dame Joan Sutherland.
>
As I said in the same rep I'd take Caballe, Scotto, or Gencer -- just from
Sutherland's era -- over Dame Joan any day of the week.
Terry Ellsworth
Commspkmn
<< But one great recording in a career of so many mediocre ones just isn't
enough
for me. Although I'm glad to have it!>>
Terry-
I agree that the recordings, particularly the later, diction-impaired ones,
don't really show Sutherland in her best light. I found her much more
impressive in the house, where the rare combination of agility and vocal
amplitude was really something. She was certainly no actress (IMO), but the
vocal display was sufficient to create some excitement. That excitement is
lost to a great degree in recordings, where everyone sounds about the same in
terms of vocal size.
Best,
Ken
Terrymelin
>the most publicity and who received the highest fees for her singing,
>no question Sutherland was the most popular Prima Donna of the era.
I'm sorry to say this but that's bullpoopy.
I don't know any serious person who would use the above measurements to measure
artistic acheivement.
Do you also think that Bocelli and Church are the greatest of today's singers?
>That's why the majority of opera buffs of the era referred to her as
>Prima Donna Assoluta.
That was title assigned by publicity machines not opera buffs.
>I wish you would stop calling everything
>that Dame Joan did as laughable, that makes you a unconvincing critic
>of her singing. I sense jealousy on your part.
And I sense a complete detachment from reality on your part. No one said was
Dame Joan did was "laughable." What was said that any claim that she was the
"undisputed diva of her era" is laughable.
You really should learn to read before you respond.
Terry Ellsworth
lucyboring
> [from Geof. Riggs; not Eliz. H., my better half]
>
> lucyboring wrote:
>
>> I for one would rather listen to Sutherland sing the London Telephone
>> Directory than ever again hear Callas attempt Lucia, ugly, shrill
>> hooty bottled sound, no matter how well coloured you believe the words
>> were.
>
>
> Am curious: please, which Callas Lucia have you heard?
>
> FWIW, at her Berlin performance in '55, she clarifies the vowels
> considerably and adopts an amazingly unpressured tone. If that's the
> Lucia you've heard, then you've given her Lucia an entirely fair chance,
> and her Lucia is simply not for you.
I was told that I simply must hear this brilliant recording by the
worlds greatest soprano, and was played the stereo recording of Lucia, I
couldn't believe my ears when I heard it, my reaction was why was this
ugly, shrieking squally sound deemed the worlds greatest soprano, it's
something that has puzzled me to this day. Absolutely awful. I have
heard other recordings subsequently, and though not as bad as that, I
find that I really cannot take to Callas's voice or vocal production.
Sutherland comes in for a lot of (deserved) criticism for her diction
but having heard Callas attempt "Ocean, thou mighty monster" in her
native tongue (english) and not to put too finer a point on it, the
clarity of diction is appalling. Sutherland IMO makes more it than does
Callas and with cleaner diction.
I have always found Sutherland, in the theatre, to be a sympathetic
actress, perhaps no Glenda Jackson, but nonetheless believable. I have
been lucky enough to have seen her in her prime (the 1960's at Covent
Garden, though Lucrezia Borgia there probably doesn't count as prime)
and in her decline in Sydney (where I also saw her as Lucrezia, by far
superior to the CG performance) during the 1980's in Hoffman, Trovatore,
The Merry Widow (a a softer gentler Anna than some, a lustrous pearl
rather than a bright diamond, even though in late voice), The Carmelites
and Adriana and of course her farewell performance as Marguerite de
Valois in Le Huguenots (which I wish she had not done, as the night I
went she was disastrously out of voice and I left before the performance
was over, it may also have had something to do with the fact that I
disliked the opera, with I thought was far too long and drawn out and
musically uninteresting).
>
> If, OTOH, you've heard, say, the one with Tagliavini from 1959 (stereo),
> I'd agree that's a very problematic reading. So please let us know
> which one you've heard. -- Thanks much.
>
>>>> Dame Joan's devoted fans have made her the undisputed Prima Donna
>>>> Assoluta for several decades during one of the most competitive eras
>>>> of opera's golden age, that says something.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, but I doubt you'd like what it says. For anyone to even remotely
>>> claim
>>> that in an era of Nilsson, Price, Horne, and many others that she was
>>> the
>>> "undisputed Prima Donna Assoluta" is laughable on its face.
>>
>>
>>
>> Well she was certainly Prima Donna Assoluta of her "Fach", Caballe and
>> Sills notwithstanding.
>
>
> If you mean that Sutherland has to be reckoned Prima Donna Assoluta of
> her "Fach" alongside Caballe and Sills, I'd emphatically agree. I
> believe she mastered even her most difficult roles with the utmost
> security, and she consequently -- having triumphed in roles such as
> Norma! -- has to be regarded as a true Prima Donna Assoluta.
>
> If, OTOH, you mean that she eclipsed the "Assoluta" achievements of
> Caballe and Sills as some absolute fact, then that, frankly, is
> ultimately a matter of opinion. I happen, for instance, to seriously
> feel that Caballe comes closer to completeness in this rep -- IMHO, of
> course! -- than Sutherland or Sills. But that too is my opinion. I'm
> not claiming it as a fact.
Sutherland had a true trill and better coloratura than Caballe, but she
(Caballe) was far more adventurous and wide ranging in her choice of
repertoire than Sutherland, and whilst Sills equalled, and probably in
some respects was able to outdo Sutherland in her decorations,
Sutherland had the fuller, bigger, richer voice for most of the roles
which they shared.
I'm not blind to Sutherland's faults and IMO she would've been better
off in a lot of cases singing with almost any other conductor than
Bonynge, as for instance her Turandot other Mehta, which is amazing.
I get a little weary of the continual knocking of Sutherland on this
group in particular and the continual praise of, IMO "flawed" singers,
whose vocal lapses and mannerisms engender nothing but praise without
acknowledging the faults.
Sutherland was a great singer, warts and all.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Geoffrey Riggs (Assoluta Monster)
> www.operacast.com/assoluta.htm
>
Regards,
David W. Griffith