I have loved these two greatest of divas for 45 years now, and STILL cannot choose which Lucia I prefer! It's impossible. They were both so very phenomenal in totally different ways! Certain things about Callas's I prefer, and certain things about Sutherland's I also prefer! Bottom line, I would never want to do without either of these magnificent ladies! Thank God for them both!
ich denke,in der Zeit nach M.C und J.S dieSzene hat uns so viele andere "einzigartige"unvergleichliche" DAME geschenkt.Las uns die zeitgenossischen grossen riesen grossen Stimmen geniesen!
EXACTLY! It’s fascinating to have had both voices to hear (even though it is a lighter voice, I have to admit that the glass harmonica on the Sills recording has a creepy disembodied sound possibly because that instrument parallels her voice as the flutes do for Callas and Sutherland.
@@johnpickford4222 Very true! And Sills herself, although a much lighter voice, still was such an amazing musician and actress, that similar to Callas was able to effectively use her voice to really bring out the drama through the music. Actually, all 3 of these ladies were my favorite Lucias, and so very different.
When I think of Callas I think 'fierce', when I think of Sutherland I think "dazzling" (not putting one over the other). Singers like Callas, Sutherland were the exception to the norm. We may never hear their repetoire sung with the same intensity and precision.
When I think Callas I think pure emotion. When I think Sutherland I think pure voice, Calllas was unmatched dramaticallyw and rarely failed to draw me to tears when that was what she wanted. But, Sutherland NEVER failed to make me hear the voice. I was ALWAYS transfixed when she sang, It was like an unavoidable force of nature. Unfortunately, Callas was often less than at her best, and it often irritated.
due grandi cantanti che restano nella storia del bel canto, straordinarie per tecnica, voce, temperamento . interpretazione musicalità , gusto e cultura. che dire di più?,
magnifico ..........las dos mejores de todos los tiempos en la historia de la musica ......viva las mas grandes cantantes de todos lso tiempos.....estas dos mujeres...inigualables..........una pasada de gusto..........y viva la genialidad.........callas y sutherland......for ever.....
I've never understood why the 1955 Berlin Lucia is so revered. I think Callas was much better in her 1953 EMI recording, done before her weight loss, with the voice huge and steady, and E-flats perhaps easier even than Sutherland's. And that heartbreaking interpretation was fully there. The voice just wasn't the same after she lost all that weight.
There is no doubt that Sutherland's instrument was made of finer material than Callas's. Callas never commanded the beauty of tone that was at Sutherland's disposal in her prime. As far as weight of voice goes, I have to disagree. If you listen to Callas' Abigaile, Lady Macbeth, Kundry, Gioconda, or first Medea's, you hear a depth and breadth of sound that one never heard from Sutherland even in her prime. And it's hard to imagine Sutherland's voice in any of those roles. And I don't think there has ever been a louder note captured on record than Callas the E-flat she unleashed in Aida in 1951, which drowned out the entire chorus, soloists, and orchestra. Bonynge himself always referred to Sutherland's voice as "big", but he described Callas' "fat" voice: "But before she slimmed down, I mean this was such a colossal voice. It just poured out of her, the way Flagstad's did.... Callas had a huge voice. When she and Stignani sang Norma, at the bottom of the range you could barely tell who was who ... Oh it was colossal. And she took the big sound right up to the top." From what I hear in recordings, I would say that Callas' pre weight loss voice was larger and far heavier than Sutherland's, even on the highest notes. From 1954 to '57, I would say they were on par. After 1958, I think Callas' voice shrank to be smaller than Sutherland's, though she could on occasion outdo herself vocally, as you hear in the Dallas' Medea. But this is all really knit picking. What I wouldn't give to have two ladies of the caliber of Callas and Sutherland singing on stage now.
+Steve Soares From technical standpoint No female singer every came near to Callas's technique and abilities put in mind Callas never mush her dictions to achieve bigger, richer sound and seamless legato, nor she need to stop for ever to blast a high note nor she need to break the line to sing a trill perfectly without caring on what vowel it's written etc. Sutherland was amazing, a perfect Lucia but Callas had something more, the ability to color her voice and dramatic singing/acting.
Agreed. There was a seamlessness to Callas's singing, as if she always saw the architecture of the piece form an aerial point of view. Even in the slowest music, she always knew where she was going. Sutherland had even more beautiful trills, but for some reason, she could never completely mold them into the legato line in a slow cantilena such as Leonora's or Anna Bolena's arias. They always stood outside of the line. With Callas, the melody became the trill, and the trill then became the melody. And in her prime, the highest notes always remained a part of the voice, whereas Sutherland's gorgeous high notes were something on their own.
I fully agree , I still have the 1953 recording ( in prime condition) condiucted by Serafin and it is really the TOP . Sorry but for me Sutherland never reached such a perfection ! Regards .
Ja Callas ist einmalig. Man erkennt Callas nach 2-3 Tönen , dass ist bei Sutherland nicht der Fall . Callas ist einmalig, man kann Callas mit niemanden vergleichen. Callas bleibt wie Caruso ewig !!! C.c
diana ventura I get it now...that's what I read somewhere but as usual it is an excellent advice to not believe everything you read...people manipulate things for their convenience.
This is a kind of video that the comments have to be desatived. Because incites hate. Some fanatics will say that Sutherland and other Callas....a fight that never end.
Quite the opposite! Most of the comments here have been very gracious to both of these great artists! Very few have been pitting one against the other, because they were both som amazing and incomparable.
Callas has about 10 better Lucias than this recording. This is after the weight loss so the size of the voice only kept 1/4 of its original size. While Sutherland is in the very beginning of her prime here.
But the sad truth is, without Callas' weight loss, she wouldn't have been such a legend! She did lose 1/2 her voice with it. But she gain physical beauty. And made her Tosca and Violetta. That said, Sutherkand is Lucia and Beatrice.. Callas, indeed a better actress, while Sutherland was the superior vocalist.
@@LC-ig2jm Sutherland had more mellifluous tone production. Because she prioritized pretty sounds over expression and artistic integrity. Due to artistic limitations and lack of imagination, skill and courage she stayed within her safe zones compromising her artistic integrity and scope. Having a splendid top and marvelous virtuosity there cannot make up for a blowsy middle and weak bottom. She cannot be considered equal to Callas who developed her whole range to deliver consummately the demands of the music. How you separate the ability to form vowels properly, from being a competent vocalist is beyond me.
@@LC-ig2jm Sutherland was a lyric soprano. Callas voice was about 100 times thicker and heavier by farrr! Way more metallic and infinitely bigger. Callas has been the ONLY Abigaile pf Nabucco and also the only MacBeth pf history! I said the ONLY! Roles Sutherland could have never touched not even in her wildest wet dreams. The fact that Callas could move her voice the way she did with that much agility is a miracle of great technique. There is Callas and 500 billion floors below are other singer and Sutherland is not even in the top 10.
I would only say that the Sutherland fans just react to the constant criticism. I've never once gone to listen to a Callas video or recording to post anything negative. However, on the Sutherland videos all of Callas's fans feel the need to constantly trash Sutherland. We all know why. Yes, Sutherland was a dramatic soprano (anybody who ever heard her live would know that). Had she sung Turandot live it would have been better than Nilsson. As it stands, the studio recording is the benchmark and with Mehta she even emotes her head off. There are many things about Callas to admire and to be in awe of. But she loses the vocal beauty contest as anybody with ears would admit. Her high notes spread to extremely unattractive intervals and she screeches when she pushes on top. Sutherland protects her voice at all costs, which cost her true dramatic involvement, but luckily her voice was so large, she never had to push to overwhelm and her conservatism was not at the cost of volume but attack. My preference has always been Sutherland. I listen to opera more than I go see it, and except for a few verismo operas, these libretti are nonsense. I have loved watching Callas on film, but the voice is just too inconsistent even in her peak years for me. I want to be wowed when I listen to opera and she never wows me with her singing. Sutherland, Flagstad, Leontyne Price, Nilsson, Norman, Battle, Grist, Tebaldi (among others), naturally take my breath away. If I want to see Medea I'll go to the theater and see Diana Rigg. I also understand why the converse could be true and that is what makes the world go around. But I really wish Callas fans wouldn't go to Sutherland videos to trash her and to make ridiculous claims about her voice. She had dodgy diction. We all know that and those who love her believe the good outweighs the bad, as those who love Callas believe her musicianship and sense of drama overcome her vocal shortcomings.
Your remarks are right, but it is also absurd to say that Callas' voice was inconsistent during her peak years.....The live performances from 1949 to 1953/1954 show exactly the opposite! If you don't like the quality of her voice that's another story, but stating that Callas' fans overcome her vocal shortcoming for her sense of drama is nonsense.
stefanodepeppo A 4 year peak isn’t much of a peak. And the sound of her voice IS the vocal shortcoming. There is someone on TH-cam whose entire channel consists of trashing every other soprano who has ever compared to Callas favorably (Sutherland, Price, etc. all overrated according to him who do everything wrong). He purports to love Callas but basically he just hates everybody else. That is the entire basis of what he posts on here. Anybody with ears knows what Sutherland was. You can like it or not like it but you can't wish it out of existence. For me personally I can take the Callas sound even in her very peak years for about 15 minutes before I start finding it annoying and I have to turn it off. That's just me. But I don't go to her videos to trash her. I will add that the ONLY artist I have ever seen in my life who had the qualities of both Sutherland and Callas, whereby you didn't have to choose between drama and perfection is Gelsey Kirkland. Technically probably the greatest ballet dancer who ever lived and dramatically and theatrically in a class of her own. Unfortunately, possessing all these gifts drove her mad and headlong into drug addiction.
I listen to Callas first for the vocal splendor in her prime. I listen for that distinction of timbre and tone at all stages of her legacy. I listen to Callas for great singing. But I listen always, first, second and last for that VOICE. Her stupendous instrument, her inspired way of using it, her masterly musicianship, her unrelenting integrity, her expressive genius, all is nothing without the distinctive Callas sound in youthful splendor or torn to shreds.
Well said. Callas was a great artist, but as a pure singer, no. The terrible screeching top notes, even at the start of her career, that wobble. I find her voice just too ugly. Sutherland was pure gold in these roles.
Callas is my godess, Sutherland is Ok, perhaps a little hoarse and tough for the character, nevertheless the best flute candenza in Lucia ever is Lily Pons rendering.
dame joan's lucia was prime all the way from 1959 to the 1975. she is the greatest lucia ever. maria can be great as lucia. she's just inconsistent with the e flats.
+Liu Cheang Lucia mad scene is not all about E flats, high notes are mostly an option in bel canto. it's about intensity, a woman who killed her husband and imagine herself with her lover, this drama no one ever conveyed more than Callas. when i hear Joan i hear a great singer with amazing voice and great technique but when i hear Maria Callas i hear Lucia herself singing her madness
+Khalid Al-Thani I am sorry but if that is the case, why did Donizetti write a **HIGH F** at the end of the aria?(Yeah yeah I know it is in e-flat but the original is written in F!) Plus, it was premiered by Fanny Tacchinardi Persiani, who was like this super high soprano with a high tessitura, kind of like Jenny Lind and Adelina Patti? And I know it was considered vulgar to sing a high note at the end of an aria back then, but this role is an exception. And if bel canto was about agility and great cadenza's, then Sutherland fits right in! Her cadenza is more interesting and fast and agile, and I am sure that Donizetti would have liked it! Callas's advantage on this role is that she knows the Donizetti music and roles so well that her acting and singing, context are just unbeatable. Sutherland wasn't a great actor, and was very shy and not as confident as Callas. Callas's tessitura and what she is good at is actually her weakness. She began as a Wagnerian sop just like Sutherland (But Sutherland wasn't a true dramatic soprano). And her tessitura is magic towards the dramatic coloratura roles of Amina, Norma, Armida, Anna Bolena, and other more dramatic bel canto roles. And this is the reason I don't understand her sometimes, she tries things that are not for her voice. Lucia is for a voice like Adelina Patti not Giuditta Pasta, which is Callas's type of voice. Why is she singing this particular role if she has much better roles to sing. If she didn't sing Lucia and Lakmé so much and focused on Armida and Abgaille, the world would have probably viewed her in a different way (A BETTER WAY). Not the dramatic soprano attempting high lyrical-coloratura soprano roles. Remember, Donizetti wrote it for high soprano not for dramatic soprano. If he were still alive he would have cried and said, "Whis the composer?"
Mar R My argument is not about high notes and Bel canto composers almost never wrote high notes in the last of the arias, it's always an option to the singer. In time of Donizetti, Bellini and Rossini there was no such as (dramatic, lyric and coloratura) a soprano was meant to be a soprano and be able to sing all the soprano repertoire back then like Callas once gave an example a violinist must be able to play the violin whether it's Handel or Wagner. Fanny Tacchinardi who premiered Lucia also sang heavy now called dramatic roles like Lucrezia, Norma, Pirata etc. Pasta who premiered Norma also sang light roles like Amina, Lucia and Puritani etc. soprani in these times where trained to be able to sing heavy as well as light exactly like Callas she was able to thin her voice to sing like a leggero ( the 1955 Lucia and after, Sonnambula and Traviata) but still capable to sing very dramatic (Norma, Medea and Bolena). Sutherland vocally fit Lucia greatly but as i said bel canto is not just fioritura, high notes and cadenze, bel canto mean beautiful singing not just vocalizing so the singer must put the coloratura in the serve of music and drama not put the music in the serve of her fame. If you looked in the music sheet of Lucia, Lucia does not require high soprano, in fact most of the music for Lucia written in the middle and low in the staff, it very rarely go above the staff.
+Khalid Al-Thani I agree Callas is better compared to other people who sang the role. But when I hear her in Lucia she lacks a bit of accuracy and consistency. And I don't think Pasta ever sang Lucia, she sang Amina but I don't really agree that Amina is a light role. If it was created by Pasta's type of voice, so it is likely to be quite dramatic. In fact, the High E-flats, Ds and high cadenzas in the role were added later when the French grand opera became popular. I know Fanny Tacchinardi sang Lucrezia, Pirata, etc. She is likely to have changed the roles a lot by adding high notes. Her tessitura was very high for the more dramatic roles. In fact, she was one of the first sopranos to be described in the nightingale category which she made her one of the earlier sopranos of the french grand opera tradition. Nellie Melba, Jenny Lind and Adelina Patti were compared to her Ps. I dont think Fanny Tacchinardi sang Norma.
Mar R When you say she lack accuracy you must make your opinion clear. Amina is a light role, it could be sung by even soubrette voices easily. Why then Bellini wrote it for Pasta the dramatic soprano? (just like Puritani which is other lyric role written for a dramatic voice) what was needed is the vocal timbre to convey certain mode and color. Lucrezia, Pirata, Norma (Even Lucia) does not have a fixed tessitura, it changes a lot that's why it's sometimes it's hard to be sung by a pure soprano in spite of high soprano. Lucia is not a high soprano role in fact the tessitura is very comfortable for even a mezzo soprano, it rarely goes above the staff and most of the time it's centered rather low in the staff than high and there is not a single stratospheric high note.
You have no idea what you are saying. Maria relinquished Lucia after hearing Sutherland's dress rehearsal...I have a picture of the two of them backstage that afternoon. Maria sent notes and flowers during some of Sutherland's important debuts. Maria knew when she was hearing greatness...she never visited singers backstage she didn't hold in high regard. It's true, they could not be compared... only because they were very different and unique in what they did.
Tomba 2 slower tempos are more difficulty, cause if there’s coloratura, you have to keep the coloratura with a slower tempo and faults are more visible. It’s Karajan yes
@@marcoscorvo2514 if it's so slow that you lose the melody it becomes ridiculous. Same with Jessye Normann 's performances, trying to be intellectual by singing too slow and show "complicated phrasing".
Tomba 2 if you pay attention to the sheet, it’s correctly made cause all parts here are in "andante" and "larghetto" which is very slow, just as maria Callas does it, she’s respecting the sheet
@@marcoscorvo2514 no, larghetto in my language, Italian, means slowish, not to slow. And tempos were faster in xix century, everyone knows that. Callas is amazing. Karajan is not. Joan is just as amazing as Lucia.
I have loved these two greatest of divas for 45 years now, and STILL cannot choose which Lucia I prefer! It's impossible. They were both so very phenomenal in totally different ways! Certain things about Callas's I prefer, and certain things about Sutherland's I also prefer! Bottom line, I would never want to do without either of these magnificent ladies! Thank God for them both!
ich denke,in der Zeit nach M.C und J.S dieSzene hat uns so viele andere "einzigartige"unvergleichliche" DAME geschenkt.Las uns die zeitgenossischen grossen riesen grossen Stimmen geniesen!
EXACTLY! It’s fascinating to have had both voices to hear (even though it is a lighter voice, I have to admit that the glass harmonica on the Sills recording has a creepy disembodied sound possibly because that instrument parallels her voice as the flutes do for Callas and Sutherland.
@@johnpickford4222 Very true! And Sills herself, although a much lighter voice, still was such an amazing musician and actress, that similar to Callas was able to effectively use her voice to really bring out the drama through the music. Actually, all 3 of these ladies were my favorite Lucias, and so very different.
@@ianadinescu595 Leider gab es wirklich keine, die diesem Niveau nahe gekommen wären. Die Kunst des großartigen Singens ist sehr verloren gegangen.
Lovely comment and fair one too from you, Art!
I can't even imagine the pressure on the flute player to get it right with these divas. NOOOO WAYYYYYY
When I think of Callas I think 'fierce', when I think of Sutherland I think "dazzling" (not putting one over the other). Singers like Callas, Sutherland were the exception to the norm. We may never hear their repetoire sung with the same intensity and precision.
A very accurate assessment! Thank you!
When I think Callas I think pure emotion. When I think Sutherland I think pure voice, Calllas was unmatched dramaticallyw and rarely failed to draw me to tears when that was what she wanted. But, Sutherland NEVER failed to make me hear the voice. I was ALWAYS transfixed when she sang, It was like an unavoidable force of nature. Unfortunately, Callas was often less than at her best, and it often irritated.
maravillosa e insuperable Maria Callas y Joan muy bien tambien pero esta màs pendiente de la coloratura que de la locura
due grandi cantanti che restano nella storia del bel canto, straordinarie per tecnica, voce, temperamento . interpretazione musicalità , gusto e cultura. che dire di più?,
Thank you for this mix of the two great voices of the 20th century. They are both divine and unforgettable
No es la mejor interpretación de María Callas, sin embargo es !ESTUPENDA!
Miguel Ángel Jiménez más dramática sentimental unica
magnifico ..........las dos mejores de todos los tiempos en la historia de la musica ......viva las mas grandes cantantes de todos lso tiempos.....estas dos mujeres...inigualables..........una pasada de gusto..........y viva la genialidad.........callas y sutherland......for ever.....
Sutherland! It is not contestable to my ears... and it never has been nor will it ever be. Bravi!
My eyes are closed. My head is open!
I love 'em BOTH!
Only Sutherland and Callas can make me cry with this aria!
My eyes are closed. This is wonderful.
@magicmonkichi I'll have to do a bit of creative digging in my not-so-huge collection, but I think it's feasible.
Glad you're enjoying my work. :D
Memorabile tutte e due le divine
Great Wonderful Music - be the food of love..give me more....> > >
arturo8402 makes a good point.
La Sra Sutherland canta maravillosamente bien pero la Sra Callas es EMOCIÓN PURA INIGUALABLE. PREFIERO A......LAS DOS.
I've never understood why the 1955 Berlin Lucia is so revered. I think Callas was much better in her 1953 EMI recording, done before her weight loss, with the voice huge and steady, and E-flats perhaps easier even than Sutherland's. And that heartbreaking interpretation was fully there. The voice just wasn't the same after she lost all that weight.
There is no doubt that Sutherland's instrument was made of finer material than Callas's. Callas never commanded the beauty of tone that was at Sutherland's disposal in her prime. As far as weight of voice goes, I have to disagree. If you listen to Callas' Abigaile, Lady Macbeth, Kundry, Gioconda, or first Medea's, you hear a depth and breadth of sound that one never heard from Sutherland even in her prime. And it's hard to imagine Sutherland's voice in any of those roles. And I don't think there has ever been a louder note captured on record than Callas the E-flat she unleashed in Aida in 1951, which drowned out the entire chorus, soloists, and orchestra. Bonynge himself always referred to Sutherland's voice as "big", but he described Callas' "fat" voice: "But before she slimmed down, I mean this was such a colossal voice. It just poured out of her, the way Flagstad's did.... Callas had a huge voice. When she and Stignani sang Norma, at the bottom of the range you could barely tell who was who ... Oh it was colossal. And she took the big sound right up to the top." From what I hear in recordings, I would say that Callas' pre weight loss voice was larger and far heavier than Sutherland's, even on the highest notes. From 1954 to '57, I would say they were on par. After 1958, I think Callas' voice shrank to be smaller than Sutherland's, though she could on occasion outdo herself vocally, as you hear in the Dallas' Medea. But this is all really knit picking. What I wouldn't give to have two ladies of the caliber of Callas and Sutherland singing on stage now.
+Steve Soares i saw Callas as Lucia 54 at La Scala and Sutherland 62 as Semiramide at La Scala ...and you?.
+Steve Soares From technical standpoint No female singer every came near to Callas's technique and abilities put in mind Callas never mush her dictions to achieve bigger, richer sound and seamless legato, nor she need to stop for ever to blast a high note nor she need to break the line to sing a trill perfectly without caring on what vowel it's written etc. Sutherland was amazing, a perfect Lucia but Callas had something more, the ability to color her voice and dramatic singing/acting.
Agreed. There was a seamlessness to Callas's singing, as if she always saw the architecture of the piece form an aerial point of view. Even in the slowest music, she always knew where she was going. Sutherland had even more beautiful trills, but for some reason, she could never completely mold them into the legato line in a slow cantilena such as Leonora's or Anna Bolena's arias. They always stood outside of the line. With Callas, the melody became the trill, and the trill then became the melody. And in her prime, the highest notes always remained a part of the voice, whereas Sutherland's gorgeous high notes were something on their own.
I fully agree , I still have the 1953 recording ( in prime condition) condiucted by Serafin and it is really the TOP . Sorry but for me Sutherland never reached such a perfection ! Regards .
Una bravissima Sutherland, ma Callas centomila volte cento
Ja Callas ist einmalig.
Man erkennt Callas nach 2-3 Tönen , dass ist bei Sutherland nicht der Fall .
Callas ist einmalig, man kann Callas mit niemanden vergleichen.
Callas bleibt wie Caruso ewig !!!
C.c
Таких девчат уже не будет..
The photo in 27:00 is funny~ haha
25:00 were they the same height?
Callas: 5'8 1/2", Sutherland: 5'9"...Sutherland is 1/2 an inch taller. But other sources say Callas was 5'8", and still others that say she is 5'9".
diana ventura
Wasn't Joan Sutherland 6'2 feet tall?
chosentenore No, Sutherland is 5'9". If she's 6'2" she would have towered over Pavarotti, who is 5'11".
diana ventura I get it now...that's what I read somewhere but as usual it is an excellent advice to not believe everything you read...people manipulate things for their convenience.
diana ventura that's what l've always though
What are respective performances of each lady?
how could it get ANY bettah~!? :D Wonderful post. Luv your compilations. Any chance of some meezzo/contralto collections?
This is a kind of video that the comments have to be desatived. Because incites hate. Some fanatics will say that Sutherland and other Callas....a fight that never end.
Quite the opposite! Most of the comments here have been very gracious to both of these great artists! Very few have been pitting one against the other, because they were both som amazing and incomparable.
I prefer callas mecca tassidi, Alfin sei tua
Callas has about 10 better Lucias than this recording. This is after the weight loss so the size of the voice only kept 1/4 of its original size.
While Sutherland is in the very beginning of her prime here.
But the sad truth is, without Callas' weight loss, she wouldn't have been such a legend! She did lose 1/2 her voice with it. But she gain physical beauty. And made her Tosca and Violetta. That said, Sutherkand is Lucia and Beatrice..
Callas, indeed a better actress, while Sutherland was the superior vocalist.
@@LC-ig2jm Sutherland had more mellifluous tone production. Because she prioritized pretty sounds over expression and artistic integrity. Due to artistic limitations and lack of imagination, skill and courage she stayed within her safe zones compromising her artistic integrity and scope. Having a splendid top and marvelous virtuosity there cannot make up for a blowsy middle and weak bottom. She cannot be considered equal to Callas who developed her whole range to deliver consummately the demands of the music. How you separate the ability to form vowels properly, from being a competent vocalist is beyond me.
@@LC-ig2jm Sutherland was a lyric soprano. Callas voice was about 100 times thicker and heavier by farrr! Way more metallic and infinitely bigger. Callas has been the ONLY Abigaile pf Nabucco and also the only MacBeth pf history! I said the ONLY! Roles Sutherland could have never touched not even in her wildest wet dreams. The fact that Callas could move her voice the way she did with that much agility is a miracle of great technique. There is Callas and 500 billion floors below are other singer and Sutherland is not even in the top 10.
They were only 3 years apart.
@@beachfanatic2010 don’t be ridiculous!
All this proves is that Sutherland had the greater voice, and dramatically speaking Sutherland moves me more without smudging so much as a semiquaver
I would only say that the Sutherland fans just react to the constant criticism. I've never once gone to listen to a Callas video or recording to post anything negative. However, on the Sutherland videos all of Callas's fans feel the need to constantly trash Sutherland. We all know why. Yes, Sutherland was a dramatic soprano (anybody who ever heard her live would know that). Had she sung Turandot live it would have been better than Nilsson. As it stands, the studio recording is the benchmark and with Mehta she even emotes her head off. There are many things about Callas to admire and to be in awe of. But she loses the vocal beauty contest as anybody with ears would admit. Her high notes spread to extremely unattractive intervals and she screeches when she pushes on top. Sutherland protects her voice at all costs, which cost her true dramatic involvement, but luckily her voice was so large, she never had to push to overwhelm and her conservatism was not at the cost of volume but attack. My preference has always been Sutherland. I listen to opera more than I go see it, and except for a few verismo operas, these libretti are nonsense. I have loved watching Callas on film, but the voice is just too inconsistent even in her peak years for me. I want to be wowed when I listen to opera and she never wows me with her singing. Sutherland, Flagstad, Leontyne Price, Nilsson, Norman, Battle, Grist, Tebaldi (among others), naturally take my breath away. If I want to see Medea I'll go to the theater and see Diana Rigg. I also understand why the converse could be true and that is what makes the world go around. But I really wish Callas fans wouldn't go to Sutherland videos to trash her and to make ridiculous claims about her voice. She had dodgy diction. We all know that and those who love her believe the good outweighs the bad, as those who love Callas believe her musicianship and sense of drama overcome her vocal shortcomings.
Your remarks are right, but it is also absurd to say that Callas' voice was inconsistent during her peak years.....The live performances from 1949 to 1953/1954 show exactly the opposite! If you don't like the quality of her voice that's another story, but stating that Callas' fans overcome her vocal shortcoming for her sense of drama is nonsense.
stefanodepeppo A 4 year peak isn’t much of a peak. And the sound of her voice IS the vocal shortcoming. There is someone on TH-cam whose entire channel consists of trashing every other soprano who has ever compared to Callas favorably (Sutherland, Price, etc. all overrated according to him who do everything wrong). He purports to love Callas but basically he just hates everybody else. That is the entire basis of what he posts on here. Anybody with ears knows what Sutherland was. You can like it or not like it but you can't wish it out of existence. For me personally I can take the Callas sound even in her very peak years for about 15 minutes before I start finding it annoying and I have to turn it off. That's just me. But I don't go to her videos to trash her. I will add that the ONLY artist I have ever seen in my life who had the qualities of both Sutherland and Callas, whereby you didn't have to choose between drama and perfection is Gelsey Kirkland. Technically probably the greatest ballet dancer who ever lived and dramatically and theatrically in a class of her own. Unfortunately, possessing all these gifts drove her mad and headlong into drug addiction.
I listen to Callas first for the vocal splendor in her prime. I listen for that distinction of timbre and tone at all stages of her legacy. I listen to Callas for great singing. But I listen always, first, second and last for that VOICE. Her stupendous instrument, her inspired way of using it, her masterly musicianship, her unrelenting integrity, her expressive genius, all is nothing without the distinctive Callas sound in youthful splendor or torn to shreds.
I listen to Sutherland et al. when I can't find a Callas version. An overstatement to underline my regard not signal my disregard.
Well said. Callas was a great artist, but as a pure singer, no. The terrible screeching top notes, even at the start of her career, that wobble. I find her voice just too ugly. Sutherland was pure gold in these roles.
Callas is my godess, Sutherland is Ok, perhaps a little hoarse and tough for the character, nevertheless the best flute candenza in Lucia ever is Lily Pons rendering.
dame joan's lucia was prime all the way from 1959 to the 1975. she is the greatest lucia ever. maria can be great as lucia. she's just inconsistent with the e flats.
+Liu Cheang Lucia mad scene is not all about E flats, high notes are mostly an option in bel canto. it's about intensity, a woman who killed her husband and imagine herself with her lover, this drama no one ever conveyed more than Callas. when i hear Joan i hear a great singer with amazing voice and great technique but when i hear Maria Callas i hear Lucia herself singing her madness
+Khalid Al-Thani
I am sorry but if that is the case, why did Donizetti write a **HIGH F** at the end of the aria?(Yeah yeah I know it is in e-flat but the original is written in F!) Plus, it was premiered by Fanny Tacchinardi Persiani, who was like this super high soprano with a high tessitura, kind of like Jenny Lind and Adelina Patti?
And I know it was considered vulgar to sing a high note at the end of an aria back then, but this role is an exception. And if bel canto was about agility and great cadenza's, then Sutherland fits right in! Her cadenza is more interesting and fast and agile, and I am sure that Donizetti would have liked it!
Callas's advantage on this role is that she knows the Donizetti music and roles so well that her acting and singing, context are just unbeatable. Sutherland wasn't a great actor, and was very shy and not as confident as Callas.
Callas's tessitura and what she is good at is actually her weakness. She began as a Wagnerian sop just like Sutherland (But Sutherland wasn't a true dramatic soprano). And her tessitura is magic towards the dramatic coloratura roles of Amina, Norma, Armida, Anna Bolena, and other more dramatic bel canto roles. And this is the reason I don't understand her sometimes, she tries things that are not for her voice. Lucia is for a voice like Adelina Patti not Giuditta Pasta, which is Callas's type of voice. Why is she singing this particular role if she has much better roles to sing. If she didn't sing Lucia and Lakmé so much and focused on Armida and Abgaille, the world would have probably viewed her in a different way (A BETTER WAY). Not the dramatic soprano attempting high lyrical-coloratura soprano roles.
Remember, Donizetti wrote it for high soprano not for dramatic soprano. If he were still alive he would have cried and said, "Whis the composer?"
Mar R My argument is not about high notes and Bel canto composers almost never wrote high notes in the last of the arias, it's always an option to the singer. In time of Donizetti, Bellini and Rossini there was no such as (dramatic, lyric and coloratura) a soprano was meant to be a soprano and be able to sing all the soprano repertoire back then like Callas once gave an example a violinist must be able to play the violin whether it's Handel or Wagner. Fanny Tacchinardi who premiered Lucia also sang heavy now called dramatic roles like Lucrezia, Norma, Pirata etc. Pasta who premiered Norma also sang light roles like Amina, Lucia and Puritani etc. soprani in these times where trained to be able to sing heavy as well as light exactly like Callas she was able to thin her voice to sing like a leggero ( the 1955 Lucia and after, Sonnambula and Traviata) but still capable to sing very dramatic (Norma, Medea and Bolena). Sutherland vocally fit Lucia greatly but as i said bel canto is not just fioritura, high notes and cadenze, bel canto mean beautiful singing not just vocalizing so the singer must put the coloratura in the serve of music and drama not put the music in the serve of her fame. If you looked in the music sheet of Lucia, Lucia does not require high soprano, in fact most of the music for Lucia written in the middle and low in the staff, it very rarely go above the staff.
+Khalid Al-Thani
I agree Callas is better compared to other people who sang the role. But when I hear her in Lucia she lacks a bit of accuracy and consistency.
And I don't think Pasta ever sang Lucia, she sang Amina but I don't really agree that Amina is a light role. If it was created by Pasta's type of voice, so it is likely to be quite dramatic. In fact, the High E-flats, Ds and high cadenzas in the role were added later when the French grand opera became popular. I know Fanny Tacchinardi sang Lucrezia, Pirata, etc. She is likely to have changed the roles a lot by adding high notes. Her tessitura was very high for the more dramatic roles. In fact, she was one of the first sopranos to be described in the nightingale category which she made her one of the earlier sopranos of the french grand opera tradition.
Nellie Melba, Jenny Lind and Adelina Patti were compared to her
Ps. I dont think Fanny Tacchinardi sang Norma.
Mar R When you say she lack accuracy you must make your opinion clear. Amina is a light role, it could be sung by even soubrette voices easily. Why then Bellini wrote it for Pasta the dramatic soprano? (just like Puritani which is other lyric role written for a dramatic voice) what was needed is the vocal timbre to convey certain mode and color. Lucrezia, Pirata, Norma (Even Lucia) does not have a fixed tessitura, it changes a lot that's why it's sometimes it's hard to be sung by a pure soprano in spite of high soprano. Lucia is not a high soprano role in fact the tessitura is very comfortable for even a mezzo soprano, it rarely goes above the staff and most of the time it's centered rather low in the staff than high and there is not a single stratospheric high note.
Sutherland can’t hold a candle to Callas and your tape is bizarre and depraved.
take your meds
You have no idea what you are saying. Maria relinquished Lucia after hearing Sutherland's dress rehearsal...I have a picture of the two of them backstage that afternoon. Maria sent notes and flowers during some of Sutherland's important debuts. Maria knew when she was hearing greatness...she never visited singers backstage she didn't hold in high regard. It's true, they could not be compared... only because they were very different and unique in what they did.
Callas ' Lucia is too slow.... My god.... Who's the stupid conductor? I bet Karajan
Tomba 2 slower tempos are more difficulty, cause if there’s coloratura, you have to keep the coloratura with a slower tempo and faults are more visible. It’s Karajan yes
@@marcoscorvo2514 if it's so slow that you lose the melody it becomes ridiculous. Same with Jessye Normann 's performances, trying to be intellectual by singing too slow and show "complicated phrasing".
Tomba 2 if you pay attention to the sheet, it’s correctly made cause all parts here are in "andante" and "larghetto" which is very slow, just as maria Callas does it, she’s respecting the sheet
Tomba 2 Joan is who is running, and if you don’t like you have to discuss with Donizetti not with Callas, Sutherland or other singer.
@@marcoscorvo2514 no, larghetto in my language, Italian, means slowish, not to slow. And tempos were faster in xix century, everyone knows that.
Callas is amazing. Karajan is not.
Joan is just as amazing as Lucia.
My eyes are closed. This is wonderful.
My eyes are closed. My head is open!