I never saw Sutherland in Rigoletto onstage, but I did see her in quite a few of her other roles, including Lucia. There are lots of great voices, even today, but I think Sutherland was one of those once-in-a-century singers.
Ok, I love them all. Of course, in the earlier recordings Sutherland captures more of Gilda's girly innocence than in the later, especially the 1986; nevertheless, it's 1986 that does it for me. The way Joan negotiates Verdi's coloratura at Bonynge's dizzying speed--it's accurate, dead on pitch, full of power and drama and after all that capping it off with that explosive E-flat! THAT is opera! THAT is a diva! Brava La Stupenda!
The earliest recording is the best, Joan in her fresh still young and thrilling voice, McNeil better than Milnes and Sanzogno far better than Bonynge who makes a hash of the tempi.
All versions are outstanding but the live 72 from the Met wins for showing the sheer size and thrust of her voice. The E flat goes to the ceiling and the family circle. It’s just extraordinary.
@@TheVaughan5 Of course not, Tebaldi tackles things a thousand times more difficult like the heaviest Verdi’s, Wagner’s, Puccini’s and an infinite variety of roles in which neither Callas nor Sutherland would have excelled.
1961 is fresh and vibrant. 1971 is slightly darker but not much different. 1972 shows off the size of the voice even more because it's from in the house. 1986 sounds amazingly similar given that it's 25 years after the first. The E-flat starts a little under pitch but it gets there and is nothing short of stunning.
The live performances make you realize that the studio recordings really lost something in the quality of the voice. Having heard her live this was very true even into her 60s.
@@edwardamosbrandwein3583 I don't believe there are any recordings from those years which is a great shame, would be wonderful to hear just before her great break through to International fame.
@@TheVaughan5 Pity! If I'm not mistaken, she didn't sing it in its original Italian but in English, as it used to be done in Covent Garden at that time (the 50s). I remember having seen a picture of hers singing the duet "Si, vendetta" with baritone Otakar Kraus in the title-role.
@@edwardamosbrandwein3583 Yes, in 1958, and after singing Donn Anna in Vancouver with George London, he assisted in having her audition at the MET. Unfortunately she sang “Caro Nome” in English and didn’t spark any interest. Physically and vocally, they preferred at that time sopranos who were much smaller framed and birdlike. Sadly, she wasn’t treated any better 20 years later when productions were cancelled after all the effort she gave in supporting the organization.
Sutherland es la realidad mas aplastante que se tenga en crónicas escritas y sonoras.....................sin rival...........................y eso es el orgullo del ser humano actual desarrollado.......................el mayor exponente vocal que de momento jamas ha existido.........solo ella....tiene el merito de ser la gran guerrera..........del canto.......por mas de 40 años....................y para la historia de la humanidad.......................
Engáñese a usted mismo y no al público. Como la Sutherland ha habido muchas grandes sopranos, por lo que no es la mayor exponente que haya existido en la ópera. Acaso usted escuchó a Giulia Grisi, Adelina Patti y muchas otras grandes sopranos que no grabaron sus voces y que fueron entrenadas para cantar papeles de todos los tipos de sopranos que hoy conocemos , que se la llama "soprano sfogato", una de las pocas siendo María Callas, aún con los defectos vocales que la aquejaron. La voz de la Sutherland, en cuanto soprano de coloratura, no era pura, sino una voz bien potente, de timbre oscuro y con la extensión necesaria para interpretar los papeles de coloratura, pero su voz nunca tuvo el sonido de una verdadera soprano de coloratura, como esa esa claridad cristalina que tuvieron, por ejemplo, las voces de Marcella Sembrich, Amelita Galli-Curci, Lily Pons, Roberta Peters, Mado Robin, Rita Streich, Selma Kurz y muchas más sopranos, característica que no tuvo la voz de la Sutherland. Que haya sido una de las más grandes sopranos de todos los tiempos, nadie la duda, pero no se puede asegurar que haya sido la mejor. Algunos expertos han dicho que la Sutherland, por las características de su voz, pudo haber sido una soprano sfogato como lo fue Maria Callas y otras que tuvieron la cualidad de poder cantar papeles dramáticos, líricos y ligeros, fenómeno menos común en las voces masculinas, siendo unos de los ejemplos aislados el de Giacomo Lauri-Volpi; en siglo XIX hubo más tenores con estas características, como el francés Gilbert-Louis Duprez, el italiano Enrico Tamberlick y el español Julián Gayarre. Por respeto al público, creo que no deben hacerse afirmaciones categóricas o absolutas basadas en el gusto. Me encanta la voz de la Sutherland, sobre todo viéndola, tan hermosa y serena, con su enorme voz, sus staccatti y trinos que hace con gran agilidad, que podemos disfrutar con las grabaciones y videos que dejó como testimonio de su grandeza, pero no por eso es la única grande, sino una de las más grandes sopranos. Saludos,
Another point to note with Sutherland is that she sounds the same whether it is a live from the stage recording or a studio recording. She had the kind of large but rounded voice that recorded perfectly [like Flagstad]. This can be contrasted with Nilsson who never sounded as great on even her best recordings as she did live. I heard her in several of her great roles live [Turadot; the Ring Brunnhildes Isolde, Senta, Elektra] and her voice was much rounder and fuller than any recoding of her. She herself discussed this on sever occasions.
She was not recorded well. Everybody who heard her live says the same thing. On recording it is otherworldly. In person it was indescribable, like you couldn't believe what you were hearing. The voice sounded like it was coming out of her ears and the top of her head then came and sat on your shoulder.
Wilson Watt I completely agree. Sutherland’s sound engineer, Ken Wilkinson, knew exactly how to capture her voice, and it sounds very much like it did in the theater. Nilsson sounds loud, shrill, and one-dimensional, especially on the Culshaw/Solti recordings. Her voice was much warmer, rounder, with more overtones in the theater. Another example is Sills, who sometimes sounds ridiculous on recordings, but in the theater her voice expanded and was really very beautiful, especially in her earlier days.
Wilsi Watt, anche io ho ascoltato piu' volte dal vivo Sutherland e Nilsson. La Birgit in sala "suonava" diversamente, suono tondo, acuti lucenti e tridimensionali, colorati. Joan era quasi identica che nelle registrazioni, sicuramente più lucente per forza di cose. I sopracuti avevano del soprannaturale, un suono così lo possedeva solo lei. Oggi nessun soprano può minimamente eguagliarle.
sus movimientos vocales.........................son como los movimientos bailarines de el gran corella..............lo mas de lo mas....................
One of the most interesting things about this is how consistent her singing is. Also, note that the Australian is very dramatic as well. If you listen on TH-cam all of her performances in Australia demonstrate a willingness to take more risks with the voice to fulfill the dramatic situation.
maravillosa................y por eso es la gran cantante de todos los tiempos..................................la ultima ..........y la primera gran diva de la que se sepa.....es lo que es...................porque lo demás es historia escrita..................y callas jamas estuvo a su altura........................
It's RIDICULOUS trying to compare Sutherland to Callas! It's true that Callas voice was not as beautiful as Sutherland (ie it wasn't besutiful AT ALL) but she DID possess an innate sense of drama and theatricality which Sutherland never had@
@@edwardamosbrandwein3583 usted dira lo que quiera.................y quedese con su su concepto del canto..................es suu concepto.............que dios le bendiga.....................
BaroneVitellioScarpia: Really, you don’t say. Tell us something of value. The first three performances ranged over a period of 11 years when she was 35 to 46. After a period of 14 years, she sang the last one. It isn’t just the time frame but the consistency of application considering her age. I doubt in your life, or career, whatever it is or was, that you will apply yourself with the same diligence, application and execution. Your comments reveal far less about you than her.
I never saw Sutherland in Rigoletto onstage, but I did see her in quite a few of her other roles, including Lucia. There are lots of great voices, even today, but I think Sutherland was one of those once-in-a-century singers.
Her greatness is a matter of simple fact
Tadeusz von Moltke So is his!
Simply the best. We miss you Joan!
Ok, I love them all. Of course, in the earlier recordings Sutherland captures more of Gilda's girly innocence than in the later, especially the 1986; nevertheless, it's 1986 that does it for me. The way Joan negotiates Verdi's coloratura at Bonynge's dizzying speed--it's accurate, dead on pitch, full of power and drama and after all that capping it off with that explosive E-flat! THAT is opera! THAT is a diva! Brava La Stupenda!
I was actually at the Opera in the Park concert in 1986. Great night!
Extraordinary. She truly is one of a kind. The incomparable Joan Sutherland.
I was at the 1972 performance.. WOW.
65attila I envy you.
I love the hysteria which greets the 1986 version.
Yes, stunning Hysteria! Too bad there was no more room for Rigoletto !
Great idea for a post!
That last High Eflat was really something considering her age too!
YES - 60 years young!!
She maintained her standard for 25 years! The first one (with Cornell McNeill) is sublime
The earliest recording is the best, Joan in her fresh still young and thrilling voice, McNeil better than Milnes and Sanzogno far better than Bonynge who makes a hash of the tempi.
@@paullewis2413 I agree
@@paullewis2413 i agree about the tempi.
She will live for ever.
All versions are outstanding but the live 72 from the Met wins for showing the sheer size and thrust of her voice. The E flat goes to the ceiling and the family circle. It’s just extraordinary.
The opera world wouldn't be the same without Callas, Sutherland and Tebaldi, terrific group of divas.
I get your meaning but Tebaldi of course never attempted Gilda as her voice was not suitable for this role
@@TheVaughan5
Of course not, Tebaldi tackles things a thousand times more difficult like the heaviest Verdi’s, Wagner’s, Puccini’s and an infinite variety of roles in which neither Callas nor Sutherland would have excelled.
Each Diva’s voice suited particular repertoires
@@andyberistain6743, la Callas con Norma, Medea, Armida, Nabucco, Sonnambula ha cantato cose ben più difficili che quelle affrontate dalla Tebaldi.
@@andyberistain6743 Do you really want to say ‘1000 times’ more difficult? Than Sutherland? That’s fandome fantasy.
A true miracle of singing.
the live MET iteration has a great wildness to it.
1961 is fresh and vibrant. 1971 is slightly darker but not much different. 1972 shows off the size of the voice even more because it's from in the house. 1986 sounds amazingly similar given that it's 25 years after the first. The E-flat starts a little under pitch but it gets there and is nothing short of stunning.
The live performances make you realize that the studio recordings really lost something in the quality of the voice. Having heard her live this was very true even into her 60s.
Sutherland/MacNeil/Sanzogno - 1961 - No contest!
Falto Renató Cioni RIP
Sutherland first sang RIGOLETTO in her pre-Stupenda period (COVENT GARDEN and on tour, 1957 y 1958).
Are there any recordings of that tim
@@edwardamosbrandwein3583 I don't believe there are any recordings from those years which is a great shame, would be wonderful to hear just before her great break through to International fame.
@@TheVaughan5 Pity!
If I'm not mistaken, she didn't sing it in its original Italian but in English, as it used to be done in Covent Garden at that time (the 50s).
I remember having seen a picture of hers singing the duet "Si, vendetta" with baritone Otakar Kraus in the title-role.
@@edwardamosbrandwein3583 Yes, in 1958, and after singing Donn Anna in Vancouver with George London, he assisted in having her audition at the MET. Unfortunately she sang “Caro Nome” in English and didn’t spark any interest. Physically and vocally, they preferred at that time sopranos who were much smaller framed and birdlike. Sadly, she wasn’t treated any better 20 years later when productions were cancelled after all the effort she gave in supporting the organization.
Sutherland es la realidad mas aplastante que se tenga en crónicas escritas y sonoras.....................sin rival...........................y eso es el orgullo del ser humano actual desarrollado.......................el mayor exponente vocal que de momento jamas ha existido.........solo ella....tiene el merito de ser la gran guerrera..........del canto.......por mas de 40 años....................y para la historia de la humanidad.......................
Engáñese a usted mismo y no al público. Como la Sutherland ha habido muchas grandes sopranos, por lo que no es la mayor exponente que haya existido en la ópera. Acaso usted escuchó a Giulia Grisi, Adelina Patti y muchas otras grandes sopranos que no grabaron sus voces y que fueron entrenadas para cantar papeles de todos los tipos de sopranos que hoy conocemos , que se la llama "soprano sfogato", una de las pocas siendo María Callas, aún con los defectos vocales que la aquejaron. La voz de la Sutherland, en cuanto soprano de coloratura, no era pura, sino una voz bien potente, de timbre oscuro y con la extensión necesaria para interpretar los papeles de coloratura, pero su voz nunca tuvo el sonido de una verdadera soprano de coloratura, como esa esa claridad cristalina que tuvieron, por ejemplo, las voces de Marcella Sembrich, Amelita Galli-Curci, Lily Pons, Roberta Peters, Mado Robin, Rita Streich, Selma Kurz y muchas más sopranos, característica que no tuvo la voz de la Sutherland. Que haya sido una de las más grandes sopranos de todos los tiempos, nadie la duda, pero no se puede asegurar que haya sido la mejor. Algunos expertos han dicho que la Sutherland, por las características de su voz, pudo haber sido una soprano sfogato como lo fue Maria Callas y otras que tuvieron la cualidad de poder cantar papeles dramáticos, líricos y ligeros, fenómeno menos común en las voces masculinas, siendo unos de los ejemplos aislados el de Giacomo Lauri-Volpi; en siglo XIX hubo más tenores con estas características, como el francés Gilbert-Louis Duprez, el italiano Enrico Tamberlick y el español Julián Gayarre. Por respeto al público, creo que no deben hacerse afirmaciones categóricas o absolutas basadas en el gusto. Me encanta la voz de la Sutherland, sobre todo viéndola, tan hermosa y serena, con su enorme voz, sus staccatti y trinos que hace con gran agilidad, que podemos disfrutar con las grabaciones y videos que dejó como testimonio de su grandeza, pero no por eso es la única grande, sino una de las más grandes sopranos. Saludos,
Perfection!!!
As others havenoted the live performance shows the size and resonanceof the voice far better than the studio recordings.
CON 60 AÑOS ERA ...LEGITIMAMENTE MAS MARAVILLOSA.............................
FANTASTICA HASTA MORIR......................
There was one more that she did on the kids' show who's afraid of opera in 1973. You can find it here on TH-cam
Another point to note with Sutherland is that she sounds the same whether it is a live from the stage recording or a studio recording. She had the kind of large but rounded voice that recorded perfectly [like Flagstad]. This can be contrasted with Nilsson who never sounded as great on even her best recordings as she did live. I heard her in several of her great roles live [Turadot; the Ring Brunnhildes Isolde, Senta, Elektra] and her voice was much rounder and fuller than any recoding of her. She herself discussed this on sever occasions.
She was not recorded well. Everybody who heard her live says the same thing. On recording it is otherworldly. In person it was indescribable, like you couldn't believe what you were hearing. The voice sounded like it was coming out of her ears and the top of her head then came and sat on your shoulder.
Wilson Watt I completely agree. Sutherland’s sound engineer, Ken Wilkinson, knew exactly how to capture her voice, and it sounds very much like it did in the theater. Nilsson sounds loud, shrill, and one-dimensional, especially on the Culshaw/Solti recordings. Her voice was much warmer, rounder, with more overtones in the theater. Another example is Sills, who sometimes sounds ridiculous on recordings, but in the theater her voice expanded and was really very beautiful, especially in her earlier days.
When you stand on stage with Sutherland while singing- the sound is simply EVERYWHERE at once. Totally amazing...
@@toddgraber3675 Lucky, lucky you.
Wilsi Watt, anche io ho ascoltato piu' volte dal vivo Sutherland e Nilsson. La Birgit in sala "suonava" diversamente, suono tondo, acuti lucenti e tridimensionali, colorati. Joan era quasi identica che nelle registrazioni, sicuramente più lucente per forza di cose. I sopracuti avevano del soprannaturale, un suono così lo possedeva solo lei. Oggi nessun soprano può minimamente eguagliarle.
sus movimientos vocales.........................son como los movimientos bailarines de el gran corella..............lo mas de lo mas....................
exquisita
One of the most interesting things about this is how consistent her singing is. Also, note that the Australian is very dramatic as well. If you listen on TH-cam all of her performances in Australia demonstrate a willingness to take more risks with the voice to fulfill the dramatic situation.
Yes, I agree.
Che dire un incanto
maravillosa................y por eso es la gran cantante de todos los tiempos..................................la ultima ..........y la primera gran diva de la que se sepa.....es lo que es...................porque lo demás es historia escrita..................y callas jamas estuvo a su altura........................
Peccato che non si capisca una parola di ciò che canta ...mentre con la callas non serviva il libretto dell'opera. Ma come usignolo é grandissima....
It's RIDICULOUS trying to compare Sutherland to Callas!
It's true that Callas voice was not as beautiful as Sutherland (ie it wasn't besutiful AT ALL) but she DID possess an innate sense of drama and theatricality which Sutherland never had@
@@edwardamosbrandwein3583 usted dira lo que quiera.................y quedese con su su concepto del canto..................es suu concepto.............que dios le bendiga.....................
@@bellini7verdi Each to their own taste.
❤🎉😅
:)
Wow, a very good montage that shows that her voice went from bad, to very bad and to very very bad!!!
The first three versions are superior to the fourth.
BaroneVitellioScarpia: Really, you don’t say. Tell us something of value.
The first three performances ranged over a period of 11 years when she was 35 to 46. After a period of 14 years, she sang the last one. It isn’t just the time frame but the consistency of application considering her age.
I doubt in your life, or career, whatever it is or was, that you will apply yourself with the same diligence, application and execution. Your comments reveal far less about you than her.
Ici la Stupenda frôle de peu la catastrophe sur l'attaque du contre mi bémol .
Non mi pare.
Dov'è la dizione?. Non si capisce niente!.
🥱😴
ridiculo es no entender la realidad......................