SU VOZ ERA IMPONENTE SOBRE TODA CRITICA A CIERTAS ALUCIONES EN CUANTO A INTERPRETACION.......JAMAS NADIE HA INTERPRETADO A LOS GRANDES COMO JOAN SUTHERLAND.JAMAS DE LOS JAMASES.ES MAS.....LOS HA SUPERADO.....NI LA ESCENA NI NADA DE NADA..........SU VOZ POR SI MKISMA HABLA
I can't decide whether this 1959 version or the 1963 version is better. She seems more comfortable with the piece in 1963, but this one is absolutely delicious. Plus it has the high D interpolation. :D
@CaptFitzbattleaxe The coloraturas she chose in this version are, in my opinion, richer and more melodical, the ending especially is more lukewarm in her 1963 version (assuming we are speaking of the same 1963 version!)
@killerbunny123123 The embellishments are the same sans the high D. It's that her phrasing here is different that it sounds noticeably different in places.
The ending is not as exciting, but I think she interprets the text better in the 1963 recording. Regardless, they're both super-amazing!
Su voz en esta época era perfecta, muy ágil en coloraturas notas picadas, y otras piruetas vocales pero su dicción nunca fue ejemplar.Como actriz tampoco fue destacable, pero su8 técnica fue de las más perfectas de su tiempo.
Early Sutherland, when her voice was at its brightest, most silvery, most agile. Later, the colors of the voice faded somewhat, the diction became mushy, but the creaminess and weight of the middle voice increased and the florid technique was there almost to the end of her career. Thanks for sharing this.
SU VOZ ERA IMPONENTE SOBRE TODA CRITICA A CIERTAS ALUCIONES EN CUANTO A INTERPRETACION.......JAMAS NADIE HA INTERPRETADO A LOS GRANDES COMO JOAN SUTHERLAND.JAMAS DE LOS JAMASES.ES MAS.....LOS HA SUPERADO.....NI LA ESCENA NI NADA DE NADA..........SU VOZ POR SI MKISMA HABLA
bellini7verdi 1 month ago in playlist Dame Joan Sutherland
I can't decide whether this 1959 version or the 1963 version is better. She seems more comfortable with the piece in 1963, but this one is absolutely delicious. Plus it has the high D interpolation. :D
CaptFitzbattleaxe 7 months ago
@CaptFitzbattleaxe The coloraturas she chose in this version are, in my opinion, richer and more melodical, the ending especially is more lukewarm in her 1963 version (assuming we are speaking of the same 1963 version!)
killerbunny123123 5 months ago
@killerbunny123123 The embellishments are the same sans the high D. It's that her phrasing here is different that it sounds noticeably different in places.
The ending is not as exciting, but I think she interprets the text better in the 1963 recording. Regardless, they're both super-amazing!
CaptFitzbattleaxe 5 months ago
Furia di donna irata
in mio soccorso invoco
Ah! Che mi accresce il foco
un disperato amor!
ZBpopelka 8 months ago
fascinating to compare the two different versions
furballvie 8 months ago
Phantastisch!!! Perfekt!!!!!!!!
Medea59 1 year ago
Su voz en esta época era perfecta, muy ágil en coloraturas notas picadas, y otras piruetas vocales pero su dicción nunca fue ejemplar.Como actriz tampoco fue destacable, pero su8 técnica fue de las más perfectas de su tiempo.
faricallas 1 year ago
Early Sutherland, when her voice was at its brightest, most silvery, most agile. Later, the colors of the voice faded somewhat, the diction became mushy, but the creaminess and weight of the middle voice increased and the florid technique was there almost to the end of her career. Thanks for sharing this.
meltzerboy 2 years ago
ahhhhh... Now, this is good.....
operavoices101 2 years ago