@RossiniSoprano That is correct, and it was recorded in 1960. Unfortunately that entire recital which contains such Sutherland rarities as Liszt's "Die Loreley" and Delibes' "Regret" is pitched a semitone too low on that cd. As for "Les filles de Cadix", Sutherland recorded it twice for Decca. First in 1972 with orchestra for the album" Son My Mother Taught Me" and again in 1978 with Richard Bonynge at the piano for the album "Serate Musicali"
This little song by Delibes is better suited to a MEZZO SOPRANO than a soprano. Sopranos love to sing it for some odd reason - Sills, Sutherland, Streich, Pons, Damrau, Netrebko. But it's better handled by mezzos like Grace Bumbry, Shirley Verrett, Federica Von Stade, Cecilia Bartoli, Jennifer Larmore. The lower notes are important here and the Gypsy quality is clearly perfect for a mezzo who can also sing Carmen.
This song was a Pons specialty up until her "comeback" concert in 1972. I know I sound like a broken record (pun intended), but the best performance of the piece is by Galli-Curci (especially the acoustic version, but the electric is great too). Sutherland does not capture the French style and charm as well as either Pons or Galli-Curci, although she is technically superior to the former.
She may be technically superior, but her diction leaves much to be desired. I find myself asking "What did she say?" a lot when I listen to Sutherland.
I always find Sutherland's French better than her Italian. It's not perfect, but not bad either. Her diction has been much maligned through the years, yet I think her main difficulty, at least in French music, is stylistic.
I heard Sutherland many times in opera and recital and rarely got the impression she lacked feeling. The voice itself was rich, luminous, and powerful, and it could aptly express pathos as well as comedy. However, sometimes on recordings, she appears to be more concerned with beauty of tone and technique than the expression of emotion or the meaning of the text.
I believe Sutherland herself stated that her sentiments were that the composer has put all the necessary feeling into the contours of the melody, and that to be expressive, one need only sing that with beauty. It's quite a simple approach, and one that was more common in years gone by. I believe that, beyond the surface of vocal perfection, Sutherland is indeed a greatly expressive artist, though she does not resort to word painting, imitation of natural speech or pointing-up parts of the text.
I never went to a Sutherland opera performance expecting some profound interpretation of a character or an aria, in the manner of a Callas. Rather, I anticipated being thrilled by a beautiful voice, agile technique, sensitive phrasing, and gentle pathos or sprightly comedy depending on the role. At a song recital, I would not expect unusual tonal color and word pointing as by a Schwarzkopf. In short, singers have different strengths, and I am very happy if they can deliver on what they do best.
@Nater389 When you listen to her other recordings, you hear examples of BOTH good and bad diction. Her diction is not bad in everything, but people feel superior by saying this about her.
"but people feel superior by saying this about her"
Not sure what you mean by that, and I don't want to argue with a Sutherland fanatic. Her diction is bad, for the most part. I respect your opinion though. Don't get me wrong, her high notes are thrilling and unrivaled. However, she lacks good pronunciation. Plain and simple. Obviously, people hear different things even when it seems obvious...somehow. Cheers.
However, I don't find her diction bad at all here. I think that it becomes less plain and simple when you start to find native speakers that disagree.
As a French man, I can say that here her French is not too bad. It is not as clear as Felicity Lott's, for example, but I can understand most of what she says. Moreover, some French singers are not easier to understand than she is.
Marvelous....such a rich and varied tone. I don't even hope to hear a voice like this again in my lifetime......but I continue to enjoy these recordings. Thank you again LadyArmide>
WHY DO ALL OF THE VERSIONS OF THIS SONG ON YOUTUBE NOT HAVE THE THIRD VERSE??!?!?!!!??
mymz01 3 months ago
@mymz01 There's no third stanza, that's an addition of some singers.
DiomedesDioscuro 1 month ago
RIP :(
livelifealwaysx3 1 year ago
Very rich voice! Amazing!
anastaire33 1 year ago
I think this is from the cd "BBC recitals 1958-1960-1961" put out on the Bella Voce label.
RossiniSoprano 1 year ago
@RossiniSoprano That is correct, and it was recorded in 1960. Unfortunately that entire recital which contains such Sutherland rarities as Liszt's "Die Loreley" and Delibes' "Regret" is pitched a semitone too low on that cd. As for "Les filles de Cadix", Sutherland recorded it twice for Decca. First in 1972 with orchestra for the album" Son My Mother Taught Me" and again in 1978 with Richard Bonynge at the piano for the album "Serate Musicali"
MadonnaImperia 1 year ago
@MadonnaImperia And a third time in 1969. This last recording wasn't released until 2004, however, in the Art of Joan Sutherland 6CD set.
CaptFitzbattleaxe 5 months ago
Quand le bien-aimé reviendra
juljafavorite 1 year ago
Sutherland-she is perfection of vocal art!
juljafavorite 1 year ago
This little song by Delibes is better suited to a MEZZO SOPRANO than a soprano. Sopranos love to sing it for some odd reason - Sills, Sutherland, Streich, Pons, Damrau, Netrebko. But it's better handled by mezzos like Grace Bumbry, Shirley Verrett, Federica Von Stade, Cecilia Bartoli, Jennifer Larmore. The lower notes are important here and the Gypsy quality is clearly perfect for a mezzo who can also sing Carmen.
MastersoftheOpera 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Weak interpretation. Her voice can not make up for poor interpretetion.
Sounds like a schoolgirl exam of singing....
No magic at all, doesn´t move me at all.
Give me a Big Mac please!
maxhansendk 2 years ago
Indeed the best vocal ability and very expressive. A very beautiful and well trained voice.
kremetart1 2 years ago
agree with kremetart1 :) Sutherland - the best.
simply beautifull interpetation and perfect vocal technique.
alexandrachernyshova 2 years ago
I think I cannot find a better performance here on Ytube. S
MmeFigaro 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I think she lacks passion in the song + she doesnt seem to be a coloratura singer... maybe i am wrong...
queenygayboy 2 years ago
... ein Kleinod! ;-)
mlkoln 3 years ago
Recorded at home in Les Avants, Switzerland June 1978! with husband Bonynge at the piano.
opera60 3 years ago 3
One more fantastic rendition of this song by Delibes.
Again made by a great opera singer...
LLehmannfan 3 years ago 5
I believe she did these early early on... perhaps mid-60's at the latest. Could be wrong.
drdre333 4 years ago
Drdre333
Right on @ 1960-1963
63Attila 4 years ago
This song was a Pons specialty up until her "comeback" concert in 1972. I know I sound like a broken record (pun intended), but the best performance of the piece is by Galli-Curci (especially the acoustic version, but the electric is great too). Sutherland does not capture the French style and charm as well as either Pons or Galli-Curci, although she is technically superior to the former.
meltzerboy 4 years ago 3
She may be technically superior, but her diction leaves much to be desired. I find myself asking "What did she say?" a lot when I listen to Sutherland.
Nater389 3 years ago
I always find Sutherland's French better than her Italian. It's not perfect, but not bad either. Her diction has been much maligned through the years, yet I think her main difficulty, at least in French music, is stylistic.
meltzerboy 3 years ago 3
It seems also, sometimes, she lacks feeling.
Nater389 3 years ago
I heard Sutherland many times in opera and recital and rarely got the impression she lacked feeling. The voice itself was rich, luminous, and powerful, and it could aptly express pathos as well as comedy. However, sometimes on recordings, she appears to be more concerned with beauty of tone and technique than the expression of emotion or the meaning of the text.
meltzerboy 3 years ago 11
I believe Sutherland herself stated that her sentiments were that the composer has put all the necessary feeling into the contours of the melody, and that to be expressive, one need only sing that with beauty. It's quite a simple approach, and one that was more common in years gone by. I believe that, beyond the surface of vocal perfection, Sutherland is indeed a greatly expressive artist, though she does not resort to word painting, imitation of natural speech or pointing-up parts of the text.
33blueberries 2 years ago
I never went to a Sutherland opera performance expecting some profound interpretation of a character or an aria, in the manner of a Callas. Rather, I anticipated being thrilled by a beautiful voice, agile technique, sensitive phrasing, and gentle pathos or sprightly comedy depending on the role. At a song recital, I would not expect unusual tonal color and word pointing as by a Schwarzkopf. In short, singers have different strengths, and I am very happy if they can deliver on what they do best.
meltzerboy 2 years ago
Agreed.
33blueberries 2 years ago
I don't find that her diction leaves to be desired... French is my mother language and she's good.
She prononces well... But I respect your point of view :)
birindar6363 2 years ago
Well, you would have to listen to other recordings besides this one. Critics critized her diction throughout her entire career.
Nater389 2 years ago
Tks X your advice Nater389, I'll do it :)
birindar6363 2 years ago
@Nater389 When you listen to her other recordings, you hear examples of BOTH good and bad diction. Her diction is not bad in everything, but people feel superior by saying this about her.
RossiniSoprano 2 years ago
"but people feel superior by saying this about her"
Not sure what you mean by that, and I don't want to argue with a Sutherland fanatic. Her diction is bad, for the most part. I respect your opinion though. Don't get me wrong, her high notes are thrilling and unrivaled. However, she lacks good pronunciation. Plain and simple. Obviously, people hear different things even when it seems obvious...somehow. Cheers.
Nater389 2 years ago
However, I don't find her diction bad at all here. I think that it becomes less plain and simple when you start to find native speakers that disagree.
DiomedesDioscuro 2 years ago
As a French man, I can say that here her French is not too bad. It is not as clear as Felicity Lott's, for example, but I can understand most of what she says. Moreover, some French singers are not easier to understand than she is.
rigoletto61 2 years ago 2
... marvellous heavenly voice...
Kurkino2007 4 years ago 3
Marvelous....such a rich and varied tone. I don't even hope to hear a voice like this again in my lifetime......but I continue to enjoy these recordings. Thank you again LadyArmide>
Hako2004 4 years ago 2
maybe..in 1966~1970??
yglygl4545 4 years ago