To me, she was just a great singer but not as an interpreter... unfortunatedly, the same as Mr. Pavarotti one of the best voices of the second half XX-century...
all those criticising Joan or any of the others must really take a powder and get over your own tawdry existence High Art and extremely hard work give us these divine renditions. Get over it. Just enjoy the differences.
BRUTALMENTE BUENA........CUALQUIER COMPARACION ESTA TOTALMENTE FUERA DE LUGAR.....PORQUE SU GARGANTA ERA PRIVILEGIADA .....OTRA COSA ES QUE CADA CUAL GUSTE OIR LO QUE SU OIDO NECESITE.......YO POR EJEMPLO LA NECESITO A ELLA....USTED NECESITA OTRA?....PUES ESCUCHE OTRA......Y TODO EL MUNDO EN PAZ.....
Can anyone upload or send me the recording of these two singing this song? I'm sorry I have to beg for it, but I have no clue how to search or download it, every other way to hear it seems to be blocked, youtube blocked the video, playlist.com malfunctions whenever I try to play it,and I have NO money to buy the recording. When I say no money, I mean none. Some please help a young opera fanatic out?
Ok so hearing every word from the prompter is just damn annoying... I'm pretty sure Joan didn't need him for HER aria, she probably couldn't even hear him over her resonating sound.... Too funny
I love it but I hate that you can hear that man telling her the words! Her technique is glorious but it's so annoying to hear that man telling her the Italian words before she sings them LOL
Aren't opera singers intelligent enough to memorize what they are singing ? Actors/actresses in movies & plays memorize a lot of lines & don't need some guy feeding them the script. I thought opera singers memorized everything they sang.
Shakespearean actors are intelligent enough too. Its just how it is. They memorize everything. It just helps when you are on stage on front of tens of thousands of people...it doesn't mean they are less intelligent or less professional. Simply a tradition and "just in case" move.
@MastersoftheOpera Of course they do. But they get light-headed with all the high Cs and occasionally need a nudge. It's a tradition. Back from the day when they were really stupid. .... but sounded great. Unlike today.
Stunning! A performance characterised by prodigious vocalisation and, from the point of view of interpretation, an elan and joie de vivre which capture perfectly the mindset of Violetta at this point in the opera. The overall effectis thrilling.
What a beautiful sound she makes here!!!! I'm not a huge fan of her later years but this is perfection!!! And when you're a coloratura WORDS are overated!!! Plus, listen to the tempo that she remarkably maintains and the perciseness and clarity of very pitch, not the forget that beautiful tone that she produces. She is a MASTER in this recording!!!! Brava Sutherland!!
when you're an opera singer in general, words are overrated. I don't go to an opera to listen to singing, not speaking. as long as the voices are beautiful and the technique is good, I don't care how their diction is, what they look like or how well they act.
PS: Diction is something that I will need to develope as a performer, but mostly because other people demand it, I personally care very little for the libretto most of the time.
@raigekimaru I disagree, I feel that diction is much more important than some singers want to admit it is. How can you express if you don't know the words? Your technique can be fantastic and your voice can be fantastic but I will not be engaged at all in the Opera House if the expression is not there. It is a wonderful thing when you can tell that the singer knows exactly what they are singing at any moment and can convey the nuances of emotions. So why not do it with proper diction too?
@dankmdh theres a difference between singing with good diction and knowing the words to what you are saying. Im quite sure Mrs. Sutherland knew what she was singing, it would just be ignorant to say otherwise.
However, yes diction is important, but do you absolutely need it to be moved by a piece of music? no... I didnt fall in love with opera because i knew what was going on, i heard an amazing singer singing a beautiful piece passionately and fell in love. her diction is pretty good here...
@aroncooker I agree, plus, how many people who go to the opera can actually understand Italian, or French, or German? Mind you, I speak French fluently and it's almost impossible to understand sopranos only because they sing in such high pitches! Plus, that's what the surtitles are for right?
@kngiht84 I cannot understand 85% of the words when sung in 100% of the pieces sung in my native tongue. When listening to music: Give me music. If I want poetry; give me the printed word. Poetry CANNOT do what music does, so don't demand that music MUST also be poetry.
@Cramnella Music + Poetry = SINGING! Why else should one use an instrument as unreliable and hard-to-discipline as the human voice, if not for its unique ability to express words simultaneous with the notes? Singing without words doesn't make sense - as Mahler used to say about a coloratura (probably Selma Kurz) who was careless with her enunciation: "I'd rather put my first clarinet up there and play the aria, at least he'd stay in tune, and she doesn't give us the words either."
@chrisz78 I said "I" and "me" multiple times. In answer to your specific question: the human voice is the most beautiful, expressive instrument of all whether singing a text or a vocalise.
@aroncooker Exactly, and most aficionados would know the entire libretto and vocal score to the staples of the repertoire - such as Traviata - anyway, so no need to really hear every syllable pronounced
Magnificent ! Grand! Stupendous! but the greatest there ever was ? That's debatable , Callas and Sills were just as good if not better and both Sills and Callas had better diction that Joan so i guess that makes Joan number 3.
And in the age of recordings many people seem to compare a singer by there recordings. That´s not fair. A perfect diction that´s hardly audible over a large orchestra is always less preferable then ´poor´ diction on a mega large voice, that Sutherland possesed.
There is the complete package to being a Great Singer , if one possesses a mega large voice but you can't understand what their singing doesn't really make sense does it . Sills and Callas had the whole package and don't tell me Callas didn't have a Mega large voice. I give Sutherland credit for having 1 of the most beautiful voices ever , no doubt about that , i just don't think she was the Greatest .
@Etnalleb But she was the greatest of her generation, because the public was ready for her, just as they had been for Callas, and before that Ponselle, etc. Just listen to the way Sutherland throws off this Verdi fioriture like it was . . . like it was perfect. I love her interpretation of this role, for entirely different reasons than for Callas and others. And despite other subscribers scoffing at my claim that this is a very moving performance by a great, great artist. It's a trap to compare.
Did i not say Joan was Great? I did, but we all have our favorites, I respect your choice in choosing Sutherland, and i think we all should respect each others choice. I prefer Beverly Sills in this role as do 1000's of others. I think Maria Callas is regarded by most as The Greatest Diva of all time and there is little doubt she was. SillyBoyD you are correct > it is a trap to compare. Sutherland,Sills and Callas were ALL great in their very own special way.
one of the things that makes someone great is a quality that sets them apart. Something no one else has. This will send some people searching for words of praise and other condemnation. It goes with being unique and wonderful. How lucky are we to have had Callas, Sills, Price, Caballe, Tabaldi, Sutherland, and this list goes on, in our life times and to have them all on record and now YouTube. Yes I have my favorite too, but who cares who that is they are all wonderful, just like you say!
I for one have no problems with the prompter. It's much worse in some of the Callas lives from the early fifties. The EMI Traviata for one, and there's a Caro nome from Mexico City which is pretty bad. Still, doesn't bother me. Prompter's there for a damn good reason!!
It is great to have such a great singer -- nay, such a truly wongerfully marvelous singer recorded for posterity. The historical quality is significant for its place and time. Still, one has to admit, the prompter is so damned annoying when you know La Stupenda knows this aria backwards and forwards.
she sang like this in the 1980's in australia & 1990's you should search her 1965 version n Lucciano pavarotti is in the wings singing n she is a wonder in her prime
Of course, it is a woman singing the role and I'm not sure any soprano could sing it other than from a feminine perspective. This would include Callas, who stated Violetta was one or her two most favorite roles (the other being Norma), precisely because she is both strong and weak and, presumably, therefore a complete woman. Sutherland also remarked on the identifiable nature of the role for women. I would say the music itself requires a wide spectrum of vocal abilities beyond one voice type.
I am sure that any soprano could sing the part from whichever perspective she chooses. As a listener (and male) however, not as a singer, I see "Ah forse e lui" & "Sempre libera" in my mind's eye as the eternal human quest for real love. To make them sound really sincere, you have to forget the banalities and cliches, open your heart - and the big heart doesn't work with categories like male or female, but human. That is, I presume, how Verdi created the ultimate feminine role.
Interestingly, Alfredo echoes Violetta's "Ah, fors e lui" in his own music, a point which supports your notion that human emotion is truer and more sincere than restrictive, artificial gender categories imposed by society and culture. And you seem to suggest that Verdi's "ultimate feminine role" is really one of universality. Perhaps Violetta is even a Christ-like sacrificial figure in the guise of a fallen woman with a noble heart, or perhaps a feminine Flying Dutchman, eternally seeking love.
I wouldn't go that far. Truth is very simple, I think. Where lies the main difference between "The bold & the beautiful" and Traviata? The second is sublime, the first isn't. Verdi's opera really doesn't suggest sentimentality, but rich emotions, so wonderfully interwoven in the character of Violetta.
Despite Keats' admonition at the close of his poem "Ode on a Grecian Urn," stating that "Beauty is truth, truth beauty," I am not so sure, from a philosophical and psychological standpoint, that truth is that simple, especially if one considers concepts such as relativism, perception, context, and illusion of control. There is a third partner in music, in addition to the composer and the performer, namely the audience or listeners, all of whom carry within them a cognitive-emotional perspective.
I believe it is more just to put it this way. Any art form or art work is capable of producing sublime moments, and also ridiculous moments. I have seen some very sublime exchanges on the Bold & Beautiful, and quite a few ludicrous attempts at singing and acting in opera, including several Traviatas I have attended.
When I was 10 I also saw some sublime exchanges im this soap opera. But The B&B pales in comparison to the "Slave Isaura". OK, I'm kidding. Now seriously. Certainly any form of art can have its moments under the sun. But let us think together: what is a cliche? It is a ready form, devoid of contents. Traviata (opera) and Bold-Beau (soap opera) have a similar form: strong passions, important decisions about life etc. The same is not true, however, of their form. The singer, the conductor, etc.
This may be true academically speaking, but in fact opera is as much a cliche by that standard as any other traditional art form. You can reduce most operatic themes to the words Amore, Addio, Morte. I don't think cliches are the point. By this time in history all art includes a large measure of cliche. --- By the way, where you say "... have a similar form." --- I believe you meant to say, "have a similar contents." Is that what you meant?
give the contents and it may vary. So it is possible some efforts in the soap opera to exceed those in Traviata.
Now to the Magdalene: See, Violetta's character is very logical, if you look at it through the prism of true love. You ask why she would make such a sacrifice for a scamp like Alfredo? IMO: because he made her know real love. That is implicit. I hope U don't laugh here. When one has known real love, one cannot continue being their old self. That is why Violetta must die in the end.
And real love, glummdelclitch can never be a cliche, no matter if you reduce it to "amore, addio, morte." These words can describe a whole life with a great punctuality.
I have known people, who have known true love many times in their lives. Anything repeated often enough becomes a cliche. If the cliche is painted or written or sung or composed with enough passion and edge, then it becomes art. Otherwise it remains cliche.
Who knows true love must die? Is this really your position? Or are you just kidding again? I thought Violetta died because Dumas believed, and Verdi agreed, that in this imperfect world even "true love" must end in misery and heartache and the last twist of the knife of fate.
Perhaps you are correct if your reference point is so-called reality. But, as we know, art is not meant to be an exact representation of reality: even French realism was infused with romanticism and mysticism (Balzac, for example), and modern reality shows are not reality either. Art, by and large, transcends reality, including the times when it crystallizes reality. Violetta's sacrifice is redemption for herself and for humanity, brought to the fore by the art form of opera itself.
I'm not quite sure what this is in reference to, meltzerboy. To call Violetta's death a redemption for humanity seems to me to be somewhat over the top. I think it is a reflection of the romantic idea that death is the crowning glory of all love. Hence the pervading theme of Amore, addio, morte in most romantic opera. Redemption seems to be beside the point, which is that no matter how noble your feelings, life will break you. That is the key to Romanticism, and the key to most such opera.
Why is redemption beside the point? As I stated, perhaps beside the point in the "real world"; however, opera is NOT the real world. As you say yourself, opera is a cliche: amore, addio, morte (I would add vendetta). But the "romantic idea that death is the crowning glory of all love," a Wagnerian principle (Tristan and Isolde) does not seem to me irrelevant to the school of Romanticism and to art in general. The complexity of Violetta I think is that she is a flesh and blood woman and stylized.
I believe you are quite wrong, meltzerboy. Death and death-mysticism are in fact essential characteristics of all romantic art. It did not start with Wagner, who is actually a late development, a "decadence" as Nietzsche rightly said, from the Romantic ideal. From Keats to Baudelaire and beyond, from Donizetti to Puccini, the Romantic operatic tradition is founded on the Death cult, which is the Romantic Agony par excellence in the words of Mario Praz.
Romanticism is not confined to the Death motif. The French Romantic school is in accord with the English poet Wordsworth and his effort to achieve moral purification and ascent to Heaven. Earthly beauties are but symbols of heavenly bliss. According to Hugo, death is a necessary ramification of this journey toward the infinite. In Balzac, the outcome of the quest is insanity. In other romantic and mystical works, it is the state induced by drugs or the dream state that leads the way to heaven.
No one is claiming that it's 'confined' to Death motif. But you yourself here merely confirm my point that the Quest is necessarily completed by the mystical state of Death. Of course insanity, drug-induced visions, and dreams of paradise all enter into the picture frame as well. And a good thing too....
Baudelaire is a case apart since his associative imagery is not between earth and heaven in the manner of Swedenborg, but rather earth-bound (except for some of his earlier poems, which are more Swedenborgian). However, it has been convincingly argued that Baudelaire is not a romantic poet, but more of a forerunner of the symbolist movement, in that he divests his poetry of so many romantic elements.
If you really mean that being a forerunner of symbolism means he can't be a Romantic poet, then I would say you've been having too many late night conversations with Swedenborgian angels on the stairway to Heaven.
Maybe too many late-night snacks as well! Seriously though, I think it depends on whether we are talking about the technical aspects of French symbolism or the symbolist movement in a more global and universal sense as it applies to a variety of nations and writings. Baudelaire's poetry, however, is more earthy in its synesthesia than Swedenborg, and yet there is a striving in Fleurs du Mal toward the infinite even in the later poetry. Of course, as you allude to, the abyss is also present.
yes, the abyss is always with us, which is why seeking a daring devil-may-care bravura performance of Sempre libera can be a lifetime's quest, one not wholly fulfilled by this performance before us.
I don't think Dame Joan comprehended the Void, but it did comprehend her.
I believe this world is what we make of it. My position is that true love never dies - and I am not a romantic person in the least! Read Sonnet 116 by Shakespeare to better understand my thesis - if U like, of course. IMO Violetta MUST die not as a redemption for sins past & gone (with the wind???). The whole thing is more subtle. Real happiness lies not in our dreams coming true and our desires be fulfilled. It is in the love we can give and share in the darkest of circumstance.
So, to me Traviata has a happy end! I'm not kidding! Death brings Violetta to God, so there's a divine ending. A quotation from Puccini's Manon: "Le mie colpe travolgera oblio, ma l'amor mio non muor." Can U imagine more ultimate happiness? Opera is a compressed form of reality, which is true emotionally, not lirterally. I don't suggest that if 2 people love each other it must all end in tears & death. We have civil and criminal law, which is taught in law schools - and a divine law
And yet I firmly believe the opera insists on redemption for Violetta, for women, for humanity, perhaps not for her sins in a religious sense, but for her former lack of understanding what the true meaning of love is all about. Perhaps there is even a redemption of Alfredo and his father as well. This, it seems to me, is in keeping with the spirit of Verdi's music.
All right. However, I would replace the word "redemption" with "purification". I think that Violetta and anima are more or less the same. From a wider perspective, I agree with your point - after all, we cannot think of redemption without purification -death, unhappiness being its price occasionally.
Before we get too carried away with Flying Dutchman-like flights of fancy, perhaps it would be more appropriate to say that Violetta is a Magdalene figure who is justified by her "Christian" sacrifice. Although why she would want to make such a sacrifice for a naive and sentimental child like Alfredo remains a mystery to me.
Just out of curiosity (not disrespect), which performance of this aria would you consider special? Callas' perhaps, or Moffo's? Zeani's, or maybe, among early sopranos, Tetrazzini's?
Tetrazzini did it one time, I forget the date, which is quite special. It sounds as if bells are ringing while she enacts the sheer joie de vivre of the aria. Her voice did that when she got really excited. Or had too much wine before performances!
In point of fact, Tetrazzini recorded the aria at least twice, possibly more. But you're right about the joie de vivre, and she was the singer who introduced the multiple staccati (all 12 of them) into the aria, which Sutherland, a great admirer of hers, later copied.
Well, the answer may shock you, but it is... Verdi"s. I mean, when I am listening to an opera in different performances the most amazing thing is to the discover its unchanching core, the similarities between the interpretations. That is, the score to me is just a map, not a realroad. Based on what unites different great interpretations, I build my own conception of the work. And I hope that this conceptin coincides with the composer's intentions.
I am not at all shocked. I agree with you that the truly great artists, for all their individuality, have a commonality as well in that they all strive to interpret the musical score according to their conception of the composer's intentions. And the listener's internal representation of the work is shaped by this commonality between diverse interpretations. You have an interesting perspective as usual, and I think it makes a lot of sense.
Violetta is a part for soprano, but we should never forget this part was written by a... man. What I don't like about Sutherland and some other excellent sopranos is that they treat the role from too literal, too feminine point of view: "A fallen woman finds true but impossible love..." In the part of Violetta there is something very HUMAN regardless of the gender which turns it into a masterpiece.
I agree about the sheer beauty and sweetness of Gigli's voice. Schipa's is not as beautiful, but his singing is more elegant than Gigli's while maintaining its passionate quality. Gigli, of course, has been accused of eccentricities such as sobbing (similar to the legendary Rubini as well as Caruso) and aspirates, particularly in his later recordings. I recall a comparative study that related the vibrato of voices to tonal beauty, and found Gigli and Galli-Curci had almost identical vibrato.
I always loved Moffo in this role but in the house I'm not sure how large her voice was. Sutherland though she may be criticized for diction and lack of feeling had an incredible instrument attached to a near flawless techique.
I forgot to mention Moffo in my list of great Violettas posted some 9 months ago. She sang the role at the same time as Sutherland at the Met, and both were superb. I think Violetta was Moffo's greatest role vocally and theatrically. While her voice was not large, it carried very well in the House.
I heard Pavarotti live many times. I can only repeat what so many others have stated, that the quality of his voice was beautiful, his technique superb, his phrasing exemplary, his style perfect for Italian opera (not so much for French), and his overall musicianship excellent. Moreover, he was a passionate singer but never engaged in excessive or vulgar outbursts. The only technical feature of his singing I did not like was his high pianissimo. Less brilliant in later years but still great.
Thank you for sharing that with us, I agree, he was less brilliant in his later years.
Many people dislike his piano singing, you may dislike it for another reason, but many say that he only sang in a disconnected falsetto sound when he went for pianissimo. This is true of his later singing, but he was capable of effective pianissimo up to his B flat in the years preceding the late '70s.
I'm sure you've heard the famous in house recording of La Traviata at the Met in 1970, he sings proper pianissimo with no disconnected sound in the Un di felice and Parigi o cara of those performances, even observing the written diminuendo on the high A flat of the latter duet.
What aspect of his high pianissimo didn't appeal to you?
(not trying to challenge your opinion, just trying to understand)
Perhaps Pavarotti's pianissimo was better in early years, yet I never liked the sound of it compared to that of other tenors such as Gigli, Bjorling, McCormack, Tauber, and Gedda. It's not the falsetto effect per se (McCormack's high pianissimi appear to be falsetto), but rather the lack of tonal beauty. However, Pavarotti is in good company since Caruso also had difficulty with high pianissimi and avoided them. This is my opinion and does not detract from my admiration of Pavarotti's artistry.
I think pianissimo is an art that has been lost as it has become less obligatory to have a good one.
I don't think Pavarotti mastered pianissimo to the extent of Gigli (few ever did of course), but if you go to this video:
watch?v=EanDDURW4pY&feature=channel_page
You'll hear Pavarotti's ability to do a beautiful messa di voce on a high A, it doesn't seem to be lacking in tonal beauty, but your ears are probably better than mine so you could hear some, I'm not sure.
I agree that pianissimo is no longer expected and so its cultivation has declined. The same for messa di voce for both male and female singers. For all her technical skill, I don't recall ever hearing Sutherland sing a messa di voce (except in a bel canto discussion with Horne, Pavarotti, and Bonygne in which she demonstrated a dimuendo). Rockwell Blake has a messa di voce, Horne has a beautiful one, but not so many others. I'll check out the Pavarotti video. Thanks.
I don't think Sutherland was capable of a messa di voce. She was much too technically rigid to allow herself that delicatesse. And Moorhe is quite right, pianissimo is no longer required of our tenors. More's the pity. Compare Di Stefano's spine tingling pianissimo in the EMI Tosca with Pavarotti's or Domingo's -- to compare more recent tenors. There is NO comparison at all with Bjorling or Gigli.
Would you care to elaborate on exactly what you mean by "(Sutherland) was much too technically rigid to allow herself that delicatesse (of a messa di voce)"?
I believe we are all misspelling that phrase, I just realized, it is MEZZA di voce. What I mean is that there is something missing here, the joie seems forced, not really de vivre. She is cold and mechanical most of the time, as if she is afraid to let herself ease down for fear of losing the authority of her powerful technic. The only time I heard her sing a delicate mezza was in the great duet in Puritani with Pavarotti at the Met in the Sixties.
No, you are confusing messe de voce and mezza voce. Messe de voce means changing the volume of a tone on the same breath, that is, starting piano then swelling the tone (crescendo) and finally diminishing the tone again (decrescendo or diminuendo) back to piano. Mezza voce, on the other hand, means singing in half voice, such as piano.
Oh, I see. Since everyone including you was spelling it with a final a, messa, I thought you were speaking of the other. Disregard everything I just said in that case. Obviously there is little communication going on here.
Excuse me, I meant messe di voce (not messe de voce). Certain singers of the 18th century are also said to have been able to swell a tone, go back to piano, and then swell the tone again. Quite a feat!
Yes I am. Unfortunately, I misspelled the word. The correct spelling is "messa di voce" and "messe di voce" is the plural. I stated the definition earlier.
First off, kudos on the screen name. secondly i agree joan is not a convincing violetta. can she sing it? well she could sing anything, but i one time read someone saying her violetta was like hearing an english lady with the flu or head cold rather than a prostitute with a deadly disease and i agree.
Thanks for the kudos. Yes Dame Joan could SING anything, but sometimes it's like hearing a modern virtuoso on the cello who can PLAY anything, but you would really rather HEAR Casals with all his squeaks and scratches! .. And poor Violetta a prostitute? Dumas fils would have been disappointed in you. Courtesan, my good fellow, as they called them in the halcyon days of the Second Republic.
I know it's common to criticize Sutherland for a lack of emotion and commitment to the drama and the text. At times, the criticism is justified, but I don't think it is in the case of Violetta. To me, she is quite convincing in tone and utterance, apart from the virtuosity of her "Sempre libera." Her last act "Addio del passato," particularly in her younger days, was sung with a great deal of emotion and conviction. The dramatic nature of the role itself seems to bring out the best in sopranos.
I must defer to moghedien on this one, meltzerboy. Your infatuation with the Grande Dame is all too evident. But in the case of Violetta you have a case, but not much.
The ability to sing a messa di voce was already uncommon even among recorded singers of the past. I think of Rosa Ponselle, who executes a perfect messa di voce at the start of "Pace, Pace Mio Dio," Lily Pons in her "Caro Nome" for example, Tetazzini and Galli-Curci in several recordings, Chaliapin and Caruso on occasion. I'm sure there were others, but again not too many.
Apparently the messa di voce effect initiated in the baroque era, I guess it became used more sparingly and eventually got to the point of hardly ever being used.
Did you take a listen to that Una furtiva lagrima?
In this performance of "Una furtiva lagrima" and in several others I've heard, Pavarotti displays beautiful tone, clean line, controlled passion, and superior technique, including a well-defined messa di voce and even admirable piano singing. Chapeaus bas! Did you ever hear the old recordings of the aria by De Lucia and Caruso? Both are outstanding.
My favourite rendition after that one is probably Schipa's or Gigli's. De Lucia's is excellent and Caruso's is not to my tastes, but I can't fault it.
I don't remember Gigli's version, but Schipa's was fabulous. Caruso recorded the aria several times; I'm talking about his 1904 recording on YT I believe.
Gigli's is very good, I often it hard to choose between Gigli and Schipa. Both are singers who I believe should be ranked with Caruso as singers who should be put aside before even considering 'the rest', but I think that Schipa was the better singer despite Gigli having the most beautiful voice in recorded history (in my opinion).
I would have put Bjorling in that group if he had the same control of dynamics as they did and handled Italian half as well.
ohh...and pavarotti is fantastic too;)
1717PRO 3 months ago
this is stunning...I love her darker low notes and her clear, bright high notes ... and that e flat!!!!
1717PRO 3 months ago
soy chilena y me gusta la buena musica,y como joan no habra jamas otra
odracir19891 4 months ago
SHE WAS A HORRIBLE ACTRESS.......GOOD VOICE BUT....WELL, BETTER HEARING HER THAN SEEING HER.....!!!!!
simisimi9 5 months ago
@simisimi9 You just dont give up do you. Why listen if you are so obviously a Sutherland hater. Get a life as i said before!
finners62 4 months ago
A truly magnificent voice.
Just makes me wonder if she understood what she was singing about.
I don't mean to knock her! I love her voice especially in the earlier years, but I miss the emotion.
Smile6784 5 months ago
Sutherland had a range as high as possible for a human. She was a four octave singer.
Milahi1935 5 months ago
the very best on earth
MrStpendouslvforjo 5 months ago
Isn't the prompter annoying!
I think prompters have (in general) disappeared from Opera Houses now?
Can anyone confirm or otherwise.
MrSwifts31 6 months ago
@MrSwifts31 Opera houses used to have prompters? Haha talk about fun fact.
MrLittleEmilio 6 months ago
@MrLittleEmilio they still do. at least the major houses.
FilmGuyNewyork 2 months ago
@MrSwifts31 that is not correct, almost every major opera house uses a prompter for each production.
FilmGuyNewyork 2 months ago
@FilmGuyNewyork
Thanks for the information.Unless you can hear the prompter it is difficult to know whether one is used or not?
My main opera experience is with Covent Garden where the prompter died out quite a few years ago.(I used to work there).
MrSwifts31 2 months ago
What the heck was that extra syllable in "sempre?"
ChristophePhilippe 6 months ago
do yoou have it complete?
MariaCallasLegend 7 months ago
bravo anche il tenore direi!
nadopera90 7 months ago
To me, she was just a great singer but not as an interpreter... unfortunatedly, the same as Mr. Pavarotti one of the best voices of the second half XX-century...
gomongio 7 months ago
@gomongio hehe ... gee, I'll take beautiful singing over 'interpretation' any day of the week, if it is singing such as this!
MrChrya 5 months ago
Wow....Wow.......Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
arcot9 7 months ago
may be the diction is not that perfect, but a really gracefull interpretation... BRAVO!!
dalila72 8 months ago
Essa é uma VOZ!!!!!
Marcelosopro 8 months ago
all those criticising Joan or any of the others must really take a powder and get over your own tawdry existence High Art and extremely hard work give us these divine renditions. Get over it. Just enjoy the differences.
flyboytim 11 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Sutherland was a bit messy here. Disrupts the rythm and line a bit in the middle-section of the aria, and her trills were not as precise.
As always though, Sutherland salvaged it with her ringing E flat.
jmiller05 11 months ago
there is a one nut flub on the last bit of staccait with the short roulade, no matter, but im sure bonynge scolded her for that one!
mmbriggs 11 months ago
BRUTALMENTE BUENA........CUALQUIER COMPARACION ESTA TOTALMENTE FUERA DE LUGAR.....PORQUE SU GARGANTA ERA PRIVILEGIADA .....OTRA COSA ES QUE CADA CUAL GUSTE OIR LO QUE SU OIDO NECESITE.......YO POR EJEMPLO LA NECESITO A ELLA....USTED NECESITA OTRA?....PUES ESCUCHE OTRA......Y TODO EL MUNDO EN PAZ.....
bellini7verdi 11 months ago
Can anyone upload or send me the recording of these two singing this song? I'm sorry I have to beg for it, but I have no clue how to search or download it, every other way to hear it seems to be blocked, youtube blocked the video, playlist.com malfunctions whenever I try to play it,and I have NO money to buy the recording. When I say no money, I mean none. Some please help a young opera fanatic out?
RaWrZzZz 1 year ago
Ah, La Stupenda... this is what I live for....
LaraElSupergirl 1 year ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Beverly Sills is INCALCULABLY better in this aria. Sutherland sings it too fast, and
has NO understanding of the words. And her acting is appalling.
ericscam2 1 year ago
I can't even fathom being able to move my voice that fast and accurate. Joan was amazing.
rbheartsmae 1 year ago
Brava Joan !!!
MrBipolaris 1 year ago
BRAVA!
tenordramaticitm2 1 year ago
R.I.P unvergessen. Großartig, Violetta in unerreichter Perfektion. Ich bin traurig über ihren Tod.
fanofclassic 1 year ago
Amazing!
Lil69446 1 year ago
BRAVO.
heigei1 1 year ago
Magnificent!
Pywacket2 1 year ago
Comment removed
sopranosd 1 year ago
DJ in the 60's is untouchable vocally. Interpretation is the only cause for complaint.
ikklemikkle 1 year ago
Ok so hearing every word from the prompter is just damn annoying... I'm pretty sure Joan didn't need him for HER aria, she probably couldn't even hear him over her resonating sound.... Too funny
aroncooker 1 year ago
She is perfection of vocal art!
juljafavorite 1 year ago 2
She is perfection of vocal art!
juljafavorite 1 year ago
What the hell is with the prompter? Did she really need him?
singinciaran 1 year ago
beautifull..
sumopera 1 year ago
She was great before Bonynge got to her and turned her into this perfect machine.
So much more emotion in this performance.
The prompting is odd though.
Smile6784 1 year ago
@Smile6784 What are you talking about--he was there at the very beginning. Boy, is Luciano vulgar here.
liedersanger1 1 year ago
@liedersanger1
Vulgar?
Mooorhe 1 year ago
I love it but I hate that you can hear that man telling her the words! Her technique is glorious but it's so annoying to hear that man telling her the Italian words before she sings them LOL
MastersoftheOpera 1 year ago
They still have someone feed the script to the performers...its been around since the Greeks developed drama.
CatalinaDM56 1 year ago
Aren't opera singers intelligent enough to memorize what they are singing ? Actors/actresses in movies & plays memorize a lot of lines & don't need some guy feeding them the script. I thought opera singers memorized everything they sang.
MastersoftheOpera 1 year ago
Shakespearean actors are intelligent enough too. Its just how it is. They memorize everything. It just helps when you are on stage on front of tens of thousands of people...it doesn't mean they are less intelligent or less professional. Simply a tradition and "just in case" move.
CatalinaDM56 1 year ago
@MastersoftheOpera Of course they do. But they get light-headed with all the high Cs and occasionally need a nudge. It's a tradition. Back from the day when they were really stupid. .... but sounded great. Unlike today.
liedersanger1 1 year ago
Stunning! A performance characterised by prodigious vocalisation and, from the point of view of interpretation, an elan and joie de vivre which capture perfectly the mindset of Violetta at this point in the opera. The overall effectis thrilling.
vocalissimo1 2 years ago
What a beautiful sound she makes here!!!! I'm not a huge fan of her later years but this is perfection!!! And when you're a coloratura WORDS are overated!!! Plus, listen to the tempo that she remarkably maintains and the perciseness and clarity of very pitch, not the forget that beautiful tone that she produces. She is a MASTER in this recording!!!! Brava Sutherland!!
annalisaloizzo 2 years ago 21
@annalisaloizzo I agree with you completely, I am absolutely NOT a fan of her later stuff, but her earlier work is great. Like this!
rennelj 1 year ago
@annalisaloizzo and 1965 is laret year for her?
MrJago80 1 year ago
@annalisaloizzo agree when she was at her best with fast singing no one can touch her..
DavidoffGustav 1 year ago
@annalisaloizzo
when you're an opera singer in general, words are overrated. I don't go to an opera to listen to singing, not speaking. as long as the voices are beautiful and the technique is good, I don't care how their diction is, what they look like or how well they act.
PS: Diction is something that I will need to develope as a performer, but mostly because other people demand it, I personally care very little for the libretto most of the time.
raigekimaru 1 year ago
@raigekimaru I disagree, I feel that diction is much more important than some singers want to admit it is. How can you express if you don't know the words? Your technique can be fantastic and your voice can be fantastic but I will not be engaged at all in the Opera House if the expression is not there. It is a wonderful thing when you can tell that the singer knows exactly what they are singing at any moment and can convey the nuances of emotions. So why not do it with proper diction too?
dankmdh 1 year ago
@dankmdh theres a difference between singing with good diction and knowing the words to what you are saying. Im quite sure Mrs. Sutherland knew what she was singing, it would just be ignorant to say otherwise.
However, yes diction is important, but do you absolutely need it to be moved by a piece of music? no... I didnt fall in love with opera because i knew what was going on, i heard an amazing singer singing a beautiful piece passionately and fell in love. her diction is pretty good here...
aroncooker 1 year ago 3
@aroncooker I agree, plus, how many people who go to the opera can actually understand Italian, or French, or German? Mind you, I speak French fluently and it's almost impossible to understand sopranos only because they sing in such high pitches! Plus, that's what the surtitles are for right?
kngiht84 1 year ago 3
@kngiht84 I cannot understand 85% of the words when sung in 100% of the pieces sung in my native tongue. When listening to music: Give me music. If I want poetry; give me the printed word. Poetry CANNOT do what music does, so don't demand that music MUST also be poetry.
Cramnella 11 months ago
@Cramnella Music + Poetry = SINGING! Why else should one use an instrument as unreliable and hard-to-discipline as the human voice, if not for its unique ability to express words simultaneous with the notes? Singing without words doesn't make sense - as Mahler used to say about a coloratura (probably Selma Kurz) who was careless with her enunciation: "I'd rather put my first clarinet up there and play the aria, at least he'd stay in tune, and she doesn't give us the words either."
chrisz78 1 week ago
@chrisz78 I said "I" and "me" multiple times. In answer to your specific question: the human voice is the most beautiful, expressive instrument of all whether singing a text or a vocalise.
Cramnella 1 week ago
@aroncooker Exactly, and most aficionados would know the entire libretto and vocal score to the staples of the repertoire - such as Traviata - anyway, so no need to really hear every syllable pronounced
Drelnis 1 year ago
@dankmdh Well then you sing and show us singers how well your diction is.
leggierotenore 1 year ago
@annalisaloizzo I agree, in her later years her voice lost some of it's beauty like the voices of most older sopranos, but here she is phenominal!
AviatorEvans 3 months ago
Comment removed
annalisaloizzo 2 years ago
Comment removed
annalisaloizzo 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
If she got on pitch it would help and the same for
Pavarotti .Sat through this same in Boston where she was
rightly booed! Mealy mouthed yodelling ,not one
word could be understood . Vastly overated .
dziady1 2 years ago
@dziady1
Rubbish.
Mooorhe 2 years ago 3
@dziady1
This is a glorious performance and hearing aids are quite cheap now a days. Get one ASAP.
65attila 1 year ago
This must be a damned hard aria to sing and Sutherland makes it look as easy.
augustine051 2 years ago
To close on this, listen to the intensely beautiful "Dite alla giovane" and "Addio del passato". Now she's in a class by herself, too!
sillyboydeux 2 years ago
Magnificent ! Grand! Stupendous! but the greatest there ever was ? That's debatable , Callas and Sills were just as good if not better and both Sills and Callas had better diction that Joan so i guess that makes Joan number 3.
Etnalleb 2 years ago
Every word here is clear as a bell. Yes, the greatest that ever was. Not the slightest doubt.
Richiesutherland 2 years ago 2
There´s more to singing then diction...
And in the age of recordings many people seem to compare a singer by there recordings. That´s not fair. A perfect diction that´s hardly audible over a large orchestra is always less preferable then ´poor´ diction on a mega large voice, that Sutherland possesed.
edgarbiervliet 2 years ago
There is the complete package to being a Great Singer , if one possesses a mega large voice but you can't understand what their singing doesn't really make sense does it . Sills and Callas had the whole package and don't tell me Callas didn't have a Mega large voice. I give Sutherland credit for having 1 of the most beautiful voices ever , no doubt about that , i just don't think she was the Greatest .
Etnalleb 2 years ago
@Etnalleb But she was the greatest of her generation, because the public was ready for her, just as they had been for Callas, and before that Ponselle, etc. Just listen to the way Sutherland throws off this Verdi fioriture like it was . . . like it was perfect. I love her interpretation of this role, for entirely different reasons than for Callas and others. And despite other subscribers scoffing at my claim that this is a very moving performance by a great, great artist. It's a trap to compare.
sillyboydeux 2 years ago
Did i not say Joan was Great? I did, but we all have our favorites, I respect your choice in choosing Sutherland, and i think we all should respect each others choice. I prefer Beverly Sills in this role as do 1000's of others. I think Maria Callas is regarded by most as The Greatest Diva of all time and there is little doubt she was. SillyBoyD you are correct > it is a trap to compare. Sutherland,Sills and Callas were ALL great in their very own special way.
Etnalleb 2 years ago
one of the things that makes someone great is a quality that sets them apart. Something no one else has. This will send some people searching for words of praise and other condemnation. It goes with being unique and wonderful. How lucky are we to have had Callas, Sills, Price, Caballe, Tabaldi, Sutherland, and this list goes on, in our life times and to have them all on record and now YouTube. Yes I have my favorite too, but who cares who that is they are all wonderful, just like you say!
highbaritone 2 years ago
superb logic!
belcunto 2 years ago 2
greatest there ever was.... or ever will be. its as simple as that.
preppybeast6293 2 years ago
Fantastic!
luvmuzik4me 2 years ago 7
Phenomenal!
VivaMariaCallas 2 years ago 3
freaking amazing!
jimat1fed 2 years ago 3
KILL THE PROMPTER!!!!!
masettoallegro 2 years ago 3
i think it's actually kind of neat to hear the prompter?
OperaLover84 2 years ago
I for one have no problems with the prompter. It's much worse in some of the Callas lives from the early fifties. The EMI Traviata for one, and there's a Caro nome from Mexico City which is pretty bad. Still, doesn't bother me. Prompter's there for a damn good reason!!
33blueberries 2 years ago 3
It is great to have such a great singer -- nay, such a truly wongerfully marvelous singer recorded for posterity. The historical quality is significant for its place and time. Still, one has to admit, the prompter is so damned annoying when you know La Stupenda knows this aria backwards and forwards.
youhavegottabejoking 2 years ago
Christ wept, she was in good voice for that tour..
33blueberries 2 years ago
An amazing document of the famous tour...A real treasure!Many thanks!!!
lastupendaboy 2 years ago 2
A
M
A
Z
I
N
G
!!!!!!!!!!!!
I had my jaw hanging open for most of that!!!
the resonance in her top is second to NONE!!! thats just mentioning one aspect of her greatness!!
katesinger 2 years ago
Good God this is unbelievable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Even more spectacular than her own studio recording of this!!!!! Holy!!!!
tetrazzinifan 2 years ago
Do all operas NEED a prompter? 'Cause you can really hear this one!
ChrisStockslager 2 years ago
Comment removed
mannyanes 2 years ago
she sang like this in the 1980's in australia & 1990's you should search her 1965 version n Lucciano pavarotti is in the wings singing n she is a wonder in her prime
anthonyhenrysmith 2 years ago
tell the freakin audience to SHUT UP!!!!!!!!!
thomastmwc 2 years ago
It's the prompter.
kirok1701 2 years ago
oh reli? Hahaha xp tks 4 tellin ^^
thomastmwc 2 years ago
This has to be the definitive version on record, I prefer this to any of her studio efforts, or anyone else's for that matter.
Mooorhe 2 years ago
Of course, it is a woman singing the role and I'm not sure any soprano could sing it other than from a feminine perspective. This would include Callas, who stated Violetta was one or her two most favorite roles (the other being Norma), precisely because she is both strong and weak and, presumably, therefore a complete woman. Sutherland also remarked on the identifiable nature of the role for women. I would say the music itself requires a wide spectrum of vocal abilities beyond one voice type.
meltzerboy 2 years ago
I am sure that any soprano could sing the part from whichever perspective she chooses. As a listener (and male) however, not as a singer, I see "Ah forse e lui" & "Sempre libera" in my mind's eye as the eternal human quest for real love. To make them sound really sincere, you have to forget the banalities and cliches, open your heart - and the big heart doesn't work with categories like male or female, but human. That is, I presume, how Verdi created the ultimate feminine role.
Fairpavel 2 years ago
Interestingly, Alfredo echoes Violetta's "Ah, fors e lui" in his own music, a point which supports your notion that human emotion is truer and more sincere than restrictive, artificial gender categories imposed by society and culture. And you seem to suggest that Verdi's "ultimate feminine role" is really one of universality. Perhaps Violetta is even a Christ-like sacrificial figure in the guise of a fallen woman with a noble heart, or perhaps a feminine Flying Dutchman, eternally seeking love.
meltzerboy 2 years ago
I wouldn't go that far. Truth is very simple, I think. Where lies the main difference between "The bold & the beautiful" and Traviata? The second is sublime, the first isn't. Verdi's opera really doesn't suggest sentimentality, but rich emotions, so wonderfully interwoven in the character of Violetta.
Fairpavel 2 years ago
Despite Keats' admonition at the close of his poem "Ode on a Grecian Urn," stating that "Beauty is truth, truth beauty," I am not so sure, from a philosophical and psychological standpoint, that truth is that simple, especially if one considers concepts such as relativism, perception, context, and illusion of control. There is a third partner in music, in addition to the composer and the performer, namely the audience or listeners, all of whom carry within them a cognitive-emotional perspective.
meltzerboy 2 years ago
Absolutely! Let me state it a little bit differently - simplicity is the most complex thing. And sometimes life is art. And sometimes art - life.
There's also a fourth partner: call it destiny, fortune, god or chance.
Fairpavel 2 years ago
Agreed. We are definitely on the same philosophical and aesthetic page.
meltzerboy 2 years ago
What a great read!
Fairpavel 2 years ago
I believe it is more just to put it this way. Any art form or art work is capable of producing sublime moments, and also ridiculous moments. I have seen some very sublime exchanges on the Bold & Beautiful, and quite a few ludicrous attempts at singing and acting in opera, including several Traviatas I have attended.
glummdelclitch 2 years ago
When I was 10 I also saw some sublime exchanges im this soap opera. But The B&B pales in comparison to the "Slave Isaura". OK, I'm kidding. Now seriously. Certainly any form of art can have its moments under the sun. But let us think together: what is a cliche? It is a ready form, devoid of contents. Traviata (opera) and Bold-Beau (soap opera) have a similar form: strong passions, important decisions about life etc. The same is not true, however, of their form. The singer, the conductor, etc.
Fairpavel 2 years ago
This may be true academically speaking, but in fact opera is as much a cliche by that standard as any other traditional art form. You can reduce most operatic themes to the words Amore, Addio, Morte. I don't think cliches are the point. By this time in history all art includes a large measure of cliche. --- By the way, where you say "... have a similar form." --- I believe you meant to say, "have a similar contents." Is that what you meant?
glummdelclitch 2 years ago
Yes. There is more of my answer below. (Or is it up?)
Fairpavel 2 years ago
give the contents and it may vary. So it is possible some efforts in the soap opera to exceed those in Traviata.
Now to the Magdalene: See, Violetta's character is very logical, if you look at it through the prism of true love. You ask why she would make such a sacrifice for a scamp like Alfredo? IMO: because he made her know real love. That is implicit. I hope U don't laugh here. When one has known real love, one cannot continue being their old self. That is why Violetta must die in the end.
Fairpavel 2 years ago
And real love, glummdelclitch can never be a cliche, no matter if you reduce it to "amore, addio, morte." These words can describe a whole life with a great punctuality.
Fairpavel 2 years ago
I have known people, who have known true love many times in their lives. Anything repeated often enough becomes a cliche. If the cliche is painted or written or sung or composed with enough passion and edge, then it becomes art. Otherwise it remains cliche.
glummdelclitch 2 years ago
Who knows true love must die? Is this really your position? Or are you just kidding again? I thought Violetta died because Dumas believed, and Verdi agreed, that in this imperfect world even "true love" must end in misery and heartache and the last twist of the knife of fate.
glummdelclitch 2 years ago
Perhaps you are correct if your reference point is so-called reality. But, as we know, art is not meant to be an exact representation of reality: even French realism was infused with romanticism and mysticism (Balzac, for example), and modern reality shows are not reality either. Art, by and large, transcends reality, including the times when it crystallizes reality. Violetta's sacrifice is redemption for herself and for humanity, brought to the fore by the art form of opera itself.
meltzerboy 2 years ago
I'm not quite sure what this is in reference to, meltzerboy. To call Violetta's death a redemption for humanity seems to me to be somewhat over the top. I think it is a reflection of the romantic idea that death is the crowning glory of all love. Hence the pervading theme of Amore, addio, morte in most romantic opera. Redemption seems to be beside the point, which is that no matter how noble your feelings, life will break you. That is the key to Romanticism, and the key to most such opera.
glummdelclitch 2 years ago
Why is redemption beside the point? As I stated, perhaps beside the point in the "real world"; however, opera is NOT the real world. As you say yourself, opera is a cliche: amore, addio, morte (I would add vendetta). But the "romantic idea that death is the crowning glory of all love," a Wagnerian principle (Tristan and Isolde) does not seem to me irrelevant to the school of Romanticism and to art in general. The complexity of Violetta I think is that she is a flesh and blood woman and stylized.
meltzerboy 2 years ago
I believe you are quite wrong, meltzerboy. Death and death-mysticism are in fact essential characteristics of all romantic art. It did not start with Wagner, who is actually a late development, a "decadence" as Nietzsche rightly said, from the Romantic ideal. From Keats to Baudelaire and beyond, from Donizetti to Puccini, the Romantic operatic tradition is founded on the Death cult, which is the Romantic Agony par excellence in the words of Mario Praz.
glummdelclitch 2 years ago
Romanticism is not confined to the Death motif. The French Romantic school is in accord with the English poet Wordsworth and his effort to achieve moral purification and ascent to Heaven. Earthly beauties are but symbols of heavenly bliss. According to Hugo, death is a necessary ramification of this journey toward the infinite. In Balzac, the outcome of the quest is insanity. In other romantic and mystical works, it is the state induced by drugs or the dream state that leads the way to heaven.
meltzerboy 2 years ago
No one is claiming that it's 'confined' to Death motif. But you yourself here merely confirm my point that the Quest is necessarily completed by the mystical state of Death. Of course insanity, drug-induced visions, and dreams of paradise all enter into the picture frame as well. And a good thing too....
glummdelclitch 2 years ago
Baudelaire is a case apart since his associative imagery is not between earth and heaven in the manner of Swedenborg, but rather earth-bound (except for some of his earlier poems, which are more Swedenborgian). However, it has been convincingly argued that Baudelaire is not a romantic poet, but more of a forerunner of the symbolist movement, in that he divests his poetry of so many romantic elements.
meltzerboy 2 years ago
If you really mean that being a forerunner of symbolism means he can't be a Romantic poet, then I would say you've been having too many late night conversations with Swedenborgian angels on the stairway to Heaven.
glummdelclitch 2 years ago
Maybe too many late-night snacks as well! Seriously though, I think it depends on whether we are talking about the technical aspects of French symbolism or the symbolist movement in a more global and universal sense as it applies to a variety of nations and writings. Baudelaire's poetry, however, is more earthy in its synesthesia than Swedenborg, and yet there is a striving in Fleurs du Mal toward the infinite even in the later poetry. Of course, as you allude to, the abyss is also present.
meltzerboy 2 years ago
yes, the abyss is always with us, which is why seeking a daring devil-may-care bravura performance of Sempre libera can be a lifetime's quest, one not wholly fulfilled by this performance before us.
I don't think Dame Joan comprehended the Void, but it did comprehend her.
glummdelclitch 2 years ago
I believe this world is what we make of it. My position is that true love never dies - and I am not a romantic person in the least! Read Sonnet 116 by Shakespeare to better understand my thesis - if U like, of course. IMO Violetta MUST die not as a redemption for sins past & gone (with the wind???). The whole thing is more subtle. Real happiness lies not in our dreams coming true and our desires be fulfilled. It is in the love we can give and share in the darkest of circumstance.
Fairpavel 2 years ago
So, to me Traviata has a happy end! I'm not kidding! Death brings Violetta to God, so there's a divine ending. A quotation from Puccini's Manon: "Le mie colpe travolgera oblio, ma l'amor mio non muor." Can U imagine more ultimate happiness? Opera is a compressed form of reality, which is true emotionally, not lirterally. I don't suggest that if 2 people love each other it must all end in tears & death. We have civil and criminal law, which is taught in law schools - and a divine law
Fairpavel 2 years ago
which we all learn daily throgh experience - and art is experience, if anything.
Fairpavel 2 years ago
Agreed. Many larger than life Bollwood films have similar themes. True love.
chocolatesouljah 2 years ago
And yet I firmly believe the opera insists on redemption for Violetta, for women, for humanity, perhaps not for her sins in a religious sense, but for her former lack of understanding what the true meaning of love is all about. Perhaps there is even a redemption of Alfredo and his father as well. This, it seems to me, is in keeping with the spirit of Verdi's music.
meltzerboy 2 years ago
All right. However, I would replace the word "redemption" with "purification". I think that Violetta and anima are more or less the same. From a wider perspective, I agree with your point - after all, we cannot think of redemption without purification -death, unhappiness being its price occasionally.
Fairpavel 2 years ago
Before we get too carried away with Flying Dutchman-like flights of fancy, perhaps it would be more appropriate to say that Violetta is a Magdalene figure who is justified by her "Christian" sacrifice. Although why she would want to make such a sacrifice for a naive and sentimental child like Alfredo remains a mystery to me.
glummdelclitch 2 years ago
An interesting thesis, and one that makes Violetta a psychologically complex individual as well as a representative universal figure.
meltzerboy 2 years ago
Comment removed
Fairpavel 2 years ago
Just out of curiosity (not disrespect), which performance of this aria would you consider special? Callas' perhaps, or Moffo's? Zeani's, or maybe, among early sopranos, Tetrazzini's?
meltzerboy 2 years ago
Tetrazzini did it one time, I forget the date, which is quite special. It sounds as if bells are ringing while she enacts the sheer joie de vivre of the aria. Her voice did that when she got really excited. Or had too much wine before performances!
glummdelclitch 2 years ago
In point of fact, Tetrazzini recorded the aria at least twice, possibly more. But you're right about the joie de vivre, and she was the singer who introduced the multiple staccati (all 12 of them) into the aria, which Sutherland, a great admirer of hers, later copied.
meltzerboy 2 years ago
Well, the answer may shock you, but it is... Verdi"s. I mean, when I am listening to an opera in different performances the most amazing thing is to the discover its unchanching core, the similarities between the interpretations. That is, the score to me is just a map, not a realroad. Based on what unites different great interpretations, I build my own conception of the work. And I hope that this conceptin coincides with the composer's intentions.
The inbox if U like to hear the rest, please.
Fairpavel 2 years ago
I am not at all shocked. I agree with you that the truly great artists, for all their individuality, have a commonality as well in that they all strive to interpret the musical score according to their conception of the composer's intentions. And the listener's internal representation of the work is shaped by this commonality between diverse interpretations. You have an interesting perspective as usual, and I think it makes a lot of sense.
meltzerboy 2 years ago
May I add something?
Violetta is a part for soprano, but we should never forget this part was written by a... man. What I don't like about Sutherland and some other excellent sopranos is that they treat the role from too literal, too feminine point of view: "A fallen woman finds true but impossible love..." In the part of Violetta there is something very HUMAN regardless of the gender which turns it into a masterpiece.
Fairpavel 2 years ago
My reply to your comments is below.
meltzerboy 2 years ago
I agree about the sheer beauty and sweetness of Gigli's voice. Schipa's is not as beautiful, but his singing is more elegant than Gigli's while maintaining its passionate quality. Gigli, of course, has been accused of eccentricities such as sobbing (similar to the legendary Rubini as well as Caruso) and aspirates, particularly in his later recordings. I recall a comparative study that related the vibrato of voices to tonal beauty, and found Gigli and Galli-Curci had almost identical vibrato.
meltzerboy 2 years ago
What did they use to compare the vibrato? A Voltameter? Or a tuning fork?
glummdelclitch 2 years ago
I always loved Moffo in this role but in the house I'm not sure how large her voice was. Sutherland though she may be criticized for diction and lack of feeling had an incredible instrument attached to a near flawless techique.
GermanOperaSinger 3 years ago
I forgot to mention Moffo in my list of great Violettas posted some 9 months ago. She sang the role at the same time as Sutherland at the Met, and both were superb. I think Violetta was Moffo's greatest role vocally and theatrically. While her voice was not large, it carried very well in the House.
meltzerboy 2 years ago
Our of interest, meltzerboy, what did you think of Pavarotti? I assume you heard him if you heard Sutherland.
Mooorhe 2 years ago
I heard Pavarotti live many times. I can only repeat what so many others have stated, that the quality of his voice was beautiful, his technique superb, his phrasing exemplary, his style perfect for Italian opera (not so much for French), and his overall musicianship excellent. Moreover, he was a passionate singer but never engaged in excessive or vulgar outbursts. The only technical feature of his singing I did not like was his high pianissimo. Less brilliant in later years but still great.
meltzerboy 2 years ago
Thank you for sharing that with us, I agree, he was less brilliant in his later years.
Many people dislike his piano singing, you may dislike it for another reason, but many say that he only sang in a disconnected falsetto sound when he went for pianissimo. This is true of his later singing, but he was capable of effective pianissimo up to his B flat in the years preceding the late '70s.
Mooorhe 2 years ago
I'm sure you've heard the famous in house recording of La Traviata at the Met in 1970, he sings proper pianissimo with no disconnected sound in the Un di felice and Parigi o cara of those performances, even observing the written diminuendo on the high A flat of the latter duet.
What aspect of his high pianissimo didn't appeal to you?
(not trying to challenge your opinion, just trying to understand)
Mooorhe 2 years ago
Perhaps Pavarotti's pianissimo was better in early years, yet I never liked the sound of it compared to that of other tenors such as Gigli, Bjorling, McCormack, Tauber, and Gedda. It's not the falsetto effect per se (McCormack's high pianissimi appear to be falsetto), but rather the lack of tonal beauty. However, Pavarotti is in good company since Caruso also had difficulty with high pianissimi and avoided them. This is my opinion and does not detract from my admiration of Pavarotti's artistry.
meltzerboy 2 years ago
I think pianissimo is an art that has been lost as it has become less obligatory to have a good one.
I don't think Pavarotti mastered pianissimo to the extent of Gigli (few ever did of course), but if you go to this video:
watch?v=EanDDURW4pY&feature=channel_page
You'll hear Pavarotti's ability to do a beautiful messa di voce on a high A, it doesn't seem to be lacking in tonal beauty, but your ears are probably better than mine so you could hear some, I'm not sure.
Mooorhe 2 years ago
I agree that pianissimo is no longer expected and so its cultivation has declined. The same for messa di voce for both male and female singers. For all her technical skill, I don't recall ever hearing Sutherland sing a messa di voce (except in a bel canto discussion with Horne, Pavarotti, and Bonygne in which she demonstrated a dimuendo). Rockwell Blake has a messa di voce, Horne has a beautiful one, but not so many others. I'll check out the Pavarotti video. Thanks.
meltzerboy 2 years ago
I don't think Sutherland was capable of a messa di voce. She was much too technically rigid to allow herself that delicatesse. And Moorhe is quite right, pianissimo is no longer required of our tenors. More's the pity. Compare Di Stefano's spine tingling pianissimo in the EMI Tosca with Pavarotti's or Domingo's -- to compare more recent tenors. There is NO comparison at all with Bjorling or Gigli.
glummdelclitch 2 years ago
Would you care to elaborate on exactly what you mean by "(Sutherland) was much too technically rigid to allow herself that delicatesse (of a messa di voce)"?
meltzerboy 2 years ago
I believe we are all misspelling that phrase, I just realized, it is MEZZA di voce. What I mean is that there is something missing here, the joie seems forced, not really de vivre. She is cold and mechanical most of the time, as if she is afraid to let herself ease down for fear of losing the authority of her powerful technic. The only time I heard her sing a delicate mezza was in the great duet in Puritani with Pavarotti at the Met in the Sixties.
glummdelclitch 2 years ago
No, you are confusing messe de voce and mezza voce. Messe de voce means changing the volume of a tone on the same breath, that is, starting piano then swelling the tone (crescendo) and finally diminishing the tone again (decrescendo or diminuendo) back to piano. Mezza voce, on the other hand, means singing in half voice, such as piano.
meltzerboy 2 years ago
Oh, I see. Since everyone including you was spelling it with a final a, messa, I thought you were speaking of the other. Disregard everything I just said in that case. Obviously there is little communication going on here.
glummdelclitch 2 years ago
Excuse me, I meant messe di voce (not messe de voce). Certain singers of the 18th century are also said to have been able to swell a tone, go back to piano, and then swell the tone again. Quite a feat!
meltzerboy 2 years ago
Are you sure you know what you're talking about? Moorhe a week ago spoke of messa di voce with a final a and di not de.
This was a characteristic of singers in Monteverdian opera and Handelian oratorios. Are you speaking of the same thing here or not?
glummdelclitch 2 years ago
Yes I am. Unfortunately, I misspelled the word. The correct spelling is "messa di voce" and "messe di voce" is the plural. I stated the definition earlier.
meltzerboy 2 years ago
I am sorry. It was my misunderstanding. I think you have clarified the air on this for good. Thanks.
glummdelclitch 2 years ago
Pavarotti and Sutherland didn't sing I Puritani at the Met until 1976.
Mooorhe 2 years ago
Thanks for that. Haven't listened to that LP for a while. It's a very compelling performance by both of them.
glummdelclitch 2 years ago
First off, kudos on the screen name. secondly i agree joan is not a convincing violetta. can she sing it? well she could sing anything, but i one time read someone saying her violetta was like hearing an english lady with the flu or head cold rather than a prostitute with a deadly disease and i agree.
moghedien13 2 years ago
Thanks for the kudos. Yes Dame Joan could SING anything, but sometimes it's like hearing a modern virtuoso on the cello who can PLAY anything, but you would really rather HEAR Casals with all his squeaks and scratches! .. And poor Violetta a prostitute? Dumas fils would have been disappointed in you. Courtesan, my good fellow, as they called them in the halcyon days of the Second Republic.
glummdelclitch 2 years ago
I know it's common to criticize Sutherland for a lack of emotion and commitment to the drama and the text. At times, the criticism is justified, but I don't think it is in the case of Violetta. To me, she is quite convincing in tone and utterance, apart from the virtuosity of her "Sempre libera." Her last act "Addio del passato," particularly in her younger days, was sung with a great deal of emotion and conviction. The dramatic nature of the role itself seems to bring out the best in sopranos.
meltzerboy 2 years ago
I must defer to moghedien on this one, meltzerboy. Your infatuation with the Grande Dame is all too evident. But in the case of Violetta you have a case, but not much.
glummdelclitch 2 years ago
As the French saying goes: "Chacun a son gout."
meltzerboy 2 years ago
Oh my God, Violetta - a prostitute! Hey, this is an opera, not a reality show. From your mouth "deadly disease" sounds like siphillis.
Besides, there is a great difference between a prostitute and a courtesan.
Fairpavel 2 years ago
The ability to sing a messa di voce was already uncommon even among recorded singers of the past. I think of Rosa Ponselle, who executes a perfect messa di voce at the start of "Pace, Pace Mio Dio," Lily Pons in her "Caro Nome" for example, Tetazzini and Galli-Curci in several recordings, Chaliapin and Caruso on occasion. I'm sure there were others, but again not too many.
meltzerboy 2 years ago
Apparently the messa di voce effect initiated in the baroque era, I guess it became used more sparingly and eventually got to the point of hardly ever being used.
Did you take a listen to that Una furtiva lagrima?
Mooorhe 2 years ago
In this performance of "Una furtiva lagrima" and in several others I've heard, Pavarotti displays beautiful tone, clean line, controlled passion, and superior technique, including a well-defined messa di voce and even admirable piano singing. Chapeaus bas! Did you ever hear the old recordings of the aria by De Lucia and Caruso? Both are outstanding.
meltzerboy 2 years ago
My favourite rendition after that one is probably Schipa's or Gigli's. De Lucia's is excellent and Caruso's is not to my tastes, but I can't fault it.
Mooorhe 2 years ago
I don't remember Gigli's version, but Schipa's was fabulous. Caruso recorded the aria several times; I'm talking about his 1904 recording on YT I believe.
meltzerboy 2 years ago
Gigli's is very good, I often it hard to choose between Gigli and Schipa. Both are singers who I believe should be ranked with Caruso as singers who should be put aside before even considering 'the rest', but I think that Schipa was the better singer despite Gigli having the most beautiful voice in recorded history (in my opinion).
I would have put Bjorling in that group if he had the same control of dynamics as they did and handled Italian half as well.
Mooorhe 2 years ago