Sublime and gorgeous. Even at a very young age, Joan Sutherland was a very intelligent and accomplished singer. Her high notes and trills are truly non pareil.
She really was an enormous woman. Here she manages not only to absolutely dwarf the male pianist but ALSO the grand piano at which he sits. Luckily this generally granted her a heroic appearance, to match her sound.
Fascinating how some people think they're in the position to criticize a Singer of her level. If one's not a Singer themselves and doesn't know the difficulties and the dozens of aspects one has to master I think one's not in the position to state criticism about intonation, technique, sound, pace. One can like or dislike anything. Sure. But be aware of your own position and mastery before you make statements based on semi-knowledge. And most of the times it is just that.
I don't agree with you about having to be a singer to make valid comments but take your point about someone of Joan Sutherland's level of achievement. Listening to many, many great and not so great singers over the years gives you a very good idea of what constitutes excellence over mediocrity. That said, of course you are right about the difficulties a singer must overcome and which are not readily apparent to the average listener. Naturally you will get comments on Y.T from people who haven't a clue about the subject they are pontificating on because they have heard so little as to not be in a position to make a genuine judgment.
I love Caballe, and saw her in San Francisco, but Sutherland's tone is the more beautiful of the two in this music, and of course Joan's trills just add to the total effect.
@ludvan64 What I find odd is the idea that she was ugly...she's beautiful here...the noble chin, the high cheekbones, perfect beehive do. She was not stunning in the Anna Moffo model (but neither was Anna Moffo, really...until the nose job) but she is perfectly lovely. And that voice is, and always will be, one of the world's great wonders.
@stiemogo If Handel had ever had the opportunity to hear Sutherland's voice, he may have changed his mind about a few things......or perhaps he would have been too dumb-stuck to comment at all. We will never know, but this version is absolutely lovely, and I wouldn't change a thing.
Well to MY ear this is singing at a very high level.....the trills are better than anyone on EARTH can sing them.......I just found it hard to watch because this is during her "head tilting " phase......and for some reason she looks like a giant.....or poor Mr Moore is a tiny tiny man.......I thought a small part of this SEEMED to be out of tune.....but it could be the age of the film they used to record it All in all.....as per her usual ability....she sings like no one else in the world
Okay, you had me laughing at "head tilting phase" george prentice. You are correct about being in tune as well. Sutherland's attack on the first (crucial) note is out of tune, but she recovers and corrects it. All in all, a lovely performance of an extremely difficult piece of music. Have you watched the Price performance of Care that I posted? It is ravishing!
Okay "head lilting phase" and "giant" just got me giggling. The fact the pianist is only about 5' tall definitely makes a woman of 6'+ without shoes look quite like a giantess. Lol it's good for stage presence though!! ;)
@@LaDivinaLover Joan Sutherland was 5 feet 9 inches in height (reference her autobiography A Prima Donna's Progress). She always appeared taller because of her wigs, bouffant hairstyles and headdresses.
We are fortunate this was saved, the future will determine the true great one's and I believe Joan Sutherland is one of them. To me she is beautiful so I disagree with ludvan64. Individual interpretation of beautiful is not a visual but a feeling. A child understands this when a mother loves unconditionally, as well as from the father. I thought that was the meaning of Handel's "Care Selve".
As I always say, if the most important thing to you is diction then you probably aren’t a lover of spectacular singing. None of the greats were known for their amazing diction. Excellent diction is an attribute typically possessed by smaller voiced singers, as well as “singers” of early music. No thanks.
@JefferyK It was two years before this 1961 recital. She had the surgery immediately after her success as Lucia in Covent Garden. There really wasn't any change in how she sounded directly before and after the surgery, so we can attribute any changes in her sounds to aging and vocal training.
What? The last castrato was Alessandro Moreschi who died long before Sutherland. And Sutherland was a cisgender female, not a castrato. Please don’t spread false information.
Yes people... even La Stupenda can sing flat some times. Though its by such a small fraction that for me, at least, it has no effect what-so-ever in the overall interpretation of this most heavenly piece. I still find astonishing that someone who is famous for having a huge voice, can sing this incredibly intimate piece so beautifully. You are and will always be my eternal Prima Donna, Joan. Rest in peace.
Hahaha...perhaps my comment was misinterpreted. Sutherland sings "Care Selve" beautifully, despite her head being twisted to the side. It makes me curious as to if it could have been even BETTER if her larynx were more aligned. I'm sure Sutherland said the same upon viewing this recording of herself. "Why is my head all twisted to the side? I had no idea!"
@afrikasouth That comment was directed toward "Hako2004", who said Handel would have changed things had he heard this version. Why must every comment people post be in argument with other posts? My comment isn't killing opera. And my observations about this video have been truthful and honest. And there are many books written on how the music of Handel's time was to be performed. This is not all modern interpretation, as you said. - Music Graduate - Sara Tiemogo
Sutherland is excellent. but was not too sure of the end trill though. but like that of the beginning. diction was and always remains an issue. but wonderful
Love it! Unfortunately before the revival of early music, baroque was performed with more heaviness due to the instruments and playing styles. I'm not saying that it's better to hear "choral or english" (not to offend... just using a familiar general association) voices only sing pre-classical music. Many voices of that type lack the dramatic content and "steel" that is required in operatic lit.
I think that all types of voices sang Händel, Mozart and other "early" composers back then. It was the training that was important, not the size of the voice (though of course it had to be big enough to be heard even at the back row of the theatre). And I absolutely agree with the lat part of your comment - however beautifully and "correctly" singers with voices of the Emma Kirkby-type can sing (and that isn't in any way intended as a derogatory remark about that very gifted soprano) they can lack some of the dramatic colouring that brings and opera alive.
Who cares about Price when discussing the art of Joan Sutherland? If you don't like this then please tell us why, based on what Sutherland DOES, instead of what she DOESN'T do ( = sound like Price).
She sang this much better later in her career and in the proper key. This is not a good recording and her trills are bel canto instead of Baroque. Still, her voice is always beautiful. My favorite is still Alma Gluck's 1916 interpretation.
Dadacomero that is not entirely correct, though I get your point - a genuine trill is what is needed for both baroque and bel canto. But the difference is that in baroque a correct trill is done from the note above - for instance, if a trill is written on an A, you start the trill on B and trill "downwards". Whereas in bel canto, if the trill is written on A, you start it on A and trill "upwards".
Not really a given. Read Bach's treatise on trills. You really can do whatever you want as long as it is rhythmic and planned out. The baroque trills start on the upper note thing is a myth.
And just to make things interesing, I must say....Handel would not have liked the operatic runs between the pitches. He WOULD have encouraged ornamentation, but only pure, clean melismas, not "sweeping" ones...(hoping this excites some conversation...smiles wickedly)
@Hako2004 Yes, perhaps. If Handel ever heard my pop music, maybe he would change genres entirely. :) ....I have stuff on my channel, but it's not classical music. :P
Gorgeous heroically gentle sound, but the diction and overall phrasing is disappointing. Due to the smudged consonants, she could never emphasise phrases with any kind of feeling or musicality.
Different singers have difficult gifts, no matter how great they were. Sutherland' method, no matter which faults you may find with it, reaped its own rewards, as did Callas', at least until she had ruined her voice in an attempt to satisfy people like you ;)
The words don't matter as much? Says who? *eye roll* Love Joan, but found the trills unnecessary and her diction extra mushy and her sound very covered. Not my favorite
In these particular baroque arias, there are few simple words which are repeated several times so the words really aren't that important. Her voice more than makes up for it, and I love the trills! Joan had the best trills ever.
Passionless? What a ridiculous, biased comment. This aria is a serene expression of Meleagro's feelings about his feelings for his beloved woods, not some sort of veristic yelp about jealousy. Sutherland's serene singing of this aria is completely within the stylistic bounds of the music.
I am dumbfounded at your comment. She descended a touch too far on the final G#, but have you ever sung this? I have and it's brutal. Everyone has their own tastes, but your comment is out of touch with reality.
