# A Maria Callas Poll



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Just curious among opera folks here on TC. Votes are anonymous.

EDIT: Poll question should be "Where *do* you stand..." not "Where *to* you stand..."


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

I voted for option #4.

There was a time about twelve years ago when I was absolutely crazy about Maria Callas. Today I'm nowhere near as infatuated as I was then, though I still do respect her and love several of her recordings.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Also option 4 although in my case it is not because I enjoy her less than before but because I just don't have the interest in the majority of her repertoire that I did many (many) years ago. There are still things that I do enjoy and recently I rediscovered the pleasures of her French opera recitals.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

From the very first. At 14 or 15 I heard her 1949 recital, her Santuzza and Nedda, and her Norma. In that repertoire, there was no place to go from there but down, and somehow I knew right away that she had something in her mind and spirit that most other singers didn't. I'm not equally fond of everything she did (depending mainly on the state of her voice), and I don't listen to her often any more since I've spent more time discovering many other extraordinary singers from down the ages who have their own superb qualities. But she gave me, at an early age, the greatest lesson I've ever had in how to bring opera, and music in general, to life.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

Except some Verdi, I just don't care for the repertoire that she sang, and for the Verdi I usually prefer other more modern recordings anyway.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

For Callas I chose Other: "An artist of world-shaking import, whose voice is an immortal affair, the likes of which, and despite the doctrine of Eternal Return, the world will never see again."

I've heard more beautiful 'singing' but never singing more beautifully 'expressed.'

Her_ Armida_ and Florence _Medea_ literally galvanize me. Her Berlin_ Lucia _and Covent Garden _Traviata_ reduce me to quivering rubble. Her _Butterfly_ slays me. Her _femme fatale_ Delilah empowers me. Her minxy Rosina completely captivates me.

I've never come across such protean performance art anywhere- where so many disparate characters are sung to such flesh-and-blood perfection.

After hearing Callas so many singers sound comparatively monochromatic to me.

I love her so much. I really can't convey what her art means to me or how sublimely I'm touched by it.

_Gloria in Excelsis Diosa._

Okay, I'll stop- my Mariolatry only goes so far. _;D_


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

I was a fan of the opera Don Carlos, but never loved Tu Che La Vanita until I heard Callas's version. Then I began to understand her artistry. Voice aside, she had an inate ability to get inside the character she was portraying.

In Oh Mio Babbino Caro, only her rendition seems able to portray Lauretta as a young (and manipulative) girl. Most singers seem to believe it's an aria from La Boheme or something.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

It was love at first sight (well, in this case, at first listening).

Singing this in a record at home, in my early teens:






Many years after, I'm still amazed at the way she was able to sing just about everything, but especially Bellini's music, that seems to be written with her in mind. So easy to close your eyes, and pretend you are at La Scala, in 1831, listening to the premiere of "Norma", and to Giuditta Pasta...


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

I voted for 'Never warmed up to Callas and don't care for her singing' but only because I feel that way about every female singer.

To my ears, the sound of the female voice is like nails down a chalkboard. This means I can never enjoy opera like a normal fan but I love the music so much I just put up with it.

More operas like _Billy Budd_ please.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Have you tried Gerald Barry's "The Bitter Tears of Petra von Kant"?...:devil:


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

sospiro said:


> I voted for 'Never warmed up to Callas and don't care for her singing' but only because I feel that way about every female singer.
> 
> To my ears, the sound of the female voice is like nails down a chalkboard. This means I can never enjoy opera like a normal fan but I love the music so much I just put up with it.
> 
> More operas like _Billy Budd_ please.


So you're the one I heard cheering during the final scene of Dialogues des Carmelites at Covent Garden. :devil:


----------



## Tietjens Stolz (Jun 2, 2015)

I voted for #2.

I first heard Callas many years ago at a time when I was just into opera. At that point virtually all of the repertoire she sang was terra incognita for me. Yet even though it wasn't love on first hearing, I was struck by its capability of expressing deep emotions and feelings. Over the years that follow, when I become more and more familiar with the works of Rossini, Bellini, Donizetti, Verdi, Ponchielli and Puccini (well beyond my early interest in mainly Mozart operas), I have been able to appreciate more and more her unique gifts, which play hugely significant role in opening up the wider world of opera to me.

As I become more familiar with the history of opera, I came to understand Callas as the 20th-century reincarnation of a long-disappearing breed of early 19th-century prima donnas called the dramatica d'agilita, exemplified by Giuditta Pasta (1797 - 1865) and Maria Malibran (1808 - 1836). Contemporary reports remarked widely on the lack of classical beauty, the unevenness and even harshness of their voices _per se_. Yet they were hugely admired in their day not just for their technical virtuosity but more importantly for their infinite dramatic power and ability to invest their roles with a wide variety of vocal colours and tones to portray a wide spectrum of emotions and psychological states. It was for the voice of Giuditta Pasta that Bellini wrote the roles of Norma, Anna Bolena and Amina in La Sonnambula. Whereas Maria Malibran was deeply admired as Maria Stuarda, Norma, Amina and many other bel canto roles. Maria Malibran's younger sister Pauline Viadort (1821 - 1910), who took on the mantle of her elder sister after Malibran's untimely death, was another representative figure of this breed. She was admired by composers no less as Chopin, Berlioz, Saint-Saens and Meyerbeer. Meyerbeer wrote the role Fides in Le Prophete for her, while Saint-Saens dedicated Samson and Delilah to her.

Callas revived the qualities of the early 19th-century Soprano dramatica d'agilita in the middle of the 20th century and brought them to new heights. Understandably she prove to be aesthetically challenging, even disturbing to many as she thrill and enlighten many at the same time.


----------



## gardibolt (May 22, 2015)

From the first. There's just nothing like that voice. It's not a beautiful voice, but it's overwhelming.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

I voted, "Loved Callas but lost interest--rarely listen to her anymore." This is not to demean her in any way, but I think I went in with both feet and became overwhelmed to the point of losing interest. The other problem is very little of her operatic repertoire appealed to me, so I had mostly aria sets, and those can only go so far.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

schigolch said:


> Have you tried Gerald Barry's "The Bitter Tears of Petra von Kant"?...:devil:


Hahaha!!

:scold:


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

sospiro said:


> I voted for 'Never warmed up to Callas and don't care for her singing' but only because I feel that way about every female singer.
> 
> To my ears, the sound of the female voice is like nails down a chalkboard. This means I can never enjoy opera like a normal fan but I love the music so much I just put up with it.
> 
> More operas like _Billy Budd_ please.


Your first two paragraphs mostly sum it up for me as well. I could elaborate further but I'm pretty much done on this subject. 

(I didn't want to select option 3 because although it's literally true of me, it possibly implies I have a problem with Callas specifically, when the truth is just that I'm more interested in male voices and earlier recordings.)


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Don Fatale said:


> So you're the one I heard cheering during the final scene of Dialogues des Carmelites at Covent Garden. :devil:


Wasn't me guv. 

If ever they did a Nuns In Drag version, I'd go and see that.


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

Just as an aside, can I ask Figleaf and Sospiro if it's just the female Operatic voice you don't enjoy or is it also true in other forms of music?

I have a slight preferences for female voices in Opera but Male in more 'popular' music.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Belowpar said:


> Just as an aside, can I ask Figleaf and Sospiro if it's just the female Operatic voice you don't enjoy or is it also true in other forms of music?
> 
> I have a slight preferences for female voices in Opera but Male in more 'popular' music.


I prefer male voices in rock and pop but like female folk singers who possibly sing lower. Love Joan Baez.

I don't mind a rich fruity contralto so it must have something to do with the pitch. I had this conversation with my opera pal who adores sopranos and I suggested it might be to do with our ears. She reckons hers are delicate and shell-like and mine are big and hairy.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Unfortunately the first time I heard Callas was in the Carmen she recorded when the voice had become unpleasant to listen to. In more recent years I've got quite a few of her recordings and admire her artistry and even the sheer beauty of her voice when she was younger.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Unfortunately the first time I heard Callas was in the Carmen she recorded when the voice had become unpleasant to listen to. In more recent years I've got quite a few of her recordings and admire her artistry and even the sheer beauty of her voice when she was younger.


_Carmen_ was recorded in 1964, the same year as the famous Covent Garden _Tosca_ preserved on film. I think it's fascinating that she sounds perfectly soprano-like as Tosca but has a smoky, sultry mezzo quality as Carmen. The latter role rarely takes her into the high range where the late-career wobble began, and the rest of her voice is perfectly secure and steady, so the quality you find unpleasant must be mainly a matter of coloration. For me that coloration is highly evocative and "in character," and not unpleasant at all. Her late recordings of French arias, many of them for mezzo, exhibit this darker timbre, and some of us actually like it. When I first heard her Carmen I loved the sound she made, and when I played the "Habanera" for a friend his eyes lit up and he said "Wow! Sexy!"

Of course there's no arguing with taste.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> _Carmen_ was recorded in 1964, the same year as the famous Covent Garden _Tosca_ preserved on film. I think it's fascinating that she sounds perfectly soprano-like as Tosca but has a smoky, sultry mezzo quality as Carmen. The latter role rarely takes her into the high range where the late-career wobble began, and the rest of her voice is perfectly secure and steady, so the quality you find unpleasant must be mainly a matter of coloration. For me that coloration is highly evocative and "in character," and not unpleasant at all. Her late recordings of French arias, many of them for mezzo, exhibit this darker timbre, and some of us actually like it. When I first heard her Carmen I loved the sound she made, and when I played the "Habanera" for a friend his eyes lit up and he said "Wow! Sexy!"
> 
> *Of course there's no arguing with taste.*


Of course. I have Callas Carmen and have never been able to get on with the sound of it. It certainly divides opinion. Pretre doesn't help and the supporting cast isn't much help. Your friend must have a different idea of 'sexy' to an acquaintance of mine who said it sounded terrible and couldn't believe it was the celebrated Callas! As you say, no accounting for taste! :lol:
As to the Tosca she recorded with Pretre it was noted at the time in reviews how the voice had deteriorated and it was remarked how she had to rely on the stunning visual effect she created on stage to bring the role off.
Interesting that the live recording made at Covent Garden 24 January 1964 has Callas in much better form than the studio made in the December of that year.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Belowpar said:


> I have a slight preferences for female voices in Opera but Male in more 'popular' music.


I am the same way, but my preference is stronger than slight. The most difficult voice for me in opera is the tenor. For some reason, many tenors have a piercing quality to their voices that grates on my ear. Very few tenors work well for me.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Belowpar said:


> Just as an aside, can I ask Figleaf and Sospiro if it's just the female Operatic voice you don't enjoy or is it also true in other forms of music?
> 
> I have a slight preferences for female voices in Opera but Male in more 'popular' music.


I think I've always preferred male voices to female, though it wasn't a bias I was conscious of until I heard opera with its infamously shrieky women. Of course with practice it's possible to ignore them to some extent, or (more ideally) to appreciate the artistry and intelligence without expecting to get much in the way of sensual pleasure from the voice itself. I've been mostly 'off' pop music for quite a few years now, but I was quite a big Judy Garland fan in my childhood and early teens, and I still have the odd CD by female vocalists such as Bessie Smith and Julie London. With pop singers, and to an equal but less widely recognised extent with opera singers too, it's very much about the individual vocal personality of the singer, and there are always going to be a few whose personalities appeal to us even when the vocal category they belong to generally doesn't. Thus, there are a few women singers I listen to with pleasure, though in my case they are usually early ones with small discographies, e.g. Adelina Patti, Emma Calvé, Eugenia Mantelli. I have bought recordings by singers of the calibre of Rosa Ponselle and Felia Litvinne in the hope of being converted, but what generally happens is that while I can recognise the rare quality of the voice it doesn't really move me or interest me much, which would absolutely not be the case with male singers of the same calibre.

I don't know if high female voices are better or worse than low ones. Individual timbre must have more to do with it. Shrieky high pitched pop singers like Emmylou Harris or Gracie Fields are about equally as bad as hooty mooing ones like Heather Small. In opera, the most disagreeable timbres to me personally seem to belong to mezzos who potentially combine the shrieky edgy soprano sound with the obscene moo of the contralto in order to inflict maximum pain.  Yet many of the ladies in my vocal Chamber of Horrors would be on other opera lovers' lists of the Greatest Voices Ever (okay, maybe not Gracie...) Maybe it's my big hairy ears! :lol:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Of course. I have Callas Carmen and have never been able to get on with the sound of it. It certainly divides opinion. Pretre doesn't help and the supporting cast isn't much help. Your friend must have a different idea of 'sexy' to an acquaintance of mine who said it sounded terrible and couldn't believe it was the celebrated Callas! As you say, no accounting for taste! :lol:
> As to the Tosca she recorded with Pretre it was noted at the time in reviews how the voice had deteriorated and it was remarked how she had to rely on the stunning visual effect she created on stage to bring the role off.
> Interesting that the live recording made at Covent Garden 24 January 1964 has Callas in much better form than the studio made in the December of that year.


I was surprised at how solid she sounded at Covent Garden, the odd high note aside, given the date. It was definitely not a case of acting making up for poor vocalism, which was not poor at all; that "Vissi d'arte," not counting the climactic note, is a powerful, magnificently controlled piece of singing. I think her problems were partly psychological (Gobbi opined that it was a loss of confidence, though I think that oversimplified the case). Even in the '50s, she could have good nights and bad nights, and she did have health problems for much of her life. Apparently her last Toscas at the Met in '65 were not so good vocally, but, as Beverly Sills commented, "Her voice was gone, but in twenty minutes you weren't aware of it."


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

*


Florestan said:



I voted, "Loved Callas but lost interest--rarely listen to her anymore." This is not to demean her in any way, but I think I went in with both feet and became overwhelmed to the point of losing interest. The other problem is very little of her operatic repertoire appealed to me, so I had mostly aria sets, and those can only go so far.

Click to expand...

*Callas overwhelmed you.

And now she underwhelms you.

By what exciting standard of female singer?


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> _Carmen_ was recorded in 1964, the same year as the famous Covent Garden _Tosca_ preserved on film. I think it's fascinating that she sounds perfectly soprano-like as Tosca but has a smoky, sultry mezzo quality as Carmen. The latter role rarely takes her into the high range where the late-career wobble began, and the rest of her voice is perfectly secure and steady, so the quality you find unpleasant must be mainly a matter of coloration. For me that coloration is highly evocative and "in character," and not unpleasant at all. Her late recordings of French arias, many of them for mezzo, exhibit this darker timbre, and some of us actually like it. *When I first heard her Carmen I loved the sound she made, and when I played the "Habanera" for a friend his eyes lit up and he said "Wow! Sexy!"
> 
> Of course there's no arguing with taste. *


Oh, Callas just 'exudes' _gitanilla femme fatale_ to me.

I've never heard a Carmen more exotic sounding and more in control of her sexuality than hers.

Her artistry is a perfect portraiture of the Merimee story.

No wonder Nietzsche fell in love with the opera.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Oh, Callas just 'exudes' _gitanilla femme fatale_ to me.
> 
> I've never heard a Carmen more exotic sounding and more in control of her sexuality than hers.
> 
> ...


Well that pretty well sums it up doesn't it.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

*


Woodduck said:



Well that pretty well sums it up doesn't it.

Click to expand...

*In a bowdlerized-kind-of-'non'-Marschallin-way, yes.


----------



## Tietjens Stolz (Jun 2, 2015)

Florestan said:


> I voted, "Loved Callas but lost interest--rarely listen to her anymore." This is not to demean her in any way, but I think I went in with both feet and became overwhelmed to the point of losing interest. The other problem is very little of her operatic repertoire appealed to me, so I had mostly aria sets, and those can only go so far.





Marschallin Blair said:


> Callas overwhelmed you.
> 
> And now she underwhelms you.
> 
> By what exciting standard of female singer?


Florestan dear, afraid you have to face the 'fierce wrath' of Der Feldmarschallin, especially since you are the one who have opened the Pandora's box by starting this poll. :lol:

...and frankly, we already have more than enough Callas threads here on TC.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Panorama said:


> *Florestan dear, afraid you have to face the 'fierce wrath' of Der Feldmarschallin*, especially since you are the one who have opened the Pandora's box by starting this poll. :lol:
> 
> ...and frankly, we already have more than enough Callas threads here on TC.


Pannnie, I'd be scarlet with scandal if I didn't tell you that I said what I said out of '*LOVE*.'

Love for the Diva and her art.

Okay, now we can collapse into hugs and kisses. _;D_


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Callas overwhelmed you.
> 
> And now she underwhelms you.
> 
> By what exciting standard of female singer?


She's in my signature, but I would not say Callas underwhelms me by a different standard of female singer, or by any standard. She is great. It's just that her voice is not as appealing to me now as it was a year ago.


----------



## Tietjens Stolz (Jun 2, 2015)

Well.....there was actually a period of time when the voice of the Violetta portrayed by the stunningly beautiful and alluring Virginia Zeani appealed to me more than the Violetta of Callas (this would raise the eyebrows of our Der Feldmarschallin :lol.

I still love Zeani's Violetta, but eventually I find myself coming back repeatedly to Callas to marvel at and savour the sheer variety of her vocal colours and nuances and the inimitable ways she shapes the words and phrases to illuminate the psychological state of the character, qualities that Zeani even at her very best is not quite able to offer.









(The beautiful Virginia Zeani with her movie-star look - Callas was said to be deeply jealous of her. When she married Callas' long-time friend and colleague bass Nicola Rossi-Lemeni in 1957, Callas severed her artistic relationship with Rossi-Lemeni for good)









(Photo courtesy of Principessa Plummie)


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Florestan said:


> She's in my signature, but *I would not say Callas underwhelms me by a different standard of female singer, or by any standard. She is great. * It's just that her voice is not as appealing to me now as it was a year ago.





















Far be it from me to foist Olympus on anyone.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

*


Panorama said:



The beautiful Virginia Zeani with her movie-star look - Callas was said to be deeply jealous of her. When she married Callas' long-time friend and colleague bass Nicola Rossi-Lemeni in 1957, Callas severed her artistic relationship with Rossi-Lemeni for good.

Click to expand...

*










I find it hard to imagine Callas jealous of anyone.


----------



## Tietjens Stolz (Jun 2, 2015)

Marschallin Blair said:


> *
> *
> 
> 
> ...


Callas had reasons to be jealous of Zeani. Zeani possessed superb pedigree - her teacher Lydia Lipkowska (1882-1955) had been a pupil of the highly esteemed Pauline Viadort, sister of the legendary Diva Maria Malibran. She also studied under Aureliano Pertile, one of the biggest tenor names in Italy in the interwar years, the Primo Divo of La Scala and a big favourite of Toscanini. Besides being blessed with a movie-star look that is even more beautiful and alluring than Elizabeth Taylor, as well as a beautiful and affecting voice, Zeani learnt from her teachers the art of meaningful phrasing as well interpretive skills to effectively characterize each and every role she sang. If I remember correctly she took Callas' place as Elvira in Puritani in Florence in 1952 conducted by Tullio Serafin. And she made a successful debut at La Scala in December 1956 as Cleopatra in Handel's Giulio Cesare while Callas was away in the US.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Marschallin Blair said:


> *
> *
> 
> 
> ...


Our documentation of Zeani may not give us a complete picture of her artistry, but we have enough to know that she was a beautiful woman who had a blend of dramatic power and vocal security which made her the nearest thing Callas had to a rival in her repertoire, and one whose voice was purer and more reliable, if less expressively colored and distinctive.






Hearing that, I can believe even Callas would be jealous. And who was Nicolae Herlea? That's "golden age" baritoning, whenever we think the golden age was.


----------



## Tietjens Stolz (Jun 2, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Our documentation of Zeani may not give us a complete picture of her artistry, but we have enough to know that she was a beautiful woman who had a blend of dramatic power and vocal security which made her the nearest thing Callas had to a rival in her repertoire, and one whose voice was purer and more reliable, if less expressively colored and distinctive.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We have derailed this thread terribly. :lol: Think I should start a Virgina Zeani thread some time down the road.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Panorama said:


> We have derailed this thread terribly. :lol: Think I should start a Virgina Zeani thread some time down the road.


Don't worry. Any thread about any soprano is likely to be similarly derailed by Callamania. Start a Zeani thread and see for yourself.

It's best just to smile, shrug, and go with the flow.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Figleaf said:


> In opera, the most disagreeable timbres to me personally seem to belong to mezzos who potentially combine the shrieky edgy soprano sound with the obscene moo of the contralto in order to inflict maximum pain.  Yet many of the ladies in my vocal Chamber of Horrors would be on other opera lovers' lists of the Greatest Voices Ever (okay, maybe not Gracie...) Maybe it's my big hairy ears! :lol:


:lol:

Yep it must be the ears!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> I was surprised at how solid she sounded at Covent Garden, the odd high note aside, given the date. It was definitely not a case of acting making up for poor vocalism, which was not poor at all; that "Vissi d'arte," not counting the climactic note, is a powerful, magnificently controlled piece of singing. I think her problems were partly psychological (Gobbi opined that it was a loss of confidence, though I think that oversimplified the case). Even in the '50s, she could have good nights and bad nights, and she did have health problems for much of her life. Apparently her last Toscas at the Met in '65 were not so good vocally, but, as Beverly Sills commented, "Her voice was gone, but in twenty minutes you weren't aware of it."


This is pretty in line with the reviews of her singing of the time. When reviewing the studio performance the Gramophone said how much she had come to rely on her stage presence for the role and for all the intelligence she just couldn't do what she used to with the voice. Why the de Sabata is so highly regarded but the Pretre is not. The night at Covent Garden was regarded as a 'triumph' by the press. But a year later she was asked to revive the role and said she could only do one performance - the ROYAL GALA. Solti who was musical director at the time felt this unacceptable and she should do all or none. He had to be persuaded from resigning over this issue. In the end, Maria Collier stepped in for the remaining performances which were a triumph for her. Solti comments: "The truth is that she [Callas] had not been behaving whimsically - the voice was really deteriorating.' 
Solti adds: People often talk about the Callas legend, but for me she did not have such a great voice as her rival, Renata Tebaldi. Callas, however, had a magic about her; when she was on stage, you could not keep your eyes off her."
That probably just about sums it up. Hence Sills' remark you quoted.
Of course, there are some admirers of Callas who reckon she couldn't do anything wrong but to me these folk tend to lose their objectivity in their worship of the great diva. They even reckon no-one else should have an opinion! :lol: But it takes all sorts.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Panorama said:


> *Callas had reasons to be jealous of Zeani. *Zeani possessed superb pedigree - her teacher Lydia Lipkowska (1882-1955) had been a pupil of the highly esteemed Pauline Viadort, sister of the legendary Diva Maria Malibran. She also studied under Aureliano Pertile, one of the biggest tenor names in Italy in the interwar years, the Primo Divo of La Scala and a big favourite of Toscanini. Besides being blessed with a movie-star look that is even more beautiful and alluring than Elizabeth Taylor, as well as a beautiful and affecting voice, Zeani learnt from her teachers the art of meaningful phrasing as well interpretive skills to effectively characterize each and every role she sang. If I remember correctly she took Callas' place as Elvira in Puritani in Florence in 1952 conducted by Tullio Serafin. And she made a successful debut at La Scala in December 1956 as Cleopatra in Handel's Giulio Cesare while Callas was away in the US.


Is this speculation?

You may be right. I don't know, myself.

But what 'proof' do you have of Callas' jealousy of Zeani?

Its conceivable. Callas is a 'Greek' goddess, after all.

I don't intuitively think its the case though.

From what I've read of Callas, she could be monumentally insecure about her 'own' looks or performing ability- but I've never seen any prima facie evidence that she was jealous of anyone.

I mean, I've come across more than a few lies, legends, and cherished myths about Callas: that she arrogantly walked off the set of the Rome _Anna Bolena_ with the Italian president in attendance; that she capriciously left the Edinburgh _Sonnambula_ so that she could go to a gala that Elsa Maxwell was throwing for her; that she threw a vase at a colleague's head in a temper tantrum- all gross distortions of what actually happened.

I just wonder if this alleged jealousy of hers is just another sensationalist smear.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Don't worry.* Any thread about any soprano is likely to be similarly derailed by Callamania. Start a Zeani thread and see for yourself. *
> 
> It's best just to smile, shrug, and go with the flow.


By the by, where 'are' all the myriad Zeani, Fleming, or Birgit Nilsson threads?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Of course, there are some admirers of Callas who reckon she couldn't do anything wrong but to me these folk tend to lose their objectivity in their worship of the great diva. They even reckon no-one else should have an opinion! :lol: But it takes all sorts.


There are fanatical admirers of many singers - actually, of almost anyone or anything you can think of - who lack knowledge or objectivity and don't see the flaws in their idols. Then there are those who see the flaws but are willing to overlook them. Very few people, I'd venture, reckon that Callas was a perfect singer. I've never known anyone to claim that.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Marschallin Blair said:


> By the by, where 'are' all the myriad Zeani, Fleming, or Birgit Nilsson threads?


I don't know, but I'm too old and tired to start one. If I were young and full of zest, I might begin with Frida Leider, one of the sopranos I'd most like to have seen and heard live.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> There are fanatical admirers of many singers - actually, of almost anyone or anything you can think of - who lack knowledge or objectivity and don't see the flaws in their idols. Then there are those who see the flaws but are willing to overlook them. Very few people, I'd venture, reckon that Callas was a perfect singer. I've never known anyone to claim that.


Some of the comments I read on TC seem to imply that for some people she could do no wrong. And why not if it makes them happy?


----------



## Diminuendo (May 5, 2015)

Love at first listen definitely. Callas really got me interested in opera and older opera singers as well. Di Stefano being one of them. Callas really showed me what opera could be and thanks to her I now know what I want from singers.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Virginia Zeani was a great singer, indeed. She sang many roles, and very different roles too: Cleopatra, Blanche de la Force (she was in the premiere at La Scala, in 1957), Elvira, Lucia, Violetta (more than 600 performances!!!), Alzira, Elsa, Tosca, Manon Lescaut, Adriana Lecoruvreur... And she got the looks, too!.

Her voice was warm, dark in the low and middle register, but flexible and bright in the top notes (except the very top). She was able also to phrase with intention, and boasted a fine legato. Singing Traviata she was passionate, perhaps too passionate in some pieces like "Addio del passato", but all in all, an excellent Violetta.

But an artist like Maria Callas, she was not.


----------



## Tietjens Stolz (Jun 2, 2015)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Is this speculation?
> 
> You may be right. I don't know, myself.
> 
> ...


Yes it's a speculation.

At best we only have the circumstantial evidence of Callas ending her artistic relations with Rossi-Lemeni forever following Rossi-Lemeni's marriage with Zeani in 1957.

Here is what Zeani said in an interview with Jon Tolansky in 2009 (published in Classic Record Collector, Spring 2010):

"*Before I met my husband, he has been instrumental in creating the opportunity for Maria Callas to go to Italy *[note: that happened in 1947]. *He had met Callas in her agent's *[i.e. the scoundrel Eddie Bagarozy] *house, and he introduced her to Giovanni Zonatello, who was by then the artistic director of the Verona Festival. Callas auditioned for him and he engaged her to sing in La Gioconda conducted by Tullio Serfain, which of course was her big debut success. Now when I married Nicola nine years later, she was upset with him. She did not want to make anymore recordings with him, and their friendship finished. In a way, Callas knew I was a little bit her rival.*"

(Note: even though Rossi-Lemeni continued to appear in Callas' stage performance annals until Anna Bolena at La Scala in 1957, he was entirely out of Callas' recording schedules from 1955 onward, so what Callas probably really meant was that she did not want to sing with Rossi-Lemeni anymore and indeed she never sang with Rossi-Lemeni again after Anna Bolena.)

At least we could say that Callas might have seen Zeani as close to being her rival in the role of Violetta (which Zeani sang to a record high of 648 times in total! It was widely acknowledged as her signature role). This could be possible given Callas' deep pathological insecurity about her own looks and her performing abilities.

For more on the beautiful Virginia Zeani's life and career, including her encounters with Callas, see an interview conducted by Gramilano in October 2015 on the occasion of Zeani's 90th birthday:
http://www.gramilano.com/2015/10/in...-my-brain-believes-that-im-eternally-young/2/


----------



## Wood (Feb 21, 2013)

Figleaf said:


> I think I've always preferred male voices to female, though it wasn't a bias I was conscious of until I heard opera with its infamously shrieky women. Of course with practice it's possible to ignore them to some extent, or (more ideally) to appreciate the artistry and intelligence without expecting to get much in the way of sensual pleasure from the voice itself. I've been mostly 'off' pop music for quite a few years now, but I was quite a big Judy Garland fan in my childhood and early teens, and I still have the odd CD by female vocalists such as Bessie Smith and Julie London. With pop singers, and to an equal but less widely recognised extent with opera singers too, it's very much about the individual vocal personality of the singer, and there are always going to be a few whose personalities appeal to us even when the vocal category they belong to generally doesn't. Thus, there are a few women singers I listen to with pleasure, though in my case they are usually early ones with small discographies, e.g. Adelina Patti, Emma Calvé, Eugenia Mantelli. I have bought recordings by singers of the calibre of Rosa Ponselle and Felia Litvinne in the hope of being converted, but what generally happens is that while I can recognise the rare quality of the voice it doesn't really move me or interest me much, which would absolutely not be the case with male singers of the same calibre.
> 
> I don't know if high female voices are better or worse than low ones. Individual timbre must have more to do with it. *Shrieky high pitched pop singers like Emmylou Harris *or Gracie Fields are about equally as bad as hooty mooing ones like Heather Small. In opera, the most disagreeable timbres to me personally seem to belong to mezzos who potentially combine the shrieky edgy soprano sound with the obscene moo of the contralto in order to inflict maximum pain.  Yet many of the ladies in my vocal Chamber of Horrors would be on other opera lovers' lists of the Greatest Voices Ever (okay, maybe not Gracie...) Maybe it's *my big hairy ears*! :lol:


It is quite rare to see two factual errors in a Figleaf post, but dissing The Voice is just plain wrong, whilst the Figleaf ears are small and hair free (and incredibly cute). :angel:


----------



## Tietjens Stolz (Jun 2, 2015)

Marschallin Blair said:


> ........I mean, I've come across more than a few lies, legends, and cherished myths about Callas: that she arrogantly walked off the set of the Rome _Anna Bolena_.......


Anna Bolena in Rome? Think you made a typo. Shouldn't it be Norma?


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Our documentation of Zeani may not give us a complete picture of her artistry, but we have enough to know that she was a beautiful woman who had a blend of dramatic power and vocal security which made her the nearest thing Callas had to a rival in her repertoire, and one whose voice was purer and more reliable, if less expressively colored and distinctive.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I only know Herlea from a 1966 Pagliacci which was issued originally on Electrecord (and thus presumably unobtainable this side of the Iron Curtain) and reissued on CD on the budget label World of the Opera. A very capable singer. I've always been very impressed by the quality of communist era Romanian vocal recordings.


----------



## Green pasture (Aug 11, 2015)

schigolch said:


> Virginia Zeani was a great singer, indeed. She sang many roles, and very different roles too: Cleopatra, Blanche de la Force (she was in the premiere at La Scala, in 1957), Elvira, Lucia, Violetta (more than 600 performances!!!), Alzira, Elsa, Tosca, Manon Lescaut, Adriana Lecoruvreur... And she got the looks, too!.
> 
> Her voice was warm, dark in the low and middle register, but flexible and bright in the top notes (except the very top). She was able also to phrase with intention, and boasted a fine legato. Singing Traviata she was passionate, perhaps too passionate in some pieces like "Addio del passato", but all in all, an excellent Violetta.
> 
> But an artist like Maria Callas, she was not.


Ditto ;DDDDDDDDDD


----------



## Green pasture (Aug 11, 2015)

Florestan said:


> She's in my signature, but I would not say Callas underwhelms me by a different standard of female singer, or by any standard. She is great. It's just that her voice is not as appealing to me now as it was a year ago.


Wow! What a party! Too bad I can only be here for a little while. ;D

To Florestan: Beverly Sills may be your queen of the moment. BUT here is something you might like to know......

Sills was in the audience that witnessed Maria Callas' legendary La Traviata at Covent Garden in June 1958. This is her own recollection of how she was overwhelmed despite Maria being in less than her best form on the night (quoted by Anthony Tommasini in "Maria Callas: A Voice and a Legend That Still Fascinate", _New York Times_, 15 Sep 1997, on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of Maria's passing)

*"She didn't deceive herself about the state of her singing. She was visibly nervous. But her use of words, the vitality of language in her singing, was amazing. She was hellbent on her own destruction, and broke all the rules of singing. But so what? That's why 20 years later we're [still] talking about her." *

I have heard Sills' Violetta, live and studio. Analysing Sills' recorded performance in the context of her own experience with Callas, I am struck by how closely Sills models her phrasing and word-pointing on Callas. Clearly Callas' Covent Garden Traviata had left a deep and lasting imprint on Sills' mind.

As for my vote, there is no need to guess, I went for #1. ;DDDDDD

Regarding the apparently hot discussion on Maria and Virginia.....I am just leaving it to our Princi-fiercea Marschallin, Woodie and Pannie to sort it out among themselves. ;DDD

Addio. ;DDD


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Panorama said:


> Florestan dear, afraid you have to face the 'fierce wrath' of Der Feldmarschallin, especially since you are the one who have opened the Pandora's box by starting this poll. :lol:
> 
> ...and frankly, we already have more than enough Callas threads here on TC.


My life here at TC has been way too peaceful over the years. I needed a little excitement and now I have it, or am going to get it. :lol:

No, we never have enough Callas threads at TC as evident by the amount of traffic we are getting in this one. (Likewise we never have enough Beethoven symphony cycle threads.)


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

plumblossom said:


>


This is a living work of art.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> *I don't know, but I'm too old and tired to start one. If I were young and full of zest, I might begin with Frida Leider*, one of the sopranos I'd most like to have seen and heard live.












Indulging the Florence "_E che? Io son Medea!_" will roll back your life forty years.

Better than espresso, or even early Metallica.

The Tigress has that effect.

. . . I 'do' need to make more of an acquaintance with the live Frida Leider though.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

*


DavidA said:



Some of the comments I read on TC seem to imply that for some people she could do no wrong. And why not if it makes them happy?

Click to expand...

*









Why not indeed?

If for imaginary Bronze Age gods why not for real Greek ones?

- ' ' goddesses, ' ' I mean.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

*


Panorama said:



Yes it's a speculation.

At best we only have the circumstantial evidence of Callas ending her artistic relations with Rossi-Lemeni forever following Rossi-Lemeni's marriage with Zeani in 1957.

Here is what Zeani said in an interview with Jon Tolansky in 2009 (published in Classic Record Collector, Spring 2010):

"Before I met my husband, he has been instrumental in creating the opportunity for Maria Callas to go to Italy [note: that happened in 1947]. He had met Callas in her agent's [i.e. the scoundrel Eddie Bagarozy] house, and he introduced her to Giovanni Zonatello, who was by then the artistic director of the Verona Festival. Callas auditioned for him and he engaged her to sing in La Gioconda conducted by Tullio Serfain, which of course was her big debut success. Now when I married Nicola nine years later, she was upset with him. She did not want to make anymore recordings with him, and their friendship finished. In a way, Callas knew I was a little bit her rival."

(Note: even though Rossi-Lemeni continued to appear in Callas' stage performance annals until Anna Bolena at La Scala in 1957, he was entirely out of Callas' recording schedules from 1955 onward, so what Callas probably really meant was that she did not want to sing with Rossi-Lemeni anymore and indeed she never sang with Rossi-Lemeni again after Anna Bolena.)

At least we could say that Callas might have seen Zeani as close to being her rival in the role of Violetta (which Zeani sang to a record high of 648 times in total! It was widely acknowledged as her signature role). This could be possible given Callas' deep pathological insecurity about her own looks and her performing abilities.

For more on the beautiful Virginia Zeani's life and career, including her encounters with Callas, see an interview conducted by Gramilano in October 2015 on the occasion of Zeani's 90th birthday:

http://www.gramilano.com/2015/10/in...-my-brain-believes-that-im-eternally-young/2/

Click to expand...

*_Grazzie_, Pannie. _;D_


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> *This is a living work of art.*












I don't want to sound ridiculously sentimental ("No, not me!")- but I just got tears in my eyes with that simple comment.

<_Sotto voce_> 'Thank you.'

I'm listening to Callas' '49 "_Vien, diletto, e in ciel la luna_" from_ Puritani_ right now, and I just kind of lost it when I saw that picture with your perfectly apposite comment.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

*


Panorama said:



Anna Bolena in Rome? Think you made a typo. Shouldn't it be Norma? 

Click to expand...

*- it should be: "a lighter shade of blonde."

Thanks,_ Principessa_.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Figleaf said:


> I only know Herlea from a 1966 Pagliacci which was issued originally on Electrecord (and thus presumably unobtainable this side of the Iron Curtain) and reissued on CD on the budget label World of the Opera. A very capable singer. *I've always been very impressed by the quality of communist era Romanian vocal recordings.*


Me too.

Capitalist technology in communist backwaters does 'wonders.'


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> This is pretty in line with the reviews of her singing of the time. When reviewing the studio performance the Gramophone said how much she had come to rely on her stage presence for the role and for all the intelligence she just couldn't do what she used to with the voice. Why the de Sabata is so highly regarded but the Pretre is not. The night at Covent Garden was regarded as a 'triumph' by the press. But a year later she was asked to revive the role and said she could only do one performance - the ROYAL GALA. Solti who was musical director at the time felt this unacceptable and she should do all or none. He had to be persuaded from resigning over this issue. In the end, Maria Collier stepped in for the remaining performances which were a triumph for her. Solti comments: "The truth is that she [Callas] had not been behaving whimsically - the voice was really deteriorating.'
> Solti adds: People often talk about the Callas legend, but for me she did not have such a great voice as her rival, Renata Tebaldi. Callas, however, had a magic about her; when she was on stage, you could not keep your eyes off her."
> That probably just about sums it up. Hence Sills' remark you quoted.
> Of course, there are some admirers of Callas who reckon she couldn't do anything wrong but to me these folk tend to lose their objectivity in their worship of the great diva. They even reckon no-one else should have an opinion! :lol: But it takes all sorts.


Your Solti story tells me more about him and helps explain why I've never taken to him as a conductor. Tebaldi may have had a more conventionally beautiful voice than Callas, but she didn't have one tenth of Callas's musicianship, something conductors like Giulini, De Sabata, Karajan, Gui, Bernstein and of course Serafin were quick to grasp.

Well as De Sabata once said to Walter Legge, "If the public could understand, as we do, how deeply musical she is, it would be amazed." I suppose those who can't understand that, never will. They probably have other priorities.

The arguments about Callas which still rage today are as old as opera itself, the choice between pure sound and expressive use of sound. I know which side I come down on.

You seem to think that those of us who love her are blind to her faults. We are not. We are probably more aware of them than you are, but, even in some of her late recordings, when the sound is threadbare and thin, when high notes are often curdled and wobbly, there is an expressive truth about her interpretations which brings me back to them. I remember when I first heard the late Verdi sessions, released after she had retired from the operatic stage and at about the same time as those last sad concerts with Di Stefano, I couldn't take to them at all. I thought the voice had deteriorated too much, but something resounded in my mind's ear and I came back to them. Yes, I would love to hear these arias from Attila, I Lombardi and I Vespri Siciliani in Callas's mid 50s voice, but, in intention at least, they outclass all others I have heard. In a single note of recitative, Callas identifies so completely with the emotions of the piece that I find others wanting, however beautiful their sound. But I quite accept that for others this will not be the case.

No matter, Callas's position in the pantheon of great singers is assured. When Gramophone started its Hall of Fame, voted on by its readers, she was the first singer to be chosen and the only one in the top 5 names (the others were all conductors).

Incidentally I voted the first option. I loved her from the outset. She brought opera alive in a way other singers didn't quite. At one time I found all other sopranos wanting. As I matured I learned to enjoy other sopranos too, but for me she is hors concours. Though one's childhood heroes often lose some of their lustre as one gets older, with Callas the reverse has been true. Each year finds me more and more amazed at her achievement, and, believe me, this is no blind idolatry, this has come from hours of listening and study. I can only reiterate what a tearful Caballe said in her charmingly accented and broken English on a Callas tribute shortly after her death.

"Thank you, Maria, for come to us."


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Panorama said:


> Yes it's a speculation.
> 
> At best we only have the circumstantial evidence of Callas ending her artistic relations with Rossi-Lemeni forever following Rossi-Lemeni's marriage with Zeani in 1957.
> 
> ...


Might it also have been that Callas (and Legge) simply began to prefer Nicola Zaccaria, another Greek, with a voice a good deal firmer and more buttery than that of Rossi-Lemeni?


----------



## Tietjens Stolz (Jun 2, 2015)

GregMitchell said:


> Might it also have been that Callas (and Legge) simply began to prefer Nicola Zaccaria, another Greek, with a voice a good deal firmer and more buttery than that of Rossi-Lemeni?


That could be a possible reason. Michael Scott had remarked in his book _Maria Meneghini Callas _ that Rossi-Lemeni's voice lacks full support and one hears air escaping through his tone like leaking gas. I feel the same way, though a number of ardent Virginia Zeani fans I know on YouTube won't be terribly amused and would probably even feel that this is an insult to the beloved husband of their diva.

Another possible reason could be the break-up of the brief marriage between Rossi-Lemeni and Tullio Serafin's daughter Victoria. Rossi-Lemeni, a tall, burly and pretty handsome figure, was a well-known ladies' men in the Italian operatic circle and had flings with one woman after another. I read somewhere that he broke the heart of Victoria Serafin because of his womanizing. This occurred probably sometime in late 1954/early 1955. It would have been most embarrassing for Rossi-Lemeni and Serafin to see and work with each other. That could perhaps also explain why Rossi-Lemeni disappeared from Walter Legge's La Scala recording projects with Callas from 1955 onward. (This is the kind of stuff that could make our Principessa Marschallin scarlet with scandal :lol


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Panorama said:


> Another possible reason could be the break-up of the brief marriage between Rossi-Lemeni and Tullio Serafin's daughter Victoria. Rossi-Lemeni, a tall, burly and pretty handsome figure, was a well-known ladies' men in the Italian operatic circle and had flings with one woman after another. I read somewhere that he broke the heart of Victoria Serafin because of his womanizing. This occurred probably sometime in late 1954/early 1955. It would have been most embarrassing for Rossi-Lemeni and Serafin to see and work with each other. That could perhaps also explain why Rossi-Lemeni disappeared from Walter Legge's La Scala recording projects with Callas from 1955 onward. (This is the kind of stuff that could make our Principessa Marschallin scarlet with scandal :lol


That could also be a plausible explanation. Callas was actually quite a moral person and she may well have broken off relations out of a sense of loyalty to Serafin's daughter.

Yes, she did have an affair with Onassis, but apparently she managed to justify this by telling herself that destiny had brought them together. In any case, according to Nadia Stancioff, her physical relationship with Onassis ended when he married Jackie. Though she never stopped loving him, she never again allowed him into her bed.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

By the way, a note to the three people who clicked the "who is Maria Callas" option. What are you doing on a classical music site? I'd have thought anyone with even a peripheral knowledge of classical music would know who she was, just as I'd expect them to know who Boulez was, though her fame spread far further than his. I'll assume then they were just being facetious.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

@ Panorama- those are great anecdotes, but I wouldn't set much store by what Michael Scott thinks. 'The Record of Singing' book (I assume it's by the same Michael Scott) is full of sarcastic one-line dismissals of great singers. In the case of the Rossi Lemeni quote, at least he lets us know what aspect of the baritone's singing (breath support) is displeasing to him, instead of merely dismissing him with some question-begging pejorative word like 'pedestrian' or 'provincial'- which indicates that he (Scott) has grown as a critic since he embarrassed himself with his sneering ignorance in 'The Record of Singing'.

Nevertheless, the man is an idiot.


----------



## Tietjens Stolz (Jun 2, 2015)

GregMitchell said:


> That could also be a plausible explanation. Callas was actually quite a moral person and she may well have broken off relations out of a sense of loyalty to Serafin's daughter.
> 
> Yes, she did have an affair with Onassis, but apparently she managed to justify this by telling herself that destiny had brought them together. In any case, according to Nadia Stancioff, her physical relationship with Onassis ended when he married Jackie. Though she never stopped loving him, she never again allowed him into her bed.


Someone close to Virginia Zeani (a YouTube friend) had said that Callas was actually very fond of Rossi-Lemeni and saw him as at least a very good friend who had suffered with her through crisis (when they found themselves in difficulties in 1947 in the US with the fizzling out of the opera company project initiated by Eddie Bagarozy, which left a number of artists who had come to the US from war-torn Europe, including Rossi-Lemeni himself and the renowned heldentenor Max Lorenz stranded for a time in the US) and helped her when she was desperately in need of opportunities to further her singing career after WWII.

The break-up of the artistic relations between Callas and Rossi-Lemeni can be attributed to more than one factor: (1) Rossi-Lemeni's vocal problems; (2) Callas' moralistic indignation against his betrayal of Victoria Serafin; (2) her perception of Zeani as someone close to being her rival in some roles and Rossi-Lemeni's marriage with Zeani probably provided Callas with a good pretext to end her relations with him.


----------



## Tietjens Stolz (Jun 2, 2015)

Figleaf said:


> @ Panorama- those are great anecdotes, but I wouldn't set much store by what Michael Scott thinks. 'The Record of Singing' book (I assume it's by the same Michael Scott) is full of sarcastic one-line dismissals of great singers. In the case of the Rossi Lemeni quote, at least he lets us know what aspect of the baritone's singing (breath support) is displeasing to him, instead of merely dismissing him with some question-begging pejorative word like 'pedestrian' or 'provincial'- which indicates that he (Scott) has grown as a critic since he embarrassed himself with his sneering ignorance in 'The Record of Singing'.
> 
> Nevertheless, the man is an idiot.


Yes it's the same Michael Scott who disparaged many singers in his two-volume _Record of Singing_. Woodie would be very displeased with many of the remarks he made about Tito Schipa.

If one reads Scott's _Maria Meneghini Calllas_, one would find that he is the person most disappointed by Callas' weight loss and in general he dislikes most of her recordings made after 1954.


----------



## Tietjens Stolz (Jun 2, 2015)

GregMitchell said:


> By the way, a note to the three people who clicked the "who is Maria Callas" option. What are you doing on a classical music site? I'd have thought anyone with even a peripheral knowledge of classical music would know who she was, just as I'd expect them to know who Boulez was, though her fame spread far further than his. I'll assume then they were just being facetious.


Just three terribly bored kids. :lol:

No need to take them seriously.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

*Michael Scott is an idiot*



Panorama said:


> Yes it's the same Michael Scott who disparaged many singers in his two-volume _Record of Singing_. Woodie would be very displeased with many of the remarks he made about Tito Schipa.
> 
> If one reads Scott's _Maria Meneghini Calllas_, one would find that he is the person most disappointed by Callas' weight loss and in general he dislikes most of her recordings made after 1954.


Schipa too!  I would have counted him among the most inoffensive and widely liked of the great singers, to say the least. Maybe Scott has a problem with tenors, as they seem to be the ones singled out for the most enthusiastic disparagement, if my memory serves. I haven't seen Volume 2 where the Schipa remarks are presumably to be found, but now I'm tempted to seek it out, such is the car-crash fascination these things exert! Maybe 'Hated by Michael Scott' could become a sort of badge of honour, along the lines of 'Hated by the Daily Mail'. :lol:


----------



## Tietjens Stolz (Jun 2, 2015)

Figleaf said:


> Schipa too!  I would have counted him among the most inoffensive and widely liked of the great singers, to say the least. Maybe Scott has a problem with tenors, as they seem to be the ones singled out for the most enthusiastic disparagement, if my memory serves. I haven't seen Volume 2 where the Schipa remarks are presumably to be found, but now I'm tempted to seek it out, such is the car-crash fascination these things exert! Maybe 'Hated by Michael Scott' could become a sort of badge of honour, along the lines of 'Hated by the Daily Mail'. :lol:


Understandably, Scott is intolerant of Gigli's "sobbing marcato and aspirates". Giovanni Martinelli came in for a great deal of bashing. Claudia Muzio was disparaged mercilessly. In the German department, he was relatively kinder to Richard Tauber. Much less kind to Hermann Jadlowker. Lotte Lehmann and Lauritz Melchior emerged as his clear personal favourites as he lavished praises and praises upon them. Somewhat less laudatory toward Frida Leider (Woodie would be displeased with this too) though not unkind to her. These are what I can summarize from Vol. 2. As for the full picture, try to find one available copy in the nearest local library and see for yourself.


----------



## Tietjens Stolz (Jun 2, 2015)

Incidentally, in more than one place (_Maria Meneghini Callas _and the long OOP _International Opera Collector_) Scott made it clear he considered Caruso, Chaliapin and Callas as his 'three greatest opera singers of the twentieth century' - the three Cs.


----------



## Tietjens Stolz (Jun 2, 2015)

GregMitchell said:


> That could also be a plausible explanation. Callas was actually quite a moral person and she may well have broken off relations out of a sense of loyalty to Serafin's daughter.
> 
> Yes, she did have an affair with Onassis, but apparently she managed to justify this by telling herself that destiny had brought them together. In any case, according to Nadia Stancioff, her physical relationship with Onassis ended when he married Jackie. Though she never stopped loving him, she never again allowed him into her bed.


Callas first met Onassis in socialite and gossip columnist Elsa Maxwell's party in Venice in 1957. But their affair really started in late July 1959 on board of Onassis' yacht _Christina_. In 1959, the number of Callas' operatic engagements dropped drastically. With the gradually deteriorating state of her voice, she clearly felt she could no longer sustain her singing career in the busy and often pre-occupied way she had pursued it in her prime years and need to fill the increasingly opening-up void in her life through the jet-set high society. This provided the motivation for her to abandon Meneghini and begin a relationship with Onassis.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Panorama said:


> Callas first met Onassis in socialite and gossip columnist Elsa Maxwell's party in Venice in 1957. But their affair really started in late July 1959 on board of Onassis' yacht _Christina_. In 1959, the number of Callas' operatic engagements dropped drastically. With the gradually deteriorating state of her voice, she clearly felt she could no longer sustain her singing career in the busy and often pre-occupied way she had pursued it in her prime years and need to fill the increasingly opening-up void in her life through the jet-set high society. This provided the motivation for her to abandon Meneghini and begin a relationship with Onassis.


This is indeed true, but he pursued her relentlessly. For him she was a great prize. Unfortunately once he had her, he lost interest and married Jackie, possibly thinking her connections would open a lot of different doors for him. According to many sources he soon regretted his decision.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

GregMitchell said:


> *Your Solti story tells me more about him and helps explain why I've never taken to him as a conductor. Tebaldi may have had a more conventionally beautiful voice than Callas,* but she didn't have one tenth of Callas's musicianship, something conductors like Giulini, De Sabata, Karajan, Gui, Bernstein and of course Serafin were quick to grasp.
> 
> Well as De Sabata once said to Walter Legge, "If the public could understand, as we do, how deeply musical she is, it would be amazed." I suppose those who can't understand that, never will. They probably have other priorities.
> 
> ...


Greg, I can understand you not liking Solti's conducting but why fall out with him just for telling the truth? You admit it yourself - Tebaldi had the more conventionally beautiful voice! This is generally acknowledged within operatic circles.

Secondly there are some (not you) who appears by what they write on TC to be totally blind to her faults. Else why do some people post insulting comments when someone says they don't like this or that about her? It appears their worship knows no bounds. She was a great singing actress like (e.g.) Olivier was a great actor.

Like Caballe I am thankful for Callas' art. But why give her a god-like status as some do? I much prefer her as a woman who was rather more talented than most of us in a certain area!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

GregMitchell said:


> This is indeed true, but he pursued her relentlessly. For him she was a great prize. Unfortunately once he had her, he lost interest and married Jackie, possibly thinking her connections would open a lot of different doors for him. According to many sources he soon regretted his decision.


Onassis has been described as a 'sex machine'. It is unfathomable to me why Maria ever fell for the brute. Sadly some women make poor choices when it comes to men.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

*Michael Scott: still an idiot*



Panorama said:


> Incidentally, in more than one place (_Maria Meneghini Callas _and the long OOP _International Opera Collector_) Scott made it clear he considered Caruso, Chaliapin and Callas as his 'three greatest opera singers of the twentieth century' - the three Cs.


I would say that some of Chaliapin's non-Russian operatic recordings persuade me that he shouldn't even make the top 200! (e.g. weird gargling noises in 'Le veau d'or', ranty speech-singing of 'Je dormirai dans mon manteau royal'..) Still, a first class voice and a genius of sorts. His singing of Russian folk songs is sublime and moving. For me Chaliapin has always been rather an enigma.

Re Scott on Gigli: OK, fair enough, 'even a stopped clock...' etc etc! :lol:


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Onassis has been described as a 'sex machine'. It is unfathomable to me why Maria ever fell for the brute. Sadly some women make poor choices when it comes to men.


You don't see how your first sentence explains the mystery which your second sentence cannot fathom? 

As one who has also made poor choices in the past, this does not seem to me to be a good reason to admire Callas any less.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Figleaf said:


> You don't see how your first sentence explains the mystery which your second sentence cannot fathom?
> 
> As one who has also made poor choices in the past, this does not seem to me to be a good reason to admire Callas any less.


Maybe it's because I'm a man who respects women that I have the uttermost contempt for men like Onassis.

Please read what I put. I didn't say I admired her art any the less. If we cease admiring artists who make poor choices in life we shall have few left indeed!


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Greg, I can understand you not liking Solti's conducting but why fall out with him just for telling the truth? You admit it yourself - Tebaldi had the more conventionally beautiful voice! This is generally acknowledged within operatic circles.
> 
> Secondly there are some (not you) who appears by what they write on TC to be totally blind to her faults. Else why do some people post insulting comments when someone says they don't like this or that about her? It appears their worship knows no bounds. She was a great singing actress like (e.g.) Olivier was a great actor.
> 
> Like Caballe I am thankful for Callas' art. But why give her a god-like status as some do? I much prefer her as a woman who was rather more talented than most of us in a certain area!


I see. So it's the truth when Solti is talking about Callas, but not when he's talking about one of your preferred musicians. He didn't get on with Vickers either, who, by the way, thought Callas one of the two most important figures in post war opera (the other was Wieland Wagner).

As to not liking his conducting, it has nothing to do with his views on Callas but everything to do with his performances (not all, I'll grant you). I find his Verdi unlyrical, bombastic, over-driven and four square and he's ruined many a cast of good singers for me.

I have no problem people granting Callas god-like status. She wasn't "just" anything. She had a monumental talent, a genius on the level of Da Vinci and Michelangelo, according to Zeffirelli. As Tito Gobbi said when she died,

"I always thought she was immortal, and she is."


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Maybe it's because I'm a man who respects women that I have the uttermost contempt for men like Onassis.
> 
> Please read what I put. I didn't say I admired her art any the less. If we cease admiring artists who make poor choices in life we shall have few left indeed!


I did read it. It made me laugh. I have no doubt that you respect women and that a caddish robber baron like Onassis deserves contempt.


----------



## Wood (Feb 21, 2013)

GregMitchell said:


> By the way, a note to the three people who clicked the "who is Maria Callas" option. What are you doing on a classical music site? *I'd have thought anyone with even a peripheral knowledge of classical music would know who she was,* just as I'd expect them to know who Boulez was, though her fame spread far further than his. I'll assume then they were just being facetious.


In 30 years of listening to classical music I'd never come across Callas and had no awareness of Boulez. It is hard to believe, having been a member here for a few years, with all of the threads about her, that for the large majority of the population Maria Callas is just a name at most.

But you're probably right, they were just being facetious.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

GregMitchell said:


> I see. So it's the truth when Solti is talking about Callas, but not when he's talking about one of your preferred musicians. He didn't get on with Vickers either, who, by the way, thought Callas one of the two most important figures in post war opera (the other was Wieland Wagner).
> 
> As to not liking his conducting, it has nothing to do with his views on Callas but everything to do with his performances (not all, I'll grant you). I find his Verdi unlyrical, bombastic, over-driven and four square and he's ruined many a cast of good singers for me.
> 
> ...


Sorry Greg but these are the sort of statements which cut no ice with me. I know Vickers didn't get on with Solti but that didn't stop Solti saying in his memoirs that he admired Vickers' voice and it was a pity they never got on. And surely his style of conducting doesn't make his statement about Callas / Tebaldi any the less valid, does it? Tebaldi simply had the more beautiful voice - that's why some preferred her. As for me - I like them both! I agree with the statement: "The general sentiment for hearing Verdi's La Forza del Destino at the time was: If you want to hear Leonora sung beautifully listen to Tebaldi, if you want to know the fate of Leonora listen to Callas." That doesn't mean Tebaldi lacked temperament in her singing or Callas' voice wasn't beautiful. It's just that they were different. I could never understand the idiotic rivalry created by some. Like the mooing of the football hooligan herd. Why not just enjoy both?









And as for granting Callas god-like status. I like to put things into perspective. She was a great singing actress who dealt in fiction. I enjoy and admire her art. But it stopped when she left the stage. Then she was another member of the human race whose private life was often sad and tragic.
BTW I don't give Michelangelo or Leonardo god-like status either! Or Beethoven, Einstein etc. They just had more talent in certain areas than most of us!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

About this "god-like status" thing...

It really depends on what we think of gods, doesn't it? As I read the historical records, singers seem to create a lot less trouble than deities. I think I'm safe in assuming that no Tebaldi-lover has ever been burned at the stake in the name of Maria Callas. Moreover, she may make your heart beat faster, but no one is likely to tear it out and throw you into a volcano to feed her. And if you raise goats, you will not be asked to cut their throats and bathe in their blood to neutralize her wrath.

Have you noticed how goats are always smiling? They know that Maria Callas has made their sacrifice unnecessary.


----------



## Wood (Feb 21, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> About this "god-like status" thing...
> 
> It really depends on what we think of gods, doesn't it? As I read the historical records, singers seem to create a lot less trouble than deities. I think I'm safe in assuming that no Tebaldi-lover has ever been burned at the stake in the name of Maria Callas. Moreover, she may make your heart beat faster, but no one is likely to tear it out and throw you into a volcano to feed her. And if you raise goats, you will not be asked to cut their throats and bathe in their blood to neutralize her wrath.
> 
> Have you noticed how goats are always smiling? They know that Maria Callas has made their sacrifice unnecessary.


She was quite ruthless in Medea.


----------



## Tietjens Stolz (Jun 2, 2015)

GregMitchell said:


> This is indeed true, but he pursued her relentlessly. For him she was a great prize. Unfortunately once he had her, he lost interest and married Jackie, possibly thinking her connections would open a lot of different doors for him. According to many sources he soon regretted his decision.


It is perhaps not too far-fetched to say that both parties had something to take from each other to fulfil their respective personal needs. Onassis needed a relationship with a world-famous woman to boost his own social-cultural capital and satisfy his own ego and vanity. On Callas' part she needed an anchor and the glamorous jet-set high society life that it brings along to fill the enlarging void caused by her deteriorating voice and her declining career. It proved that she made a catastrophic choice and she suffered greatly for the rest of her life. It has to be said that the years between her last stage performance (1965) and her death (1977) her life was basically in shambles. Notwithstanding the failures of her private life (the same can be said of Claudia Muzio, with whom Onassis also had an affair many years before his with Callas; Muzio later had a failed marriage with a man much younger than her who turned out to be a blood-sucking scoundrel squandering almost all her earnings), it is Callas' extraordinary musical and dramatic gifts and achievements that we remember and celebrate.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Wood said:


> She was quite ruthless in Medea.


Why not? By that point in her career she'd been accused of almost everything.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Wood said:


> In 30 years of listening to classical music I'd never come across Callas and had no awareness of Boulez. It is hard to believe, having been a member here for a few years, with all of the threads about her, that for the large majority of the population Maria Callas is just a name at most.
> 
> But you're probably right, they were just being facetious.


I don't remember having heard of Callas until freshers' week, when you'd have the inevitable conversations about what music you were into. When I said I liked opera, the response was often 'Callas or Sutherland?' (Otherwise it was 'Omigod is that the time, must dash, nice to meet you...' ) I wasn't too happy about being expected for have some fiercely partisan opinion about two singers I was barely aware of, so I stopped telling people I was into opera. I did know who Sutherland was at least because her retirement a few years earlier had been big news. I think that before the internet, people who didn't have that many CM loving friends and who were too young to remember Callas as a contemporary figure could easily not have come across her name for quite a few years. As a collector of 78s I was probably more familiar with such names as Joan Hammond or Miriam Licette than with Callas or Sutherland, bizarre as that seems now!


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> About this "god-like status" thing...
> 
> It really depends on what we think of gods, doesn't it? As I read the historical records, singers seem to create a lot less trouble than deities. I think I'm safe in assuming that no Tebaldi-lover has ever been burned at the stake in the name of Maria Callas. Moreover, she may make your heart beat faster, but no one is likely to tear it out and throw you into a volcano to feed her. And if you raise goats, you will not be asked to cut their throats and bathe in their blood to neutralize her wrath.
> 
> *Have you noticed how goats are always smiling? They know that Maria Callas has made their sacrifice unnecessary. *







_"Hail, Divina!" The Wicked Desert God is dead!"_


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Figleaf said:


> I did read it. It made me laugh. I have no doubt that you respect women and that a caddish robber baron like Onassis deserves contempt.


I never hold people's successes against them, myself.

I'd call Onassis' avoidance of government robbers and thieves 'rationality.'

Although Callas' judgment on Onassis' serial philandering is another matter entirely.


----------



## Tietjens Stolz (Jun 2, 2015)

For those who care about Callas but object to worshipping her like a goddess, Michael Scott's _Maria Meneghini Callas _is highly recommended.

It is strictly not for the most die-hard fans as it contains lots of opinions that could disturb and even rankle them.

Here is an excerpt:

"After Paolina [in Donizetti's Poliuto, in which she returned to La Scala in 1960 after a hiatus of two years] Callas never risked another new role, although as the years passed she seemed to become younger-looking so, by a kind of reverse logic, her voice became markedly older-sounding - she was, one could say, a kind of vocal Dorian Grey."


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> About this "god-like status" thing...
> 
> It really depends on what we think of gods, doesn't it? As I read the historical records, singers seem to create a lot less trouble than deities. I think I'm safe in assuming that no Tebaldi-lover has ever been burned at the stake in the name of Maria Callas. Moreover, she may make your heart beat faster, but no one is likely to tear it out and throw you into a volcano to feed her. And if you raise goats, you will not be asked to cut their throats and bathe in their blood to neutralize her wrath.
> 
> Have you noticed how goats are always smiling? They know that Maria Callas has made their sacrifice unnecessary.


Hmm. I have a performance of Callas in Andre Chenier where you can hear the Callas and Tebaldi factions literally coming to blows in the audience! As far as I know no-one was burned at the stake or thrown into a volcano but that wasn't for lack of desire on the part of the fans of each diva! :lol:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Hmm. I have a performance of Callas in Andre Chenier where you can hear the Callas and Tebaldi factions literally coming to blows in the audience! As far as I know no-one was burned at the stake or thrown into a volcano but that wasn't for lack of desire on the part of the fans of each diva! :lol:


I suspect most of us have fantasy candidates for human sacrifice and feel frustrated that the custom is obsolete. Internet forums provide a wonderful release for such tensions.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Panorama said:


> For those who care about Callas but object to worshipping her like a goddess, Michael Scott's _Maria Meneghini Callas _is highly recommended.
> 
> It is strictly not for the most die-hard fans as it contains lots of opinions that could disturb and even rankle them.
> 
> ...


Scott is trying to impress us with his cleverness, and failing. Callas did not become younger-looking after 1960, and everyone already knows that her voice deteriorated. If this silly analogy represents his normal tone, his book will gratify only bitter cynics disappointed with their lives who need to make others smaller in order to feel bigger.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

*


Woodduck said:



I suspect most of us have fantasy candidates for human sacrifice and feel frustrated that the custom is obsolete. Internet forums provide a wonderful release for such tensions.

Click to expand...

*Well. . . . . . . 'some of us,' I suppose.

Ol' Fritz himself took the words right out of my mouth when he said, "Always distrust those in whom the urge to punish is strong."


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Well. . . . . . . 'some of us,' I suppose.
> 
> Ol' Fritz himself took the words right out of my mouth when he said, "Always distrust those in whom the urge to punish is strong."


Punish, schmunish! I'm talking about the urge to eliminate!

:angel:


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Punish, schmunish! I'm talking about the urge to eliminate!
> 
> :angel:


Beggin' your pardon sir, but perhaps a day or two in the Scraper will do.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Panorama said:


> For those who care about Callas but object to worshipping her like a goddess, Michael Scott's _Maria Meneghini Callas _is highly recommended.
> 
> It is strictly not for the most die-hard fans as it contains lots of opinions that could disturb and even rankle them.
> 
> ...


What do others who have actually read this book (not just the paragraph quoted) think of it?


----------



## Tietjens Stolz (Jun 2, 2015)

DavidA said:


> What do others who have actually read this book (not just the paragraph quoted) think of it?


The opera folk on TC who shares Scott's view of Callas is undoubtedly Seattleoperafan.  Meaning: Scott loves fat Callas and regards fat Callas as one of the great vocal-dramatic phenomenon of the 20th century. He feels that her weight loss is detrimental to her voice and led to its gradual deterioration and decay from 1955 onward and the eventual loss of her voice by the mid 1960s. (But Scott did acknowledge that she never lost her technique and musicality).

Scott in turn argues (and this is the part that I agree with) that her vocal deterioration and decay is the key and fundamental reason for a series of so-called "scandals" such as the "Edinburgh Sonnambula saga" (August 1957), lawsuit with San Francisco Opera (autumn 1957), the Rome "walkoff" (January 1958) and the "firing by Bing" (November 1958), the drastic reduction of the number of her operatic engagements from the closing years of the 1950s onward and, most disastrously, her abandonment of husband Meneghini and love affair with Onassis.

His overall argument of the impact of her weight loss on her voice is largely valid. Unfortunately he carried it way too far to the point of a generally one-sided opinion slant that "fat Callas/late 1953-early 1954 Callas (when the diet was only starting to take effect but not yet reaching detrimental extent) is much better than the increasingly slim Callas from mid 1954 onward". The real picture, as can be heard from her recorded performances, is far more complex than what Scott gives us.

While the much-discussed and debated weight loss did indeed lead to loss of vocal power, stamina and amplitude and what Scott continuously describes as "the responsiveness of her voice" to her musicality and the technical demands of the composers' scores (by the way "vocal responsiveness" is a term Scott repeated _ad nauseam _throughout the book), the voice of the thin Callas is actually better blended across the different registers, her _mezza voce _(a very important part of the voice in many roles) stronger and more affecting than her pre-diet days (and she was often able to apply it to great advantage) and what Beverly Sills describes as the "vitality of language in her singing" (many thanks to Plummie for the Sills quote ) bacame even more palpable than her pre-diet years. Her ability to vary her vocal (tone) colours and shape her words and phrases according to the specificities and shifts in the emotional and psychological state of each character she sang undeniably grew tremendously from her 'fat' period to her 'thin' period. So her weight loss brought about trade-offs. There may be huge losses, but there are also considerable gains. One cannot easily say "fat Callas is better than thin Callas" and vice versa.

Personally I will always be stunned by the vocal power and force of the fat Callas (one has to note however that her interpretive abilities were already potent even in her pre-diet years) but in many ways listening to the thin Callas is even more fascinating, stimulating, enlightening and rewarding.


----------



## Tietjens Stolz (Jun 2, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Scott is trying to impress us with his cleverness, and failing. Callas did not become younger-looking after 1960, and everyone already knows that her voice deteriorated. If this silly analogy represents his normal tone, his book will gratify only bitter cynics disappointed with their lives who need to make others smaller in order to feel bigger.


If you read this book in detail you will find that it cannot be dismissed completely, though I must say that I have a major issue with his main argument even if it has its valid point. Pls see my earlier reply at #101.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

GregMitchell said:


> By the way, a note to the three people who clicked the "who is Maria Callas" option. What are you doing on a classical music site? I'd have thought anyone with even a peripheral knowledge of classical music would know who she was, just as I'd expect them to know who Boulez was, though her fame spread far further than his. I'll assume then they were just being facetious.


Are you kidding? Plenty of people who turn up on this site state that they are absolute beginners and wanting to learn. There's no reason at all someone shouldn't be on a classical forum just because they aren't aware of your Divina. Maybe until this moment they've been lisening to only instrumental music. I'm if anything surprised its only three - and wonder what effect your "how dare you" response is going to achieve.

Re the poll: the only options seem to be love or dislike. My reaction is much more mixed. (or is it that anything less than love for MC is as good as hate?)


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

*


GregMitchell said:



By the way, a note to the three people who clicked the "who is Maria Callas" option. What are you doing on a classical music site? I'd have thought anyone with even a peripheral knowledge of classical music would know who she was, just as I'd expect them to know who Boulez was, though her fame spread far further than his. I'll assume then they were just being facetious.

Click to expand...

*. . . or just being 'fatuous.'

I find not knowing who Maria Callas is in a classical forum on par with not knowing who Mick Jagger is in a rock and roll one.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Sorry Greg but these are the sort of statements which cut no ice with me. I know Vickers didn't get on with Solti but that didn't stop Solti saying in his memoirs that he admired Vickers' voice and it was a pity they never got on. And surely his style of conducting doesn't make his statement about Callas / Tebaldi any the less valid, does it? Tebaldi simply had the more beautiful voice - that's why some preferred her. As for me - I like them both! I agree with the statement: "The general sentiment for hearing Verdi's La Forza del Destino at the time was: If you want to hear Leonora sung beautifully listen to Tebaldi, if you want to know the fate of Leonora listen to Callas." That doesn't mean Tebaldi lacked temperament in her singing or Callas' voice wasn't beautiful. It's just that they were different. I could never understand the idiotic rivalry created by some. Like the mooing of the football hooligan herd. Why not just enjoy both?
> 
> View attachment 84280
> 
> ...


Well you've always been in the business of reducing great artists to "just entertainers". Was Mozart just an entertainer too then? I suppose he must have been, though I confess that there are plenty of times, when listening to his music, that I feel he must have been touched by something divine.

Oh and I do enjoy some of Tebaldi's work, by the way, but there is no doubt in my mind that Callas was the greater artist.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

*


GregMitchell said:



Well you've always been in the business of reducing great artists to "just entertainers". Was Mozart just an entertainer too then? I suppose he must have been, though I confess that there are plenty of times, when listening to his music, that I feel he must have been touched by something divine.

Oh and I do enjoy some of Tebaldi's work, by the way, but there is no doubt in my mind that Callas was the greater artist.

Click to expand...









*

I think 'would-be' gods are the greatest entertainers of all.










Goddesses are merely divine.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

GregMitchell said:


> Well you've always been in the business of reducing great artists to "just entertainers". Was Mozart just an entertainer too then? I suppose he must have been, though I confess that there are plenty of times, when listening to his music, that I feel he must have been touched by something divine.
> 
> Oh and I do enjoy some of Tebaldi's work, by the way, but there is no doubt in my mind that Callas was the greater artist.


I believe Greg I referred to her as a 'great singing actress'. I refer to Mozart as a 'great composer'. Please read what I've actually put. If we're going to argue about semantics, they were 'entertainers' just as Einstein was a 'scientist'. They just happened in addition to be great artists and Mozart's art was tantamount to genius as was Einstein's theoretical physics. 
There is no need to defend Callas. We all know what a great artist she was. Where I resist is when we elevate her, (Or Mozart or Einstein et al) to god-like status. Outside of their disciplines they were just as human as we are!


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

*


DavidA said:



I believe Greg I referred to her as a 'great singing actress'. I refer to Mozart as a 'great composer'. Please read what I've actually put. If we're going to argue about semantics, they were 'entertainers' just as Einstein was a 'scientist'. They just happened in addition to be great artists and Mozart's art was tantamount to genius as was Einstein's theoretical physics. 
Now please, if I have been inaccurate in my previous post please tell me!

Click to expand...

*Oh, I wouldn't worry about Greg too much.

I remember once when you posted an anti-Semitic rant by Gobineau and deliberately attributed it to Wagner.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Marschallin Blair said:


> . . . or just being 'fatuous.'
> 
> I find not knowing who Maria Callas is in a classical forum on par with not knowing who Mick Jagger is in a rock and roll one.


I didn't know who Maria Callas was until about the fall of 2014 when I mentioned getting a Sutherland arias set and someone suggested I check out Maria Callas. But that also was early in my operatic explorations when I did not know many of the singers. Many on this site are only into instrumental classical and so might not know many of the opera singers. Likewise if they are into classical choral works but not opera.


----------



## Tietjens Stolz (Jun 2, 2015)

Florestan said:


> I didn't know who Maria Callas was until about the fall of 2014 when I mentioned getting a Sutherland arias set and someone suggested I check out Maria Callas. But that also was early in my operatic explorations when I did not know many of the singers. Many on this site are only into instrumental classical and so might not know many of the opera singers. Likewise if they are into classical choral works but not opera.


For many it could take quite some time to really understand what Callas is really about and that would also involve deep exploration into the repertoire and roles in which her gifts shine most brightly - Bellini's Norma and La Sonnambula, Donizetti's Lucia di Lammermoor and Anna Bolena, early-mid period Verdi - Nabucco, Macbeth, Il Trovatore, La Traviata (not to mention Cherubini's Medea), most of which can be _terra incognita _ for those either just moving into opera or not yet familiar with the world of opera. Moreover, her artistry is of the kind that demands listeners to really get into at least the text of the librettos in order to be able to fully appreciate why she stands out among performers past and present tackling the same roles and repertoire. It can take a lot of time and effort but if one is willing to go through all these with an open mind his/her listening experience would be richly rewarded. It's just too bad that of all roles she sang only three Tosca Act 2s were preserved as visual evidence of her prowess as a singing-actress. Had more of her roles been filmed, the rewards would be even greater (there have been many commentators who had remarked that she has to be seen as well as heard).

By the way here is a visual gem that will surely make our Principessa Marschallin scarlet with scandal  - a newly found coloured picture of Callas as Tosca in her debut in Paris in December 1958 (one of her filmed Tosca Act 2s):










When looking at this, I really can't help thinking that she really paid a huge price for turning herself into a "singing Audrey Hepburn", but as I have said earlier there were also rewards.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Florestan said:


> I didn't know who Maria Callas was until about the fall of 2014 when I mentioned getting a Sutherland arias set and someone suggested I check out Maria Callas. But that also was early in my operatic explorations when I did not know many of the singers. Many on this site are only into instrumental classical and so might not know many of the opera singers. Likewise if they are into classical choral works but not opera.


Evidently Help Musicians UK, which is the leading UK charity for professional musicians of all genres, from starting out through to retirement, think Callas is still relevant today. Their latest fundraising ad (a full page in Gramophone magazine) has a photo of Callas as Violetta, accompanied by a quote from Callas herself about music.

Also, as I pointed out earlier in the thread, when Gramophone started its Hall of Fame, asking readers to choose which artists from the past and present should be included, Callas was the only singer, and the only woman, to make the top five (indeed I'm pretty sure she was the only singer in the top ten); the other four were all conductors I think. I know Karajan was one of them. I can't now remember who the other three were.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

GregMitchell said:


> Well you've always been in the business of reducing great artists to "just entertainers". Was Mozart just an entertainer too then? I suppose he must have been, though I confess that there are plenty of times, when listening to his music, that I feel he must have been touched by something divine.
> 
> Oh and I do enjoy some of Tebaldi's work, by the way, but there is no doubt in my mind that Callas was the greater artist.


"Touched by something divine." I too believe artists -- or "entertainers," performers, creators, whatever -- are often touched by "the divine": i.e. by the "spiritual," by a force or an intelligence beyond our tangible, visible, material world (I call this God; someone else might not). Yet I think of an artist like Mozart, Callas, or "even" Tebaldi as basically a _medium_ or a conduit for "the divine." And I think this might be what DavidA is implying: one can be a "conduit for the divine" while at the same time being something much less than divine: while being a very imperfect person. (This is actually the central theme of the play AMADEUS.) And I don't see the word "entertainer" as necessarily pejorative: if a performer is before the public and is giving the public pleasure and enjoyment with her performances, then she is "entertaining" the public. I don't think being an entertainer _precludes_ being an artist, or vice versa.

Another thing I think we have to keep in mind is that there's a basic difference between a Mozart and a Callas: composers are _creative_ artists (they originate works), while singers are _re-creative_ artists (they take the creator's work and transmit it to an audience). And this is especially true in the case of Callas, about whom someone (I can't remember who, and I'm paraphrasing) said that to listen to her sing is to hear the composer's intentions reproduced.

Edited to add: But I think that either the creative or the re-creative artist can be "touched by the divine": the artist can be as "inspired" in re-creating the work as the composer was inspired in writing it.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

GregMitchell said:


> Also, as I pointed out earlier in the thread, when Gramophone started its Hall of Fame, asking readers to choose which artists from the past and present should be included, Callas was the only singer, and the only woman, to make the top five (indeed I'm pretty sure she was the only singer in the top ten); the other four were all conductors I think. I know Karajan was one of them. I can't now remember who the other three were.


None of this means that Callas is a name that any classical fan would or should or must be already aware of.

I had been listening to classical for over fifteen years, including some opera, when sometime in the late 90s I saw a similar Gramophone poll about the 100 best tenors - and when I saw the name Jussi Bjorling in the no.1 spot I said "how can the greatest tenor of all time be someone I've never heard of?"


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Musical interpretation - "re-creation" - is creation in the full sense of the word. Verdi supplied the notes, plus a few markings pertaining to speed and emphasis (Handel didn't supply even that much). The singer supplies almost everything else, and we all know how badly that can turn out! That "everything else," with an artist like Callas, is a world of imagination and meaning which the composer may not have envisioned or hoped for, since composers expect that their work will be enriched and completed by the work of their interpreters, no two of whom (if they are not mere routineurs) will feel their music identically. 

Listen to Callas as Butterfly or Carmen, investing line after line with a significance you didn't know it could have, and witness a true act of creation.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

SimonNZ said:


> None of this means that Callas is a name that any classical fan would or should or must be already aware of.
> 
> I had been listening to classical for over fifteen years, including some opera, when sometime in the late 90s I saw a similar Gramophone poll about the 100 best tenors - and when I saw the name Jussi Bjorling in the no.1 spot I said "how can the greatest tenor of all time be someone I've never heard of?"


Which tenors had you heard of, Simon? Were there three of them, by any chance? :lol:

It's surprising how much one can know about some niche area of music which captures one's imagination, while remaining completely in the dark about other areas which might be supposed by those familiar with them to be widely known. For example, I only recently learned that a harmonium and a harmonica are two completely different things.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Figleaf said:


> Which tenors had you heard of, Simon? Were there three of them, by any chance? :lol:
> 
> It's surprising how much one can know about some niche area of music which captures one's imagination, while remaining completely in the dark about other areas which might be supposed by those familiar with them to be widely known. For example, I only recently learned that a harmonium and a harmonica are two completely different things.


Harmoniums fit in the mouth only with difficulty.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Musical interpretation - "re-creation" - is creation in the full sense of the word. Verdi supplied the notes, plus a few markings pertaining to speed and emphasis (Handel didn't supply even that much). The singer supplies almost everything else, and we all know how badly that can turn out! That "everything else," with an artist like Callas, is a world of imagination and meaning which the composer may not have envisioned or hoped for, since composers expect that their work will be enriched and completed by the work of their interpreters, no two of whom (if they are not mere routineurs) will feel their music identically.
> 
> Listen to Callas as Butterfly or Carmen, investing line after line with a significance you didn't know it could have, and witness a true act of creation.


I don't know Callas' Butterfly (and I'm pretty much in agreement with DavidA on her Carmen) but yours is an excellent reply to Bellinilover. The only part of her very perceptive post that I would take issue with is the idea that singing is recreation rather than creation, and you have explained better than I felt able to why that isn't so. I do however feel that Callas fans tend to veer close to self-contradiction or at any rate exaggeration on the subject of creation versus interpretation, in claiming that she (simultaneously?) is absolutely faithful to the composer's intention while also transforming the material she sings into something new and different.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Harmoniums fit in the mouth only with difficulty.


Usually in this kind of thread I'm too busy putting my foot in my mouth to have room for even the smallest harmonium.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Marschallin Blair said:


> I never hold people's successes against them, myself.
> 
> I'd call Onassis' avoidance of government robbers and thieves 'rationality.'
> 
> Although Callas' judgment on Onassis' serial philandering is another matter entirely.


Onassis avoided the government? It would be interesting to see how he became the beneficiary of the privatisation of the Greek air transport system, and why Papadopoulos, whom he bribed, gave him yet more lucrative government contracts during the time of the military junta. He is as good a textbook example of a robber baron as any, and such 'successes' cannot happen without the connivance of those in government.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

Figleaf said:


> Which tenors had you heard of, Simon? Were there three of them, by any chance? :lol:


Heh, no, in fact I'm happy to say I've still not heard that. But I was a fan of Domingo from an early age.

It occurs to me thinking about it now that for a long time my experience of opera was almost totally what was avail for rent on VHS from the video store or the library, which at that time was largely DG, Decca and Philips tapes, plus a few theatrical release ones like the Zeffirellis - which dictated what I knew and why. Its possible I went just as long without hearing Callas as I had not hearing Bjorling. But then unlike some other areas of classical opera wasn't something I read up on, at least at that stage.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Figleaf said:


> I don't know Callas' Butterfly (and I'm pretty much in agreement with DavidA on her Carmen) but yours is an excellent reply to Bellinilover. The only part of her very perceptive post that I would take issue with is the idea that singing is recreation rather than creation, and you have explained better than I felt able to why that isn't so. *I do however feel that Callas fans tend to veer close to self-contradiction or at any rate exaggeration on the subject of creation versus interpretation, in claiming that she (simultaneously?) is absolutely faithful to the composer's intention while also transforming the material she sings into something new and different.*


Excellent observation, Fig! I'm glad you brought it up (and it was hovering in the back of my mind too). I think it's the most specific distinction Callas has from many other fine and interesting artists that she is so scrupulously true to the score and to the overall musical line while yet investing the notes with such imaginative colors and inflections. As you've observed in the past, Callas is a modern singer in that she doesn't take the often extreme liberties with notes and rhythms that characterized many singers of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. For most singers nowadays, close adherence to the score seems (and probably is in most cases) mere camouflage for a lack of imagination and feeling for the style of Romantic (especially Italian bel canto) music. That never occurs to me when listening to Callas. A fundamentally classical temperament was basic to her personality, as paradoxical as that may seem given her intensity as a performer; a musical phrase was for her like a finely chiselled sculpture, and her sensitive intelligence was attuned to balance and nuance and repelled by broad effects (hence her preference for early Italian opera over Puccini and verismo). The effect of such nuance within the constraints of a carefully poised musical line creates a unique tension: a tension of inwardness, of the pressure of emotion against limits. Pressure increases when contained, and precise control of it renders its release all the more powerful.

Accepting the limits of the music as written, then discovering what expressive possibilities lie within them - that was the art Callas practiced with such extraordinary insight and imagination.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

Figleaf said:


> I don't know Callas' Butterfly (and I'm pretty much in agreement with DavidA on her Carmen) but yours is an excellent reply to Bellinilover. The only part of her very perceptive post that I would take issue with is the idea that singing is recreation rather than creation, and you have explained better than I felt able to why that isn't so. I do however feel that Callas fans tend to veer close to self-contradiction or at any rate exaggeration on the subject of creation versus interpretation, in claiming that she (simultaneously?) is absolutely faithful to the composer's intention while also transforming the material she sings into something new and different.


I don't know...I still tend to think of performing as re-creation. To me this doesn't mean that the singer is unimaginative, just that she/he is operating within definite limits set by the composer, like the notes, the markings, and the composer's style (e.g. one doesn't approach Mozart like Berg). The "new and different" has to be accomplished within these limits: that's what "re-creation" means to me.

I just don't like the tendency some people (not only Callas fans) have to set the interpreter above the composer. For the same reason I dislike it when people say things like "So and so _owns_ that role." No one "owns" any role -- but if they _must_ say someone owns a role, then I think they should say that the person who wrote the role owns it.

I almost think sometimes that the conflict over Callas on this forum really boils down to a conflict between two sensibilities, or expectations as to what art should do: Romantic and Classical, "personal expression" and an almost worshipful attitude toward art and artists versus a more practical, even utilitarian attitude. DavidA is in the latter camp, while GregMitchell and the other big Callas fans are in the former. I can't really explain it any further than this, but I think of it as sort of like "Bach composing brilliantly as an employee of the Church versus Beethoven baring his soul in his music." A Sutherland or Tebaldi would be like Bach, whereas a Callas would be more like Beethoven.

Edited to add: I actually agree with many of Woodduck's points in the post directly above mine. I wrote my post without having read it.


----------



## Tietjens Stolz (Jun 2, 2015)

Why not just hear what Callas herself said about her approach to music and roles, in an interview with Lord Harewood in 1968 televised by the BBC, in particular the first 4 minutes of this YouTube clip.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Bellinilover said:


> I don't know...I still tend to think of performing as re-creation. To me this doesn't mean that the singer is unimaginative, just that she/he is operating within definite limits set by the composer, like the notes, the markings, and the composer's style (e.g. one doesn't approach Mozart like Berg). The "new and different" has to be accomplished within these limits: that's what "re-creation" means to me.
> 
> I just don't like the tendency some people (not only Callas fans) have *to set the interpreter above the composer.* For the same reason I dislike it when people say things like "So and so _owns_ that role." No one "owns" any role -- but if they _must_ say someone owns a role, then I think they should say that the person who wrote the role owns it.
> 
> ...


I'll let Greg and others speak for themselves, but my own attitude toward Callas is in large part admiration for precisely the fact that she sets _nothing whatever _- no "diva" exhibitionism or vocal display, and no short cuts or compromises to play down her weaknesses and make herself look good - above the composer. That's manifest not only in the musical accuracy of her performances, in which, so to speak, every "i" is dotted and every "t" crossed, but in every word she has ever spoken in discussing the art of the singer. I cannot think of a more "classical" idea of what an interpretive artist should do than her insistence that the composer's written instructions constitute the ultimate guide to all of a singer's decisions. It's certainly possible to point to this or that exception to this practice, where we find her adhering to certain traditions (e.g., performing cut or otherwise inauthentic versions of bel canto operas, or failing to use embellishments where they would have been used), but then not all these decisions were entirely hers to make. All in all, Callas was an exemplar of respect for the composers she performed, and though I don't assume that all her fans care about this, it is most significant to those of us with what I'll presume to call developed musical perceptiveness. Indeed it was not her fabled dramatic intensity, and it was certainly not her glamorous "diva" persona, that first impressed me about her, but rather her subtle musical understanding, her ability to make a line of music "speak" and to turn a pretty melody into the cry of a wounded soul. And this has also been the reaction of musician friends to whom I have introduced her, people who knew her mainly by reputation and who were surprised to find that the famous prima donna was above all a great musician who, as a pianist friend exclaimed on hearing "Casta diva," was bringing precise intention and control to every single note.

I don't think it's possible to generalize about the nature of people's appreciation of Callas or any singer, on this forum or elsewhere. We all hear different things, and different qualities of a given singer matter to different people. I don't mind that others hear Callas differently from the way I do: some will be more attuned to her passion, some to her subtlety, some will like her vocal timbre more than I do, some less. Some (like my sister) will admit the power of her art yet simply not enjoy the sound of her voice; there are actually times when I feel that way myself, though I can keep those times in perspective. There are purely visceral and emotional reactions to singers, and there are informed opinions about their singing and artistry, and all have a place. But beyond any differences in taste.or degrees of tolerance for the vocal problems everyone acknowledges, I do enjoy talking about the qualities that make her unique and compelling. She will always have a lot to teach us about the art of singing, and about the impossibility of fully understanding the creative - I'm going to use that word! - genius of a great musician.

And to anyone who should find my reverence for a great artist excessive: I don't plan to spend a nanosecond worrying about it.


----------



## Guest (May 8, 2016)

I'm glad I don't like classical vocal (much) for then I'd have to takes sides between those who love her, and those who say that those who love her don't love her enough.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

*


Figleaf said:



Onassis avoided the government? It would be interesting to see how he became the beneficiary of the privatisation of the Greek air transport system, and why Papadopoulos, whom he bribed, gave him yet more lucrative government contracts during the time of the military junta. He is as good a textbook example of a robber baron as any, and such 'successes' cannot happen without the connivance of those in government.

Click to expand...

*
That's exactly backwards, actually.

Since the Greek 'government' had the reverse Midas touch of turning everything it ran (runs) into bankruptcy, a real entrepreneur of ability had to be approached to save the airline. And everyone knows how venal the political apparatchiks are, so in order to get permission to 'compete,' Onassis had to 'pay to play.' He didn't set up the mercantilist bribe-o-cracy that the socialists created- they did.

And of course, Texaco, Sacony, and Mobil came to 'Onassis'- and not the other way around- to get their high shipping costs out of the red- their costs being prohibitively high because of the myriad taxes and bureaucratic red tape that thieving-government had thrown in their way. . .

But I'm not here to defend Onassis.

Its all about 'essentials'- _Divina_.

Onassis is merely incidental.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

*


Panorama said:



Why not just hear what Callas herself said about her approach to music and roles, in an interview with Lord Harewood in 1968 televised by the BBC, in particular the first 4 minutes of this YouTube clip. 







Click to expand...

*

You know, its funny, Pannie.

When I first saw the Harewood interview- that is to say, before I became a Callas fan- I mistakingly thought that Callas was supremely arrogant when she said that _bel canto_ was much harder to sing than Wagner.

Then later having listening to 'how' she colored, shaded, and inflected every syllable of every word in her Karajan/Berlin _Lucia_ and Votto/La Scala_ Norma_ - and went through every appoggiature, roulade, trill, and arpeggio like it was second nature- 'THEN' I understood what she was talking about.

I finally understood what a _"soprano sfogato assoluta" was.
_
- and of course was in deeply-moved agreement with what she said about singing Wagner. _;D_

One's completely naked and exposed when singing Donizetti and Bellini. There's no hiding behind a roaring orchestra. One either has technique, artistic subtlety, and nuanced and compelling dramatic insight- or doesn't.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Panorama said:


> *By the way here is a visual gem that will surely make our Principessa Marschallin scarlet with scandal*  - a newly found coloured picture of Callas as Tosca in her debut in Paris in December 1958 (one of her filmed Tosca Act 2s):
> 
> 
> 
> ...


'GORGE' Divina picture, Pans. She of course looks cuter than hell.

Green isn't my color though- but 'yes,' scarlet taffeta 'definitely' is. Ha. Ha. Ha.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Callas was certainly a great musician but from the statement of her respecting the wishes of the composers she sang for does not make her a great creative musician in the same way as (e.g.) Mozart or Beethoven were. She was rather a great interpreter of other people's works. She didn't create them. What she did create, of course, is the character of the person she was singing. I don't want to argue about semantics too much but I think we must be careful in the way we use 'creative' here.

Secondly, while we might admire (as I do) or even revere someone's art, I cannot see why we then go on (as some posts imply) to imagine that this person was all that is best in humanity. Sadly many artists fall short of this when they leave the stage. The stage, acting, performing is an illusion which is often not born out in real life. Just take one the greatest violinist of them all - Heifetz. Andre Previn (who knew him) says that although he played as a 'god' he was exceedingly less god-like once he put his fiddle down. He appears to have had character flaws which made him less than successful as a person. And it is the same with all artists - once they leave their discipline they excel at they are human beings - for good or ill - like the rest of us. Elvis Presley was and is looked upon as god-like by his fans. But in real life he was sadly quite different.

One other point. If Callas had not slimmed and turned into such a beautiful woman, would she still command the adulation she has? I mean, the number of photos of her posted on TC alone are remarkable for a singer! If she had been less than beautiful would she be so revered? i mean, Gobbi was also a fantastic operatic interpreter. Does he command the same adulation as Callas? Or is it just reserved for beautiful female divas?

In saying this I am in no way decrying Callas' (or anyone else's) art. I love the art of Callas, Heifetz, and yes, even Elvis - a great popular singer. But I believe there is a place where art ends and real life begins.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Callas was certainly a great musician but from the statement of her respecting the wishes of the composers she sang for does not make her a great creative musician in the same way as (e.g.) Mozart or Beethoven were. She was rather a great interpreter of other people's works. She didn't create them. What she did create, of course, is the character of the person she was singing. *I don't want to argue about semantics too much but I think we must be careful in the way we use 'creative' here.*
> 
> Secondly, while we might admire (as I do) or even revere someone's art, *I cannot see why we then go on (as some posts imply) to imagine that this person was all that is best in humanity. *Sadly many artists fall short of this when they leave the stage. The stage, acting, performing is an illusion which is often not born out in real life. Just take one the greatest violinist of them all - Heifetz. Andre Previn (who knew him) says that although he played as a 'god' he was exceedingly less god-like once he put his fiddle down. He appears to have had character flaws which made him less than successful as a person. And it is the same with all artists - once they leave their discipline they excel at they are human beings - for good or ill - like the rest of us. Elvis Presley was and is looked upon as god-like by his fans. But in real life he was sadly quite different.
> 
> ...


1.) We have already been careful in using the word "creative," and the semantics of it have been thoroughly discussed. I doubt that a single participant in this conversation is in any doubt about how it does and does not apply to composers and interpreters of music.

2.) I cannot recall anyone suggesting that Maria Callas or any other person represents "all that is best in humanity." However, Callas may well represent the best in operatic interpretation. Let us hope that that suggestion will not offend even those who might prefer a different candidate for that position.

3.) By all means post pictures of Tito Gobbi, if you enjoy looking at him.

4.) That place where art ends and "real life" begins? It must be a little sad without art to cheer and enliven and enlighten people. You're welcome to hang out there, but I like to take art with me wherever I go. The music doesn't stop playing in "real life."

I've never been able to comprehend people who can't stand it when others express enthusiasm for the wonderful things in life. It reminds me of St. Augustine, who was afraid to enjoy the music in church lest it seduce him into feeling mere pleasure rather than soberly reflecting upon his sins. I guess he thought it was more "real" to grovel than to sing. Poor sap.


----------



## Tietjens Stolz (Jun 2, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> 1.) We have already been careful in using the word "creative," and the semantics of it have been thoroughly discussed. I doubt that a single participant in this conversation is in any doubt about how it does and does not apply to composers and interpreters of music.
> 
> 2.) I cannot recall anyone suggesting that Maria Callas or any other person represents "all that is best in humanity." However, Callas may well represent the best in operatic interpretation. Let us hope that that suggestion will not offend even those who might prefer a different candidate for that position.
> 
> ...


At least Callas won't be less than pleased at all with our cranky old friend for acknowledging her as a great musician and a beautiful woman. :lol:


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Panorama said:


> *At least Callas won't be less than pleased at all with our cranky old friend for acknowledging her as a great musician and a beautiful woman. :lol:*


^ All I can say is, "_Don't let her youth and beauty get to you, Sweetie._"


----------



## Tietjens Stolz (Jun 2, 2015)

Marschallin Blair said:


> ^ All I can say is, "_Don't let her youth and beauty get to you, Sweetie._"


This is what happens if one does.

I can imagine some groaning, "Yikes! DON'T E-VA let this happen to me!" :lol: :lol: :lol:










(Renowned film and stage director Luchino Visconti, with whom Callas had collaborated in La Vestale, La Sonnambula, La Traviata, Anna Bolena and Ifigenia in Tauride at La Scala, hugging and kissing his goddess when Callas returned to Milan in September 1960 to undertake the stereo re-make of Norma for EMI)


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

"_O for a Muse of fire that would ascend the brightest heaven of invention_"- that would be Callas.

"_The flat and unraised spirits that have dared on this unworthy scaffold to bring forth so great an object_"- that would be the printed score.

The Seventeenth Earl of Oxford, the Lord Great Chamberlain of England, Vicount Bolebec, Lord of Escales, Sanford, and Badlesmere- the man whom we Oxfordians call 'Edward de Vere' but whom the Stratfordians call 'William Shakespeare'- wrote those words in the Great Book.

No, not 'that' Great Book but rather the 'real' Great Book:_ Henry V_.

Anyway, the Bard might have well have used those two separate opening lines to his immortal play on statecraft to describe the 'interpretative' artist and the 'originary' artist respectively.

The interpretative artist, for instance, being a singer like Callas and the originary artist being a composer like Cherubini.

The composer creates the scaffolding and sets- but an only a super-genius performance artist can ingest everything the composer implies- and makes the verisimilitude 'more real than real.'

_- That's genius. _

Listen to Gwyneth Jones do Medea:










And then listen to Callas do it:










Same notes (yes, I know Cherubini didn't do the Italian editions of his scores, but you know what I mean), but 'totally different' universes of detail as far as the singing goes.

So, where does this aesthetic differential come from?- that is to say, the level of artistry that even makes a second-rate score like Medea worth 'listening to'?

That's right, it comes from the performing artist; the interpretative artist; the Muse of Fire; _La Callas_.


----------



## Balthazar (Aug 30, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Callas was certainly a great musician but from the statement of her respecting the wishes of the composers she sang for does not make her a great creative musician in the same way as (e.g.) Mozart or Beethoven were. She was rather a great interpreter of other people's works. She didn't create them. What she did create, of course, is the character of the person she was singing. I don't want to argue about semantics too much but I think we must be careful in the way we use 'creative' here.
> 
> Secondly, while we might admire (as I do) or even revere someone's art, I cannot see why we then go on (as some posts imply) to imagine that this person was all that is best in humanity. Sadly many artists fall short of this when they leave the stage. The stage, acting, performing is an illusion which is often not born out in real life. Just take one the greatest violinist of them all - Heifetz. Andre Previn (who knew him) says that although he played as a 'god' he was exceedingly less god-like once he put his fiddle down. He appears to have had character flaws which made him less than successful as a person. And it is the same with all artists - once they leave their discipline they excel at they are human beings - for good or ill - like the rest of us. Elvis Presley was and is looked upon as god-like by his fans. But in real life he was sadly quite different.
> 
> ...


_*"Amen to that!!!"*_​


----------



## Balthazar (Aug 30, 2014)

I voted the fourth option -- Loved her, but don't listen often now.

Several of my first opera acquisitions were Callas performances -- _Butterfly, Bohème, Carmen_. A fortuitous conflux of the limited availability at my university bookstore and name recognition.

Callas's artistry is unquestioned. But since joining TC, I find myself listening to her recordings less and less. This is a result of both the exposure I have gained to other consummate _artistes_ and also... other factors.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

*


Panorama said:



(Renowned film and stage director Luchino Visconti, with whom Callas had collaborated in La Vestale, La Sonnambula, La Traviata, Anna Bolena and Ifigenia in Tauride at La Scala, hugging and kissing his goddess when Callas returned to Milan in September 1960 to undertake the stereo re-make of Norma for EMI)

Click to expand...

*I love everything that darling of a man did for Callas- best productions, best costumes, best make-up, and I imagine the best stage direction as well.

Like Visconti, I fell in love with Maria's expressivity 'first'- and only later did I start to even take notice of her late-fifties photogenicity.

I remember Visconti saying that he would send flowers to Maria back in the late forties when she was overweight after every performance. He just couldn't believe how off the charts her singing and acting were.


----------



## Balthazar (Aug 30, 2014)

Marschallin Blair said:


> You know, its funny, Pannie.
> 
> When I first saw the Harewood interview- that is to say,* before I became a Callas fan...*


That was about 24 months ago, right?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> 1.) We have already been careful in using the word "creative," and the semantics of it have been thoroughly discussed. I doubt that a single participant in this conversation is in any doubt about how it does and does not apply to composers and interpreters of music.
> 
> 2.) I cannot recall anyone suggesting that Maria Callas or any other person represents "all that is best in humanity." However, Callas may well represent the best in operatic interpretation. Let us hope that that suggestion will not offend even those who might prefer a different candidate for that position.
> 
> ...


You are so predictable in your replies, my friend, in that you always take what someone says and put your own exaggerated spin on it! I am saddened that you resort to this rather than seeing someone else's point of view. 
1. You were actually not that careful in using the word 'creative' which is why I clarified it. I can't see why you must argue this point at it seems we agree on it.
2. I did gather from what certain people write about Callas and the pictures they post then it does appear that for them she represents something more than her stage performances. But I'm not going to interpret people's thoughts for them. 
3. I don't believe I encouraged people to post photos of Gobbi.
4. You seem to have this habit of totally exaggerating what people say. I never said we should be without art. I have shelves of books and over 1000 CDs of classical music. It's not that I don't appreciate art - I love the arts, especially music. It's just that I know Callas or any other diva on stage is not real life. It is fiction. I don't live there. My real life is with family, friends, work, etc.. Art enriches my life but knows its place. By all means if people want to live in a different world then it is up to them. I prefer a perspective of reality.
And I am quite able to comprehend people who express enthusiasm for the wonderful things in life, thank you very much! Just I have am fortunate to have wonderful things in my life other than the arts. That's perhaps where I get my perspective from!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> You are so predictable in your replies, my friend, in that you always take what someone says and put your own exaggerated spin on it! I am saddened that you resort to this rather than seeing someone else's point of view.
> 1. You were actually not that careful in using the word 'creative' which is why I clarified it. I can't see why you must argue this point at it seems we agree on it.
> 2. I did gather from what certain people write about Callas and the pictures they post then it does appear that for them she represents something more than her stage performances. But I'm not going to interpret people's thoughts for them.
> 3. I don't believe I encouraged people to post photos of Gobbi.
> ...


Apparently my "exaggerated spin" is so accurate that you have to contradict yourself in order to wiggle out of your self-laid trap. May I quote you?
_
"You were actually not that careful in using the word 'creative' which is why I clarified it. I can't see why you must argue this point at it seems we agree on it."_

If it was clear to you that we agree, then apparently my use of the word was careful enough not to require clarification from you.

You originally stated: _"I cannot see why we then go on (as some posts imply) to imagine that this person was all that is best in humanity."_ You now modify this to _"I did gather from what certain people write about Callas and the pictures they post then it does appear that for them she represents something more than her stage performances."_

Well, yes, I dare say she does. And how does "something more" mean the same thing as "all that is best in humanity?" But I guess you're hoping we won't notice the backpedaling when you assure us _"I'm not going to interpret people's thoughts for them." _

Well, that's a relief! And just when it looked exactly like you were interpreting people's thoughts for them!

And then there's this:

_"By all means if people want to live in a different world then it is up to them. I prefer a perspective of reality. And I am quite able to comprehend people who express enthusiasm for the wonderful things in life, thank you very much! Just I have am fortunate to have wonderful things in my life other than the arts. That's perhaps where I get my perspective from!"_

Regardless of where you get your perspective from, it is _your_ perspective, and frankly it is not of the slightest relevance to the conversation here, which is not about anyone's list of priorities in life but about the accomplishments of an opera singer, which are magnificent and artistically important. But if you are suggesting that anyone here is lacking in "wonderful things in life other than the arts," and that therefore they are not so privileged as to have acquired your "perspective of reality," you are out of bounds. It is quite likely that others here are as deeply committed to the realities of their lives outside their passion for music as you are; but that need not render them incapable of feeling profound admiration for the arts and artists they love, and of taking great pleasure in talking about them. It should be a given that every person on this forum is entitled to his own values, enthusiasms, and priorities, which no one else has any business questioning or judging (and then pretending not to).

If you can't enjoy a party, the proper course is not to crash it and tell people they're having too much fun and should think about "real life." The proper response is to stay home and have your own "real life" the way you prefer it. Nobody here will object.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Apparently my "exaggerated spin" is so accurate that you have to contradict yourself in order to wiggle out of your self-laid trap. May I quote you?
> _
> "You were actually not that careful in using the word 'creative' which is why I clarified it. I can't see why you must argue this point at it seems we agree on it."_
> 
> ...


Oh dear! Another example of exaggerated spin. You have once again completely misinterpreted what I said. Never mind! :lol:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Oh dear! Another example of exaggerated spin. You have once again completely misinterpreted what I said. Never mind! :lol:


It is impossible to put any further spin on the things you say and then say you didn't say. Aristotle should have met you before he said that A was A.

In any event I hope we have heard enough for now about our unrealistic perspectives and how we "imply" that Callas is the ultimate specimen of humanity or whatever.

I need to return to the party. Bye now!


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

This thread was started just over four days ago, and has already garnered 143 posts (including this one). Of what other singer could one say that? I suppose it just goes to prove that Callas is as controversial as ever, and as relevant today as she was when she was alive, mayber more so. I also note that the discussion has not been just about her art and musicianship, but about the very nature of the creative arts and their significance themselves. Again, what other singer inspires such in depth discussion?

As it happens, I am at the moment listening to a disc in the big Janet Baker box, her recordings of Brahms's *Alto Rhapsody*, Wagner's *Wesendonck Lieder* and Elgar's *Sea Pictires*, and it reminds me of her own words, pertinent I think to the discussion at hand.



> I always thought of it as a gift implanted in me, from wherever you choose to believe. It sort of worked separately, almost outside of me, and guided my life like a lodestone or magnetic north. In that sense the relinquishing of my public life was a little easier because I didn't want to let down the talent, this gift which had not only been such a joy, but had also been at times a quite heavy responsibility.


No additions necessary.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

I like Callas. I admire her talent. But I like Dame Janet's talent more. I realise for some this borders on heresy but hey-ho.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Barbebleu said:


> I like Callas. I admire her talent. But I like Dame Janet's talent more. I realise for some this borders on heresy but hey-ho.


Not to me, and I am probably one of the biggest Callas fans on this site. Maybe for you it has something to do with repertoire and Dame Janet sang more of the repertoire you like. Her concert and orotorio repertoire was very wide, but her operatic one more limited, and she confined all her operatic appearances to the UK (save for a single concert performance as Smeton in Anna Bolena at Carnegie Hall and an appearance at La Scala when Covent Garden took their production of La Clemenza di Tito there).

For me, though their methods were markedly different, they had other similar qualities; a burning inward intensity and a way of making the act of singing as natural as speaking, a gift for communication which is rare indeed. There is a video of a French TV concert at which Callas sings Amina's Ah non credea and the preceding recitative. She is elegantly coiffed and dressed, but without hardly moving a muscle, she simply becomes the poor, broken-hearted young heroine. It is almost as if she is unaware of everything around, so deeply in touch is she with the music and emotion. She sings with a mere thread of voice but the performance draws you in. Baker had a similar ability to draw you in and make you hang on her every note and she too could make the quietest pianissimi reach to the furthest recesses of the auditorium. Both were experts of that art that conceals art. Though the product of long rehearsal and preparation, they could make you feel the music was coming newly minted from their mouths. Lorraine Hunt Lieberson also had this quality.


----------



## Tietjens Stolz (Jun 2, 2015)

Overall, I really can't help feeling this poll could have been much better designed and more nuanced than what the OP has done. I think the poll options could have been laid out like this:

1. Love at first hearing and enjoy virtually everything she sang.

2. Took time to warm up to her but gradually came to love virtually everything she sang.

3. I respect her as a great artist and enjoy her very much in some roles but not everything she sang.

4. I recognize her greatness but unfortunately I am not really into her because of lack of interest in most of her repertoire.

5. I recognize her greatness but unfortunately I am not really into her because I prefer other vocal types (mezzo, contralto, tenor bass, baritone, countertenor, etc.)

6. I am not (yet) into her because I am still a beginner in opera/not familiar with (or not interested in) opera and her repertoire is completely _terra incognita _to me.

7. Never warm up to her because even though I recognize her greatness as an artist her particular vocal timbre never appeals to me. It's a matter of personal taste.

8. Never warm up to her because sheer beauty of voice is my top priority when I listen to and evaluate singers.

9. Loved her at first and still recognize her greatness as an artist and musician, but now listen less and less to her because I came to like other singers better in the same repertoire due to transformation of personal taste in vocal timbre and other factors.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Panorama said:


> Overall, I really can't help feeling this poll could have been much better designed and more nuanced than what the OP has done. I think the poll options could have been laid out like this:
> 
> 1. Love at first hearing and enjoy virtually everything she sang.
> 
> ...


I like it, maybe we should ask to have this thread closed and a link to a new poll with all your choices, if you so desire to initiate such poll. In your list I am a #4 and #9.


----------



## Tietjens Stolz (Jun 2, 2015)

Florestan said:


> I like it, maybe we should ask to have this thread closed and a link to a new poll with all your choices, if you so desire to initiate such poll. In your list I am a #4 and #9.


Yes why not we ask the TC administrator to close this thread and start a new polling thread again? 

Unfortunately I am still unable to create a poll on TC (I wonder why) so I will leave it to you to post the newly-designed poll.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Panorama said:


> Yes why not we ask the TC administrator to close this thread and start a new polling thread again?
> 
> Unfortunately I am still unable to create a poll on TC (I wonder why) so I will leave it to you to post the newly-designed poll.


should it be multiple choice? I had two that applied.
should it be so we can see who voted for what? I think that is a good idea this time.
should we have an other selection?
Remember there is a limit of a maximum of 15 poll selections.
I can post the poll, but it probably will be late afternoon or so. Then I will put a link in the end of this thread and suggest further discussion go to the new poll thread.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

ok, I'm for option number 1 in your rephrased poll.


----------



## Tietjens Stolz (Jun 2, 2015)

Florestan said:


> should it be multiple choice? I had two that applied.
> should it be so we can see who voted for what? I think that is a good idea this time.


Yes we can make it a multiple-choiced, open voting.


----------



## Tietjens Stolz (Jun 2, 2015)

Florestan said:


> should it be multiple choice? I had two that applied.
> should it be so we can see who voted for what? I think that is a good idea this time.
> should we have an other selection?
> Remember there is a limit of a maximum of 15 poll selections.
> I can post the poll, but it probably will be late afternoon or so. Then I will put a link in the end of this thread and suggest further discussion go to the new poll thread.


Sure.  Please go ahead by all means.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

GregMitchell said:


> Not to me, and I am probably one of the biggest Callas fans on this site. Maybe for you it has something to do with repertoire and Dame Janet sang more of the repertoire you like. Her concert and orotorio repertoire was very wide, but her operatic one more limited, and she confined all her operatic appearances to the UK (save for a single concert performance as Smeton in Anna Bolena at Carnegie Hall and an appearance at La Scala when Covent Garden took their production of La Clemenza di Tito there).
> 
> For me, though their methods were markedly different, they had other similar qualities; a burning inward intensity and a way of making the act of singing as natural as speaking, a gift for communication which is rare indeed. There is a video of a French TV concert at which Callas sings Amina's Ah non credea and the preceding recitative. She is elegantly coiffed and dressed, but without hardly moving a muscle, she simply becomes the poor, broken-hearted young heroine. It is almost as if she is unaware of everything around, so deeply in touch is she with the music and emotion. She sings with a mere thread of voice but the performance draws you in. Baker had a similar ability to draw you in and make you hang on her every note and she too could make the quietest pianissimi reach to the furthest recesses of the auditorium. Both were experts of that art that conceals art. Though the product of long rehearsal and preparation, they could make you feel the music was coming newly minted from their mouths. Lorraine Hunt Lieberson also had this quality.


Highly probable. Dame Janet's repertoire does appeal to me more. Any Verdi I have is because of Callas's presence, other than Otello, and that's because of Jon Vickers. I'm not generally a fan of the bel canto repertoire (Donizetti, Bellini et al). But I'm also sure that it's something more appealing to my ear about the voice. It's the same with Gundula Janowitz. Some find her voice too ice-maidenly, if that's even an expression, but it has a quality that I like. I tend to favour voices with little or no vibrato. But again my likes only. One of the first things I ever heard on a highlights disc was Maria singing the mad scene from Lucia which was also one of the first operas I ever saw ( not with her, of course. Scottish Opera production nearly forty years ago). I loved it but it kind of clarified how I felt about an awful lot of bel canto operas. I was listening to them, waiting for the highlights to arrive which does the composer, the performers or myself no favours. My loss you might say but I'll survive. :tiphat:


----------



## Balthazar (Aug 30, 2014)

Panorama said:


> Overall, I really can't help feeling this poll could have been much better designed and more nuanced than what the OP has done. I think the poll options could have been laid out like this:
> 
> 1. *Love* at first hearing and enjoy virtually everything she sang.
> 
> ...


Not the most even-handed poll.

Three of nine options involve "loving" her.

Five of nine involve "recognizing her greatness."

The only other options are unfamiliarity or a priority on a beautiful voice...

Fair and balanced! Pure and simple!


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Balthazar said:


> Not the most even-handed poll.
> 
> Three of nine options involve "loving" her.
> 
> ...


I am for revisions to make it better. I can't post a new poll until tonight am on my way out the door for the day.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

The poll could be made simpler rather than complicated. 

1. Love her. 

2. Not really interested in her. 

3. Can't stand her. 

And use your post to amplify your thoughts if you feel the need to do so.


----------



## Tietjens Stolz (Jun 2, 2015)

Balthazar said:


> Not the most even-handed poll.
> 
> Three of nine options involve "loving" her.
> 
> ...


Florestan is going to bring in more options to try to make it to the maximum 15. Hopefully that could make the poll more balanced.

Sorry, we can never have 100% pure and simple reactions to artists simply because human minds are too complex and can come out with a huge variety of reasons to explain why they react to a particular artist this or that way. We never intend the poll to be a perfect one anyway.


----------



## Tietjens Stolz (Jun 2, 2015)

Barbebleu said:


> The poll could be made simpler rather than complicated.
> 
> 1. Love her.
> 
> ...


This puts severe limits on people who have mixed reaction toward any artist. In such cases you simply can't simplify things, that's why I desire a much more nuanced voting.


----------



## Tietjens Stolz (Jun 2, 2015)

To Florestan:

Please consider carefully whether you want to add in this kind of option (based on what I know of Callas detractors on YouTube):

"Callas has been overrated and over-hyped: Her voice is unpleasant at best and her so-called artistry are simply irritating mannerisms."

.....with a warning that those who select this option must be prepared to put on the strongest steel helmet and defend themselves. :devil:


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Panorama said:


> This puts severe limits on people who have mixed reaction toward any artist. In such cases you simply can't simplify things, that's why I desire a much more nuanced voting.


Hence the posting to elaborate. There's little chance any poll can give you enough choices to cover every eventuality. Isn't it a wonderful situation where we are now have difficulty deciding the layout of the poll never mind what the poll is intended to reflect. Most polls tend to have two or three options which are clear cut, like which do you prefer, butter, margarine or neither, more than that tends to confuse the issue particularly where there is more to the option than is apparent. I don't think that you can poll something as subjective as art particularly where opinions will be polarised and in a lot of cases well discussed and extremely detailed.


----------



## Balthazar (Aug 30, 2014)

Florestan said:


> I am for revisions to make it better. I can't post a new poll until tonight am on my way out the door for the day.


I don't think there is anything wrong with this poll as it stands (or this thread for that matter). :tiphat:

But a poll that reflects the range of views in evidence on this site might be public and have multiple choice options such as:

1.	Callas is a goddess whom I worship.
2.	I love Callas and everything she ever sang. She is always or almost always my preferred interpreter.
3.	Callas is my favorite singer for certain roles, but not others.
4.	I like Callas, but there are other singers I like as much or more.
5.	I am indifferent to Callas's recordings.
6. I dislike many or all of Callas's recordings.
7.	I don't care for the timbre of Callas's voice.
8. I generally prefer other singers with more beautiful voices.
9.	I don't care for much of the repertoire Callas sings.
10.	I find the cult of personality surrounding Maria Callas rather off-putting.
11.	I am not sufficiently familiar with her recordings to have a view.
12.	Other.

(For the record, I choose 3, 4, and 10.)


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

*DavidA:* While I don't really see that anyone here has implied that Callas was as "great" a human being as she was an artist, I do thoroughly agree with the first point in your post. I also understand your point about Tito Gobbi's appearance versus Callas'. I think, though, that people who post pictures of Callas and enjoy looking at them do so because they think she's a beautiful woman _and_ because they think that in costume she looked perfect for the roles she sang. I could post a picture of Gobbi as Scarpia and say he looked great for that role, though I don't know whether Gobbi himself qualified as a conventionally handsome man. But your post does give one to think: had Callas never lost the weight, would her looks have the same appeal, even, or especially, in onstage, in-costume photos? I doubt it. In fact, I think that's why she lost the weight: to become more convincing onstage.


----------



## Tietjens Stolz (Jun 2, 2015)

Balthazar said:


> I don't think there is anything wrong with this poll as it stands (or this thread for that matter). :tiphat:
> 
> But a poll that reflects the range of views in evidence on this site might be public and have multiple choice options such as:
> 
> ...


I have made some modifications and additions to your proposed options. We need to presume all those who have definite opinions of Callas have listened to at least some (if not all) of her recorded performances, so I have crossed out your #5 and #6 and replaced them with more options that pertain to different possible reactions toward her voice and artistry. All these add up to exactly the max. no. of 15.

1. Callas is a goddess whom I worship.
2. I love Callas and everything she ever sang. She is always or almost always my preferred interpreter.
3. Callas is my favorite singer for certain roles, but not others.
4. I like Callas, but there are other singers I like as much or more.
5. I simply don't care for the timbre of Callas' voice.
6. I generally prefer other singers with at least more pleasant voices than Callas'
7. I find Callas' so-called artistry mannered and irritating. 
8. I generally prefer other vocal types (mezzo, contralto, tenor, baritone, bass, countertenor, etc.)
9. To me sheer beauty of voice overrides all other factors in listening to and evaluating singers.
10. I always seek good balance between artistry and beauty of voice and to me Callas satisfies only in the artistry department. 
11. I don't care for much of the repertoire Callas sings.
12. I find the cult of personality surrounding Maria Callas rather off-putting.
13. I am not sufficiently familiar with her and her recordings to have a view.
14. I am not much into opera and Callas is _terra incognita _to me.
15. Other


----------



## Tietjens Stolz (Jun 2, 2015)

Bellinilover said:


> *DavidA:* While I don't really see that anyone here has implied that Callas was as "great" a human being as she was an artist, I do thoroughly agree with the first point in your post. I also understand your point about Tito Gobbi's appearance versus Callas'. I think, though, that people who post pictures of Callas and enjoy looking at them do so because they think she's a beautiful woman _and_ because they think that in costume she looks perfect for the roles she sang. I could post a picture of Gobbi as Scarpia and say he looked great for that role, though I don't know whether Gobbi himself qualified as a conventionally handsome man. But your post does give one to think: had Callas never lost the weight, would her looks have the same appeal, even, or especially, in onstage, in-costume photos? I doubt it. In fact, I think that's why she lost the weight: to become more convincing onstage.


You are completely right in pointing out that the motivation behind Callas' diet is not just to become more beautiful in looks, but also to look more believable in the roles she undertook on stage. Take Violetta in La Traviata for instance. One of the key factors that led to the world premiere of La Traviata in 1953 ending up in fiasco was the obesity of the leading lady. Audience felt that it was difficulty to fathom a fat lady as the beautiful, fragile and consumptive heroine whom Alfredo fell deeply in love with. Violetta featured as the second most important role in Callas' entire career after Norma and she certainly wanted to bring herself as close to Alexandre Dumas' original as possible (she had indeed read Dumas' novel, as revealed in Lord Harewood's interview with her in 1968).


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bellinilover said:


> *DavidA:* *While I don't really see that anyone here has implied that Callas was as "great" a human being as she was an artist*, I do thoroughly agree with the first point in your post. I also understand your point about Tito Gobbi's appearance versus Callas'. I think, though, that people who post pictures of Callas and enjoy looking at them do so because they think she's a beautiful woman _and_ because they think that in costume she looks perfect for the roles she sang. I could post a picture of Gobbi as Scarpia and say he looked great for that role, though I don't know whether Gobbi himself qualified as a conventionally handsome man. But your post does give one to think: had Callas never lost the weight, would her looks have the same appeal, even, or especially, in onstage, in-costume photos? I doubt it. *In fact, I think that's why she lost the weight: to become more convincing onstage*.


I made the point as it seemed to me that that's what some people were implying. The problem was that the points were misinterpreted into something I certainly did not mean - i.e. that I disliked her art itself. But that's the problem with print - you cannot always explain your points as fully as you would like. I meant I at least like to distinguish between 'La Divina' and Callas the woman.But never mind - not everyone will agree with me on that I know.

As to the weight loss you might find this portion from Wiki interesting:

n the early years of her career, Callas was a heavy and full-figured woman; in her own words, "Heavy-one can say-yes I was; but I'm also a tall woman, 5' 8½" [174 centimeters], and I used to weigh no more than 200 pounds [91 kilograms]." Tito Gobbi relates that during a lunch break while recording Lucia in Florence, Serafin commented to Callas that she was eating too much and allowing her weight to become a problem. When she protested that she wasn't so heavy, Gobbi suggested she should "put the matter to test" by stepping on the weighing machine outside the restaurant. The result was "somewhat dismaying, and she became rather silent." In 1968, Callas told Edward Downes that during her initial performances in Cherubini's Medea in May 1953, she realized that she needed a leaner face and figure to do dramatic justice to this as well as the other roles she was undertaking. She adds,
"I was getting so heavy that even my vocalizing was getting heavy. I was tiring myself, I was perspiring too much, and I was really working too hard. And I wasn't really well, as in health; I couldn't move freely. And then I was tired of playing a game, for instance playing this beautiful young woman, and I was heavy and uncomfortable to move around. In any case, it was uncomfortable and I didn't like it. So I felt now if I'm going to do things right-I've studied all my life to put things right musically, so why don't I diet and put myself into a certain condition where I'm presentable."
During 1953 and early 1954, she lost almost 80 pounds (36 kg), turning herself into what Rescigno called "possibly the most beautiful lady on the stage".[13] Sir Rudolf Bing, who remembered Callas as being "monstrously fat" in 1951, stated that after the weight loss, Callas was an "astonishing, svelte, striking woman" who "showed none of the signs one usually finds in a fat woman who has lost weight: she looked as though she had been born to that slender and graceful figure, and had always moved with that elegance."[29] Various rumors spread regarding her weight loss method; one had her swallowing a tapeworm, while Rome's Panatella Mills pasta company claimed she lost weight by eating their "physiologic pasta", prompting Callas to file a lawsuit. Callas stated that she lost the weight by eating a sensible low-calorie diet of mainly salads and chicken.
Some believe that the loss of body mass made it more difficult for her to support her voice, triggering the vocal strain that became apparent later in the decade (see vocal decline), while others believed the weight loss effected a newfound softness and femininity in her voice, as well as a greater confidence as a person and performer. Tito Gobbi said, "Now she was not only supremely gifted both musically and dramatically-she was a beauty too. And her awareness of this invested with fresh magic every role she undertook. What it eventually did to her vocal and nervous stamina I am not prepared to say. I only assert that she blossomed into an artist unique in her generation and outstanding in the whole range of vocal history."

One factor also in Callas' weight loss was the way her mother treated her because she was the 'fat sister'. I know women who have had tremendous psychological problems because of the cruelty of parents in describing them as 'fat'. No doubt Callas suffered from this too with her image as a woman. Read the actress Jane Fonda's autobiography and you will find she also suffered from terrible image problems as a woman because of things her father had told her as a kid.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Is this thread for real?
You're kidding, right?
At first I thought of it as an educational, interesting (if not provocative) discussion of an explosive icon of the opera world but frankly my dears, this has turned into a rather embarrassing and childlike exercise of a cartoon to a great lady.


----------



## Tietjens Stolz (Jun 2, 2015)

nina foresti said:


> Is this thread for real?
> You're kidding, right?
> At first I thought of it as an educational, interesting (if not provocative) discussion of an explosive icon of the opera world but frankly my dears, this has turned into a rather embarrassing and childlike exercise of a cartoon.


In that case you would probably find our old and by now monstrous "New Callas Box" thread more to your liking. :lol:

http://www.talkclassical.com/33051-new-maria-callas-box-172.html

In the end it is still her recorded performances you and many will return to and this thread offers as much info as you would like to know about her recordings.


----------



## Guest (May 9, 2016)

Balthazar said:


> I don't think there is anything wrong with this poll as it stands (or this thread for that matter). :tiphat:
> 
> But a poll that reflects the range of views in evidence on this site might be public and have multiple choice options such as:
> 
> ...


You missed

12. (Other) I feel compelled to insert large images of La Divina at almost every opportunity, irrespective of their relevance to the point I wish to make, just so her radiant divinity is constantly on show for the benefit of Unbelievers.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> You missed
> 
> 12. (Other) I feel compelled to insert large images of La Divina at almost every opportunity, irrespective of their relevance to the point I wish to make, just so her radiant divinity is constantly on show for the benefit of Unbelievers.


I think I'll start inserting large images of Beverly Sills into threads. I do find her more attractive than Callas and that is because I am not one for the fashion model look. Yes Callas looks great for a fashion ad, but not for real life in my world.


----------



## Green pasture (Aug 11, 2015)

nina foresti said:


> Is this thread for real?
> You're kidding, right?
> At first I thought of it as an educational, interesting (if not provocative) discussion of an explosive icon of the opera world but frankly my dears, this has turned into a rather embarrassing and childlike exercise of a cartoon to a great lady.


Ditto, and I am not going to take part in the updated poll since I have made my stand clear enough in the current one!


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

plumblossom said:


> Ditto, and I am not going to take part in the updated poll since I have made my stand clear enough in the current one!


Me too. And actually I don't need to know what other people think of Callas. I know she was the supreme operatic artist of the twentieth century, and that is enough for me! :devil:


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

Where does this cult of personality come from? How does it begin? When and how did specific members here first go from enjoying her recordings to tolerating no criticism and gushing over photos like a twelve year old with a One Direction fanzine?

I really, genuinely what to understand the process.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

GregMitchell said:


> Me too. *And actually I don't need to know what other people think of Callas*. I know she was the supreme operatic artist of the twentieth century, and that is enough for me! :devil:


Spoken like the member of a chat forum on a chat thread ?


----------



## Tietjens Stolz (Jun 2, 2015)

SimonNZ said:


> Where does this cult of personality come from? How does it begin? When and how did specific members here first go from enjoying her recordings to tolerating no criticism and gushing over photos like a twelve year old with a One Direction fanzine?
> 
> I really, genuinely what to understand the process.


Are you a Sociology professor with research interest in fan behaviours? :lol:

Perhaps you can aspire to better this one:
http://cup.columbia.edu/book/the-star-as-icon/9780231145411


----------



## Tietjens Stolz (Jun 2, 2015)

plumblossom said:


> Ditto, and I am not going to take part in the updated poll since I have made my stand clear enough in the current one!


Plummie and Greg: I fully respect your decisions. But then let's just leave it to Florestan to decide whether he wishes to move ahead with the updated poll.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Panorama said:


> Are you a Sociology professor with research interest in fan behaviours? :lol:
> 
> Perhaps you can aspire to better this one:
> http://cup.columbia.edu/book/the-star-as-icon/9780231145411


That book looks like it should be called 'Camp Icons of the 20th Century'. If it's an answer to Simon's question it seems to be a somewhat cynical one, though possibly not terribly wide of the mark.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

Panorama said:


> Are you a Sociology professor with research interest in fan behaviours? :lol:


No...as I'm probably going to talk about Callas with Callas fans again some time in the future, and I'd like to find a way of doing that without hitting the brick wall of the perception of any criticism equaling hate. Understanding this cult of personality business would help, if anyone is willing to examine their own fanaticism.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

*


Florestan said:



I think I'll start inserting large images of Beverly Sills into threads. I do find her more attractive than Callas and that is because I am not one for the fashion model look. Yes Callas looks great for a fashion ad, but not for real life in my world.









Click to expand...

*Voice one size too small.

Mullet one size too big.

Long hair and six-inch wedges I can understand, but World-Cup-_couture_ soccer mullets are admittedly beyond me.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

SimonNZ said:


> *Where does this cult of personality come from?* How does it begin? When and how did specific members here first go from enjoying her recordings to tolerating no criticism and gushing over photos like a twelve year old with a One Direction fanzine?
> 
> *I really, genuinely what to understand the process.*


_Quod vide_ any Pierre Boulez apologia thread.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> Me too. And actually I don't need to know what other people think of Callas. I know she was the supreme operatic artist of the twentieth century, and that is enough for me! :devil:


Well, 'sure.'_ ;D_

Okay David, take it away:

"_About Maria Callas I am honestly, practically devoid of words- and that must be the case when one comes up against some phenomenon that one simply can't explain. She is, I think, without any doubt at all (and I don't mind what letters come to me tomorrow) the greatest theatrical, musical artist of our time. What does that mean? Well, it's difficult to define. The whole business of singing an opera, the whole business of using music and words, is to intensify a feeling. She has an enormous feeling for music. She has an enormous feeling for words. She has an enormous feeling for the dramatic. She can convey all of those things to an audience in a way that practically no other artist alive can do. Maria Callas!- Maria Callas the Great!_"

- David Webster, Chief Executive of the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden from 1945 to 1970


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Voice one size too small.
> 
> Mullet one size too big.
> 
> Long hair and six-inch wedges I can understand, but World-Cup-_couture_ soccer mullets are admittedly beyond me.


You can argue the size of the voice, but it is a great voice anyway. But how can you criticize her hair etc. when it was done up this way for Lucia di Lammermoor, not for her typical night out?


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> _Quod vide_ any Pierre Boulez apologia thread.


There is nothing remotely comparable in any Boulez discussion. If I said I like x but not y of his (as I have done) that would be completely fine. And there's no insisting he's number one - if you like him but like other composers or conductors more then that's neither here nor there. And there no collecting of mementos or making of shrines. You can even dislike him if you bring something more to the discussion than parroted thirdhand misquotes and an obvious unfamiliarity with the actual music.

I actually want to know: can you remember when just enjoying the music wasn't enough?


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

*


Balthazar said:



That was about 24 months ago, right?

Click to expand...

*You'd have to ask someone who has an unhealthy obsession with me and my backlog of posts.


----------



## silentio (Nov 10, 2014)

SimonNZ said:


> There is nothing remotely comparable in any Boulez discussion. If I said I like x but not y of his (as I have done) that would be completely fine. And there's no insisting he's number one - if you like him but like other composers or conductors more then that's neither here nor there. *And there no collecting of mementos or making of shrines*. You can even dislike him if you bring something more to the discussion than parroted thirdhand misquotes and an obvious unfamiliarity with the actual music.
> 
> I actually want to know: can you remember when just enjoying the music wasn't enough?


Agree about the making of shrines part. That gave me chills.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

*


silentio said:



Agree about the making of shrines part. That gave me chills.

Click to expand...

*No, a shrine for a poisonous, hunchbacked toad who wants to burn down opera houses most likely wouldn't be in the cards.


----------



## Tietjens Stolz (Jun 2, 2015)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Voice one size too small.
> 
> Mullet one size too big.
> 
> Long hair and six-inch wedges I can understand, but World-Cup-_couture_ soccer mullets are admittedly beyond me.


Oh my principessa! What have you done? 

Beverly has been well-known as a most lovely person besides being a great artist.

Adoration of La Divina doesn't and shouldn't entail _ad hominem_ denigration of other operatic artists.

Maria would be most horrified.










After all, she was magnanimous enough to have gone to Tebaldi's performances at La Scala to cheer her and backstage after the premiere of Dialogues des Carmélites to congratulate Zeani. And she listened to the records of Muzio and Olivero when learning Violetta.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

silentio said:


> Agree about the making of shrines part. That gave me chills.


Good chills or bad chills? I saw something on TV once about a woman whose house was an Elvis shrine, and I was so jealous! Though unlike her, I don't think I would pay good money for Elvis' verruca- or indeed any money for anyone's verruca, unless something could be done with the DNA, Jurassic Park style.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

*


Panorama said:



Oh my principessa! What have you done? 

Beverly has been well-known as a most lovely person besides being a great artist.

Adoration of La Divina doesn't and shouldn't entail ad hominem denigration of other operatic artists.

Maria would be most horrified.










After all, she was magnanimous enough to have gone to Tebaldi's performances at La Scala to cheer her and backstage after the premiere of Dialogues des Carmélites to congratulate Zeani. And she listened to the records of Muzio and Olivero when learning Violetta.

Click to expand...

*
Principessa Panificent <kiss.>, you know me better than that. Beverly Sills is an absolutely wonderful singer- and an warm, cute, and effervescent personality whom I love.

- But we're talking 'coiffure' here- matters of life and death- 'hair don'ts.'

Do forgive me.


----------



## silentio (Nov 10, 2014)

Figleaf said:


> *Good chills or bad chills?* I saw something on TV once about a woman whose house was an Elvis shrine, and I was so jealous! Though unlike her, I don't think I would pay good money for Elvis' verruca- or indeed any money for anyone's verruca, unless something could be done with the DNA, Jurassic Park style.


Those shrines have became more and more creepy (and annoying too). Ah, they are probably coming again. I am out


----------



## Tietjens Stolz (Jun 2, 2015)

Marschallin Blair said:


> *
> *
> Principessa Panificent <kiss.>


Think I need to take this opportunity to clarify here: I'm a 'he' not a 'she'. :lol:


----------



## silentio (Nov 10, 2014)

Panorama said:


> After all, she was magnanimous enough to have gone to Tebaldi's performances at La Scala to cheer her and backstage after the premiere of Dialogues des Carmélites to congratulate Zeani. *And she listened to the records of Muzio* and Olivero when learning Violetta.


Thanks for pointing out the connection with my favorite Muzio. I didn't know about that. She probably appreciated Muzio through Onassis, right? Onassis was rumored to be the lover of Muzio when she was active at Buenos Aires in the 1920s.


----------



## Tietjens Stolz (Jun 2, 2015)

silentio said:


> Thanks for pointing out the connection with my favorite Muzio. I didn't know about that. She probably appreciated Muzio through Onassis, right? Onassis was rumored to be the lover of Muzio when she was active at Buenos Aires in the 1920s.


Oh....she got hold of Muzio's records long before she met Onassis. Muzio was deeply revered in Italy and South America in her own lifetime and after her death and so were her records, especially the 1934-5 Columbia ones (most of which Michael Scott disparaged mercilessly).


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

*


Balthazar said:



Not the most even-handed poll.

Three of nine options involve "loving" her.

Five of nine involve "recognizing her greatness."

The only other options are unfamiliarity or a priority on a beautiful voice...

Fair and balanced! Pure and simple! 

Click to expand...

*Yeah, I know what you mean.

Ben Johnson had that side-idolatry of loving Shakespeare, himself.

But then, who could blame him?

The Bard coined the ultimate expressions of humanity in the English language.

Callas merely did it in all the other ones.

. . ._ ma con 'calore.' _

So who can blame the list of options to choose from?


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

*


Panorama said:



Think I need to take this opportunity to clarify here: I'm a 'he' not a 'she'. :lol:

Click to expand...

*. . . and you're correcting me 'now,' Panorama?

Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.


----------



## znapschatz (Feb 28, 2016)

Don Fatale said:


> I was a fan of the opera Don Carlos, but never loved Tu Che La Vanita until I heard Callas's version. Then I began to understand her artistry. Voice aside, she had an inate ability to get inside the character she was portraying


That, to me, was the essence of her artistry more than her vocal quality, but it worked at a time I thought Renata Tebaldi was as good as it gets for sopranos. But there was plenty of room for Callas in my personal pantheon.


----------



## silentio (Nov 10, 2014)

Panorama said:


> Oh....she got hold of Muzio's records long before she met Onassis. Muzio was deeply revered in Italy and South America in her own lifetime and after her death and so were her records, especially the 1934-5 Columbia ones (most of which Michael Scott disparaged mercilessly).


It is nice to know that it was not via Onassis that Callas knew about Muzio. I do revere Muzio's Columbia 1934-1935 recordings- probably my desert island disc for now.

I never like Michael Scott. I just love how Steane, in his _Singers of the Century (Volume 3)_, responds to Scott's harsh (and unreasonable) criticisms of Muzio's best works, especially the divine _Addio del passato_.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

*


Florestan said:



You can argue the size of the voice, but it is a great voice anyway. But how can you criticize her hair etc. when it was done up this way for Lucia di Lammermoor, not for her typical night out?

Click to expand...

*I just don't care for mullets, Florestan.

Bubbles should have just said 'no.'


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

silentio said:


> It is nice to know that it was not via Onassis that Callas knew about Muzio. I do revere Muzio's Columbia 1934-1935 recordings- probably my desert island disc for now.
> 
> I never like Michael Scott. I just love how Steane, in his _Singers of the Century (Volume 3)_, responds to Scott's harsh (and unreasonable) criticisms of Muzio's best works, especially the divine _Addio del passato_.


I must get those books. I think Steane was quite as biased as Scott in his treatment of singers, though at least he didn't hide behind fake objectivity and fake cleverness. He said what he meant and meant what he said, and that's why he will always be respected.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

Figleaf said:


> I must get those books. I think Steane was quite as biased as Scott in his treatment of singers, though at least he didn't hide behind fake objectivity and fake cleverness. He said what he meant and meant what he said, and that's why he will always be respected.


Indeed, I think Steane was always very fair, his commentaries on singers usually very balanced. He had his preferences -- for instance, he obviously loved legato and disliked when singers chopped up phrases -- but he never let his writing become catty or snarky. I own _Singers of the Century Volume 3_ and have read through volumes one and two many times. I can recommend all three books.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Balthazar said:


> Not the most even-handed poll.
> 
> Three of nine options involve "loving" her.
> 
> ...


Perhaps we make it really simple:

My feelings about Callas 
(ratings range from
10=absolutely adore her; 
1=Can't stand her; 
0=wish she were dead (oh, wait she is dead))

10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0


----------



## Tietjens Stolz (Jun 2, 2015)

Figleaf said:


> I must get those books. I think Steane was quite as biased as Scott in his treatment of singers, though at least he didn't hide behind fake objectivity and fake cleverness. He said what he meant and meant what he said, and that's why he will always be respected.


Steane was on the whole relatively more even-handed when dealing with various singers and he always ensured that the better qualities of each and every one is well attended to. Of all, two emerged as his clear personal desert island favourites and this is quite clear if one is familiar with all his writings: Giovanni Martinelli (a major target of Scott's disparagement) and Elisabeth Schwarzkopf (our Principessa Marschallin would be very pleased with that :lol.


----------



## Tietjens Stolz (Jun 2, 2015)

Florestan said:


> Perhaps we make it really simple:
> 
> My feelings about Callas
> (ratings range from
> ...


I have no objection to this approach. Perhaps you might wish to define in a specific way what "5" stands for.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Panorama said:


> Steane was on the whole relatively more even-handed when dealing with various singers and he always ensure that the better qualities of each and every one is well attended to. Of all, two emerged as his clear personal desert island favourites and this is quite clear if one is familiar with all his writings: Giovanni Martinelli (a major target of Scott's disparagement) and Elisabeth Schwarzkopf (our Principessa Marschallin would be very pleased with that :lol.


I find that Steane's chief flaw was the way he obsessed over certain singers while barely or never mentioning others of arguably equal or greater stature, and this is how his bias shows itself, rather than in actual partisanship. In a book such as The Grand Tradition, which presumably sets out to be a disinterested (if not necessarily non-opinionated) survey of recorded singing, it seems unfairly self-indulgent to concentrate so much on his personal favourites- especially those who, like Schwarzkopf and Fischer-Dieskau, leave me utterly cold.  Still, a man who could write such perfectly crafted prose in fulsome praise of McCormack and De Lucia was clearly a very good sort and a person of sound musical judgement.


----------



## Tietjens Stolz (Jun 2, 2015)

Figleaf said:


> I find that Steane's chief flaw was the way he obsessed over certain singers while barely or never mentioning others of arguably equal or greater stature, and this is how his bias shows itself, rather than in actual partisanship. In a book such as The Grand Tradition, which presumably sets out to be a disinterested (if not necessarily non-opinionated) survey of recorded singing, it seems unfairly self-indulgent to concentrate so much on his personal favourites- especially those who, like Schwarzkopf and Fischer-Dieskau, leave me utterly cold.  Still, a man who could write such perfectly crafted prose in fulsome praise of McCormack and De Lucia was clearly a very good sort and a person of sound musical judgement.


Unlike Scott, Steane's personal biases are manifested generally in relatively more subtle manner in the degree of attention he paid to each singer and the tone of his assessment (with perhaps two exceptions in _The Grand Tradition_: Aureliano Pertile and Lily Pons, whom he described as representative figures of a "post-Golden Age crisis"). Nevertheless most of those oldies very deserving of a place in the pantheon (at least to my estimation) managed to get generous treatment from him: Battistini, De Lucia, Schumann-Heink, Plancon, Caruso (even though I am aware he is not your cup of tea :lol, De Luca, Chaliapin, Smirnov, Calve, Clement, etc. Borgatti and Ershov received relatively less coverage space probably due to their relatively smaller recorded output but at least Steane recognized them.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Figleaf said:


> I find that Steane's chief flaw was the way he obsessed over certain singers while barely or never mentioning others of arguably equal or greater stature, and this is how his bias shows itself, rather than in actual partisanship. In a book such as The Grand Tradition, which presumably sets out to be a disinterested (if not necessarily non-opinionated) survey of recorded singing, it seems unfairly self-indulgent to concentrate so much on his personal favourites- especially those who, like Schwarzkopf and Fischer-Dieskau, leave me utterly cold.  *Still, a man who could write such perfectly crafted prose *in fulsome praise of McCormack and De Lucia was clearly a very good sort and a person of sound musical judgement.


Steane's first degree was, I believe, n English!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Figleaf said:


> I must get those books. I think Steane was quite as biased as Scott in his treatment of singers, though at least he didn't hide behind fake objectivity and fake cleverness. He said what he meant and meant what he said, and that's why he will always be respected.


Steane is a good writer and a fair critic but I can never get some of his preference for the old timers we only hear warbling on ancient 78s. He must hear something I don't!


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Panorama said:


> I have no objection to this approach. Perhaps you might wish to define in a specific way what "5" stands for.


Probably make 0=Can't stand her and 5=indifferent to her.


----------



## Tietjens Stolz (Jun 2, 2015)

Florestan said:


> Probably make 0=Can't stand her and 5=indifferent to her.


That's fine.


----------



## Tietjens Stolz (Jun 2, 2015)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Okay David, take it away:
> 
> "_About Maria Callas I am honestly, practically devoid of words- and that must be the case when one comes up against some phenomenon that one simply can't explain. She is, I think, without any doubt at all (and I don't mind what letters come to me tomorrow) the greatest theatrical, musical artist of our time. What does that mean? Well, it's difficult to define. The whole business of singing an opera, the whole business of using music and words, is to intensify a feeling. She has an enormous feeling for music. She has an enormous feeling for words. She has an enormous feeling for the dramatic. She can convey all of those things to an audience in a way that practically no other artist alive can do. Maria Callas!- Maria Callas the Great!_"
> 
> - David Webster, Chief Executive of the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden from 1945 to 1970


He had already taken it.


----------



## Balthazar (Aug 30, 2014)

Florestan said:


> Perhaps we make it really simple:
> 
> My feelings about Callas
> (ratings range from
> ...


Sure! As always, the real meat will be in the comments.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Balthazar said:


> Sure! As always, the real meat will be in the comments.


which we already have so another poll would be superfluous--which reason never stopped people from starting more polls here anyway.:lol:


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

I was listening to this classic recital today, and found that I had cut out John Steane's review of the CD reissue and filed it with the disc.

As JBS has been part of the discussion so far, I thought it worth quoting some of his review

After talking about the phemonenal range displayed (not just vocal, but of repertoire) in the recital, he then goes on to say



> The price? that was another matter. The cost fell most heavily upon the high notes and there are many of them in this record. They are all there, includiung a high E at the end of the Bolero from _I Vespri Siciliani_; but few of them are beautiful and most are afflicted with hardness or undsteadiness. Evn in the lyric-dramatic recital this is noticeable: thus the ending of "Io son l'umile ancella" is uncomfortable and the high notes in _L'altra notte_ make a contrast with the beauty and delicacy of the rest. And yet... and yet. When genius is involved, and it assuredly is, do these (and other) faults matter, now at this date, when after all this is all that is left to us to know the genius by? What matters now is the marvellous sound of that sad voice starting "Poveri fiori" with such restrained passion, so full of feeling in the achingly beautiful aria from _La Wally_, so imaginative and inner in the _Mefistofele_.


This seems to me to be wonderful writing, considered and considerate, and one of the reasons JBS is the writer I turn to most on matters vocal. Of course any book on singers and singing by any writer cannot hope to be entirely objective, and JBS had his favourites just like the rest of us, but his criticisms are never bitchy, never merely nasty. He always looks for the good. Indeed it was reading his _The Grand Tradition_ which first made me interested in singers of the pre-LP era. After reading his assessments, I was more able to blot out the sound of primitive recording processes and listen through the sound to the artistry and voices enshrined therein.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

Figleaf said:


> I find that Steane's chief flaw was the way he obsessed over certain singers while barely or never mentioning others of arguably equal or greater stature, and this is how his bias shows itself, rather than in actual partisanship. In a book such as The Grand Tradition, which presumably sets out to be a disinterested (if not necessarily non-opinionated) survey of recorded singing, it seems unfairly self-indulgent to concentrate so much on his personal favourites- especially those who, like Schwarzkopf and Fischer-Dieskau, leave me utterly cold.  Still, a man who could write such perfectly crafted prose in fulsome praise of McCormack and De Lucia was clearly a very good sort and a person of sound musical judgement.


Yes, his _very_ favorable opinion of Elisabeth Schwarzkopf is one of the few things about him I personally can't understand; I almost get the sense that in addition to admiring her artistry he actually had a bit of a crush on her! I never got the sense that Fischer-Dieskau was one of Steane's personal favorites; I just think Steane admired the thought Fischer-Dieskau put into his interpretations and felt other critics treated him unfairly. Steane certainly did write perfectly crafted prose; like me he was an English major (and an English teacher), and as I was still in college when I came across his books I've always thought of him as a sort of writing role model. For my taste he did get a bit too wordy at times, but I think this was a function of the era in which he lived and the type of education that he had (an English, "public school" education).

I don't mean to derail the thread, it's just that I really, really admire Steane and get a little excited whenever his name comes up.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

I began listening to decca recordings of verdi operas and it was sutherland all the way - until someone said to me once you've heard callas that's it - so I listened to some and was immediately gripped - I havent looked back and in bel canto she's untouchable.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Bellinilover said:


> I don't mean to derail the thread, it's just that I really, really admire Steane and get a little excited whenever his name comes up.


No, please do derail this thread. I think it has spent it's usefulness and we may as well talk about anything but Maria Callas now.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

*


Florestan said:



No, please do derail this thread. I think it has spent it's usefulness and we may as well talk about anything but Maria Callas now.

Click to expand...

*Callas' artistry echoes in eternity- so her 'here-today-gone-later-today' detractors are going to have an awfully long way to go.


----------



## DarkAngel (Aug 11, 2010)

Panorama said:


> Unlike Scott, *Steane's personal biases are manifested generally in relatively more subtle manner in the degree of attention he paid to each singer and the tone of his assessment* (with perhaps two exceptions in _The Grand Tradition_: Aureliano Pertile and Lily Pons, whom he described as representative figures of a "post-Golden Age crisis"). Nevertheless most of those oldies very deserving of a place in the pantheon (at least to my estimation) managed to get generous treatment from him: Battistini, De Lucia, Schumann-Heink, Plancon, Caruso (even though I am aware he is not your cup of tea :lol, De Luca, Chaliapin, Smirnov, Calve, Clement, etc. Borgatti and Ershov received relatively less coverage space probably due to their relatively smaller recorded output but at least Steane recognized them.


Pan do you have both "grand tradition" and "singers of century vol 1-3" books, any insights or recommendations, or is it buy all and ask questions later, any cool pictures........

Also anyone else Figs, GM, Marschie, Bellini, DavidA etc comments.....


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Callas' artistry echoes in eternity- so her 'here-today-gone-later-today' detractors are going to have an awfully long way to go.


How about the 'never-was' category?


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

*


DarkAngel said:



Pan do you have both "grand tradition" and "singers of century vol 1-3" books, any insights or recommendations, or is it buy all and ask questions later, any cool pictures........

Also anyone else Figs, GM, Marschie, Bellini, DavidA etc comments.....

 

Click to expand...

*I have the _Grand Tradition _and all three volumes of the_ Singers of the Century_.

The _Grand Tradition _gives great little _aperçus_ on a boatload of singers. The narrative is kind of long and sprawling, where so many times in the middle of one paragraph on one singer, Steane will just start talking about the merits of 'another' singer- and then eventually get back to talking about the singer he was originally talking about (he's kind of like Ralph Waldo Emerson in that respect).

I think the book's fabulous with what one can learn about a great ocean of vocal recordings.

The _Singers of the Century_ series, on the other hand, focuses more on the back round and associations of the singers- and not so much on the relative strengths and weakness of the singers.

To tell the truth, D.A., I'd get _The Last of the Prima Donnas _before I'd even consider getting the_ Singers of the Century _set. Rasponi's book is the result of in-depth face-to-face interviews with the divas themselves. I loved it- and of course read the book cover-to-cover.










http://www.amazon.com/Last-Prima-Donnas-Lanfranco-Rasponi/dp/0879100400


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

*


Bulldog said:



How about the 'never-was' category?

Click to expand...

*_"When my enemies stop hissing, I'll know that I'm missing."_

- Didn't Callas say that?

_;D_


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

_
"About Maria Callas I am honestly, practically devoid of words- and that must be the case when one comes up against some phenomenon that one simply can't explain. She is, I think, without any doubt at all (and I don't mind what letters come to me tomorrow) the greatest theatrical, musical artist of our time. What does that mean? Well, it's difficult to define. The whole business of singing an opera, the whole business of using music and words, is to intensify a feeling. She has an enormous feeling for music. She has an enormous feeling for words. She has an enormous feeling for the dramatic. She can convey all of those things to an audience in a way that practically no other artist alive can do. Maria Callas!- Maria Callas the Great!"

- David Webster, Chief Executive of the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden from 1945 to 1970
_

I never saw Callas on stage - did anyone here? But Webster's assessment of her as a singing actress appears to be pretty in line with those who saw and heard her. We have the legacy of her recordings which of course only convey one dimension of the magic of her stage presence. I remember seeing a performance of Shakespeare's Hamlet with a young Derek Jacobi - you couldn't take your eyes off him such was his stage presence. And as Prospero in The Tempest many years later - same effect. A great artist on stage. Riveting. Solti records Callas had the same effect. Karajan felt the same about her. Yes, the effect of a great artist which casts the illusion in the theatre. Stunning! Just wish I'd have seen Callas in the theatre live. As it is we have the recordings.
It may be worth adding that people recalled Gobbi having the same effect on stage. But we don't adore pudgy baritones in the same way as glamarous divas! :lol:


----------



## DarkAngel (Aug 11, 2010)

Marschallin Blair said:


> To tell the truth, D.A., I'd get _The Last of the Prima Donnas _before I'd even consider getting the_ Singers of the Century _set. Rasponi's book is the result of in-depth face-to-face interviews with the divas themselves. I loved it- and of course read the book cover-to-cover.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah that definitely has my name all over it, order is in for used copy, so much diva lust so little time.........


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

SimonNZ said:


> Where does this cult of personality come from? How does it begin? When and how did specific members here first go from enjoying her recordings to tolerating no criticism and gushing over photos like a twelve year old with a One Direction fanzine?
> 
> I really, genuinely what to understand the process.


Let those who have Callas as their favourite singer express their devotion to her and let those who have other favourites express their devotion.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

Sloe said:


> Let those who have Callas as their favourite singer express their devotion to her and let those who have other favourites express their devotion.


Well doesn't that sound like a noble sentiment?

But you're not paying attention: my first post was a response to the statement that anyone who wasn't already aware of Callas shouldn't be on a classical forum. Or are you okay with that "expression of devotion"?

And then there's the idea that any criticism at all or favoring another singer must be the equivalent of hate or motivated by trolling. Still okay?

And then there's the people who have said here and elsewhere that the cult of personality is turning them away from a singer they once liked more or making them disinclined to investigate further. Still okay?


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

DarkAngel said:


> Pan do you have both "grand tradition" and "singers of century vol 1-3" books, any insights or recommendations, or is it buy all and ask questions later, any cool pictures........
> 
> Also anyone else Figs, GM, Marschie, Bellini, DavidA etc comments.....


I have the Grand Tradition. Useful reference when I'm listening to any of The Record of Singing Volumes or any of my historic Schubert, Brahms, Schumann stuff. The prices for the others are a bit prohibitive. Perhaps they'll do Kindle editions, ha ha.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

DarkAngel said:


> Pan do you have both "grand tradition" and "singers of century vol 1-3" books, any insights or recommendations, or is it buy all and ask questions later, any cool pictures........
> 
> Also anyone else Figs, GM, Marschie, Bellini, DavidA etc comments.....


I think probably everyone should own _The Grand Tradition_ or have easy access to it via a library system. The only downside is that the book was never updated, and discussion of recordings stops at 1970 or 1971. The_ Singers of the Century _ volumes have chapters devoted to individual singers, or in some cases two comparable singers to a chapter. The books contain at least one photo of each singer. Just so you know, the chapter on Callas is in Volume Two.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SimonNZ said:


> Well doesn't that sound like a noble sentiment?
> 
> But you're not paying attention: my first post was a response to the statement that anyone who wasn't already aware of Callas shouldn't be on a classical forum. Or are you okay with that "expression of devotion"?
> 
> ...


In my observation, the "idea that any criticism at all or favoring another singer must be the equivalent of hate or motivated by trolling" is an idea rarely if ever expressed here. I have seen extravagantly expressed Callas fanhood, articulate (and not necessarily uncritical) advocacy by admirers of her art, and occasionally a touch of defensiveness or competitiveness when other singers are compared with her. But these strike me as pretty normal human behaviors - certainly as normal operaphile behaviors, given what we know of people's passionate responses to a passionate art form. Accusations of hate and trolling? Where are they? On other forums, maybe.

I count myself a profound admirer of Callas, whom I consider one of the greatest musical (and dramatic, though of course the evidence is sadly sparse) artists of modern times. I'm not inclined by temperament to engage in "fan" activity (whatever that means) or to get embroiled in operaphiliac disputes about whose high notes are more "divina" or "stupenda" than whose, but I'm not offended, even if I may be a little bored or irritated, by games of one-upmanship. And I've certainly never been turned away from a singer by the enthusiasm of others, even when I think their enthusiasm might pass the bounds of rationality. I really wouldn't know what to say to people whose own taste and judgment are so insecure. You may feel, as you say in a previous post, that Callas fans are acting like twelve-year-olds, but she's still there, unaltered, for us "adults" to enjoy and appreciate.

I do think we're better off keeping our heads here, and not turning the "Callas controversy" (if indeed there really is one) into the orgy of personal recrimination that the "modernist-antimodernist" arguments have become. Effect, in that interminable fracas, is far out of proportion to cause, and really has more to do with personal sensitivities and personality conflicts than whether "atonality" is a valid concept. I believe the same dynamic is active in the present case.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

One thing I absolutely treasure about Callas' early _Normas_ is how she so seamlessly goes from silvery 'vulnerable-and-sweet' to heroic stentorian declamation with the greatest of facility and with absolutely no strain; like its the easiest and most natural thing in the world for her to do.

On the June 17, 1949 Serafin/Teatro Colon recording of Callas' "_Oh, rimembranza!. . . Ah si, fa core, abracciami_"- the amplitude of expression, free and flexible coloratura, and ravishing quicksilver agility is just off the charts.

Although I do find her '55 Votto_ Norma_ is still my favorite for pure subtlety and artistry- in fact, I think its probably the greatest live singing I've ever heard- but I just love the 'size' of that early Callas voice on the Teatro Colon recording.

Joan Sutherland and Richard Bonynge did too, incidentally:

_*I stood and watched Callas through my own special peephole [at Covent Garden in 1953] *and was astonished at the impact both Maria and Stignani made.* I remember how Callas worked, she was always indefatigable. You couldn't fault her. The impact of Norma and her Aida and Il Trovatore made me wonder if I had the audacity to continue. I wanted to, but I really thought ten times about it after I saw those performances*. . .

*I used to think my large voice was incapable of singing those roles. Callas showed me this was not so.* She sang them and this fact indicated I could too. . .

*She gave me the inspiration to join her at the beginning of my career and she never failed to encourage what I tried to do.*_

- Brian Adams, _La Stupenda: A Biography of Joan Sutherland_ (London and Melbourne: Hutchinson, 1981)

_*Had she since thought about the Callas Norma in her own preparation for the role? The answer was immediate, emphatic. "Oh, of course! She was unforgettable. When I began working on it, I thought of nothing else. I couldn't even conceive of any other was of doing it."* *"Callas was phenomenal in the role," said Bonynge, "though she did bend it considerably to suit her own voice and talents. I think I saw her do it eleven times in all. Really, you New Yorkers can have no idea of what that woman's voice was like, because you heard her only later in her career. But those first London Normas! It was before she lost all the weight, you know. The sheer size of the voice, and what she could do with it! When she sang with Stignani, the Andalgisa, you couldn't tell which was which sometimes. She had such a beautifully rich and dark quality at the bottom of the voice, and yet the high notes were all there, too.*
_
- "The Pinnacle," _Opera News_, April 4, 1970

_*Robert Jacobson: Was it the presence of Maria Callas that made you decide to go more in the direction of bel canto?

Richard Bonynge: In many ways, yes.*

*Joan Sutherland: [Vittorio] Gui and [Tullio] Serafin had already started her in that big revival.

Opera News: Did that start you too, in a way?

Joan Sutherland: Oh sure, it sparked the whole musical field.*

*Richard Bonynge: When we first came from Australia, we heard some of Callas's Puritani on 78's in '49 or '50. That really got to us. And Joan sang Norma with her. We went to every rehearsal, every performance, and one learned an immense lot from her. Very, very great.*

Opera News: London heard some of her greatest performances.

*Richard Bonynge: You see, up until '52, '53, beginning of '54 were her greatest successes. We were there all that time. When she sang Aida, the London press was very snide, very rude about her. The Trovatore was something! We should hear it like that today! She was always nervous in Act I, but once that was over, fantastic!*

*Joan Sutherland: Wear and tear, but oh, the tension! She was obviously well trained and well taught and had fabulous directors. She soaked up everything.*

*Richard Bonynge: But before she slimmed down, I mean this was such a colossal voice. It just sort of poured out of her, the way Flagstad's did. . . Callas had a huge voice. When she and Stignani sang Norma, at the bottom of the range you could barely tell who was who.*

*Opera News: An extended dramatic voice.

Richard Bonynge: Oh, it was colossal! And she took the big sound right up to the top.*
_
- Conversation Piece, _Opera News_, December 4, 1982


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Sloe said:


> Let those who have Callas as their favourite singer express their devotion to her and let those who have other favourites express their devotion.


I am not devoted to singer, actors, musicians, etc.. I enjoy and admire their art. 'Devotion' is something I reserve for those in my life which are really important to me like my wife and family. I cannot be devoted to Callas apart from in the illusional world the stage created as I never knew her personally and in any case she is sadly no longer with us.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I have just read Harold C Schoenberg's chapter on Callas in his book "the Virtuosi'. Anyone read this? Opinions?


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

DavidA said:


> I am not devoted to singer, actors, musicians, etc.. I enjoy and admire their art. 'Devotion' is something I reserve for those in my life which are really important to me like my wife and family. I cannot be devoted to Callas apart from in the illusional world the stage created as I never knew her personally and in any case she is sadly no longer with us.


That is called marking words.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Sloe said:


> That is called marking words.


Call it what you like. It happens to be true! :lol:


----------



## Balthazar (Aug 30, 2014)

SimonNZ said:


> Well doesn't that sound like a noble sentiment?
> 
> But you're not paying attention: my first post was a response to the statement that anyone who wasn't already aware of Callas shouldn't be on a classical forum. Or are you okay with that "expression of devotion"?
> 
> ...


This sentiment has already been expressed before the proverbial ink has dried on the new poll.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Balthazar said:


> This sentiment has already been expressed before the proverbial ink has dried on the new poll.


I fail to see what the above link has to do with the highlighted statement. Or maybe I should make myself clearer. When I was talking about haters, I was talking more about those, like you and SimonNZ, who seem to have a problem with other people's enthusiasms! I'm still not absolutely sure why it bothers you so much. Is it just morbid fascination?


----------



## Balthazar (Aug 30, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> I fail to see what the above link has to do with the highlighted statement. Or maybe I should make myself clearer. When I was talking about haters, I was talking more about those, like you and SimonNZ, who seem to have a problem with other people's enthusiasms! I'm still not absolutely sure why it bothers you so much. Is it just morbid fascination?


I am all for others' enthusiasms for whatever turns them on. What I find suspect is when praise of one artist/composer/work is invariably made alongside a mean-spirited denigration of others.

And also the castigation of anyone who doesn't share one's own level of appreciation/adoration/worship (e.g., your referring to me and SimonNZ as "haters").


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Balthazar said:


> I am all for others' enthusiasms for whatever turns them on. What I find suspect is when praise of one artist/composer/work is invariably made alongside a mean-spirited denigration of others.
> 
> And also the castigation of anyone who doesn't share one's own level of appreciation/adoration/worship (e.g., your referring to me and SimonNZ as "haters").


So point out to me one instance when I have made mean-spirited denigrations of others, and I take great exception to any suggestion otherwise.

Maybe hate is too strong a word but you and SimonNZ certainly do seem to have a problem with others' enthusiasms. Ok, so you don't want to join the party. Don't worry, you won't be missed.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

_"Can you take some Haterade with that?"_


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

(YAWN!)
Wake me when all this childish verbal diarrhea is over.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> *So point out to me one instance when I have made mean-spirited denigrations of others*, and I take great exception to any suggestion otherwise.
> 
> Maybe hate is too strong a word but you and SimonNZ certainly do seem to have a problem with others' enthusiasms. Ok, so you don't want to join the party. Don't worry, you won't be missed.


You never 'have.'

This deliberate smear against you is just a variation of the oldest agit-propping, lawyer's trick in the book: "_So when did you stop beating your wife?_"

The troll tries to get you off-balance by defending yourself from their imaginary charges- hoping that their smear job will become the new talking point- while the open defamation of your character that's hidden in plain view- hopefully- goes unnoticed.


----------



## Balthazar (Aug 30, 2014)

Deleted post.


----------



## Krummhorn (Feb 18, 2007)

A request has been made to close this thread.

A new thread dealing with the same topic is in the planning and will appear shortly.

Here is the new link: My Last Maria Callas


----------

