# Round One: Pleurez mes yeux: Callas and Sutherland



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Rogerx and The Conte gave me the gumption to put Sutherland up against Callas. Here we have two of the greatest coloraturas of the 20th century tackling a pure tragic lyric piece: one of my favorite arias.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Callas’s singing is musical, full of nuance and sung with great emotion and beauty in the first 3/4ths of the aria. Unfortunately the last part occurs and by this point in her career her high notes are all marred by a wobble a 16 wheeler could drive though, so the climax of the aria is ruined for me in this performance. High notes are very important for me. I wish she could have recorded this glorious aria in the early 50’s when she had solid high notes instead of as late as she did. Some Callas fans are not bothered by the wobble. 
With Sutherland I can’t speak to her French as I never listened to it with a libretto, but I can safely say she gave an incredibly committed emotional performance, one of the very best of her career, but unlike Callas sang the whole aria with incredible beauty. I would say she probably came closest in this aria to her idol Flagstad in the unity of sound from beautiful low notes to her dramatic high notes, and like Flagstad combined in her high notes jaw dropping power with a sound of great perfection and a combination of both steel and warmth


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

Predictably, Callas has a bit more emotional nuance and Sutherland's voice has more beauty (the power in those big high notes is something else). Both performances are great, but the presence of a slight wobble in Callas's performance forces me to choose Sutherland in this competition.

Two very worthy contestants though!


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

BachIsBest said:


> Predictably, Callas has a bit more emotional nuance and Sutherland's voice has more beauty (the power in those big high notes is something else). Both performances are great, but the presence of a slight wobble in Callas's performance forces me to choose Sutherland in this competition.
> 
> Two very worthy contestants though!


I think this aria even more than In Questa Reggia shows the immense size of Sutherland's voice. I loved your comments.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I have known and loved Callas's grand assumption of this aria since its release on LP, and I continue to feel that Charlotte would have been one of the most appropriate roles for her in the terminal phase of her career. Even the painful high notes are absorbed in her brilliant articulation of the character's own pain, as they could not be in some of the other arias she chose to include in her two French opera collections. I'm grateful that we have as much French music from her as we do, much of it lying predominantly in the mezzo range where the dark timbre of her mature voice made its best effect. And, though my French is rudimentary (don't ask me to converse with you), it's clear to me that she has mastered the sounds of the language as few foreigners do, and she is able to give a beautiful demonstration of the way in which the articulation of words fulfills an essential requirement of fully meaningful singing. This is a performance of immense gravity and authority that pierces the heart.

I didn't know that Sutherland had attempted this, and I wouldn't have expected it (which indicates nothing but my ignorance of her work, I'm sure). I can admire in it a genuine effort to rise to its challenges, and I suppose it gets at least halfway there. The fey, wilted phrasing which typifies - and sometimes compromises - so much of her work in bel canto opera is not wholly absent here, and there's no compensatory strength in her verbal articulation, which plays hide and seek behind a veil of "schwa" tinged with the French "eu," so that we can identify the language but not make contact with it. As everyone will point out, the high notes are strong and fine; however, the gain at that end of her range is lost at the other, where the lower middle voice has its typical plugged-up quality and the chest voice has little resonance or bite. Hers is not a voice made for tragedy, but only for the gentler pathos of the roles in which, wisely, she specialized.

I'm afraid I find no competition here.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

_Kunst diva _ or _Stimme diva _? I hope I have that right. It could be roughly translated as art vs. voice diva.

The Sutherland voice is magnificent, of course. As are the high notes. She gets a few more in as she transposes the last phrases upwards. The singing of the aria is smooth, hardly any sharp edges, nothing to disturb the flow of that voice. The conducting itself is hardly tragic, unlike the other video where it's all tragic. This is interpretative Prozac. But a valid choice.

" _From that terrible struggle, I exit with a broken soul_" begins the recitative. The French words don't sound so prosaic as the English ones.

The Callas voice is in a shocking state - the top raw and raucous, but what she does with the rest of the aria and its recitative is a master class of interpretation, color and grandeur. The voice itself is mostly in decent shape, the middle voice suiting the music beautifully. Some will decry the high notes, or the flap on sustained tones and tremulous _sostenuti_ on even mid-high ones.

But I know which recording would come down from my shelf most often.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> I have known and loved Callas's grand assumption of this aria since its release on LP, and I continue to feel that Charlotte would have been one of the most appropriate roles for her in the terminal phase of her career. Even the painful high notes are absorbed in her brilliant articulation of the character's own pain, as they could not be in some of the other arias she chose to include in her two French opera collections. I'm grateful that we have as much French music from her as we do, much of it lying predominantly in the mezzo range where the dark timbre of her mature voice made its best effect. And, though my French is rudimentary (don't ask me to converse with you), it's clear to me that she has mastered the sounds of the language as few foreigners do, and she is able to give a beautiful demonstration of the way in which the articulation of words fulfills an essential requirement of fully meaningful singing. This is a performance of immense gravity and authority that pierces the heart.
> 
> I didn't know that Sutherland had attempted this, and I wouldn't have expected it (which indicates nothing but my ignorance of her work, I'm sure). I can admire in it a genuine effort to rise to its challenges, and I suppose it gets at least halfway there. The fey, wilted phrasing which typifies - and sometimes compromises - so much of her work in bel canto opera is not wholly absent here, and there's no compensatory strength in her verbal articulation, which plays hide and seek behind a veil of "schwa" tinged with the French "eu," so that we can identify the language but not make contact with it. As everyone will point out, the high notes are strong and fine; however, the gain at that end of her range is lost at the other, where the lower middle voice has its typical plugged-up quality and the chest voice has little resonance or bite. Hers is not a voice made for tragedy, but only for the gentler pathos of the roles in which, wisely, she specialized.
> 
> I'm afraid I find no competition here.


Gorgeously said!


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Woodduck got there first and has most eloquently expressed my opinion.

The most I can say for Sutherland's version is she has wonderful top notes, but I'm afraid that is not enough for me. Her diction is a bit clearer than it often was, but she makes virtually nothing of the words and I don't like the upward ending, which robs the end of its tragic grandeur. The aria's emotional and tragic core is missing and what I hear is mere note spinning.

Callas's top register is raw and she flaps at the climax, but oh what she finds in this piece, with so many phrases standing out in relief. Hamlet should have listened to Callas singing _Mais qui donc a voulu l'éternité des pleurs_ (But who has wished this eternity of tears?). It would have saved him an awful lot of trouble.

Here are the English words to the aria.

_From this dreadful combat I emerge brokenhearted!
But at last I am free and I shall at least be able
to sigh without constraint and to suffer without
witnesses.
Weep, weep my eyes! Fall, sad dew
that a ray of sunshine should never dry!
If one hope remains to me, it is to die soon!
Weep, my eyes, all your tears!
Weep, my eyes!
But who has wished this eternity of tears?
O dear ones in your graves, do you find such
delight
in bequeathing to the living implacable griefs?
Alas! I remember he said to me:
"With your sweet smile
you can only ever lead on
to glorious roads or blessed paths!"
Ah, my father! Alas!
Weep, weep my eyes! etc._

With Callas you don't have to understand French to get the general idea.

I might add that Chimène is one of those Falcon roles, which requires a solid middle and lower register and therefore not a natural for Sutherland. Like Woodduck, I wish Callas had given us more of these roles towards the end of her career. Charlotte, to be sure, but what a magnificent Cassandre or Didon she would have made.

To borrow from MAS, in the conflict between art and voice, it's always art that wins for me.


----------



## Azol (Jan 25, 2015)

With so much valuable comments already in place, I can only add that there is no competition here, in my opinion. Dame Joan is very fine but in my mind she does not connect with her heroine at all. There's mourning feel to it and that's that. Also (and that's very important in this aria) - there's no noticeable buildup towards the (supposedly) shattering end. The words are obscured and so their emotional meaning is obscured as well, it's a psychological trap.
Callas' version knocks me down. This is an _Art_ of singing masterclass. It's sad to see her voice in such disarray by the final passages, but if forced to choose just one of the two versions for eternity, that would be my choice.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

I agree with 99% of what has been said so far. I know the Callas recording well and I've heard the Sutherland one once (I've given all her studio recitals a listen through). I like both, is that allowed?

Grace Bumbry plays Chimene in the complete recording of the opera I have (one of the few Massenet's that I like) and this has always struck me as being more a mezzo aria than a soprano one. Whilst Sutherland sang Massenet on stage (but not this role) and Callas didn't, this is very much Callas territory and she programmed the aria in a few of her concerts in the 60s. I am going to vote for Callas due to the suitability of her voice for the aria and her unsurpassed delivery of the opening lines from the point of view of the emotions of the character. Sutherland is at her most expressive here (and the high quality of her performance in rep that wasn't her natural area is extraordinary), but doesn't quite reach the very high bar that is Callas' emotional identification with the role she happened to be singing.

A great contest in any case. In truth the winners are both Callas and Sutherland and all of us who are blessed to have two such wonderful versions of this aria to listen to.

N.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

The Conte said:


> I agree with 99% of what has been said so far. I know the Callas recording well and I've heard the Sutherland one once (I've given all her studio recitals a listen through). I like both, is that allowed?
> 
> Grace Bumbry plays Chimene in the complete recording of the opera I have (one of the few Massenet's that I like) and this has always struck me as being more a mezzo aria than a soprano one. Whilst Sutherland sang Massenet on stage (but not this role) and Callas didn't, this is very much Callas territory and she programmed the aria in a few of her concerts in the 60s. I am going to vote for Callas due to the suitability of her voice for the aria and her unsurpassed delivery of the opening lines from the point of view of the emotions of the character. Sutherland is at her most expressive here (and the high quality of her performance in rep that wasn't her natural area is extraordinary), but doesn't quite reach the very high bar that is Callas' emotional identification with the role she happened to be singing.
> 
> ...


Bumbry is up next.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Stymied once again. These things get tougher and tougher but through the storm comes a wee little hint that throws my choice in one direction. The chest tones are missing from #2 and are extremely appealing to me as they induce a lost feeling of despair.
Callas by a thread.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Tsaraslondon said:


> Woodduck got there first and has most eloquently expressed my opinion.
> 
> The most I can say for Sutherland's version is she has wonderful top notes, but I'm afraid that is not enough for me. Her diction is a bit clearer than it often was, but she makes virtually nothing of the words and I don't like the upward ending, which robs the end of its tragic grandeur. The aria's emotional and tragic core is missing and what I hear is mere note spinning.
> 
> ...


Exquisitely expressed.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Speaking for myself and the millions of Sutherland fans who have largely not discovered this forum, the beauty of Sutherland's voice is about a lot more than her high notes. I like the middle and the low notes too. Many Callas fans are tone deaf to these details in her voice. I am a Callas fan, but not late Callas. Alas!


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

It bothered me not that this was late Callas. Somehow or other a certain "bloom" seeps through the cracks and that incredible musicality comes to the fore erasing any deficits of the famous sound. I admit to being a fan of her lower register. She does it so well.


----------



## Azol (Jan 25, 2015)

Seattleoperafan said:


> Speaking for myself and the millions of Sutherland fans who have largely not discovered this forum, the beauty of Sutherland's voice is about a lot more than her high notes. I like the middle and the low notes too. Many Callas fans are tone deaf to these details in her voice. I am a Callas fan, but not late Callas. Alas!


To be perfectly honest, Sutherland's voice isn't free from being tonally-neutral and choosing between late Callas and late Sutherland is a no-brainer for me. This part is more suited to lower voices. Massenet is not about the size (we're not talking about Esclarmonde), but with those deeper chest tones missing, some of the dramatic power is lost.
Again, with all due respect - Sutherland is a very surprising choice for this aria. But I'm sure the next round will come up with another worthy contestant!


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Azol said:


> To be perfectly honest, Sutherland's voice isn't free from being tonally-neutral and choosing between late Callas and late Sutherland is a no-brainer for me. This part is more suited to lower voices. Massenet is not about the size (we're not talking about Esclarmonde), but with those deeper chest tones missing, some of the dramatic power is lost.
> Again, with all due respect - Sutherland is a very surprising choice for this aria. But I'm sure the next round will come up with another worthy contestant!


With all respect, at around 2:46 on Sutherland and 3:06 on Callas you have the lowest passage and I don't see what the fuss is about as they both have about the same amplitude. I know Callas can have booming low notes, but here she and Sutherland sing this passage at the same volume. Perhaps you don't like her lower notes, but she and Callas are on equal footing here. This is not Suicidio.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

> To be perfectly honest, Sutherland's voice isn't free from being tonally-neutral and choosing between late Callas and late Sutherland is a no-brainer for me. This part is more suited to lower voices. Massenet is not about the size (we're not talking about Esclarmonde), but with those deeper chest tones missing, some of the dramatic power is lost.
> Again, with all due respect - Sutherland is a very surprising choice for this aria. But I'm sure the next round will come up with another worthy contestant!





> With all respect, at around 2:46 on Sutherland and 3:06 on Callas you have the lowest passage and I don't see what the fuss is about as they both have about the same amplitude. I know Callas can have booming low notes, but here she and Sutherland sing this passage at the same volume. Perhaps you don't like her lower notes, but she and Callas are on equal footing here. This is not Suicidio.


It isn't a question of volume. Not to rag on dear Joan, but I find her lower notes inherently rather dry, gray and inexpressive. Even some of the greatest singers are limited in their expressive abilities by their natural timbre, or have areas of their voices that lack character. A singer may have good intentions, but these might fail to come across, given the voice that she has. In Callas's case the upper range, which always had a bit of hardness to it, deteriorated to the point that it could express little but desperation, but the rest of the voice was always full of fascinating overtones which she could vary and exploit at will to express a wide range of character and feeling. Sutherland's voice, quite apart from it's technical abilities or its "beauty" (a subjective matter, of course), had a more limited range of expression simply by virtue of its timbral qualities.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Looking through the versions of this aria on youtube threw up some interesting candidates. Bumbry and Verrett would seem a perfect fit, but I wouldn't have thought it would suit the likes of Cotrubas and Gheorghiu. I know Gheorghiu recorded a sympathetic Charlotte, but the role sounds a bit low for her and I would have thought Chimène would be too. Scotto recorded it late in her career and I came across versions by Resnik, Caballé, Yoncheva, Françoise Pollet, Kasarova, Te Kanawa and Félia Litvine, not to mention a host of versions by singers I've never heard of. It seems to be a popular recital piece.

I doubt I'll be listening to most of them (there's only so much time in a day), but one or two piqued my interest.


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

Just as a supplement, some early records have made their way onto Youtube such as Nellie Melba from 1910 and Suzanne Brohly, 1920. I rather enjoyed the version by Maria Jeritza from 1926.

If we stick with electric records, there are some interesting versions including Cernay and Tirard and also Anderson in a live broadcast.

Germaine Cernay, 1928





Charlotte Tirard, 1929





Marian Anderson, 1943


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

Tsaraslondon said:


> Looking through the versions of this aria on youtube threw up some interesting candidates. Bumbry and Verrett would seem a perfect fit, but I wouldn't have thought it would suit the likes of Cotrubas and Gheorghiu. I know Gheorghiu recorded a sympathetic Charlotte, but the role sounds a bit low for her and I would have thought Chimène would be too. Scotto recorded it late in her career and I came across versions by Resnik, Caballé, Yoncheva, Françoise Pollet, Kasarova, Te Kanawa and Félia Litvine, not to mention a host of versions by singers I've never heard of. It seems to be a popular recital piece.
> 
> I doubt I'll be listening to most of them (there's only so much time in a day), but one or two piqued my interest.


Are we too impatient to wait for the next round? :lol:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Tsaraslondon said:


> Looking through the versions of this aria on youtube threw up some interesting candidates. Bumbry and Verrett would seem a perfect fit, but I wouldn't have thought it would suit the likes of Cotrubas and Gheorghiu. I know Gheorghiu recorded a sympathetic Charlotte, but the role sounds a bit low for her and I would have thought Chimène would be too. Scotto recorded it late in her career and I came across versions by Resnik, Caballé, Yoncheva, Françoise Pollet, Kasarova, Te Kanawa and Félia Litvine, not to mention a host of versions by singers I've never heard of. It seems to be a popular recital piece.
> 
> I doubt I'll be listening to most of them (there's only so much time in a day), but one or two piqued my interest.


Let us know which ones you find most worthwhile.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Let us know which ones you find most worthwhile.


I think John has some more rounds in store for us, so maybe I'll wait until he's chosen which versions he's including.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Tsaraslondon said:


> I think John has some more rounds in store for us, so maybe I'll wait until he's chosen which versions he's including.


I think that's wise, I've heard a number of versions of this aria over the years and very few can even begin to do it justice. That's one reason why Sutherland's recording is so remarkable. I haven't heard Verrett, who I think would be superb and Bumbry is good, but I haven't heard hers in a while so it will be interesting to compare with Joan.

N.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

The Conte said:


> I think that's wise, I've heard a number of versions of this aria over the years and very few can even begin to do it justice. That's one reason why Sutherland's recording is so remarkable. I haven't heard Verrett, who I think would be superb and Bumbry is good, but I haven't heard hers in a while so it will be interesting to compare with Joan.
> 
> N.


Virtual hug! Need to put in more words LOL


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Azol said:


> To be perfectly honest, Sutherland's voice isn't free from being tonally-neutral and choosing between late Callas and late Sutherland is a no-brainer for me. This part is more suited to lower voices. Massenet is not about the size (we're not talking about Esclarmonde), but with those deeper chest tones missing, some of the dramatic power is lost.
> Again, with all due respect - Sutherland is a very surprising choice for this aria. But I'm sure the next round will come up with another worthy contestant!


The Sutherland recording comes from her Command Performance album recorded in 1962! It may not be the prime pre 1961 Sutherland, but it certainly isn't late Sutherland and her diction and droopiness is well under control. This is an example of a soprano entering foreign territory and excelling herself. Had Bumbry (who was far more suited to the part) bothered to put in even as half dramatic commitment as Sutherland does here. I voted for Callas, but only because her uncanny ability to wring the utmost meaning from any recitative was unparalleled. Sutherland could be dramatically convincing and she proves that here.

N.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The Conte said:


> it certainly isn't late Sutherland and her diction and droopiness is well under control.


Can you speak or sing French? I can do both, quite accurately, and I can't catch half of what she's saying. I have to wonder how much I'd be able to distinguish if I'd never heard the aria before. All the vowels tend toward a "schwa," tinged with something like the French "eu," and consonants are variable. The very first phrase of the aria, "Pleurez, pleurez mes yeux," might as well be "meuweu, meuweu, meuse yeu." Her phrasing may not be "droopy," but in the quiet passages it is somewhat limp and lacks intensity and drive, partly due to her mannerism of swelling and backing off of notes rather than steering them strongly into each other in a sharply etched legato line. Where the music is more declamatory and doesn't permit this sort of swooniness she's better, so that she leaves a more positive impression than her beginning led me to expect.



> This is an example of a soprano entering foreign territory and excelling herself.


If she excels herself, it's only the self of 1962 which had declined after the Lucias of the 1950s.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Can you speak or sing French? I can do both, quite accurately, and I can't catch half of what she's saying. I have to wonder how much I'd be able to distinguish if I'd never heard the aria before. All the vowels tend toward a "schwa," tinged with something like the French "eu," and consonants are variable. The very first phrase of the aria, "Pleurez, pleurez mes yeux," might as well be "meuweu, meuweu, meuse yeu." Her phrasing may not be "droopy," but in the quiet passages it is somewhat limp and lacks intensity and drive, partly due to her mannerism of swelling and backing off of notes rather than steering them strongly into each other in a sharply etched legato line. Where the music is more declamatory and doesn't permit this sort of swooniness she's better, so that she leaves a more positive impression than her beginning led me to expect.
> 
> If she excels herself, it's only the self of 1962 which had declined after the Lucias of the 1950s.


Never again will I post Sutherland in any contests. Sorry folks. I have some she'd be great in such as Turandot but I hate seeing my love raked over the coals so and it is inevitable in this crowd. I must have abysmal taste. Oh, well.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Seattleoperafan said:


> Never again will I post Sutherland in any contests. Sorry folks. I have some she'd be great in such as Turandot but I hate seeing my love raked over the coals so and it is inevitable in this crowd. I must have abysmal taste. Oh, well.


Awwww. May I recommend a scented bubble bath and a glass - or maybe a whole bottle - of Harvey's Bristol Cream?


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Awwww. May I recommend a scented bubble bath and a glass - or maybe a whole bottle - of Harvey's Bristol Cream?


She's been a constant in my life for 50 years and more than other stars there is very strong emotional connection, much more than just being a fan. You are likely too mature to have such adolescent attachments to singers but I am an early teen in an old body.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Seattleoperafan said:


> She's been a constant in my life for 50 years and more than other stars there is very strong emotional connection, much more than just being a fan. You are likely too mature to have such adolescent attachments to singers but I am an early teen in an old body.


Ah, I see now (maybe I'm slow about some things). If she's that special to you, you would indeed be wise to set her aside, else you could go through an awful lot of bubble bath and Bristol Cream. I think most of us are responsible critics, but we do call 'em as we hear 'em.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Ah, I see now (maybe I'm slow about some things). If she's that special to you, you would indeed be wise to set her aside, else you could go through an awful lot of bubble bath and Bristol Cream. I think most of us are responsible critics, but we do call 'em as we hear 'em.


It is like trying to sell American pies to the Brits who find them too sweet. Not going to work LOL


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Can you speak or sing French? I can do both, quite accurately, and I can't catch half of what she's saying. I have to wonder how much I'd be able to distinguish if I'd never heard the aria before. All the vowels tend toward a "schwa," tinged with something like the French "eu," and consonants are variable. The very first phrase of the aria, "Pleurez, pleurez mes yeux," might as well be "meuweu, meuweu, meuse yeu." Her phrasing may not be "droopy," but in the quiet passages it is somewhat limp and lacks intensity and drive, partly due to her mannerism of swelling and backing off of notes rather than steering them strongly into each other in a sharply etched legato line. Where the music is more declamatory and doesn't permit this sort of swooniness she's better, so that she leaves a more positive impression than her beginning led me to expect.
> 
> If she excels herself, it's only the self of 1962 which had declined after the Lucias of the 1950s.


I am of the same mind here vis à vis Conte's surprising positive comments on La Stupenda. Could he be switching to the _Stimme_ camp and forgo Maria? Horrors! :devil:


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

Seattleoperafan said:


> She's been a constant in my life for 50 years and more than other stars there is very strong emotional connection, much more than just being a fan. You are likely too mature to have such adolescent attachments to singers but I am an early teen in an old body.


And yet you have Birgit as your avatar?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

MAS said:


> I am of the same mind here vis à vis Conte's surprising positive comments on La Stupenda. Could he be switching to the _Stimme_ camp and forgo Maria? Horrors! :devil:


What's the _Stimme_ camp?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Joan Sutherland the Voice of the Century
Maria Callas the Voice of the Millenium


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

MAS said:


> And yet you have Birgit as your avatar?


This is actually a strange case. I LOVE Nilsson as a personality and her acting in her late Elektra, but I don't really listen to her much anymore but WORSHIPPED her as a teen. I find her very funny which is why I love my avatar. Her sound is fascinating but it is not my favorite. I'd rather watch her sing than just listen to her sing, except for Sibelius and Grieg. I did do a two part video series on her based on my Toastmaster speeches which my club loved. I mostly would have loved to have heard her live, so it is a case of nostalgia. I admire so much about her and the savvy way she managed her career and left a $40 mil foundation!!


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

MAS said:


> I am of the same mind here vis à vis Conte's surprising positive comments on La Stupenda. Could he be switching to the _Stimme_ camp and forgo Maria? Horrors! :devil:


Voice (as opposed to Art).


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

Callas: I tend to find later Callas mannered. She overcompensates for the loss of her voice by giving her line excessive inflection until it is no longer spontaneous, as it was in her miraculous earlier recordings. I was bored by the rendition. It was kind of like a lullaby with the occasional booming sound on the bottom. At least there was an absence of distorted vowels and off pitch notes. The harshness of the top is seeping down. Seattleoperafan correctly characterized the wobble, although the piece lies lower, so that wasn't much of an issue.

Sutherland: Again, she didn't draw me into the character. Callas was Callas and Sutherland was Sutherland, who is usually fairly generic. I'm not a fan of her sound on record (not old enough to have heard either live, unfortunately) and her distorted vowels bother me and muddy the tone.

I best liked the Tirard (who I'd never heard of) rendition that Revitalized Classics posted. She is poised and has a tragic sensibility, but also spontaneous and free with her vocalism. The only fault is the weak low notes where she refuses to switch into chest voice, despite obviously having one (she has wonderful chest coordination in her head voice). She could have used some coaching from Callas on that score. Cernay was also very good. Felia Litvinne does a remarkable version as well. Brava Tirard, however, for showing once again that voice and art are _not_ opposed. If it's true that a beautiful voice "isn't enough", as the oft quoted phrase goes, it's also true that there is a distinction between necessary and sufficient conditions.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

vivalagentenuova said:


> Callas: I tend to find later Callas mannered. She overcompensates for the loss of her voice by giving her line excessive inflection until it is no longer spontaneous, as it was in her miraculous earlier recordings. I was bored by the rendition. It was kind of like a lullaby with the occasional booming sound on the bottom. At least there was an absence of distorted vowels and off pitch notes. The harshness of the top is seeping down. Seattleoperafan correctly characterized the wobble, although the piece lies lower, so that wasn't much of an issue.
> 
> Sutherland: Again, she didn't draw me into the character. Callas was Callas and Sutherland was Sutherland, who is usually fairly generic. I'm not a fan of her sound on record (not old enough to have heard either live, unfortunately) and her distorted vowels bother me and muddy the tone.
> 
> I best liked the Tirard (who I'd never heard of) rendition that Revitalized Classics posted. She is poised and has a tragic sensibility, but also spontaneous and free with her vocalism. The only fault is the weak low notes where she refuses to switch into chest voice, despite obviously having one (she has wonderful chest coordination in her head voice). She could have used some coaching from Callas on that score. Cernay was also very good. Felia Litvinne does a remarkable version as well. Brava Tirard, however, for showing once again that voice and art are _not_ opposed. If it's true that a beautiful voice "isn't enough", as the oft quoted phrase goes, it's also true that there is a distinction between necessary and sufficient conditions.


It's impossible to argue with perceptions, but it's amazing how differently we hear things. Listening to Callas give what seems to me an absolutely characteristic performance - concentrated and with an inward intensity, never letting the mental and physical energy flag, shaping phrases thoughtfully, tautly and with impeccable legato, responsive to every word of the text without ever resorting to an unmusical, superficial or unstylistic effect to express them - I can't imagine what "mannerisms" you're detecting, or how her finely detailed realization of the aria's moods could suggest a lullaby. I hear her making music with the same sure intuition, musicality and integrity that characterizes all her work, early or late. It's true that in her late recordings her voice sometimes undercuts her intentions - which are nonetheless pursued with not-always-comfortable zeal - but here that's a problem only in the high-lying climaxes. The darker timbre which her voice took on at this stage seems made for tragedy (or, as in Carmen and Dalila, an earthy sensuality).

I agree that Tirard (new to me too) sings and interprets the piece beautifully, though the voice as recorded (important qualification) has less depth of tone than I'd like. Marian Anderson's deep voice is surprisingly wonderful in this music. I just wish she'd taken a less hurried tempo.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

MAS said:


> I am of the same mind here vis à vis Conte's surprising positive comments on La Stupenda. Could he be switching to the _Stimme_ camp and forgo Maria? Horrors! :devil:


No, not at all.

Firstly, I voted for Callas.
Secondly, it's exactly Sutherland's _art_ that I was impressed with here. She was often a Stimme singer and as this is an intensely emotional aria that sits in between what we think of as soprano and mezzo territory today, I expected Sutherland to leave much to be desired. That isn't the case to my ear, she gives one of her committed performances. Bumbry is the Stimme artist in this contest.

N.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> Awwww. May I recommend a scented bubble bath and a glass - or maybe a whole bottle - of Harvey's Bristol Cream?


AwwwwwwWwwwwww...


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Seattleoperafan said:


> Never again will I post Sutherland in any contests. Sorry folks. I have some she'd be great in such as Turandot but I hate seeing my love raked over the coals so and it is inevitable in this crowd. I must have abysmal taste. Oh, well.


Dearest John:
Do you know how many people think that Magda Olivero's voice is just plain awful and that she has this annoying tremolo and gulping glottal attacks galore? But to me she has an exciting dramatic quality to her voice that rises above her mediocre sound and brings forth enchantment in her performances for me. So what the hell do I care what others say about her? I adore her and she excites me like so many bread and butter singers who have "a voice like the angels" simply do not.

Maria Callas wouldn't be around today with her mediocre wobbly highs if it were not for the fact that something else "magic" was taking place within her unique sound that was immediately ear-catching. Top that with a natural musicality and a profundity of emotion with drama.

Joan Sutherland can claim to the skies the best damned high notes on this planet that produce hair-raising results to all who know even the least bit about a voice. So what if she's got that mushy middle, thanks to her spouse (it was not in evidence early on) -- just listen to her _Art of the Prima Donna_ which is totally exquisite in every regard. There was only one La Stupenda, and for a good reason. 
So please try not to be so very sensitive about "your favorite" because others see or hear something else in "their favorite" that is more appealing than in yours.
They all made it to the top one way or another and lucky are we for all three.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

nina foresti said:


> Dearest John:
> Do you know how many people think that Magda Olivero's voice is just plain awful and that she has this annoying tremolo and gulping glottal attacks galore? But to me she has an exciting dramatic quality to her voice that rises above her mediocre sound and brings forth enchantment in her performances for me. So what the hell do I care what others say about her? I adore her and she excites me like so many bread and butter singers who have "a voice like the angels" simply do not.
> 
> Maria Callas wouldn't be around today with her mediocre wobbly highs if it were not for the fact that something else "magic" was taking place within her unique sound that was immediately ear-catching. Top that with a natural musicality and a profundity of emotion with drama.
> ...


I'm sending you virtual flowers this time. I may do an Youtube video/ Toastmaster speech on Olivero and her late career and if I do you will get the link. What you say is put well. I was like this about Jessye Norman for years but with her I outgrew it. I still love her but not so "defensively" and I more clearly see the faults LOL. With Dame Joan I will always be a lonely teenage boy in Mississippi who had an idol to detract him from his mundane life LOL and I feel so proud of how fabulous I find her that I don't really get why other opera fans don't... and many don't . Thanks again.


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> It's impossible to argue with perceptions, but it's amazing how differently we hear things. Listening to Callas give what seems to me an absolutely characteristic performance - concentrated and with an inward intensity, never letting the mental and physical energy flag, shaping phrases thoughtfully, tautly and with impeccable legato, responsive to every word of the text without ever resorting to an unmusical, superficial or unstylistic effect to express them - I can't imagine what "mannerisms" you're detecting, or how her finely detailed realization of the aria's moods could suggest a lullaby. I hear her making music with the same sure intuition, musicality and integrity that characterizes all her work, early or late. It's true that in her late recordings her voice sometimes undercuts her intentions - which are nonetheless pursued with not-always-comfortable zeal - but here that's a problem only in the high-lying climaxes. The darker timbre which her voice took on at this stage seems made for tragedy (or, as in Carmen and Dalila, an earthy sensuality).
> 
> I agree that Tirard (new to me too) sings and interprets the piece beautifully, though the voice as recorded (important qualification) has less depth of tone than I'd like. Marian Anderson's deep voice is surprisingly wonderful in this music. I just wish she'd taken a less hurried tempo.


I find later Callas mannered in the sense that I think she tones down her sound for the microphone and has a tendency to croon. The decline in her voice would have incentivized this approach, as the microphone would reveal more faults if she sang at higher intensity more consistently. I think others tend to hear this as detailed "shading" and "coloring" rather than "crooning", or as I put it in my first post "mannerism" and "over inflection", but that's how I experience it. I found her performance here to be too held back in a way that sounds like an affectation for the microphone, and that put me off.


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

Also, I don't think it's just later and earlier Callas, I think it's studio and live Callas too, just that she was more prone to "special" singing in the studio later on as opposed to her earlier studio recordings. To try and give an example of the kind of thing I'm talking about, I think it helps to compare her later studio and live recordings. Here's her 1956 (I consider all post 1953 Callas "later") Si mi chiamano Mimi:





It's musical I guess, but it's boring and kind of limp. I get no sense of the depth of Mimi's character and feeling. Instead I get what I hear as Callas undersinging in order to sound sensitive. There's "lightness" and "shading", but it sounds fake to me.

Here's a live recording made a few years later:





Suddenly you can hear a real voice start intone the music -- she has to use her real voice to be heard. The lower notes are stronger and there's what to me is real feeling instead of affectation. There are vocal issues (including some distorted vowels of her own, which, even when they are quite serious as in her late recording of Ma dall'arido, never receive the same criticism as Sutherland's), but the interpretation is very strong. The former has more shading and what not (and also seems like a lullaby to me), but the latter, to me anyway, has more voice and thus more possibility for art as well.

This analysis doesn't apply 100% to the Massenet of the competition (e.g., her low notes are very strong and dramatic in the studio recording, and her tone is less pulled back and pallid in part because of the context of the piece and in part because I think she identifies more strongly with this music), but I felt some similar frustration while listening to her rendition.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Not only her voice ever so slightly, uncannily 'artificial', but also her appearance; it uncannily reminds me of the "Uncanny Valley":


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> Not only her voice ever so slightly, uncannily 'artificial', but also her appearance; it uncannily reminds me of the "Uncanny Valley":


It is unending.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

hammeredklavier said:


> Not only her voice ever so slightly, uncannily 'artificial', but also her appearance; it uncannily reminds me of the "Uncanny Valley":


This post is downright cruel.
Actually, I don't recall ever reading such a nasty post on this forum. You should be ashamed of yourself. This post should be deleted if you have any class at all.


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

In the end, I cast my vote for Sutherland.

I enjoy Callas' performance but I find there is a vulnerability and resignation to Sutherland's performance which I find more moving. Just occasionally, Callas' forceful, proactive artistry grates on me. The bitterness and scorn and doleful sound are epic, but I've found it a bit of a relief this past week when turning to Tebaldi in Traviata, Souliotis in Norma, Sutherland in this Le Cid.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

nina foresti said:


> This post is downright cruel.
> Actually, I don't recall ever reading such a nasty post on this forum. You should be ashamed of yourself. This post should be deleted if you have any class at all.


I apologize. The joke went too far.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Revitalized Classics said:


> In the end, I cast my vote for Sutherland.
> 
> I enjoy Callas' performance but I find there is a vulnerability and resignation to Sutherland's performance which I find more moving. Just occasionally, Callas' forceful, proactive artistry grates on me. The bitterness and scorn and doleful sound are epic, but I've found it a bit of a relief this past week when turning to Tebaldi in Traviata, Souliotis in Norma, Sutherland in this Le Cid.


Sorry I wasn't able to use your marvelous soprano suggestions for round three.


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

Seattleoperafan said:


> Sorry I wasn't able to use your marvelous soprano suggestions for round three.


Hello, no problem! I'm pleasantly surprised they've generated even a little discussion given the age of the recordings and several of the singers aren't well known. Thanks for the different rounds, I'm enjoying hearing the singers/reading the discussion. David


----------



## Parsifal98 (Apr 29, 2020)

vivalagentenuova said:


> Also, I don't think it's just later and earlier Callas, I think it's studio and live Callas too, just that she was more prone to "special" singing in the studio later on as opposed to her earlier studio recordings. To try and give an example of the kind of thing I'm talking about, I think it helps to compare her later studio and live recordings. Here's her 1956 (I consider all post 1953 Callas "later") Si mi chiamano Mimi:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I share your opinion, which is eloquently expressed in this post. I would even add that I believe her vocal difficulties were hastened by her crooning in the studio. Cornelius Reid mentioned in his book _The Free Voice_ that constriction, which inevitably happens when you lighten the voice, can "de-coordinate" the registers. And in the end, I believe this is what brought Callas's downfall: the registers became separated from one another, hence why people sometimes talk about her "three voices". Nonetheless, she maintained her great artistry, which makes her vocal decline even more saddening and frustrating. Such feelings also inhabit me when I think of the evolution of Tebaldi's voice...


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

vivalagentenuova said:


> Also, I don't think it's just later and earlier Callas, I think it's studio and live Callas too, just that she was more prone to "special" singing in the studio later on as opposed to her earlier studio recordings. To try and give an example of the kind of thing I'm talking about, I think it helps to compare her later studio and live recordings. Here's her 1956 (I consider all post 1953 Callas "later") Si mi chiamano Mimi:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What sounds fake to one may sound like creative art to another. The Callas voice is not a natural medium for Mimi - or Gilda, or perhaps even Butterfly. One of the things that astonishes and delights some of us is that she is a vocal chameleon, with a unique ability to create a virtual new voice for role after role. Medea, Norma, Amina, Lady Macbeth, Lucia, Carmen - it's the same singer, it couldn't be anyone else for even two notes in succession, and yet each role is based on a different range of vocal color. Yes, it's artifice - and I say long live artifice, when it's allied to a musical and dramatic intelligence as original, penetrating and endlessly fertile as hers. (Whether this artifice damaged her voice is another question, which Parsifal98 discusses above. It seems reasonable to me.)

Contrary to your impression, I get more depth of character and feeling from her Mimi than from any other. Far from being bored, I'm constantly struck by her ability to find character in a word or phrase I hadn't suspected was there. Her characterization culminates in a death scene so delicately expressed, in a wan voice so drained and yet so full of feeling, that I feel like a witness to an actual death. I find it uncanny.



> Here's a live recording made a few years later:
> 
> .........................................................
> 
> Suddenly you can hear a real voice start intone the music -- she has to use her real voice to be heard. The lower notes are stronger and there's what to me is real feeling instead of affectation.


Really, there's very little difference, and the sound of the live recording is so muffled it would make certain subtleties inaudible, or more imagined than heard. I prefer the studio recording, where her every intention is clear.



> There are vocal issues (including some distorted vowels of her own, which, even when they are quite serious as in her late recording of Ma dall'arido, never receive the same criticism as Sutherland's),


Not hard to see why. With Callas you can hear the late-stage deterioration in the voice that leads to a distorted vowel here and there. You can simply ignore the distortion, which doesn't get in the music's way (in her Carmen, she actually makes creative use of this vowel alteration in places - who else would even think of such a thing?). With Sutherland you hear something - hard to say what - that seems endemic to the whole vocal production, something that makes vowels indistinguishable and consonants muted, such that it can be literally impossible, for certain stretches, to know what language she's singing in. The effect of the music itself is compromised by sheer inarticulateness, and we have to be content with a sort of sonic bubble bath. One thing Callas is not is musically inarticulate.



> This analysis doesn't apply 100% to the Massenet of the competition (e.g., her low notes are very strong and dramatic in the studio recording, and her tone is less pulled back and pallid in part because of the context of the piece and in part because I think she identifies more strongly with this music), but I felt some similar frustration while listening to her rendition.


On the whole, I think I hear what you hear and understand your objections. My subjective reaction is, obviously, different.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Parsifal98 said:


> I share your opinion, which is eloquently expressed in this post. I would even add that I believe her vocal difficulties were hastened by her crooning in the studio. Cornelius Reid mentioned in his book _The Free Voice_ that constriction, which inevitably happens when you lighten the voice, can "de-coordinate" the registers. And in the end, I believe this is what brought Callas's downfall: the registers became separated from one another, hence why people sometimes talk about her "three voices". Nonetheless, she maintained her great artistry, which makes her vocal decline even more saddening and frustrating. Such feelings also inhabit me when I think of the evolution of Tebaldi's voice...


I have a question for you. I know so few Tebaldi fans.... she is almost as poor here as Sutherland. I know Tebaldi was of course best best best in the early 50's. I may more forgiving than most but I thought her reworked voice in the late Giocondas was quite effective and I greatly enjoyed her in the role in Met Broadcasts when she took the role up late. Do you think her reworking of the voice made a difference for you?


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

It's odd that we are so in accord on, say, Carl Martin Oehmann's rendition of the Flower Song. I feel like we hear the same thing and have the same response, not only to the quality of the voice but to the expressive effects for which it is used. Yet with Callas... Freni has less perfect legato at times, but she's no slouch either, and I like some her musical choices better actually (for example Freni's "I fior ch'io faccio ahime non hanno odore" is exquisite). The performance as a whole, while obviously also for the microphone and not an audience on stage, feels both deeply refined and spontaneous to me:





To me, Mimi's character is all about an enormously passionate soul hidden under layers of timidity, bodily frailty, and the oppressiveness of day to day life. Despite some overuse of pianissimo effects, I get that 100% from Freni, not from Callas.

Anyway, as always it's very interesting agreeing or disagreeing with you.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

vivalagentenuova said:


> It's odd that we are so in accord on, say, Carl Martin Oehmann's rendition of the Flower Song. I feel like we hear the same thing and have the same response, not only to the quality of the voice but to the expressive effects for which it is used. Yet with Callas... Freni has less perfect legato at times, but she's no slouch either, and I like some her musical choices better actually (for example Freni's "I fior ch'io faccio ahime non hanno odore" is exquisite). The performance as a whole, while obviously also for the microphone and not an audience on stage, feels both deeply refined and spontaneous to me:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for the Freni clip. She has a voice made for Mimi. The right voice can take a singer at least halfway to a characterization, and so there is no need for extraordinary art to triumph over nature. My reaction to this performance is that it sounds lovely, idiomatic and "right," but not very interesting (by which I don't mean dull). This might say more about my feelings toward the opera than about Freni or Puccini. _Boheme_ needs something "extra" in the performance to attract me or hold my interest. Bjorling and Tebaldi managed that nicely!

The Callas voice is _not_ made for Mimi, or for a number of other roles she sang (or at least recorded). It's an odd voice, to state the obvious, and it offered her an unusual set of limitations, challenges and possibilities. I get immense pleasure, and often amazement and awe, from her artistic resourcefulness in getting from her voice the most unexpected and unimaginable (by anyone not her) things, even - or especially - when it wouldn't be the voice I'd choose first for a role. I would never have imagined her as Butterfly, for example, and in the more passionate parts of the love music I find the astringent sound rather unpleasant - I really want a full, luxuriant sound like Tebaldi's - yet I find her whole portrayal achieving an almost unbelievable act of self-transformation and metamorphosis which in the end is almost too intense to bear. I haven't listened to that recording in many years. It actually scares me.


----------



## Parsifal98 (Apr 29, 2020)

Seattleoperafan said:


> I have a question for you. I know so few Tebaldi fans.... she is almost as poor here as Sutherland. I know Tebaldi was of course best best best in the early 50's. I may more forgiving than most but I thought her reworked voice in the late Giocondas was quite effective and I greatly enjoyed her in the role in Met Broadcasts when she took the role up late. Do you think her reworking of the voice made a difference for you?


Now, I am no Tebaldi specialist, and have not listened to all she had to offer. I mostly limit myself to her early, live recordings, and some of the early studio recordings in which the voice sounds fuller and less harsh. But sampling Tebaldi throughout her career, the first thing that I hear is the loss of what one could call the "bloom" (cannot find a better word) that she had in the beginning. What I mean by bloom is the "ooooooh" sound (like an owl) that you hear when she sings, even when there is a lot of squillo, like in this performance:






In this performance, the voice is not harsh nor does it has this edge that would soon creep in. The bloom is like a cushion on which every notes sit. The feeling I get is that it enveloppes the voice. I think you hear it more easily with lower voices, like in this performance of _Ave Maria_ by Christa Ludwig. Listen to how the "ooooooh" sound is always there, whether on the low or on the high notes. Listen to how she sings the vowels and how she slightly changes them, enough to maintain the falsetto action, but not so much that we cannot make up what she sings. Ludwig wrote about that in her autobiography and how changing the vowels without it being obvious was an art in itself:






Returning to the Tebaldi video, The "bloom", which is the opposite of harshness and edge, was present throughout her range and is only possible with a proper coordination of the registers, and more specifically proper falsetto action. To maintain proper registration and falsetto action, one has to sing dark and with proper resonance in the pharyngeal space. As a singer climbs up or down the tone scale, he should maintain such resonance by shifting the registers and slightly changing the vowels. As you go up, there should be more "ooooooh" in the sound, in order to maintain the throat open. But there should still be chest voice, in order to maintain clarity and squillo (a singer cannot really control these things, but he or she should try to obtain the right sound whilst maintaining the voice free of any undesired tension).

Just like Callas, I believe a "de-coordination" of the registers brought about Tebaldi's vocal decline. She lost that dept in her sound, which comes about when proper falsetto action is failing. She therefore developped an edge in her sound, and her high notes became shrill and flat, like screaming (not all the time though). You can also see in some videos that she sometimes sang with her mouth barely open, and that she would sometimes spread her mouth to reach the high notes, which naturally tenses the throath and make you lose the necessary depth to hit the note on pitch and with said bloom. The matronly tone also started to appear. Now her late recordings, like _La Gioconda_, are not complete disasters, and she could still spin some beautiful lines. But the changes can still be heard easily. To conclude, I think this video does a good job of explaining what became wrong with her singing, and finishes with a great display of what she actually did so well when she had freshly arrived on the operatic stage:






But to answer your question more explicitly, her reworking of the voice made no real difference for me. It did not really bring back what was so good about her singing. It may not have been her fault, for the knowledge necessary to solve her problems was getting rarer. It seems to be mostly forgotten today...


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Parsifal98 said:


> Now, I am no Tebaldi specialist, and have not listened to all she had to offer. I mostly limit myself to her early, live recordings, and some of the early studio recordings in which the voice sounds fuller and less harsh. But sampling Tebaldi throughout her career, the first thing that I hear is the loss of what one could call the "bloom" (cannot find a better word) that she had in the beginning. What I mean by bloom is the "ooooooh" sound (like an owl) that you hear when she sings, even when there is a lot of squillo, like in this performance:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Best answer to a question I ever posted.


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

In support of the de-coordination theory, when I complained about Callas' vowel modifications earlier, I had this recording specifically in mind:




Now it's a little extreme for her, but it does reflect in a heightened form a trend in her later singing. The middle becomes cloudy and "ah" and "oh" (chestier vowels, so to speak) are modified to "ooh", which as Parsifal98 was saying pulls in falsetto participation. Taking chest out of the middle (or never putting it in the first place) and singing with more falsetto is exactly what modern singers do that causes the old lady sound so many of them have. Callas never went that far, but her diction in this _Ballo_ excerpt is pretty bad: "Ma dall' (the chest tones are clear) aridu stelu divulsu". She did not do that in her earlier complete recording, which is much better. Whether the reason for the changes is to compensate for other vocal problems, or as I suspect, because she is intentionally trying to slim down her town for the microphone so she can do all those subtle shadings, or both, I'm not sure. In any case, the contrast with proper coordination and diction is striking:




Rethberg doesn't start out in chest, but the low head voice is clear, and the vowels in the middle are very clear and "bloomed", to use Parsifal's terminology (which I like and agree with). Also, to be honest, I like Rethberg's interpretation much better. There's much more drama, feeling, and shape to the phrases. Imho.

Late Tebaldi is still Tebaldi, so it tends to be good and is sometimes pretty great. Think of her live Fanciulla from 1969 with Konya (with the legendary _TRE ASSI E UN PAIO_). She's still a formidable presence. But I agree that her best work is early.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

vivalagentenuova said:


> In support of the de-coordination theory, when I complained about Callas' vowel modifications earlier, I had this recording specifically in mind:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This aria from _Un Ballo in Maschera_ is from Callas's very last published recital album, the third of her Verdi collections, when her upper register was a more or less complete wreck, although it could still sometimes function better than it does here. It makes me sad to hear this and to see it brought out as an example of anything, and ordinarily I would never listen to it except to admire the persistence of her sure musical instincts and stylistic mastery in defiance of the physical odds. Comparing it with Rethberg in her prime is a little cruel, don't you think?


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

The date on the video says 1959, but the date might be wrong (1969?), in which case, yes, that would be unfair. Mostly, though, I was trying to use it to illustrate the types of sounds she began to make. They are worse here and not typical of her earlier work, as I said, but they are, in my view, the culmination of the direction she went in beginning in the mid-late 50s. The comparison with Rethberg's interpretation (not vowels) applies equally to Callas' earlier and much better version, though.


----------



## OffPitchNeb (Jun 6, 2016)

Wow Rethberg! Is there anything she can't sing well?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

vivalagentenuova said:


> The date on the video says 1959, but the date might be wrong (1969?), in which case, yes, that would be unfair. Mostly, though, I was trying to use it to illustrate the types of sounds she began to make. They are worse here and not typical of her earlier work, as I said, but they are, in my view, the culmination of the direction she went in beginning in the mid-late 50s. The comparison with Rethberg's interpretation (not vowels) applies equally to Callas' earlier and much better version, though.


That is definitely not her 1959 voice. I think the track dates from 1964 or 1965, the years of her final Toscas, her Carmen, her last Norma in Paris, and her departure from the stage. We can hear some vowel oddities in Carmen (where I could swear she sometimes varies the sounds intentionally for effect), but then in her Covent Garden Tosca from the same year the vowels are quite clear:






The vowel modification is certainly compensatory and seems to have varied depending on her vocal coordination at the time, but I think she was aware of it and occasionally altered the coloration intentionally. Aside from whether or not it's "correct" (obviously it isn't as basic technique), I don't always dislike the effect, and in _Carmen_ I find it lends a certain sultriness that works dramatically. Jazz and popular singers alter vowels routinely for expressive effect, and we might ask why such effects might not have a place in opera as well.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

OffPitchNeb said:


> Wow Rethberg! Is there anything she can't sing well?


Among other things, she was a German who sang Italian opera as well as anyone.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Has anyone heard of Erna Berger?
Her Gilda from Rigoletto with Peerce and Warren was exemplary.


----------



## Parsifal98 (Apr 29, 2020)

Woodduck said:


> That is definitely not her 1959 voice. I think the track dates from 1964 or 1965, the years of her final Toscas, her Carmen, her last Norma in Paris, and her departure from the stage. We can hear some vowel oddities in Carmen (where I could swear she sometimes varies the sounds intentionally for effect), but then in her Covent Garden Tosca from the same year the vowels are quite clear:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I do not know if constant alteration of the vowels, at least alteration that is not the result of the natural workings of the voice, is a good idea. Jazz and pop singers do it because they sing with a microphone and do not have to project their voices in a grand theatre. They can therefore sing with as much alterations as they want, and even with disconnected registers, airy vocal production, extremely tense voices, nasality... all such things which the modern vocal aesthetic as made permissible. But the old singing tradition, which put emphasis on health, efficiency and beauty, was the answer, taken from empiric experimentations and obervations, to a problem that predates the invention of the microphone: how can one sing as healthily, efficiently and beautifully as possible whilst being heard. Part of the answer is the importance of the vowels, which, at least in Romance languages and those influenced by Latin, are open-throated sound lending themselves well to natural pharyngeal resonance, the greatest tool for projection. Pure vowel sounds are part of the backbones of a sound vocal technique. Their proper alterations, due to the natural workings of the voice (as mentioned earlier) should only come about when one has learned the differences between pure vowels and impure ones. In the _Free Voice_ by Cornelius Reid, the first exercices given to aspiring singers are to produce open-throated vowel sounds in the chest voice at different pitches, before singing them at an higher octave in falsetto with the ooooh sound (the bloom). The pure sound comes about before the altered one. Now, I know you only propose that vowel alterations could be used in opera for expressive effects, and I know you already know everything that I've written, as you've proven time and time again. The paragraph above is only there to support what I believe should be the rule concerning vowels in singing: singers should learn to sing pure vowels and their natural alterations before trying to change them for interpretative purposes (the old "master the rules before breaking them"). I am afraid that permitting such alterations without any boundaries will mean future singers will sing, just like the current crop, their "awwwwnnnn" and their "oowwwww" in collapsed headvoice on the Met stage with thundering applause. There is still time to change the status quo. Or maybe I am being too optimistic...

Concerning the Callas Carmen recording, I, like you, also appreciate the way Callas plays with the French language. Being a francophone myself, I find her inflections often brilliant. The way she sings

_L'on m'avait avertie
Que tu n'étais pas loin,
Que tu devais venir,
L'on m'avait même dit
De craindre pour ma vie,
Mais je suis brave
Et n'ai pas voulu fuir._

in the beginning of the last act duet is, ever since I heard it, the standard to which I compare all other versions. But I do not consider her singing in this recording to be efficient and healthy, and while there are moments of beauty, it is also sometimes rather ugly. I believe the sole reason why I can appreciate the singing in the title role is because of Callas and the knowledge that I possess of her abilities as a singer, abilities which where in display much earlier in career and where by then failing her. A bit of projection as we would say. If any other singer had offered a vocal performance similar to her, I would have never listened to such a recording.

To finish, a word about the Rethberg/Callas comparison. While it is indeed slightly cruel if only used to criticize Callas, I find it an apt comparison for illustrating what we have been talking about during the last posts. It displays well the difference between good registration and bad registration, and the importance of the bloom, meaning falsetto action, in a good, healthy, efficient and beautiful voice.

P.S. Retherg's voice is stunning.


----------



## Parsifal98 (Apr 29, 2020)

vivalagentenuova said:


> In support of the de-coordination theory, when I complained about Callas' vowel modifications earlier, I had this recording specifically in mind:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I am glad that you mention the clear vowels in the middle voice. In my post, I wrote about the alterations of the vowels and forgot to indicate that such alterations happen mostly at both ends of a singer's tessitura. We can hear alterations of the vowels when Tebaldi sings in her booming low voice just as we can hear it when she sings high notes. If the falsetto action doesn't increase while singing in the lower register, then the voice becomes raw and unpleasant. Pure chest is far from being a beautiul and healthy sound. Tebaldi was acclaimed for her great diction, and the following performance, which has been posted by Woodduck before, is a great testament to it:






The vowels in the middle voice are pure and clear, and the voice is blooming. The way she sings

_Mi piaccion quelle cose
Che han sì dolce malìa
Che parlano d'amor, di primavere
Di sogni e di chimere_

gives me shivers. The clarity and purity of the vowels in a middle voice that still blooms means that while the qualities of the chest voice dominate in this tessitura, or are at least more present than in the high register, the falsetto action is still there, but does not have enough impact as to alter the vowels. It has just enough impact to give depth and beauty to the voice. Then again, it seems as if the voice sits on a beautiful velvet cushion. A wonderful performance indeed.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

I went looking for the English on Google but only just discovered it above...thank you tsaraslondon! My not knowing the words probably helped Sutherland but I found this an out and out toss up with the virtues being exactly what you'd expect. Callas was, as always, the more deeply committed, phrase by phrase and without artifice. Sutherland delivered the climax the emotion was begging for. If wobble had been Callas' only problem she might have won me over, but I also felt that her voice receded for the big ending, just when it needed to come forth. Obviously no such problem fir Joannie. If I knew the piece better I could see myself possibly voting for Calas but as it is my vote goes to Joannie!


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

ScottK said:


> I went looking for the English on Google but only just discovered it above...thank you tsaraslondon! My not knowing the words probably helped Sutherland but I found this an out and out toss up with the virtues being exactly what you'd expect. Callas was, as always, the more deeply committed, phrase by phrase and without artifice. Sutherland delivered the climax the emotion was begging for. If wobble had been Callas' only problem she might have won me over, but I also felt that her voice receded for the big ending, just when it needed to come forth. Obviously no such problem fir Joannie. If I knew the piece better I could see myself possibly voting for Calas but as it is my vote goes to Joannie!


You are receiving a virtual brotherly hug, sir! Welcome to the forum!


----------



## OffPitchNeb (Jun 6, 2016)

Parsifal98 said:


> I am glad that you mention the clear vowels in the middle voice. In my post, I wrote about the alterations of the vowels and forgot to indicate that such alterations happen mostly at both ends of a singer's tessitura. We can hear alterations of the vowels when Tebaldi sings in her booming low voice just as we can hear it when she sings high notes. If the falsetto action doesn't increase while singing in the lower register, then the voice becomes raw and unpleasant. Pure chest is far from being a beautiul and healthy sound. Tebaldi was acclaimed for her great diction, and the following performance, which has been posted by Woodduck before, is a great testament to it:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I like the phrase you mentioned too. It feels ecstatic. Who says Tebaldi couldn't act with her voice?

Well, just the first "Si" is enough to tell the listeners that this is going to be a voice with presence.

Yet, she didn't sound quite like this in the studio recording (Serafin) despite it being made 2 years later (1958). I am not sure because it has something to do with the balance of the studio recording, or she was asked to "tone down".


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> What sounds fake to one may sound like creative art to another. The Callas voice is not a natural medium for Mimi - or Gilda, or perhaps even Butterfly. One of the things that astonishes and delights some of us is that she is a vocal chameleon, with a unique ability to create a virtual new voice for role after role. Medea, Norma, Amina, Lady Macbeth, Lucia, Carmen - it's the same singer, it couldn't be anyone else for even two notes in succession, and yet each role is based on a different range of vocal color. Yes, it's artifice - and I say long live artifice, when it's allied to a musical and dramatic intelligence as original, penetrating and endlessly fertile as hers. (Whether this artifice damaged her voice is another question, which Parsifal98 discusses above. It seems reasonable to me.)
> 
> Contrary to your impression, I get more depth of character and feeling from her Mimi than from any other. Far from being bored, I'm constantly struck by her ability to find character in a word or phrase I hadn't suspected was there. Her characterization culminates in a death scene so delicately expressed, in a wan voice so drained and yet so full of feeling, that I feel like a witness to an actual death. I find it uncanny.
> 
> ...


I've been away and evidently missed quite a lot whilst not checking TC, but I would just like to thank Woodduck for this wonderful post which puts into words far better than I ever could just what it is that so thrills and excites me about Callas. Early Callas, middle period Callas and late Callas, I'll take it all. The only recordings I have difficulty with and in fact never listen to are the ones from her final tour with Di Stefano, but there is much that is still magnificent even in the late recording sessions from 1969.

As for studio Callas and live Callas, I don't always hear that much of a difference. Sometimes, as in the Karajan live Lucias, as opposed to the 1953 studio one, she is more subtle live than she was in the studio, so evidently the conductor also played a big part. I don't hear that much of a difference in the two recordings of Mimi's aria, but prefer the studio one because of the better sound and the greater detail.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

vivalagentenuova said:


> The date on the video says 1959, but the date might be wrong (1969?), in which case, yes, that would be unfair. Mostly, though, I was trying to use it to illustrate the types of sounds she began to make. They are worse here and not typical of her earlier work, as I said, but they are, in my view, the culmination of the direction she went in beginning in the mid-late 50s. The comparison with Rethberg's interpretation (not vowels) applies equally to Callas' earlier and much better version, though.


It was 1964 and was one of the few arias Callas agreed to EMI releasing in 1972, six years after she had last appeared on stage. The other arias on the disc were Imogene's first scene from *Il Pirata*, which was recorded in London in 1961 under Antonio Tonini, and Verdi arias from *Attila*, *I Lombardi*, *I Vespri Siciliani* and Aida's _Ritorna vincitor_, all recorded in Paris in 1964 under Rescigno. The best aria on the disc is undoubtedly the Aida, which has fewer high notes and in which she recovers much of her former dramatic fire.

The sessions were fraught with problems, Callas being for the most part very nervous and insecure, and most of the arias were composites of various takes. Not so the Aida aria, though. Apparently they were all taking a break as things had got particularly tense and Michel Glotz, the recording producer, played a recording of Régine Crespin singing _Ritorna vincitor_, which had been recorded in the studio the previous day. Callas was insensed on hearing a performance that was so antithetical to her artistic sensibilities. "This isn't Verdi or Aida" she exclaimed, "When I sang this with Maestro Serafin, it had such urgency I could hardly get the words out. Are the parts still here?" she asked. On finding that they were, she turned to Rescigno and said, "Come on, Nicola, let's do it." And they did. In one take. It ended up being by far the best recording on the LP that was finally released in 1972. It seems she briefly forgot her nerves and just went out and sang.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

Tsaraslondon said:


> It was 1964 and was one of the few arias Callas agreed to EMI releasing in 1972, six years after she had last appeared on stage. The other arias on the disc were Imogene's first scene from *Il Pirata*, which was recorded in London in 1961 under Antonio Tonini, and Verdi arias from *Attila*, *I Lombardi*, *I Vespri Siciliani* and Aida's _Ritorna vincitor_, all recorded in Paris in 1964 under Rescigno. The best aria on the disc is undoubtedly the Aida, which has fewer high notes and in which she recovers much of her former dramatic fire.
> 
> The sessions were fraught with problems, Callas being for the most part very nervous and insecure, and most of the arias were composites of various takes. Not so the Aida aria, though. Apparently they were all taking a break as things had got particularly tense and Michel Glotz, the recording producer, played a recording of Régine Crespin singing _Ritorna vincitor_, which had been recorded in the studio the previous day. Callas was insensed on hearing a performance that was so antithetical to her artistic sensibilities. "This isn't Verdi or Aida" she exclaimed, "When I sang this with Maestro Serafin, it had such urgency I could hardly get the words out. Are the parts still here?" she asked. On finding that they were, she turned to Rescigno and said, "Come on, Nicola, let's do it." And they did. In one take. It ended up being by far the best recording on the LP that was finally released in 1972. It seems she briefly forgot her nerves and just went out and sang.


*Callas - By Request* was one of my favorite LPs and I played it to death.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

MAS said:


> *Callas - By Request* was one of my favorite LPs and I played it to death.
> 
> View attachment 163187


It was my second Callas recital. My first was the Puccini disc, mostly because it was the only one that hadn't been deleted at the time.

I remember I asked to listen to some of it at my local record store (oh those wonderful days of the listening booth) but I was somewhat taken aback by the harsh sounds that I heard (I think it was the opening of _O madre dal cielo_) and I left without buying it. However those harsh sounds somehow kept on echoing in my mind's ear and I returned a few days later and bought the LP. After that it was hardly off my turntable.


----------

