# What Voice Type was Maria Callas?



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

She sang legendary performances in a wide range of repertoire, but what fach was she at her core?

personally, I think she was really a mezzo in disguise. her chest voice was deep and cavernous and had as much force as a baritone. more importantly, her voice was clearly more comfortable in the middle and lower register (starting just below high C, her high notes sounded strained, as if she were attempting to make them "thinner". granted, I could buy her as a dramatic soprano or even a spinto soprano, but when people claim she is a _coloratura_ soprano....no, just no. coloratura sopranos can have a wide range (sometimes they can sing lower than mezzos), but they do not have enough _weight_ in the lower register. the voice of a coloratura soprano sits higher and dips down periodically, not the other way around.

here are some clips to demonstrate what I mean
(skip to 3:50)















and of course


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Hah. My friend _Moody_ would have expressed an opinion.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Soprano with a tremendous range?


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

I think you're on to something when you say "mezzo in disguise." I have heard her called a _soprano sfogato_ -- basically a mezzo who has trained her voice upward. I understand Giuditta Pasta, the first Norma, was also a _soprano sfogato._

Edited to add: And I think the proper term for her would probably be "dramatic coloratura soprano" rather than just "coloratura soprano." When I hear the latter term I think of someone like Sumi Jo.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Soprano Assoluta


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

nina foresti said:


> Soprano Assoluta


I would just say "assoluta" personally. soprano assoluta would imply the core of her voice was in the soprano range, but I think she was core mezzo with soprano capabilities rather than the other way around.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

"Coloratura" refers to a style of music and to the vocal technique required to sing it, not to a vocal range. We associate coloratura with light, high sopranos because those are the voices which we heard in these roles during the verismo-influenced period between the world wars. Historically, however, the bel canto repertoire, which demands exraordinary coloratura facility, was performed by voices of considerable dramatic capability. Callas was in this sense a representative of an older conception of what a coloratura singer could be. As for her vocal range, it encompassed a high E-flat early in her career, and until vocal difficulties became obvious in the mid-1950s she sang soprano roles brilliantly. Should she have concentrated on roles with a lower tessitura? Personally, I don't think so. Having a strong chest voice doesn't make one a mezzo-soprano. Perhaps she might have turned to the mezzo repertoire in the 1960s, when it became pretty clear that the high notes were gone. But of course she continued to hope that she could reverse the deterioration. In the final analysis, Callas defies easy categorization.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

And interestingly Walter Legge notes that even in 1960 when she sings Dalila's arias for her first French recital, she had difficulty sustaining the low tessitura. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Callas was naturally a soprano. Could a pushed up mezzo have sung those Armidas in Florence? Could a pushed up mezzo have hurled out a high Eb that drowns out everything else in the finale to Act II of Aida? Could a pushed up mezzo have sung those breathtaking Lucias with Karajan. Would a pushed up mezzo crown the Act I finale of Norma with a top D of epic proportions? Could a pushed up mezzo have given us such delciately shaded performances of Amina and Gilda? Absolutely not. Could a pushed up mezzo even attempt the high tessitura of Medea? She was a dramatic coloratura soprano of a type that had ceased to exist at the beginning of the twentieth century, which is why people found it so hard to categorise her. I might add that Rosa Ponselle and Renata Tebaldi both had notoriously short tops, and both would make a downward transposition in Sempre libera, something which Tebaldi sang very clumsily anyway; and Tebaldi pretty much had to pray for her top Cs. I don't hear anyone asking questions about their soprano status. At the end of Callas's career, when she lost the ability to sustain those stratospheric notes, the problem was more one of support rather than range. Callas may have had an extraordinarily wide range (low F# below the stave to top E in alt, both notes incidentally in the same opera I Vespri Siciliani), but she was without any doubt a soprano. Absolutely and incontrovertibly.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

I think singing Turandot for something like 80 performances justifies her as a soprano, though I'm not sure it was good for her longevity. I think she could have been a very effective Amneris after her B's and C's had deserted her. Dimitrova, who had a similar type of voice made a fabulous Amneris and she, like Maria, always had a big chest voice and their voices were of similar sizes. Carmen is another role she could have possibly sung late in her career successfully.Delilah is another.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> And interestingly Walter Legge notes that even in 1960 when she sings Dalila's arias for her first French recital, she had difficulty sustaining the low tessitura. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Callas was naturally a soprano. Could a pushed up mezzo have sung those Armidas in Florence? Could a pushed up mezzo have hurled out a high Eb that drowns out everything else in the finale to Act II of Aida? Could a pushed up mezzo have sung those breathtaking Lucias with Karajan. Would a pushed up mezzo crown the Act I finale of Norma with a top D of epic proportions? Could a pushed up mezzo have given us such delciately shaded performances of Amina and Gilda? Absolutely not. Could a pushed up mezzo even attempt the high tessitura of Medea? She was a dramatic coloratura soprano of a type that had ceased to exist at the beginning of the twentieth century, which is why people found it so hard to categorise her. I might add that Rosa Ponselle and Renata Tebaldi both had notoriously short tops, and both would make a downward transposition in Sempre libera, something which Tebaldi sang very clumsily anyway; and Tebaldi pretty much had to pray for her top Cs. I don't hear anyone asking questions about their soprano status. At the end of Callas's career, when she lost the ability to sustain those stratospheric notes, the problem was more one of support rather than range. Callas may have had an extraordinarily wide range (low F# below the stave to top E in alt, both notes incidentally in the same opera I Vespri Siciliani), but she was without any doubt a soprano. Absolutely and incontrovertibly.


"No further questions, Your Honor."

Superb.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

This is just the trouble with getting too fascinated with the minutia which qualifies a voice as one type or another, which Fach. I've already pointed out this fabricated (mental) peril in your other thread on Fach.

Fach fascination, and too much contemplation on all the ins and outs of its finer-layers and nuances as per the definitions, can so preoccupy the mind to a degree where it gets jammed with a business which overly dwells upon the layers of definition. Similar to the young composer who is so preoccupied with premises of music theory that they end up writing bad music because they forgot to use their ears, the mental preoccupation with Fach, i.e. things theoretical, clogs the ears and makes possible the deafness of the listener not hearing Callas as _A Soprano,_ period.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

PetrB said:


> This is just the trouble with getting to fascinated with the minutia which qaulifies a voice as one type or another, which Fach. I've already pointed out this fabricated (mental) peril in your other thread on Fach.
> 
> Fach fascination, and too much contemplation on all the ins and outs of its finer-layers and nuances as per the definitions, can so preoccupy the mind to a degree where it gets jammed with a business which overly dwells upon the layers of definition. Similar to the young composer who is so preoccupied with premises of music theory that they end up writing bad music because they forgot to use their ears, the mental preoccupation with Fach, i.e. things theoretical, clogs the ears and makes possible the deafness of the listener not hearing Callas as _A Soprano,_ period.


Respectfully, I disagree.

I think clear definitions lead to increased awareness of what's being analyzed and described; and therefore to a_ heightened _capacity to aesthetically discern-- and to _enjoy_!-- what you're hearing. _;D
_


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Respectfully, I disagree.
> 
> I think clear definitions lead to increased awareness of what's being analyzed and described; and therefore to a_ heightened _capacity to aesthetically discern-- and to _enjoy_!-- what you're hearing. _;D
> _


You do not disagree, that is exactly what they are for, and the finer-tuned thought leads to finer-tuned awareness.

A typically sophomoric preoccupation of immersion in definitions often leaves the mind so pre-occupied, that when it comes to vocal, instrumental techniques, and theoretic usage and techniques in composition -- well, that can get so extreme the person suffering it will need the equivalent of some drano in their ears.

Learning it all is invaluable, for reasons you stated. After that is learned, it still has to be very tied in with the ears, or it becomes a masterdate night out with your mind only.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

PetrB said:


> You do not disagree, that is exactly what they are for, and the finer-tuned thought leads to finer-tuned awareness.
> 
> A typically sophomoric preoccupation of immersion in definitions often leaves the mind so pre-occupied, that when it comes to vocal, instrumental techniques, and theoretic usage and techniques in composition -- well, that can get so extreme the person suffering it will need the equivalent of some drano in their ears.
> 
> Learning it all is invaluable, for reasons you stated. After that is learned, it still has to be very tied in with the ears, or it becomes a masterdate night out with your mind only.


Again, (Oh, how I do love being the contrarian sometimes. I admit it: drama, drama, and _MORE_ drama.) I find myself dissenting.

For example.

The 'melismata,' so-called, of Mariah Carey, Christina Aguilera, and, say, Beyoncé-- are not the _melismata_ of Callas in Anna Bolena-mode. An appreciation of craft and technique saves me from this type of balderdash.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Again, (Oh, how I do love being the contrarian sometimes. I admit it: drama, drama, and _MORE_ drama.) I find myself dissenting.
> 
> For example.
> 
> The 'melismata,' so-called, of Mariah Carey, Christina Aguilera, and, say, Beyoncé-- are not the _melismata_ of Callas in Anna Bolena-mode. An appreciation of craft and technique saves me from this type of balderdash.


Ahh, the appropriation of terminology around performance, technique and composition as wildly mis-appropriated by Pop Music fans and the industry itself. "Neoclassical" or "Neoromantic" are, fyi, now categories or sub-genres of pop music. Neither has anything to do with the Neoclassical style as it was established by Stravinsky (still an ongoing 'style' today) or the Neoromantics working in (lol) 'post-tonal' contemporary classical.

All that appropriation of the popsters is inverse snobbery, of course, thinking to slap some classical terminology on to pop music is going to give it more cred... just look at all those metal / genres of metal threads trying to make a connection between 'metal' and 'classical.' Lol oh lol.

But, I'll stop though you certainly got me started


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

PetrB said:


> Ahh, the appropriation of terminology around performance, technique and composition as wildly mis-appropriated by Pop Music fans and the industry itself. "Neoclassical" or "Neoromantic" are, fyi, now categories or sub-genres of pop music. Neither has anything to do with the Neoclassical style as it was established by Stravinsky (still an ongoing 'style' today) or the Neoromantics working in (lol) 'post-tonal' contemporary classical.
> 
> All that appropriation of the popsters is inverse snobbery, of course, thinking to slap some classical terminology on to pop music is going to give it more cred... just look at all those metal / genres of metal threads trying to make a connection between 'metal' and 'classical.' Lol oh lol.
> 
> But, I'll stop though you certainly got me started


How right you are.

You're going to laugh at this, but its actually Malcolm Mclauren of all people (the producer and manager of such acts as the Sex Pistols, Adam Ant, and Bow Wow Wow) that got me into Puccini's _Turandot._

I saw an album of rock numbers that he produced that had Puccini interspersed with rock on it. Yes, I know: a travesty. I saw the opera 'Turandot' on the back of the cd cover-- and thought that sounded like an exotic-sounding opera-- so I bought (luckily enough) the Mehta _Turdandot_ in order to hear it.

So the cross-over thing has a limited, karmic validity. It got at least one teenager into a great opera. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Respectfully, I disagree.
> 
> *I think clear definitions lead to increased awareness of what's being analyzed and described*; and therefore to a_ heightened _capacity to aesthetically discern-- and to _enjoy_!-- what you're hearing. _;D
> _


Our definitions need to be clear - and provisional. The issue is not whether they're clear, but whether we substitute them for the reality before our eyes, reversing the relationship between concepts and reality and expecting the latter to conform to the former. We can define "soprano" any way we like, but need to remember that it's just an abstraction. A human voice is a concrete thing and may not fit into any definition we have. What matters is the high E-flat, not whether the person hitting it "is" a soprano.

Of course Callas did fit any sensible definition of a soprano. Neither her voice nor the ordinary definition present any problem here.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Our definitions need to be clear - and provisional. The issue is not whether they're clear, but whether we substitute them for the reality before our eyes, reversing the relationship between concepts and reality and expecting the latter to conform to the former. We can define "soprano" any way we like, but need to remember that it's just an abstraction. A human voice is a concrete thing and may not fit into any definition we have. What matters is the high E-flat, not whether the person hitting it "is" a soprano.
> 
> Of course Callas did fit any sensible definition of a soprano. Neither her voice nor the ordinary definition present any problem here.


Oh definately.

From Polish logician Alfred Tarski's "Correspondence Theory of Truth"; to Ayn Rand's theory of concepts; to Sir Karl Popper's epistemology; to the First Duck: a concept has truth value in so far as it _corresponds to_ reality.

Post-modernism is high and dry on this one.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Ukko said:


> Hah. My friend _Moody_ would have expressed an opinion.


I rang Moody today at his nursing home and asked for his opinion. He said something along the lines of - *that he was well-known for not regarding her claims very highly & that most sopranos can manage mezzo & he knew she'd sung Carmen, but that was when (or because) her top notes had gone.*

He sends you all his regards, btw.

Now - please don't shoot the messenger! 
_(I like Maria Callas myself...)_


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Oh definately.
> From Polish logician Alfred Tarski's "Correspondence Theory of Truth"; to Ayn Rand's theory of concepts; to Sir Karl Popper's epistemology; to the First Duck: a concept has truth value in so far as it _corresponds to_ reality.
> Post-modernism is high and dry on this one.


lmao! I despise post modernism.



Woodduck said:


> Our definitions need to be clear - and provisional. The issue is not whether they're clear, but whether we substitute them for the reality before our eyes, reversing the relationship between concepts and reality and expecting the latter to conform to the former.


oh I agree, and one of the reasons I made this thread was that I think singing the right material would have led to increased longevity and choosing roles in which she would have sounded better.



> ]We can define "soprano" any way we like, but need to remember that it's just an abstraction. A human voice is a concrete thing and may not fit into any definition we have. *What matters is the high E-flat*, not whether the person hitting it "is" a soprano.


this is exactly the problem. what matters is _not_ the high Eb, but the _quality_ of the Eb and being able to comfortably sustain the _tessitura_ up to the Eb (and, indeed, throughout the rest of the role). for example, here is a clip of a *mezzo* singing Queen of the Night





after listening to several recordings of Callas from multiple time frames, I've decided on
pre-weight loss Callas: dramatic coloratura soprano
post-weight loss Callas: spinto soprano
late career Callas: dramatic mezzo


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> after listening to several recordings of Callas from multiple time frames, I've decided on
> pre-weight loss Callas: dramatic coloratura soprano
> post-weight loss Callas: spinto soprano
> late career Callas: dramatic mezzo


As I have noted in other threads, in her late career, Callas was a falcon ... a term that comes from a 19th century French singer whose range somewhat overlapped soprano/mezzo. That voice type is particularly apropos to a fair amount of late 19th century French repertoire such as Callas sang in her two French recital records


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> lmao! I despise post modernism.
> 
> oh I agree, and one of the reasons I made this thread was that I think singing the right material would have led to increased longevity and choosing roles in which she would have sounded better.
> 
> ...


How fine can we chop this onion?

Callas had the same type of voice in 1955 as she had in 1950. She lost some power and lost some security on high, that's all. The serious loss of top notes later on, combined with a natural, age-related darkening of the timbre, did not make her a true mezzo. She could undoubtedly have handled certain carefully selected mezzo roles - Carmen, Didon, Charlotte, Amneris, and Eboli come to mind - which would, hopefully, not overtax her lower-middle range. Working that part of her voice hard would, I think, have been unhealthy and would have revealed its unwisdom pretty quickly. It's one thing to have a strong chest voice, another thing to sing down there for minutes or quarter hours at a time.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Becca said:


> As I have noted in other threads, in her late career, Callas was a falcon ... a term that comes from a 19th century French singer whose range somewhat overlapped soprano/mezzo. That voice type is particularly apropos to a fair amount of late 19th century French repertoire such as Callas sang in her two French recital records


I think of her as a 'falcon' in the sense of being absolutely 'fierce,' myself.

A viscerally-alive 'falcon' as in contradistinction to a placid-but-pleasant 'sing-song bird.'

In short: A 'Callas' to a 'Tebaldi.'


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

As MB would say, blonde mistake


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> How fine can we chop this onion?
> 
> Callas had the same type of voice in 1955 as she had in 1950. She lost some power and lost some security on high, that's all. The serious loss of top notes later on, combined with a natural, age-related darkening of the timbre, did not make her a true mezzo. She could undoubtedly have handled certain carefully selected mezzo roles - Carmen, Didon, Charlotte, Amneris, and Eboli come to mind - which would, hopefully, not overtax her lower-middle range. Working that part of her voice hard would, I think, have been unhealthy and would have revealed its unwisdom pretty quickly. It's one thing to have a strong chest voice, another thing to sing down there for minutes or quarter hours at a time.


And indeed Walter Legge said she had trouble sustaining the low tessitura of Dalila's arias. Though her recording of Dalila's arias are very beautiful, he said she would probably not have had the requisite power on stage.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> As MB would say, blonde mistake


----------

