# Maria Callas. 40 years since her death



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

September 16th,1977 was the fateful day. She died short of her 54th birthday. I hope this 40th anniversary will produce some interesting press articles and TV documentaries.

Here's what we could put in this thread:

1. If you have any memories of that day, on hearing the news of her death. Alas, I can't remember what I was doing on the day, probably listening to punk rock. I was 17. 

2. Post recent links to news articles or other media.

3. Just share your thoughts as you wish.

I have Maria Callas day marked on my calendar. I have plenty of recordings, and I'm hardly a fanatic. What should I listen to?


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Maria Callas as told by her 'little sister', Giovanna Lomazzi [interview]
https://www.gramilano.com/2017/09/maria-callas-as-told-by-her-little-sister-giovanna-lomazzi-interview/


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I cried quietly all evening. Not because her life was over, but because I knew she felt it was over before she died. Maybe it was suicide, maybe it wasn't, and maybe it doesn't matter. Callas was gone and Maria seemed not to know what to do with what was left. One who gave so much to the world deserved at least a glimpse of peace at the end, and I hope she saw, even if for but a moment, a welcoming light at the end of the corridor, offering her a taste of the love she had never found.


----------



## CJC (Aug 17, 2017)

In commemoration of the 40th anniversary of Maria Callas' passing, the Museum of the Teatro alla Scala, Milan, the site of many of her triumphs on stage during her years of prime in the 1950s, will be organising an exhibition in its fondest memory of her. The exhibition, titled *Maria Callas in scena: Oli anni alla Scala* (Maria Callas on Stage: The Years at La Scala), to be held from September 15th 2017 to January 31st 2018, chronicles Callas' artistic life and memories at La Scala through her stage costumes, archival photos as well as clippings of contemporary press reviews. If you happen to be in Milan during the said period, don't miss it.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

I saw Callas and di Stefano during their last tour in 1974. It didn't matter that she didn't sound the same, we wanted to see her. We applauded wildly after every aria or duet she sang. At the end, some of us waited at the stage door, not the usual one, as we'd been told secretly that she'd come out the side door, to whisper to her: "we love you, Maria!" She smiled shyly at us. That was the one and only time I saw her.

When her death was announced three years later, I and my friends cried together. For years after that, I attended the opera, always disappointed in the singers we heard in "her" operas. There is no one who can touch her - it is disheartening that I'm still looking for her, 40 years on.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Had I wanted I could have gotten tickets for that tour but I decided that I'd rather keep a good vocal memory. Similarly I could have gone to one of Margot Fonteyn's last performances, but chose not to. On balance I think that I made the right decisions.


----------



## CJC (Aug 17, 2017)

Becca said:


> Had I wanted I could have gotten tickets for that tour but I decided that I'd rather keep a good vocal memory. Similarly I could have gone to one of Margot Fonteyn's last performances, but chose not to. On balance I think that I made the right decisions.


Callas' and Fonteyn's paths crossed once - Covent Garden's centenary gala on June 10th 1958 attended by Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

Don Fatale said:


> I have Maria Callas day marked on my calendar. I have plenty of recordings, and I'm hardly a fanatic. What should I listen to?


Don Fatale,

The quintessential Callas roles are Norma, Traviata, Medea, and Lucia di Lammermoor.

For *Norma*! I'd recommend the live 1955 La Scala performance (DIVINA - DV-17) 
For *Traviata*, there are two, both live: the 1958 Lisbon Traviata (EMI CDS 7 49187 8), and the Covent Garden, also 1958, but it is a transcendent performance, if vocally weaker (Myto 00145)
For *Medea*, the Dallas 1958 (on ArsVocalis). 
For *Lucia*, the 1953 EMI is vocally resplendent (Warner 0825646341092), the live Berlin version, though, is transcendent as well (DIVINA - DVN-19).

If you want more, I'd add Trovatore, live or studio and any Bellini opera. Sheer heaven.


----------



## Viardots (Oct 4, 2014)

"She shone for all too brief a while in the world of opera, like a vivid flame attracting the attention of the whole world, and she had a strange magic which was all her own.

I always thought that she was immortal - and _she_ is."

Tito Gobbi, _My Life_ (1979)


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

MAS said:


> View attachment 97370
> 
> 
> I saw Callas and di Stefano during their last tour in 1974. It didn't matter that she didn't sound the same, we wanted to see her. We applauded wildly after every aria or duet she sang. At the end, some of us waited at the stage door, not the usual one, as we'd been told secretly that she'd come out the side door, to whisper to her: "we love you, Maria!" She smiled shyly at us. That was the one and only time I saw her.
> ...


I wish I had the chance to tell Maria how much I love her


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

MAS said:


> Don Fatale,
> 
> The quintessential Callas roles are Norma, Traviata, Medea, and Lucia di Lammermoor.
> 
> ...


I would add the _De Sabata_ 1952 *Macbeth*.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Becca said:


> Had I wanted I could have gotten tickets for that tour but I decided that I'd rather keep a good vocal memory. Similarly I could have gone to one of Margot Fonteyn's last performances, but chose not to. On balance I think that I made the right decisions.


I may not have made the same decisions as you, but either way, to have had the choice!

N.


----------



## Macbeth (Sep 6, 2017)

CJC said:


> Callas' and Fonteyn's paths crossed once - Covent Garden's centenary gala on June 10th 1958 attended by Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip.


Funny how Queen Elizabeth checks out Divina's super-glamorous outfit head to toe... (3:41) who's the real queen here, eh?


----------



## Macbeth (Sep 6, 2017)

oh, she does it every time! I was just skipping to Callas's bowing


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

Tuoksu said:


> I would add the _De Sabata_ 1952 *Macbeth*.


Indeed! It is difficult to choose what to recommend - the Cologne *Sonnambula* also comes to mind - another demented night! Or the '57 *Ballo*. One could go on....


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Onassis was beyond rich, terribly charismatic, a stellar lover and was hard to get over. Jackie was also the last person a woman would wish to marry a former lover. Plus she was quite ill. It was an awful end for an icon.


----------



## Macbeth (Sep 6, 2017)

that's the usual process of becoming a Callas fan, isn't it? you start off trying to pick up just the very best and once you get the fever you'd be happy to listen to a snoring tape of a sleeping Callas!


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

Here are a couple of reminiscences from two writers, including one who attended the first Callas appearance in San Francisco in 1958 (not at the War Memorial Opera House, but in the Civic Auditorium, a cavernous space that seats over eight thousand).

http://listserv.bccls.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=OPERA-L;lGWo+g;20120618125815-0700c


----------



## DarkAngel (Aug 11, 2010)

Her art will never be forgotten by those who love her, a gift we will always treasure, Callas forever....


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

As a singing actress, one of the greatest ever. Not the greatest voice but one of the greatest artists. 

To hear her at her best try the Karajan Il Trovatore.


----------



## Macbeth (Sep 6, 2017)

DavidA said:


> As a singing actress, one of the greatest ever. Not the greatest voice but one of the greatest artists.
> 
> To hear her at her best try the Karajan Il Trovatore.


That's always been the general opinion, but it always strikes me when they say it was not such a great instrument her voice. Because even if I am fully aware of unwanted qualities in her voice from an archetypal point of view so to say, even talking about the first opulent Callas, I absolutely LOVE the SOUND of her voice.

Of course if one's idea of the ideal opera singing, especialy for a soprano, has to be this ethereal angelic sound, Callas is quite the opposite. But I mean, if one likes the very unique contradictory qualities of her voice, that being soprano sounds always very dark, and tryes to seek other similar voices, there's no one like her. Whenever I hear any female singer attempting something similar to her style, it always sounds like a made up sound, while she was genuine.

That the voice alone, if we are going to start with the genius musician playing this instrument... we never end.

just wanted to point out that perfection does not exist and her voice was astonishing per se


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

I just got the Master Classes recordings from Divina Records. Amazing to hear her incite on performance, and hear her encouraging young singers. Wonderful.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Macbeth said:


> That's always been the general opinion, but it always strikes me when they say it was not such a great instrument her voice. Because even if I am fully aware of unwanted qualities in her voice from an archetypal point of view so to say, even talking about the first opulent Callas, I absolutely LOVE the SOUND of her voice.
> 
> Of course if one's idea of the ideal opera singing, especialy for a soprano, has to be this ethereal angelic sound, Callas is quite the opposite. But I mean, if one likes the very unique contradictory qualities of her voice, that being soprano sounds always very dark, and tryes to seek other similar voices, there's no one like her. Whenever I hear any female singer attempting something similar to her style, it always sounds like a made up sound, while she was genuine.
> 
> ...


I must agree with this, and with DavidA as well! I have always believed that the Callas art began with the peculiarities of the voice itself - a strange, multicolored voice, both warm and harsh, mellow and strident, rich in reedy overtones, always full of very human character - which in a lesser artist would have been a liability (and in some ways was for Callas herself) but which she knew how to play like an organist manipulating the varied stops of his instrument. I don't always like the sounds she made; when the music called for nothing subtler than an unrestrained outpouring of sheer opulent beauty, she couldn't compete, even in her prime, with a Ponselle, a Tebaldi or a Price. But she compensated with a musical and dramatic insight that allowed her to use her peculiar instrument in ways that singers with more perfectly equalized and round-toned instruments not only never dreamed of but, more to the point, were vocally incapable of.

I don't think you can really love the art of Callas without loving the voice that made it possible, and those who can't get past the sound - the sounds - of her unique instrument will never entirely understand what the rest of us experience when we hear her.


----------



## Frankster (Sep 7, 2017)

I remember a story many years ago on Met intermission. Critic Martin Bernheimer describes his first experience with Callas. He was a young man who could only afford a score seat with no visibility at the Met. He heard this new soprano of obvious talent but with a voice always on the edge. After intermission, he found a seat to view the stage and only then understood the full impact of her performance.


----------



## Macbeth (Sep 6, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> I don't always like the sounds she made; when the music called for nothing subtler than an unrestrained outpouring of sheer opulent beauty, she couldn't compete, even in her prime, with a Ponselle, a Tebaldi or a Price.


I do understand what you mean, but beauty is such a sujective term. But yes, she did not posses that specific type of velvety voice so appreciated in Italy. But I think she tryed to compensate it (just as sound itself) by doing something that, lacking myself proper knowledge vocal technique, can only describe as "concentrating" the sound. She does it all the time in her Puccini album. It is something that hypnotizes me.


----------



## Macbeth (Sep 6, 2017)

Frankster said:


> I remember a story many years ago on Met intermission. Critic Martin Bernheimer describes his first experience with Callas. He was a young man who could only afford a score seat with no visibility at the Met. He heard this new soprano of obvious talent but with a voice always on the edge. After intermission, he found a seat to view the stage and only then understood the full impact of her performance.


That is another thing we always hear, Callas the singing actress, like there's so many people that tend to say yeah she hadn't got a great voice but she was such a good actress... But actualy, only those who saw her onstage back in the day could claim this, like in the story you refer to, but after all these decades, almost all of her admirors aswel as detractors only know her work in sound, being filmed material so scarce. So if we're going to tag her singing-actress, it has to be mainly vocaly. And this is opera, it is about ACTING SINGING.


----------



## Macbeth (Sep 6, 2017)

Frankster said:


> I remember a story many years ago on Met intermission. Critic Martin Bernheimer describes his first experience with Callas. He was a young man who could only afford a score seat with no visibility at the Met. He heard this new soprano of obvious talent but with a voice always on the edge. After intermission, he found a seat to view the stage and only then understood the full impact of her performance.


She sang for the first time at the Met in 1956, didn't this critic heard of that _new soprano_ before?


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> I must agree with this, and with DavidA as well! I have always believed that the Callas art began with the peculiarities of the voice itself - a strange, multicolored voice, both warm and harsh, mellow and strident, rich in reedy overtones, always full of very human character - which in a lesser artist would have been a liability (and in some ways was for Callas herself) but which she knew how to play like an organist manipulating the varied stops of his instrument. I don't always like the sounds she made; when the music called for nothing subtler than an unrestrained outpouring of sheer opulent beauty, she couldn't compete, even in her prime, with a Ponselle, a Tebaldi or a Price. But she compensated with a musical and dramatic insight that allowed her to use her peculiar instrument in ways that singers with more perfectly equalized and round-toned instruments not only never dreamed of but, more to the point, were vocally incapable of.
> 
> I don't think you can really love the art of Callas without loving the voice that made it possible, and those who can't get past the sound - the sounds - of her unique instrument will never entirely understand what the rest of us experience when we hear her.


again...  :tiphat:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Tuoksu said:


> again...  :tiphat:


At your service.


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> I don't think you can really love the art of Callas without loving the voice that made it possible, and those who can't get past the sound - the sounds - of her unique instrument will never entirely understand what the rest of us experience when we hear her.


Before the online era, I used to think I was quite a Callas fan, since I love her voice and always considered her to be one of the finest sopranos and always found her very worth listening to even after her vocal decline.

But then I found out I was a hater since I like other sopranos as much as or even more than Callas, and I think her vocal problems are problems.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

howlingfantods said:


> Before the online era, I used to think I was quite a Callas fan, since I love her voice and always considered her to be one of the finest sopranos and always found her very worth listening to even after her vocal decline.
> 
> But then I found out I was a hater since I like other sopranos as much as or even more than Callas, and I think her vocal problems are problems.


Who says you're a hater? Most Callas admirers I've observed do understand her vocal problems, and better than those who merely dislike her.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Wow! A day in mourning for rich Greek shipbuilders, at the very least.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Wow! A day in mourning for rich Greek shipbuilders, at the least.


The unemployment office for tasteless, unfunny comedians is down the hall.


----------



## Macbeth (Sep 6, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> Who says you're a hater? Most Callas admirers I've observed do understand her vocal problems, and better than those who merely dislike her.


In fact most Callas fans go through that "don't touch my diva or say anything bad about her" period, but if one's able to learn, develop an ear and a taste, and grow, then you realize that you come to appreciate her work even more than when you just thought she was superhuman.

I listen to opera _because_ of Callas. Many years ago I didn't listen to classical music, I liked it but it wasn't something I cared about. This was the era of the three tenors. I can recall that even before forming an opinion I knew Pavarotti's voice was by far the best of the three. Then Domingo was ok, and Carreras would get on my nerves. Still to this day I don't enjoy his voice.

Then one day, _one fine day_, there was something on tv, some ad or programme, and this amazing sound emerged from it. I couldn't understand a word (now I sepak a little italian) but this voice was indescribably expressive, no need to understand the words. Like fire, its qualities fluctuated constantly, expressing the deepest sadness, despair, hope, abandonment, determination... I though "woha what's this???" and instinctively thought that something as incredible as that ought to be the mythical Maria Callas, whom I only knew by name.

And luckily I was right, it was Callas singing La Wally.

I found it out at the library where they had those Divina 1, 2, 3 albums, remastered previously to the 1997 butchery, so I was luky, my first contact could have been much worse.

From there, I started by trying to listen to the entire operas they had at the library, selecting from the arias I liked in those Callas albums. I just could not understand why ALL the other singers were so BORING compared to what Callas had performed in a single aria. I just did not understand.

The first two I learned to tolerate and later enjoy were Caballé and Sutherland.

And here I get to the point where I first encountered anti-Callas hostility on the net. The first time I came across a negative comment I honestly thought the guy was mental or hold something personal against her. It took me quite a lot of time to understand what is it that can be pointed out as defects.

Also I was amazed to find out so many people that liking opera, just can't put up with her voice. And there are those that appreciate the first pre-diet Callas but not the other... well you know how it goes. Today I understand those opinions, or rather tastes, and I think they are perfectly legit, even if I'm glad not to share them.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> The unemployment office for tasteless, unfunny comedians is down the hall.


I'm right behind you.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

hpowders said:


> You're just PO'ed because you didn't think of it


It isn't that I didn't, but that I couldn't have. I can be unfunny on occasion, and tasteless on rare occasions, but never both at once.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> It isn't that I didn't, but that I couldn't have. I can be unfunny on occasion, and tasteless on rare occasions, but never both at once.


Oh, lighten up. It's a harmless joke. I didn't attack the art of Maria Callas.

How many times have I written her Tosca with Gobbi is the best ever.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

*me before reading this thread:* "I'm so old!" 
*me after reading this thread:* .....or not lmao!


----------



## Macbeth (Sep 6, 2017)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> *me before reading this thread:* "I'm so old!"
> *me after reading this thread:* .....or not lmao!


you are using the internet to read threads about dead opera singers so, you're old actually


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> *me before reading this thread:* "I'm so old!"
> *me after reading this thread:* .....or not lmao!


Same here :lol:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I can never see this business that Callas was the all-in-all soprano. Yes, she was a great vocal actress but others have brought other things to the roles e.g. Tebaldi and Price brought vocal splendour that Callas didn't have. I can thankfully enjoy lots of interpretations of the roles without sticking at just Callas. 
I could never understand this rivalry between sopranos such was conjured up between (e.g.) Callas and Tebaldi. Seems a very bovine thing akin to brainless football supporters. Why not just enjoy both?


----------



## Macbeth (Sep 6, 2017)

DavidA said:


> I can never see this business that Callas was the all-in-all soprano. Yes, she was a great vocal actress but others have brought other things to the roles e.g. Tebaldi and Price brought vocal splendour that Callas didn't have. I can thankfully enjoy lots of interpretations of the roles without sticking at just Callas.
> I could never understand this rivalry between sopranos such was conjured up between (e.g.) Callas and Tebaldi. Seems a very bovine thing akin to brainless football supporters. Why not just enjoy both?


Yes, that rivalry is childish, but the thing with Callas is her uniqueness, you can't help but compare once you've heard her at a given part, what Rudolf Bing said about her spoiling for him all the operas he heard her sing. In a previous post I was referring to overcoming this period every Callas fan goes through in order to enjoy all the different great artists, dead or alive, we have the good fortune to be able to listen to, and now I add that we ought to be grateful for it.

But Callas's supreme artistry aside (which is her main appeal) her voice was a freak, even Lauri Volpi, when he wrote "Voci Parallele" had to let her in a case of her own (I think the only one).
So she's a case apart, and when you love her you always miss her because what you get from her you cannot obtain from anyone else. You could argue that this is what happens with any singer or player you admire, but in her case you can't find not even similar.


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

I thought I would share my Callas discovery story.

My interest in opera started in 1995 when renting the film Pretty Woman, and that amazing Traviata performance when he comes to get her at the end in the limo. I didn't even care what Gere or Roberts were doing, I only cared about that music. So, I got the Sutherland/Pavarotti Traviata. I liked it, so I got their Turandot. Listened to them here and there, except "Che fai" which I listened to all the time. The rest, I thought, was ok. Of course my opinion today is far different than that in regards to these two works, especially Traviata, which I love.

In late, 1996 I saw Amadeus for the first time, and that turned a fleet interest in opera to a passion. I worked in downtown Minneapolis. We had a big Barnes & Noble that had an AMAZING classical music collection. I went in there to buy some Mozart opera. One of the workers there was so knowledgeable. He steered me to get all the great recordings of Mozart from Idomeneo through Clemenza. He never disappointed.

After Mozart, I decided I wanted Carmen. I went into the store and picked up the Solti Carmen (it was three CDs, not two like the others, so I thought there was more music). He came over and asked what I was thinking of getting and I showed him the Solti Carmen. I'll never forget it. He said, "No, no, no. I will only sell you one Carmen." Of course picked up the Callas Carmen. When I said I wanted the Solti, he said, "Well, I will only sell you the Callas. You have to hear her. She is like nothing you have ever heard." We battled back and forth and I finally succumbed, remembering he had never steered me wrong. I went home, put Carmen on the CD player and was cleaning the kitchen, remotely paying attention to it. When she sang her first note, I froze. My first thought was, "What the hell is this?" I stopped, stood and listened, totally perplexed at the voice I was hearing. Do I hate it? Do I love it? Is it beautiful in its own way? Is it downright ugly? As I was listening, I couldn't make up my mind, but it was certainly riveting. I couldn't stop listening to it all night - I was captivated then, and I'm still captivated today.


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

gellio said:


> I thought I would share my Callas discovery story.
> 
> My interest in opera started in 1995 when renting the film Pretty Woman, and that amazing Traviata performance when he comes to get her at the end in the limo. I didn't even care what Gere or Roberts were doing, I only cared about that music. So, I got the Sutherland/Pavarotti Traviata. I liked it, so I got their Turandot. Listened to them here and there, except "Che fai" which I listened to all the time. The rest, I thought, was ok. Of course my opinion today is far different than that in regards to these two works, especially Traviata, which I love.
> 
> ...


He steered you wrong, the Solti Carmen is better.


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> I can never see this business that Callas was the all-in-all soprano. Yes, she was a great vocal actress but others have brought other things to the roles e.g. Tebaldi and Price brought vocal splendour that Callas didn't have. I can thankfully enjoy lots of interpretations of the roles without sticking at just Callas.
> I could never understand this rivalry between sopranos such was conjured up between (e.g.) Callas and Tebaldi. Seems a very bovine thing akin to brainless football supporters. Why not just enjoy both?


Exactly. I love Callas, Tebaldi, Sutherland, Nilsson, Varney, Caballe, and Norman to name a few. They all bring different things.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

howlingfantods said:


> He steered you wrong, the Solti Carmen is better.


When did Solti sing Carmen? 

The Callas Carmen is a miracle of vocal art. I returned to it a couple of years ago after not having heard it for maybe a decade. I couldn't believe the relentless intelligence, the ability to make something musically and dramatically distinctive out of every phrase. This, in a role she had never performed. Anyone who thinks her reputation is exaggerated and her fans too fanatical should hear her Carmen.


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

howlingfantods said:


> He steered you wrong, the Solti Carmen is better.


LOL. I did end up buying the Solti Carmen a few years later. He was right, I like the Callas recording better. I am a big Solti fan, but his Carmen isn't one of my favorites.


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> When did Solti sing Carmen?
> 
> The Callas Carmen is a miracle of vocal art. I returned to it a couple of years ago after not having heard it for maybe a decade. I couldn't believe the relentless intelligence, the ability to make something musically and dramatically distinctive out of every phrase. This, in a role she had never performed. Anyone who thinks her reputation is exaggerated and her fans too fanatical should hear her Carmen.


It's absolutely riveting. She knocks it out of the park, especially in the finale. The whole recording is full of energy and drive, which is a bit lacking in the Solti IMO.

When I went to buy Carmen, I only knew names of performers and conductors from the Traviata, Turandot and Mozart operas. Being that they don't really crossover to Carmen, I wanted the Solti because that was another name I knew.


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> When did Solti sing Carmen?
> 
> The Callas Carmen is a miracle of vocal art. I returned to it a couple of years ago after not having heard it for maybe a decade. I couldn't believe the relentless intelligence, the ability to make something musically and dramatically distinctive out of every phrase. This, in a role she had never performed. Anyone who thinks her reputation is exaggerated and her fans too fanatical should hear her Carmen.


Callas's performance is interesting, but she doesn't really work as Carmen for me. Troyanos is seductive in a way that makes many other recorded Carmens sound prim. Callas sounds fierce instead of alluring--a fascinating portrayal of some other character, perhaps, just not Carmen.

And Solti doesn't use the recitative. And Domingo/Van Dam/Te Kanawa just blow away Gedda/Guiot/Massard, and this is the ideal vehicle for Solti's gifts, where Pretre is a routinier.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

howlingfantods said:


> Callas's performance is interesting, but she doesn't really work as Carmen for me. Troyanos is seductive in a way that makes many other recorded Carmens sound prim. Callas sounds fierce instead of alluring--a fascinating portrayal of some other character, perhaps, just not Carmen.


Allure is in the ear of the brigadier! Surely there are many ways to portray Carmen. Callas's is unique - not for everyone, naturally, but uniquely, brilliantly creative. She isn't just sexy; she's enigmatic, fatalistic, disconcertingly self-possessed, and dangerous, as the libretto tells us she is. She makes me hang on every syllable, hypnotizes me as Carmen must hypnotize Jose. There's the voice itself, that smoky, bottled up middle register and the dark, fierce chest tones, the problematic high notes rarely exposed. And there's the exquisite command of the language, the French vowels and consonants savored and even played with as only a native (or Callas) could play with them...

Like it or not, this is potent stuff. I'm not a great fan of this opera; I wouldn't be likely to attend a performance in the theater, and don't care to own multiple recordings of it. Callas makes it compelling for me, perhaps because she makes a free-spirited seductress into a dark, serious, even contradictory character who, being inscrutable, makes an enigmatic kind of sense and makes Don Jose's obsession and self-destruction inevitable. A melodious entertainment thus becomes almost a Greek tragedy. I do wonder what Bizet would have thought.


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Allure is in the ear of the brigadier! Surely there are many ways to portray Carmen. Callas's is unique - not for everyone, naturally, but uniquely, brilliantly creative. She isn't just sexy; she's enigmatic, fatalistic, disconcertingly self-possessed, and dangerous, as the libretto tells us she is. She makes me hang on every syllable, hypnotizes me as Carmen must hypnotize Jose. There's the voice itself, that smoky, bottled up middle register and the dark, fierce chest tones, the problematic high notes rarely exposed. And there's the exquisite command of the language, the French vowels and consonants savored and even played with as only a native (or Callas) could play with them...
> 
> Like it or not, this is potent stuff. I'm not a great fan of this opera; I wouldn't be likely to attend a performance in the theater, and don't care to own multiple recordings of it. Callas makes it compelling for me, perhaps because she makes a seductress into a dark, serious character who, being inscrutable, makes an enigmatic kind of sense and makes Don Jose's self-destruction inevitable.


That's fair, it's certainly a compelling performance. But my criteria is always that the performance serves the music, and to me, the most important thing is whether the conductors and singers make the strongest possible case for the opera. I don't think this recording does, as interesting as Callas's performance is. The recording makes me think "hm, Callas is interesting here," not, "hmm, Carmen is actually better than I think." The Solti on the other hand really does get me to enjoy this opera that I was originally pretty indifferent to, more so than any of the other versions I've heard.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

howlingfantods said:


> Callas's performance is interesting, but she doesn't really work as Carmen for me. Troyanos is seductive in a way that makes many other recorded Carmens sound prim. Callas sounds fierce instead of alluring--a fascinating portrayal of some other character, perhaps, just not Carmen.


If you read the Prosper Merimee Carmen, which was included with the original vinyl release, you will realize that Callas has it right.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

howlingfantods said:


> That's fair, it's certainly a compelling performance. But my criteria is always that the performance serves the music, and to me, the most important thing is whether the conductors and singers make the strongest possible case for the opera. I don't think this recording does, as interesting as Callas's performance is. The recording makes me think "hm, Callas is interesting here," not, "hmm, Carmen is actually better than I think." The Solti on the other hand really does get me to enjoy this opera that I was originally pretty indifferent to, more so than any of the other versions I've heard.


That's fair too. Outside of Callas herself, the Pretre recording is solid and idiomatic but certainly surpassable. I do think that Gedda conveys the right sort of naivete and exhibits his usual fine style, and that Guiot is a lovely Micaela. Massard is merely solid rather than charismatic, and Pretre is always lively and apt but maybe a little hasty and lacking in gravitas. As less than a fan of the opera, I'm not unduly bothered by what seem to me minor shortcomings. It does come across as genuinely French, which can't be said for some performances I've heard (Bernstein? Karajan?).


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

Becca said:


> If you read the Prosper Merimee Carmen, which was included with the original vinyl release, you will realize that Callas has it right.


Hmm, perhaps. To me, original sources don't matter as much as the logic of the narrative we're presented. For the opera Carmen to work, the natural pairings of Jose and Micaela, and Carmen and Escaramillo has to be disturbed through the extremity of Carmen's seduction of Jose. Callas doesn't sound like a woman for an ostensibly proper fellow like Jose to get driven to foresake his past, his career and ultimately his life for, she sounds like someone who would scare away a proper fellow like Jose, especially in the very tasteful and dignified depiction by Gedda. But Troyanos's Carmen could definitely seduce and bewilder Domingo's Jose.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

In thinking about the Callas recording of Carmen, it occurs to me to look at Callas as the Garbo of opera, in that they were both women of unique personality, talent, beauty and charisma, who dominated whatever productions they starred in - outshining their fellow cast members and even transcending and transforming much of the material they were given to work with, bringing unsuspected depth and intensity to operas, recordings and films which would appear as lesser achievements without them. I think that Callas, who when asked what film actors she admired, cited Garbo as an inspiration, would appreciate the comparison.


----------



## The Wolf (Apr 28, 2017)

_La Scala di Maria Callas_ - Testimonials by: Luisa Mandelli, Fillipo Crivelli, Giovanna Lomazzi, Eliana De Sabata & Rolando Panerai (streamed today from La Scala).


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> In thinking about the Callas recording of Carmen, it occurs to me to look at Callas as the Garbo of opera....I think that Callas, who when asked what film actors she admired, cited Garbo as an inspiration, would appreciate the comparison.


I love Garbo! Callas may have met her idol on the Christina at some point.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

MAS said:


> I love Garbo! Callas may have met her idol on the Christina at some point.
> 
> View attachment 97516


She did indeed, and apparently they got along well. Callas tells the story in this wonderful 1969 interview on French TV.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Becca said:


> If you read the Prosper Merimee Carmen, which was included with the original vinyl release, you will realize that Callas has it right.


Yes but the problem is that Bizet's opera is not Merimee's novel!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Yes but the problem is that Bizet's opera is not Merimee's novel!


This is true, but why is it a problem? Bizet deliberately softened the character a little (but only a little) for popular consumption, provided lots of catchy tunes for faux-Spanish atmosphere, and threw in that sweet, pious little homebody Micaela as a refuge for the sensibilities of audiences easily scandalized (this was the opera comique in the 1870s). But we shouldn't be lulled into comfortable security by any of this. The first audiences weren't, and this was the main reason for the opera's initial lukewarm reception.

The character of Carmen in the opera, as in Merimee, will happily settle a quarrel with a knife. She is fearless, crafty, uncompromising and enigmatic, and not common, whimsical and cheap. She is, as Callas pointed out, a gypsy, a woman who lives outside the law and conventional morality, a believer in fate and quite at home with death; her "fortune-telling" aria (not in Merimee) clearly shows the dark side of her nature, and can seem incongruous if she's portrayed as a coquettish skirt-twirler. She has to be disturbing, a woman who not only plays with men but destroys them without a pang of conscience, as "fate" dictates. She has to be like nothing Jose has ever imagined in order to transform a nice country boy into an obsessed criminal.

Callas said she preferred the character in Merimee (despite expressing moral disapproval and an inability to identify personally with such a woman), and her portrayal shows that influence while remaining quite compatible with the music she is given to sing. In fact I know of no singer of the part who illuminates that music more fully and creatively.


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> In thinking about the Callas recording of Carmen, it occurs to me to look at Callas as the Garbo of opera, in that they were both women of unique personality, talent, beauty and charisma, who dominated whatever productions they starred in - outshining their fellow cast members and even transcending and transforming much of the material they were given to work with, bringing unsuspected depth and intensity to operas, recordings and films which would appear as lesser achievements without them. I think that Callas, who when asked what film actors she admired, cited Garbo as an inspiration, would appreciate the comparison.


I think that's very astute. The person I think of a lot when thinking of Callas is Horowitz, another artist I have a lot of respect for and enjoy listening to greatly, but who is often not my absolute favorite performer of a particular piece because I tend to hear the artist more than the art when I listen to him.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I agree about Horowitz. It isn't that these artists are untrue to their material, but simply that their personalities are so strong and original that they reveal it in lights no one else ever imagined. I love the story about Toti dal Monte, no mean artist in her own right, going back to Callas's dressing room in tears after a performance of Lucia di Lammermoor, telling her that she never suspected that such depths could be found in the role. Callas herself cited Garbo's Camille as an inspiration to her in portraying Violetta; in both cases the role is forever identified with them by all who have seen or heard them in the film or the opera. I think this kind of "larger than life" artist, who takes total possession of, transcends and transforms her material, is the very essence of the Romantic ideal, in which the performer is co-creator with the author.


----------



## DarkAngel (Aug 11, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> *I agree about Horowitz. It isn't that these artists are untrue to their material, but simply that their personalities are so strong and original that they reveal it in lights no one else ever imagined.* I love the story about Toti dal Monte, no mean artist in her own right, going back to Callas's dressing room in tears after a performance of Lucia di Lammermoor, telling her that she never suspected that such depths could be found in the role. Callas herself cited Garbo's Camille as an inspiration to her in portraying Violetta; in both cases the role is forever identified with them by all who have seen or heard them in the film or the opera. I think this kind of "larger than life" artist, who takes total possession of, transcends and transforms her material, is the very essence of the Romantic ideal, in which the performer is co-creator with the author.


You guys are on to something there, in the world of wagner rings who can ever create a more complex emotionaly conflicted wotan than Hans Hotter of the 1950s, such insightful nuanced characterization performed with the highest degree of artistry, all others since are pale approximations by comparison

Some singers just were born for the role and bring it to like like no other.....


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Michael Tanner makes an interesting point in The Spectator this week. He says that 'Many of her [Callas'] roles seem to me to be in second-rate, or anyway less than great, operas and, like all creative artists, she has her fluctuations in achievement, but she is always recognisable - instantly - and she frequently imbues the commonplace with an inflection that turns it into a revelation.'
He then goes on to say: 'It is significant that she sang little Mozart and was not inclined to sing more. A composer on his transcendental level of achievement can only be more or less adequately interpreted: enhancement of his work is not a possibility. Callas did record a few Mozart arias in one of her later recital discs, but they sound routine.'


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> When did Solti sing Carmen?
> 
> The Callas Carmen is a miracle of vocal art. I returned to it a couple of years ago after not having heard it for maybe a decade. I couldn't believe the relentless intelligence, the ability to make something musically and dramatically distinctive out of every phrase. This, in a role she had never performed. Anyone who thinks her reputation is exaggerated and her fans too fanatical should hear her Carmen.


Must confess the Callas Carmen doesn't do it for me. Of course, one admires the artistry but by then the voice was in sad decline and parts are painful to listen to. I do wonder too whether it is more Callas' Carmen than Bizet's. Like seeing a great actor interpret a part - you can admire the artistry without necessarily agreeing with it.


----------



## DonAlfonso (Oct 4, 2014)

National Opera of Bordeaux is holding an exhibition of Callas photographs from the French magazine Paris Match Sept 23rd to Nov 18; also two recitals and a concert performance of Bellini's Il Pirata in November dedicated to her memory.
Like some others here I saw Callas in person only once, late in her career and only in recital but still - the artistry, the presence!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Michael Tanner makes an interesting point in The Spectator this week. He says that 'Many of her [Callas'] roles seem to me to be in second-rate, or anyway less than great, operas and, like all creative artists, she has her fluctuations in achievement, but she is always recognisable - instantly - and she frequently imbues the commonplace with an inflection that turns it into a revelation.'
> He then goes on to say: 'It is significant that she sang little Mozart and was not inclined to sing more. A composer on his transcendental level of achievement can only be more or less adequately interpreted: enhancement of his work is not a possibility. Callas did record a few Mozart arias in one of her later recital discs, but they sound routine.'


I don't think there's much to any of this. What were Callas's distinguished interpretations? In the theater, Medea, Norma, Amina (Sonnambula), Elvira (Puritani), Lucia, Lady Macbeth, Leonora (Trovatore), Violetta (Traviata), Amelia (Ballo), Tosca. She also committed to recordings remarkable interpretations in operas she rarely or never sang live: Gilda (Rigoletto), Aida, Gioconda, Carmen, Turandot, Mimi, Butterfly. And of course there were early performances in Tiefland, Fidelio, and Wagner (Isolde, Brunnhilde and Kundry). Looks like a pretty great bunch of operas to me.

Callas chose roles that she found to be interesting vocally and as characters, and said she didn't care for Mozart's operas. ("Donna Anna is a bore"; "In Mozart it's the piano concertos I love." I second both of those opinions.) Mozart's pre-Romantic aesthetic simply seems not to have appealed to her sensibilities, and his vocal writing has a strictness and a requirement for vocal evenness and purity that doesn't suit her unusual voice or allow for as much interpretive freedom as later operas. It isn't a question of whether they can be "enhanced." I think Callas could have been a superb Elettra and possibly Queen of the Night, and her late recording of Donna Elvira's "Mi tradi" is very strong despite her being past her prime vocally, but in general she just wasn't well-suited to the Classical repertoire, vocally and temperamentally, and was wise to leave it to "prettier" singers.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Must confess the Callas Carmen doesn't do it for me. Of course, one admires the artistry but by then the voice was in sad decline and parts are painful to listen to. *I do wonder too whether it is more Callas' Carmen than Bizet's.* Like seeing a great actor interpret a part - you can admire the artistry without necessarily agreeing with it.


I find nothing vocally painful in the Callas Carmen, but find the role well within her effective range at that stage and well-served by the dark, smoky tone she brings to it (she always had a unique ability to adapt her vocal tone to a character). But, personal feelings about the voice aside: what is _Bizet's_ Carmen, specifically? Did he leave us thoughts about how to interpret the role? The idea of using Merimee's story was his own, so he must have been attracted to the character as presented there, and he participated at times in creating the libretto when he felt that Meilhac and Halevy were straying too far from the original story.

I don't think the role of Carmen can have a "correct" interpretation, though it can certainly be trivialized and spoiled by wrong ones.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> I find nothing vocally painful in the Callas Carmen, but find the role well within her effective range at that stage and well-served by the dark, smoky tone she brings to it (she always had a unique ability to adapt her vocal tone to a character). But, personal feelings about the voice aside: what is _Bizet's_ Carmen, specifically? Did he leave us thoughts about how to interpret the role? The idea of using Merimee's story was his own, so he must have been attracted to the character as presented there, and he participated at times in creating the libretto when he felt that Meilhac and Halevy were straying too far from the original story.
> 
> I don't think the role of Carmen can have a "correct" interpretation, though it can certainly be trivialized and spoiled by wrong ones.


When the advertisements came out 'Callas is Carmen' some of the reviews said 'Carmen is Callas'. But how much did Bozet want Carmen to be Merimee's? Certainly (from Wiki) the opera is based on part III of the story only and omits many elements, such as Carmen's husband. It greatly increases the role of other characters, such as the Dancaïre, who is only a minor character in the story; the Remendado, who one page after he is introduced is wounded by soldiers and then shot by Carmen's husband to keep him from slowing the gang down; and Lucas (renamed Escamillo and promoted to matador), who is seen only in the bull ring in the story. The opera's female singing roles other than Carmen-Micaëla, Frasquita, and Mercédès-have no counterparts in the novella. Carmen knows her fate not from reading cards but from interpreting such omens as a hare running between José's horse's legs.

One thing we can certainly agree on is there is no definitive interpretation of Carmen. The wonderful role of interpreters on disc we have illustrate this. Another factor in the Callas Carmen is the conductor who appears routine, Massard's terribly dull Escamillo and the fact that Gedda's Jose does not match his versions under Karajan and Beecham.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> I don't think there's much to any of this. What were Callas's distinguished interpretations? In the theater, Medea, Norma, Amina (Sonnambula), Elvira (Puritani), Lucia, Lady Macbeth, Leonora (Trovatore), Violetta (Traviata), Amelia (Ballo), Tosca. She also committed to recordings remarkable interpretations in operas she rarely or never sang live: Gilda (Rigoletto), Aida, Gioconda, Carmen, Turandot, Mimi, Butterfly. And of course there were early performances in Tiefland, Fidelio, and Wagner (Isolde, Brunnhilde and Kundry). Looks like a pretty great bunch of operas to me.
> 
> Callas chose roles that she found to be interesting vocally and as characters, and said she didn't care for Mozart's operas. ("Donna Anna is a bore"; "In Mozart it's the piano concertos I love." I second both of those opinions.) Mozart's pre-Romantic aesthetic simply seems not to have appealed to her sensibilities, and his vocal writing has a strictness and a requirement for vocal evenness and purity that doesn't suit her unusual voice or allow for as much interpretive freedom as later operas. It isn't a question of whether they can be "enhanced." I think Callas could have been a superb Elettra and possibly Queen of the Night, and her late recording of Donna Elvira's "Mi tradi" is very strong despite her being past her prime vocally, but in general she just wasn't well-suited to the Classical repertoire, vocally and temperamentally, and was wise to leave it to *"prettier" singers*.


I'd hardly call singers who were suited to Mozart 'prettier' singers. Schwartzkof, Ludwig, Fleming, Seefried, della Casa, Gueden, Sutherland et al ? they were great singers in their own right.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> I'd hardly call singers who were suited to Mozart 'prettier' singers. Schwartzkof, Ludwig, Fleming, Seefried, della Casa, Gueden, Sutherland et al ? they were great singers in their own right.


"Prettier" wasn't intended as an insult. I could have said "purer-toned singers" or "singers with more conventionally beautiful voices." I think that's more or less requisite in Mozart, in most roles. Callas's voice is too peculiar - and that isn't intended as an insult either!


----------



## The Wolf (Apr 28, 2017)

More value than 1000 words...


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> "Prettier" wasn't intended as an insult. I could have said "purer-toned singers" or "singers with more conventionally beautiful voices." I think that's more or less requisite in Mozart, in most roles. Callas's voice is too peculiar - and that isn't intended as an insult either!


One Callas Mozart aria I really like is the Donna Elvira aria from Don Giovanni. Donna Elvira would have been a wonderful role for her. It sits on the low side and so her dark tones suit it. Even in (1964 is it?) with her voice past its best she finds things in the character that go over the heads of most other singers of the role. Callas said that Mozart should be sung more like Verdi than we are sometimes used to and vice versa and I like Callas' beefier approach to Mozart. The other great Callas Mozart recording is _Marten aller Arten_ from Entfuhrung, but that's a whole other story...

N.


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

The Conte said:


> One Callas Mozart aria I really like is the Donna Elvira aria from Don Giovanni. Donna Elvira would have been a wonderful role for her. It sits on the low side and so her dark tones suit it. Even in (1964 is it?) with her voice past its best she finds things in the character that go over the heads of most other singers of the role. Callas said that Mozart should be sung more like Verdi than we are sometimes used to and vice versa and I like Callas' beefier approach to Mozart. The other great Callas Mozart recording is _Marten aller Arten_ from Entfuhrung, but that's a whole other story...
> 
> N.


I like her Donna Anna even better. I've heard "non mi dir" so many times before and never cared for it, and actually found it rather annoying. Until I heard this and found out it was meant to be something completely different and amazing:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Tuoksu said:


> I like her Donna Anna even better. I've heard "non mi dir" so many times before and never cared for it, and actually found it rather annoying. Until I heard this and found out it was meant to be something completely different and amazing:


I find it, um, interesting. Callas was never less than interesting. Quite nice, actually. But listen to this live recording of a celebrated Donna Anna from the '50s, the wonderful Elisabeth Grummer:






In voice and style she seems to me more right for this music. I wonder why the Callas appeals to you particularly.


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> I find it, um, interesting. Callas was never less than interesting. Quite nice, actually. But listen to this live recording of a celebrated Donna Anna from the '50s, the wonderful Elisabeth Grummer:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have to say almost no female Mozart role really appeals to me, especially not Donna Anna. I've always thought Donna Elvira was the slightly less boring one of the two. I've always enjoyed "in quale eccessi o numi.." and loathed "non mi dir". 
When I heard the Callas recording (which is only a microphone test actually) of the latter, it sounded like a completely different aria. I realized it wasn't actually a boring aria. I don't know how to explain it except that it felt like I was hearing "non mi dir" for the first time ever and it was amazing, and the feeling that I want to skip it turned into an endless replay. Yes, she doesn't exactly have the right voice for Mozart, which is why I really don't like to listen to her "mi tradi quell'alma ingrata" because it sounds "wrong" (and this is probably the ONLY occasion on which I thought Callas' voice was wrong for something) despite the interpretive genius and would listen to Barbara Frittoli's Donna Elvira instead. With "non mi dir" It's the complete opposite. I think it works much, much better than Donna Elvira and it's the only Donna Anna I'm ever going to listen to (Sorry Grummer didn't impress either). Could be also because it's the young Callas singing it.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> I find it, um, interesting. Callas was never less than interesting. Quite nice, actually. But listen to this live recording of a celebrated Donna Anna from the '50s, the wonderful Elisabeth Grummer:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


For Donna Anna try Sutherland with Guilini


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> For Donna Anna try Sutherland with Guilini


I was thinking of posting that one, but I have a special fondness for Grummer. She also has superior diction (but then who doesn't? :devil.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> I was thinking of posting that one, but I have a special fondness for Grummer. She also has superior diction (but then who doesn't? :devil.


Actually in that recording the diction is OK. Great conductor of course.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

DavidA said:


> Actually in that recording the diction is OK. Great conductor of course.


That was pre-"Sir."


----------



## gardibolt (May 22, 2015)

gellio said:


> I just got the Master Classes recordings from Divina Records. Amazing to hear her incite on performance, and hear her encouraging young singers. Wonderful.


I've been listening to the Master Classes from Divina myself; you really get a vivid sense of the thought processes behind her artistry, and it feels like you're getting to know Callas, if not Maria, in a way you can't otherwise. Those lucky handful that were in that class!


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

gardibolt said:


> I've been listening to the Master Classes from Divina myself; you really get a vivid sense of the thought processes behind her artistry, and it feels like you're getting to know Callas, if not Maria, in a way you can't otherwise. Those lucky handful that were in that class!


Other than Willard White, have any of those students managed to make an operatic name for themselves?


----------



## Macbeth (Sep 6, 2017)

Becca said:


> Other than Willard White, have any of those students managed to make an operatic name for themselves?


Barbara Hendricks attended!!


----------



## gardibolt (May 22, 2015)

In addition to Hendricks, Barbara Shuttleworth, Cynthia Clarey, John Seabury, Lenus Carlson, Lucille Sullam, Maria Elena Guinez, Pamela Hebert, Sheila Nadler, and Syble Young had operatic careers notable enough to show up in Google 45 years after the master classes; Nadler was still performing opera as recently as 2010 in San Francisco. But White and Hendricks are I think the only ones notable enough to have a wikipedia page.

Nadler's recollections in 2012 about Callas:


> She felt there were a few singers among us who were not doing enough work, they wouldn't lose the weight and they were difficult to teach. So she didn't ask them to come back. If your feelings are hurt by Callas, that's going to stay with you, and she didn't think of that.
> 
> Looking back I think she gave me the courage to continue. I had a private meeting with her, because I was so concerned about my nervousness. I told her I had to make a comeback. She said 'So do I - we're both in the same boat'.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

MAS said:


> That was pre-"Sir."


I think so. Off course Legge was in charge


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

Now *this* is a tribute!

http://www.isupportstreetart.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/KLE-Maria-2.jpg


----------



## Rossiniano (Jul 28, 2017)

I am a bit late to the party regarding Callas and Donna Anna's "Non mi dir", but of the three examples (the two test recordings and the later 1960's version) it is the later that wins the prize and in spite of it being late Callas. There is really no contest when one studies how she "phrases" the vocal line so tenderly and especially in the final section of the aria. It all has so much more "shape" with contours that totally elude her in both 1953 versions where she seems to be going through the motions. It is all so eloquent and is proof that Callas was always improving and studying which results in making one totally forget that the voice is certainly not what it once was! Indeed, she probably delves deeper here because of her vocal deficiencies and overcomes them brilliantly.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Rossiniano said:


> I am a bit late to the party regarding Callas and Donna Anna's "Non mi dir", but of the three examples (the two test recordings and the later 1960's version) it is the later that wins the prize and in spite of it being late Callas. There is really no contest when one studies how she "phrases" the vocal line so tenderly and especially in the final section of the aria. It all has so much more "shape" with contours that totally elude her in both 1953 versions where she seems to be going through the motions. It is all so eloquent and is proof that Callas was always improving and studying which results in making one totally forget that the voice is certainly not what it once was! Indeed, she probably delves deeper here because of her vocal deficiencies and overcomes them brilliantly.


Thanks for reminding us of this. It does make an interesting comparison with the earlier recordings. But I suppose our reaction to it depends on our tolerance for vocal impurities in this music. Sounds that don't bother me in, say, Tosca or Carmen definitely bother me in Donna Anna, and interfere with my enjoyment of what is, musically, a very fine performance. The intelligence, impeccable phrasing, and still-fine coloratura don't compensate me for the strident and wobbly high notes, of which there are too many in Mozart's soprano arias. Given Callas's stated indifference to Mozart's operas, I wonder why she bothered with this when there was so much other music she never sang or recorded, music to which her then-mezzoish voice was better suited. Imagine her in some songs of Faure, or in Berlioz's _Les nuits d'ete! _


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Rossiniano said:


> I am a bit late to the party regarding Callas and Donna Anna's "Non mi dir", but of the three examples (the two test recordings and the later 1960's version) it is the later that wins the prize and in spite of it being late Callas. There is really no contest when one studies how she "phrases" the vocal line so tenderly and especially in the final section of the aria. It all has so much more "shape" with contours that totally elude her in both 1953 versions where she seems to be going through the motions. It is all so eloquent and is proof that Callas was always improving and studying which results in making one totally forget that the voice is certainly not what it once was! Indeed, she probably delves deeper here because of her vocal deficiencies and overcomes them brilliantly.


This does Callas no favours. I just cannot see why her fans parade this sort of stuff before us when the voice has become so unpleasant to listen to and is most unsuited to this sort of music. It is really painful to listen to. Did she actually pass it for release?


----------



## Rossiniano (Jul 28, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> Thanks for reminding us of this. It does make an interesting comparison with the earlier recordings. But I suppose our reaction to it depends on our tolerance for vocal impurities in this music. Sounds that don't bother me in, say, Tosca or Carmen definitely bother me in Donna Anna, and interfere with my enjoyment of what is, musically, a very fine performance. The intelligence, impeccable phrasing, and still-fine coloratura don't compensate me for the strident and wobbly high notes, of which there are too many in Mozart's soprano arias. Given Callas's stated indifference to Mozart's operas, I wonder why she bothered with this when there was so much other music she never sang or recorded, music to which her then-mezzoish voice was better suited. Imagine her in some songs of Faure, or in Berlioz's _Les nuits d'ete! _


It's all like the 1960 _Norma_ recording where the voice is a shambles, but she offers so many subtleties of interpretation. Or to quote Chorley on a Giuditta Pasta performance of _Anna Bolena_ that occurred late in her career, "It's like the Last Supper of Da Vinci in Milan, it is a wreck of a picture, but it is the greatest picture in the world!"

Those words often apply to late Callas. It is unfortunate that the artistry of that late "Non mi dir" was not coupled with the voice of 1953. Still, the performance is a treasure and proof that Callas never rested on her laurels and was always the consummate professional and as masterful a musician as any even when her vocal powers were on the wane. I am sure that even though Callas was never a Mozart singer there was a certain essence in her inner being that insisted that it was something that she had to at least attempt to do, and therefore the recording.

With all due respect to the Grümmer recording that was shared, and I enjoyed it Immensely as a fine example of everything being in its proper Mozartian place, Callas with half the voice takes the aria to a whole different level.

I agree that Callas missed the boat, by not exploring a different Fach, but that was not Callas.

Incidentally when I audition a new recording of _Don Giovanni_ I instinctively jump to "Non mi dir" to see if the soprano can pass the test and many don't! It all goes back to the fact that my first recording was the Leinsdorf when he had to put the brakes on for Birgit Nilsson to get through the piece! BTW Grümmer passed the test as did 1953 Callas!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Rossiniano said:


> It's all like the 1960 _Norma_ recording where the voice is a shambles, but she offers so many subtleties of interpretation. Or to quote Chorley on a Giuditta Pasta performance of _Anna Bolena_ that occurred late in her career, "It's like the Last Supper of Da Vinci in Milan, it is a wreck of a picture, but it is the greatest picture in the world!"
> 
> Those words often apply to late Callas. It is unfortunate that the artistry of that late "Non mi dir" was not coupled with the voice of 1953. * Still, the performance is a treasure and proof that Callas never rested on her laurels and was always the consummate professional and as masterful a musician as any even when her vocal powers were on the wane. * I am sure that even though Callas was never a Mozart singer there was a certain essence in her inner being that insisted that it was something that she had to at least attempt to do, and therefore the recording.
> 
> ...


Sorry this performance is not a 'treasure' to me at any rate. It reminds me of a recently acquired performance by the late great Rudolf Serkin of Mozart concertos with Abbado. At his peak Serkin was one of the greatest Mozart pianists ever imo. Oh but into his eighties Serkin's technique for Mozart was just not there any more and the performances, for all the artistry behind them, are but a painful reminder of a once great pianist. For me the artistry of Callas does not make up for the fact that I like singing to be pleasant to listen to. The intention was there but the voice was not.


----------



## Rossiniano (Jul 28, 2017)

DavidA said:


> Sorry this performance is not a 'treasure' to me at any rate. It reminds me of a recently acquired performance by the late great Rudolf Serkin of Mozart concertos with Abbado. At his peak Serkin was one of the greatest Mozart pianists ever imo. Oh but into his eighties Serkin's technique for Mozart was just not there any more and the performances, for all the artistry behind them, are but a painful reminder of a once great pianist. For me the artistry of Callas does not make up for the fact that I like singing to be pleasant to listen to. The intention was there but the voice was not.


Welll I TOTALLY AGREE about Serkin and those Abbado Mozart concerti recordings. In the early days of CD I purchased some and they proved to be some of the most painful things that I ever listened to. As I recall I traded the discs in for credit at a local record shop. However, I stand by my assessment of the Callas performance and especially the way she phrases the coloratura passages in the final section of the aria. Unlike Serkin in those late Mozart recordings Callas still knew how to caress a phrase based on her sound technique which was still basically intact. Unfortunately her "instrument" was in disrepair. Serkin, in contrast, was probably playing a top of the line instrument, but no longer had the technique not to mention the interpretive ability to do Mozart justice.

I am not a fan of 1960's Callas and have very few post anything 1960. However, what Callas does with this aria totally works for me. Compare many other sopranos from Price to Netrebko (I specifically mention Nilsson above) in this aria and even in uneven voice Callas holds her own. It's not beautiful in the classic sense, but still beautiful to behold. Just my opinion.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

We aren't really having much of a debate here. Some of Callas's most fervent fans treasure virtually every note she uttered. That's their prerogative, and I suppose it's virtually a definition of fanhood (the word "fan," after all, is short for "fanatic"). Others of us may have boundless admiration for her art but not always for her voice, which was unusual and imperfect but which served her musical and dramatic purposes magnificently well until it no longer did. In her late recordings we admire the intention, but not always the aural result. That's my reaction to this "Non mi dir" and to the recital album from which it comes, which also contained Donna Elvira's "Mi tradi," Beethoven's "Ah perfido!," and Weber's "Ocean, thou mighty monster." The Beethoven and the Weber, for me, are more listenable than the Mozart because sheer beauty of tone seems to me less essential to their musical style. This is largely a question of personal taste and tolerance. But it is a simple fact that in this recital the voice above the staff is in poor shape. A less close-miked recording would certainly have helped, and I rather wish EMI had not been in charge of that.


----------



## Rossiniano (Jul 28, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> We aren't really having much of a debate here. Some of Callas's most fervent fans treasure virtually every note she uttered. That's their prerogative, and I suppose it's virtually a definition of fanhood (the word "fan," after all, is short for "fanatic"). Others of us may have boundless admiration for her art but not always for her voice, which was unusual and imperfect but which served her musical and dramatic purposes magnificently well until it no longer did. In her late recordings we admire the intention, but not always the aural result. That's my reaction to this "Non mi dir" and to the recital album from which it comes, which also contained Donna Elvira's "Mi tradi," Beethoven's "Ah perfido!," and Weber's "Ocean, thou mighty monster." The Beethoven and the Weber, for me, are more listenable than the Mozart because sheer beauty of tone seems to me less essential to their musical style. This is largely a question of personal taste and tolerance. But it is a simple fact that in this recital the voice above the staff is in poor shape. *A less close-miked recording would certainly have helped, and I rather wish EMI had not been in charge of that.*


What is so strange is that Michele Glotz who was in charge of most of those late Callas recordings placed the microphones overly close at a time when perhaps a bit of space around the voice would have been much more flattering. In her prime Callas was not usually miked as closely. Still, the voice was what it was and nothing including microphone placement could hide the fact.

Incidentally, it is the artistry in that recording of "Non mi dir" compared to her earlier test recordings that excites me. I really don't care for the other items on the disc even though the voice, as is rightfully noted, is definitely more appropriate for them. As I said I am not really a post 1960's Callas person. However, there are a number of exceptions.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Rossiniano said:


> What is so strange is that Michele Glotz who was in charge of most of those late Callas recordings placed the microphones overly close at a time when perhaps a bit of space around the voice would have been much more flattering. In her prime Callas was not usually miked as closely. Still, the voice was what it was and nothing including microphone placement could hide the fact.


Mic placement and acoustics in general can make quite a difference in rounding off a voice's rough edges. For example, the close, dry miking of the Met opera broadcasts is merciless in revealing a voice's flaws, and I try to remember that what audiences are hearing in the house might better justify their sometimes baffling enthusiasm. I've heard voices over the radio from that stage that sounded much worse to me than 1960s Callas.


----------



## Rossiniano (Jul 28, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> Mic placement and acoustics in general can make quite a difference in rounding off a voice's rough edges. For example, the close, dry miking of the Met opera broadcasts is merciless in revealing a voice's flaws, and I try to remember that what audiences are hearing in the house might better justify their sometimes baffling enthusiasm. I've heard voices over the radio from that stage that sounded much worse to me than 1960s Callas.


I will also refrain from naming names, but I totally agree!!! A voice ideally needs to resound in an acoustic space where often the overtones can give it an entirely different feel. I can only imagine how Callas might have sounded sounded live!


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

DavidA said:


> This does Callas no favours. I just cannot see why her fans parade this sort of stuff before us when the voice has become so unpleasant to listen to and is most unsuited to this sort of music. It is really painful to listen to. Did she actually pass it for release?


Yes.

This all goes back to an elementary question, what is opera? Is it just a singing technique? A voice production method to sing with natural amplification only with perfectly placed and pitched notes? Or is more involved, musicality, musicianship, expression and drama?

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Rossiniano said:


> Incidentally, it is the artistry in that recording of "Non mi dir" compared to her earlier test recordings that excites me. I really don't care for the other items on the disc even though the voice, as is rightfully noted, is definitely more appropriate for them. As I said I am not really a post 1960's Callas person. However, there are a number of exceptions.


Not even the Mi tradi'? Ok, this has at least decided what today's listening is going to be!

N.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Rossiniano said:


> Welll I TOTALLY AGREE about Serkin and those Abbado Mozart concerti recordings. In the early days of CD I purchased some and they proved to be some of the most painful things that I ever listened to. As I recall I traded the discs in for credit at a local record shop. However, I stand by my assessment of the Callas performance and especially the way she phrases the coloratura passages in the final section of the aria. Unlike Serkin in those late Mozart recordings Callas still knew how to caress a phrase based on her sound technique which was still basically intact. *Unfortunately her "instrument" was in disrepair. *Serkin, in contrast, was probably playing a top of the line instrument, but no longer had the technique not to mention the interpretive ability to do Mozart justice.
> 
> I am not a fan of 1960's Callas and have very few post anything 1960. However, what Callas does with this aria totally works for me. Compare many other sopranos from Price to Netrebko (I specifically mention Nilsson above) in this aria and even in uneven voice Callas holds her own. It's not beautiful in the classic sense, but still beautiful to behold. Just my opinion.


To me that is quite a drawback!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The Conte said:


> Yes.
> 
> This all goes back to an elementary question, what is opera? Is it just a singing technique? A voice production method to sing with natural amplification only with perfectly placed and pitched notes? Or is more involved, musicality, musicianship, expression and drama?
> 
> N.


It obviously involves all of these. Why on earth do you ask that question? However much musicality, musicianship, expression and drama are involved if the instrument itself is faulty (which Callas' was by that time) and unpleasant to listen to, then it makes it difficult to appreciate.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> We aren't really having much of a debate here. Some of Callas's most fervent fans treasure virtually every note she uttered. That's their prerogative, and I suppose it's virtually a definition of fanhood (the word "fan," after all, is short for "fanatic"). *Others of us may have boundless admiration for her art but not always for her voice, which was unusual and imperfect but which served her musical and dramatic purposes magnificently well until it no longer did. In her late recordings we admire the intention, but not always the aural result.* That's my reaction to this "Non mi dir" and to the recital album from which it comes, which also contained Donna Elvira's "Mi tradi," Beethoven's "Ah perfido!," and Weber's "Ocean, thou mighty monster." The Beethoven and the Weber, for me, are more listenable than the Mozart because sheer beauty of tone seems to me less essential to their musical style. This is largely a question of personal taste and tolerance. But it is a simple fact that in this recital the voice above the staff is in poor shape. A less close-miked recording would certainly have helped, and I rather wish EMI had not been in charge of that.


Careful, Woodduck! You have me agreeing with you again! :tippet:


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

DavidA said:


> It obviously involves all of these. Why on earth do you ask that question?


I agree that it involves all those things, but not everyone feels that way. There was a comment on here in a different thread where somebody was reporting a comment made by Sutherland along the lines of 'if you want drama, go and see a play'. I find this ironic as Sutherland's interpretations can be full of drama. In any case it remains that some people don't want drama when they go to the opera.

N.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The Conte said:


> I agree that it involves all those things, but not everyone feels that way. There was a comment on here in a different thread where somebody was reporting a comment made by Sutherland along the lines of 'if you want drama, go and see a play'. I find this ironic as Sutherland's interpretations can be full of drama. *In any case it remains that some people don't want drama when they go to the opera.*
> 
> N.


I see. Who are these people, may I ask?


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

DavidA said:


> I see. Who are these people, may I ask?


Your question implies that this type of opera listener is a phenomenon that you're totally unfamiliar with, which surprises me greatly. I come across people all the time who make it clear they listen to opera for the music, the arias and the singing and have little or no interest in any of the dramatic developments or story elements in an opera. Even on this message board I see people more or less make take this position often. Take the recent thread, What are your favorite genres? for example. Our user Bulldog plainly said "It's those other dimensions that I find a turn-off. I tolerate opera because I want to listen to that beautiful music."


----------



## Rossiniano (Jul 28, 2017)

DavidA said:


> To me that is quite a drawback!


I agree, but the genius of Callas was what she was able to do with an imperfect voice! It's in the _artistry_ not the voice! Plus, as the voice deteriorated the artistry increased in compensation. It was only when the voice failed to respond to her wishes that her career ended. Still, she went down fighting!

Plus, remember from the very beginning the voice was never a beautiiful or perfect instrument! Yet, there are different ways to define "beautiful"! Read some of the original reviews of her early recordings and some of what is today considered classic Callas was dismissed because other singers literally sang the role better and with more even tone. Fast forward to today and Callas recordings are still around while those others have been long forgotten.

When I first discovered opera the only two modern recordings of Bellini's Norma in print were the Callas stero remake and Sutherland's first. I listened to the Sutherland _Norma_ (the opera) when I wanted to experience the beauty of Bellini's Bel Canto style. However, I listened to the Callas "Norma" (the character) when I wanted to experience the drama.

To to this very day these are probably my two favorite recordings the piece even though they are so very different. It _is_ possible to appreciate both.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

It was Maria Callas who ignited my interest in opera in my teens and I have always been a fan of hers, but never a fanatic (pace Woodduck). Back then I enjoyed the operatic literature that was her main focus, bel canto and Verdi, both of which have long ceased to be of much interest to me and yet I do remain a fan. So what is left to be a fan of? Rossini, Puccini, Carmen, some of the recitals, especially the Paris pair, and yes, even some of the Mozart/Weber set. While I recognize the problems with the voice, there is still much to appreciate and enjoy - the artistry, the drama, making sense of the words. Fortunately I do not have absolute pitch, not even close. I can hear the wobble but it (mostly) does not impact my enjoyment. I understand that this is not true for some and my feelings might be different if I did. Meanwhile if I want beautiful singing there are many that I will choose but I would still rather listen to someone who understands the meaning of what is being sung AND can communicate it.


----------



## Rossiniano (Jul 28, 2017)

Becca said:


> It was Maria Callas who ignited my interest in opera in my teens and I have always been a fan of hers, but never a fanatic (pace Woodduck). Back then I enjoyed the operatic literature that was her main focus, bel canto and Verdi, both of which have long ceased to be of much interest to me and yet I do remain a fan. So what is left to be a fan of? Rossini, Puccini, Carmen, some of the recitals, especially the Paris pair, and yes, even some of the Mozart/Weber set. While I recognize the problems with the voice, there is still much to appreciate and enjoy - the artistry, the drama, making sense of the words. Fortunately I do not have absolute pitch, not even close. *I can hear the* *wobble but it *(*mostly) does not impact my enjoymen*t. I understand that this is not true for some and my feelings might be different if I did. Meanwhile if I want beautiful singing there are many that I will choose but I would still rather listen to someone who understands the meaning of what is being sung AND can communicate it.


There is something that has been referenced as 'wobble tolerance' with Callas. I did not like the sound of the voice when I first heard it, yet there was a _certain_ _something_ that drew me to it! I definitely heard the wobble and decided that 1956 was the cut off point. Then it was moved up to 1957. Then 1958. Then I listened to what I thought was the horrid remake of _Lucia_ from 1959 and I got through it. So 1959 was acceptable. With 1960 and beyond I still have problems, but as I noted the artistry often compensates.

I recall the first time I heard her recording of "Non più mesta" from _Cenerentola_. It was 1971 and I was driving on the Hutchinson River Parkway in New York and was stuck in heavy traffic. The horrid sound of the wobble on the high B at the end almost caused me to drive off the side of the road! I listened to the recording last week after not hearing it for several years and I was able to tolerate the note. Hmmm!!!! On that same CD was the aforementioned Mozart Aria. I gave it a listen and here we are!


----------



## Macbeth (Sep 6, 2017)

Youtube has just suggested me this trailer:






"L'isola di Medea", a documentary on the filming of Pasolini's Medea, judging from this trailer it seems to focus on their personal relationship.

I can't help thinking how uneasy Callas would have felt, were she still alive today, knowing she was a reserved woman.

On the other hand, we are all so fascinated about everything Callas!


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

CJC said:


> Callas' and Fonteyn's paths crossed once - Covent Garden's centenary gala on June 10th 1958 attended by Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip.


the wrong woman is bowing down


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> We aren't really having much of a debate here. Some of Callas's most fervent fans treasure virtually every note she uttered. That's their prerogative, and I suppose it's virtually a definition of fanhood (the word "fan," after all, is short for "fanatic"). Others of us may have boundless admiration for her art but not always for her voice, which was unusual and imperfect but which served her musical and dramatic purposes magnificently well until it no longer did. In her late recordings we admire the intention, but not always the aural result. That's my reaction to this "Non mi dir" and to the recital album from which it comes, which also contained Donna Elvira's "Mi tradi," Beethoven's "Ah perfido!," and Weber's "Ocean, thou mighty monster." *The Beethoven and the Weber, for me, are more listenable than the Mozart because sheer beauty of tone seems to me less essential to their musical style. *This is largely a question of personal taste and tolerance. But it is a simple fact that in this recital the voice above the staff is in poor shape. A less close-miked recording would certainly have helped, and I rather wish EMI had not been in charge of that.


I am a fan of Callas - in her best roles, Verdi, Puccini etc - but I wont tolerate a single note of her Mozart.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

stomanek said:


> I am a fan of Callas - in her best roles, Verdi, Puccini etc - but I wont tolerate a single note of her Mozart.


:lol: Luckily, every note of her Mozart is connected to another note of her Mozart. They never assault us individually.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Callas and Mozart.

Is there another singer who can nail Marten alle Arten even when singing it in Italian?

N.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

The Conte said:


> Callas and Mozart.
> 
> Is there another singer who can nail Marten alle Arten even when singing it in Italian?
> 
> N.


I can see that I am well out of my depth with the Callas crowd on TC. I thought I was a big Callas fan but evidently not.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I would compare Callas with Laurence Olivier in terms of being a chameleon in terms of vocal acting. Seems as though they could adapt to portray whatever character they were playing. You don't actually have to like or agree with what they do to admire it for sheer artistic brilliance.


----------



## VitellioScarpia (Aug 27, 2017)

I cannot say that it was Callas who ignited my interest in opera (it was Puccini). However, the first time I heard Callas, I was hooked. No singer had "spoken" to me the way she did. After more than 40 years, I still remember the moment when I heard her voice for the first time in Cetra's 1952 Gioconda. It was her first phrase in the opera: "Vien, per securo tramite da me tu sei guidata." That was all I needed to realize that she was a special musician. My appreciation for her has grown over the years as I have listened and enjoyed many others also.

But... no one can phrase like her, or express the loss, the solitude, the hurt, the desperation like she can and, then, suddenly smile with a subtle vocal shift. Listen at what she does at the end of the 1953 Tosca when she tells Mario not to laugh and caressing the "Cosí" with a smile in the voice. Callas raises a mirror to life in the music she sings, and draws us into that world. Her musical preparation liberates her to realize the music and the drama for us.

I can never be distracted when listening to her, even in recordings that are not showing her at her illuminating best (for example, much of the 1955 studio Aida is tepid for her). When she is "on", she sweeps the stage and us, as it were, with the music she is re-creating. Just listen in the Scala 1952 Macbeth, Lady Macbeth's soliloquy "La luce langue" and the intensity of the phrase "O voluttà del soglio, o scettro, *sce*ttro alfin sei mio!" That single note is enough for Callas to show us the intensity of the thirst for power that Lady Macbeth feels. And it all sounds spontaneous, even after repeated hearing it is always fresh, unlike others who sound calculated, contrived.

Those moments are not just a collection of tricks (e.g., Ms. Blackhead) but details in a large musical context that she is unfurling in front of us. They sparkle from the total realization of the piece she is giving us. One can agree with her concept or not, but she gives us the whole view of the music she sings. This is why her recordings stand repeated hearing without becoming stale. They remain fresh and we look forward to the next time we will re-listen to them. There are few musicians that make one come back to them like that: Callas is at the top of that list.


----------



## DarkAngel (Aug 11, 2010)

^^^ VS great tribute to La Callas done with deep feeling, we need a nice pix of Maria for your forum avatar......


----------



## VitellioScarpia (Aug 27, 2017)

Thank you, DarkAngel. I am happy that my thoughts about Callas as a musician resonated with you. La Divina, indeed!


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Not a very nice jibe at Elisabeth Schwarzkopf though. She was as great an opera singer as Callas and a far superior lieder singer. Callas had a very limited repertoire in comparison to a lot of fine singers. No need to badmouth others while extolling her virtues.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Barbebleu said:


> Not a very nice jibe at Elisabeth Schwarzkopf though. She was as great an opera singer as Callas and a far superior lieder singer. Callas had a very limited repertoire in comparison to a lot of fine singers. No need to badmouth others while extolling her virtues.


How do you know?

Apart from that I agree, Schwarzkopf was a very fine musician.

N.


----------



## VitellioScarpia (Aug 27, 2017)

A fine musician, yes. However, to my taste, contrived. Nothing was sung without pecking and underlining which sounded very beautiful but not quite alive. Chacun à son goût!


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

The Conte said:


> How do you know?
> 
> Apart from that I agree, Schwarzkopf was a very fine musician.
> 
> N.


Admittedly I have no empirical evidence but given that she committed very little, if any, to the recorded medium I can only assume it wasn't her strong suit and she avoided it. Happy to be disproved though. I would be thrilled to hear her tackling Schubert or Wolf.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Barbebleu said:


> Admittedly I have no empirical evidence but given that she committed very little, if any, to the recorded medium I can only assume it wasn't her strong suit and she avoided it. Happy to be disproved though. I would be thrilled to hear her tackling Schubert or Wolf.


There's a snippet of her singing Im wunderschönen Monat Mai by Schumann, but the sound is dreadful and she sang it at a private party a the year before she died so it doesn't really offer a fair comparison. I think she would have been marvellous in French song had she taken that direction in the sixties, but she seemed not to enjoy singing that repertoire as much as opera. I think she needed strong characters and direct narrative to draw her to the stage, rather than her not being suited to song, although ultimately we will probably never know.

N.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The Conte said:


> There's a snippet of her singing Im wunderschönen Monat Mai by Schumann, but the sound is dreadful and she sang it at a private party a the year before she died so it doesn't really offer a fair comparison. I think she would have been marvellous in French song had she taken that direction in the sixties, but she seemed not to enjoy singing that repertoire as much as opera. *I think she needed strong characters and direct narrative to draw her to the stage,* rather than her not being suited to song, although ultimately we will probably never know.
> 
> N.


I think she needed characters SHE could interpret. Hence the Bellini specialities where the music is not great and the singer is thrust into the limelight where it all depends on her.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

DavidA said:


> I think she needed characters SHE could interpret. Hence the Bellini specialities where the music is not great and the singer is thrust into the limelight where it all depends on her.


I don't think so, she had great respect for the composers whose music she sang, from Beethoven to Wagner, she would have referred to Beethoven's Leonore in Fidelio or Wagner's Kundry rather than Callas'. People forget that she had an early career of almost ten years before she sang in Italy, where she sang all sorts including small solos, lieder and oratorio. It was conductors and producers who were inspired by her who wanted her in iconic roles rather than her only accepting attention grabbing parts. 
She even sang in Andrea Chenier and Poliuto (both tenor vehicles) at the height of her career, so I don't think your suggestion really has much basis.

N.


----------



## ldiat (Jan 27, 2016)




----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The Conte said:


> I don't think so, she had great respect for the composers whose music she sang, from Beethoven to Wagner, she would have referred to Beethoven's Leonore in Fidelio or Wagner's Kundry rather than Callas'. People forget that she had an early career of almost ten years before she sang in Italy, where she sang all sorts including small solos, lieder and oratorio. It was conductors and producers who were inspired by her who wanted her in iconic roles rather than her only accepting attention grabbing parts.
> She even sang in Andrea Chenier and Poliuto (both tenor vehicles) at the height of her career, so *I don't think your suggestion really has much basis.*
> 
> N.


I think it certainly does given her choice of repertoire


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> I think she needed characters SHE could interpret. Hence the Bellini specialities where the music is not great and the singer is thrust into the limelight where it all depends on her.


I'm not sure exactly what you're driving at. A number of factors would account for Callas's choice of repertoire. What singer doesn't prefer roles in which her own creativity makes a difference? Callas relished challenges. She liked roles that were difficult, vocally and dramatically. She saw the challenge in the bel canto repertoire - if we're to believe Lilli Lehmann, Norma is the hardest role of all in requiring both drama and vocal virtuosity - but she also took on many roles throughout her career that presented challenges of other kinds. She also empathized with highly romantic, emotional characters. And of course singers tend to concentrate parts in which they excel and set a standard, in part because those are the parts everyone wants them to sing.

None of this equates to preferring operas with inferior music.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> I'm not sure exactly what you're driving at. A number of factors would account for Callas's choice of repertoire. What singer doesn't prefer roles in which her own creativity makes a difference? Callas relished challenges. She liked roles that were difficult, vocally and dramatically. She saw the challenge in the bel canto repertoire - if we're to believe Lilli Lehmann, Norma is the hardest role of all in requiring both drama and vocal virtuosity - but she also took on many roles throughout her career that presented challenges of other kinds. She also empathized with highly romantic, emotional characters. And of course singers tend to concentrate parts in which they excel and set a standard, in part because those are the parts everyone wants them to sing.
> 
> *None of this equates to preferring operas with inferior music*.


You don't obviously see what I was driving at. I've wondered why Callas sang Bellini as the music isn't up to much (imo). As you say it is of course vocally it is extremely challenging. I certainly wasn't saying she preferred operas because the music was inferior.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> You don't obviously see what I was driving at. I've wondered why Callas sang Bellini as the music isn't up to much (imo). As you say it is of course vocally it is extremely challenging. I certainly wasn't saying she preferred operas because the music was inferior.


I'm sure she loved Bellini, as others do, for his wonderful, soulful melodies, and for the opportunities he provides for every shade of vocal expression through a full range of technical demands. Wagner, interestingly, admired Bellini for how much he could say with melody alone. Callas found depths in his music that others didn't, and made Norma into a figure of great tragic stature. Bellini may not have been as great a composer as Mozart or Verdi or Wagner, but arguably there's no greater composer for the voice.


----------



## SenaJurinac (Nov 29, 2017)

This programme was broadcasted at the Italian TV channel Rai 5 on this anniversary - La grande nuit de l'opéra from Palais Garnier - Théâtre National de l'Opéra in paris, filmed in 1958. http://klassikundopern.web.tv/video/la-grande-nuit-de-lopra-maria-callas-paris-1958__axpbc2bntwa


----------



## Lt.Belle (Jan 19, 2014)

So it has been 40 years wow. 

I'm 37 so she passed away well before i was born....
I knew who so was but didn't like her at all. I wasn't an 'expert' in those day's and found her singing much too dramatic. And i also didn't like her diva behavior it is so distracting.

But now for 7 years or so i'm totally into singing and opera. And actually have bought cd's of Miss Callas i enjoy them very much. Such a unique voice with so much emotion. And so much talent i consider myself a fan now!

edit: about the diva behavior sorry i have to add this. So couldn't have been otherwise they made her a diva. And if one deserve such a title then it is she. She herself i quite humble iv'e got a total different view now!


----------



## SenaJurinac (Nov 29, 2017)

Calals singing Tosca back in 1964: http://klassikundopern.web.tv/video/maria-callas-singt-tosca-akt-2-london-1964__ikr8azjaclk


----------

