# Diagnosing Callas



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

Has anyone watched this video (from May 2022)? It purports to inform that Callas loss of her voice was caused by several physical conditions that built up and finally overwhelmed her health. Interesting theory but, as usual, it’s all speculation.


----------



## BBSVK (10 mo ago)

I did not watch a video, but if wikipedia writes about a degenerative disease, it must be true  . But seriously, I like her, so I prefer to imagine, the end of her career has not been the result of the bad choices she made. Not training enough, hysteria, broken heart, whatever... The weight loss probably did play a role, because even the theory of the degenerative disease puts partial blame on it.


----------



## ColdGenius (9 mo ago)

MAS said:


> Has anyone watched this video (from May 2022)? It purports to inform that Callas loss of her voice was caused by several physical conditions that built up and finally overwhelmed her health. Interesting theory but, as usual, it’s all speculation.


Poor Maria.


----------



## BBSVK (10 mo ago)

I am kind of sorry thinking about her first husband. He started as a rich supporter, but later, he gave up whatever industry he was in (bricks ?) and made Maria Callas his only trade. It seemed like a good idea probably, to focus on her and not to be distracted. But if she felt unwell, it might have been too much responsibility for her and felt like exploitation. 

I didn't know he attempted to get her arrested. What was the reasoning ?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

If Callas actually suffered from all these conditions, it's amazing she ever had a career at all.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

It's yet more theory, and as plausible as any other I've heard. Callas did have quite a few health problems throughout her life. One of the reasons she embarked on her diet was that her excessive weight was affecting her health. She wasn't that overweight when she first arrived in Italy in 1947 but gradually gained weight until by the begnning of 1953 she was very heavy. However by the end of 1954 when she sang Giulia at La Scala, she was pencil thin. The voice changed in quality certainly, but she was still giving some great vocal performances right up to the *Ballo *at La Scala in 1957. I've always thought the real rot set in after the disastrous Rome *Norma *at the beginning of 1958. She should never have even attempted to sing, but did so against her better judgement only to find she was unable to continue. The press were merciless and after that she had to put up with more bad press than any other opera singer in the twentieth century, though it now transpires that her cancellation record was pretty good. I think the spectre of her own fame and the gradual erosion of confidence in her vocal equipment had as much to do with the rapid decline as anything else.


----------



## ColdGenius (9 mo ago)

Tsaraslondon said:


> I've always thought the real rot set in after the disastrous Rome *Norma *at the beginning of 1958. She should never have even attempted to sing, but did so against her better judgement only to find she was unable to continue. The press were merciless and after that she had to put up with more bad press than any other opera singer in the twentieth century, though it now transpires that her cancellation record was pretty good.


I can't stop surprise the people's readiness to rip each other to shreds, especially in case of failure. Who are they in this world to blame Callas? Pack of hyenas.


----------



## BBSVK (10 mo ago)

Whoever created her bad image, it was certainly successful. Even my father told me when I was a kid, that there used to be a great singer Maria Callas before I was born, but was very hysterical and would cancel performances on the whim. Only recently I started to imagine her differently.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

ColdGenius said:


> I can't stop surprise the people's readiness to rip each other to shreds, especially in case of failure. Who are they in this world to blame Callas? Pack of hyenas.


So bad was the press that when she appeared at La Scala again, in a revival of *Anna Bolena*, the theatre feared an incident so much they had plain clothes police positioned throughout the theatre and Visconti made sure she was surrounded by others as much as possible whilst on stage. In the event the audience at first reacted to her with total coldness, loudly applauding her colleagues and ignoring her as much as possible. By the time she got to the finale of Act I when Anna protests her innocence to Enrico, she had had just about enough. She pushed aside the guards who were shielding her from the audience and strode to the front of the stage, spitting out the lines _Giudice ad Anna! Giudice! _directly at the audience and hurling out the cabaletta with corruscating brilliance. The audience went berserk and she ended up having one of the greatest triumphs of her career. When she left the theatre, she was besieged with floral tributes and crowds wanting to acknowledge her triumph. Unfortuately when the Meneghinis got home to their villa, it was to find the walls daubed with animal excrement spelling out insulting slurs. It's a wonder she carried on singing as long as she did.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

BBSVK said:


> Whoever created her bad image, it was certainly successful. Even my father told me when I was a kid, that there used to be a great singer Maria Callas before I was born, but was very hysterical and would cancel performances on the whim. Only recently I started to imagine her differently.


The myth keeps being spread because it's more interesting than the fact that Callas was one of the most professional singers you will ever come across, often the first to arrive at rehearsal and the last to leave. There are plenty of testimonials from conductors and others who worked with her about her itense work ethic, but they are largely ignored because that maybe makes her sound dull.


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

My thought is that when Callas lost weight she lost a certain amount of muscle mass too which upset her support system when singing. The voice remained in great shape for a few more years but became much more variable and slowly bad habits started to creep in, most noticeably an increased tendency to produce pianissimi with a closed throat rather than through proper support and the beginnings of a wobble on top notes as the throat struggled to remain open. It also coincided with what I consider one of her poorest artistic choices. She began to lighten her voice when singing roles such as Lucia, Amina, Butterfly, Gilda (in the recording studio) etc. Just compare her Lucia from 1953 to her 1955 performance in Berlin and you can tell she has began to artificially lighten the voice. Artistically it works well but naturally she was a dramatic and this was not a fully healthy method of sound production for her. These things, compounded by illness and emotional trauma would be enough to destroy any singer and would certainly speed up an inevitable decline. We are lucky to have so many great recordings before her health caught up with her and before any bad habits became more prominent as she was, in her prime, an extraordinary artist, the likes of which we will not hear again.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Ugh! I am insulted by this video.
And Maria never had a British sounding voice. No one -- NO ONE can take the place of Maria Callas either in singing or in speech. It was unwatchable for me. Even those who atttempted to do "Master Class" failed to be Maria (Faye Dunaway did the best at trying).
When will they learn that Callas was Callas and there will never be one like her again. 
It's annoying!!!!


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

nina foresti said:


> Ugh! I am insulted by this video.
> And Maria never had a British sounding voice. No one -- NO ONE can take the place of Maria Callas either in singing or in speech. It was unwatchable for me. Even those who atttempted to do "Master Class" failed to be Maria (Faye Dunaway did the best at trying).
> When will they learn that Callas was Callas and there will never be one like her again.
> It's annoying!!!!


A agree, I’m no friend of those who tries to gain from Callas’s fame just as she wouldn’t have liked it. I saw Dunaway’s *Master Class *and was unhappy at the liberties McNally took with Callas, but I enjoyed the play - I liked Dunaway and was sorry the film was never came to fruition.
Paradoxically, I like that so many books were written about her but most of the time it frosts me that they get so much wrong. At least there are some that are worthy.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Mas: I have most of the "worthy" books on her but never wanted to get Meneghini's. Should I?


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

nina foresti said:


> Mas: I have most of the "worthy" books on her but never wanted to get Meneghini's. Should I?


I personally think it’s essential - he was married to her for 10 years, through her transformation and knew as well as a man could in those days, i.e., not much but I think he understood her a little. In a lot of the book he’s pathetic and I don’t think you’ll refer to it much, but it’s a unique view, one that one wouldn’t get from journalists or gossipy biographies. I think he admired her greatly as well as loved her. I don’t think there are a lot of intimate revelations about her either as a woman or an artist, but I’m glad I have it. 

You can get it cheaply in multiples locations, so if you really don’t like it, it won’t cost you much. I can’t say it’s an _important book, _only that it added to my knowledge.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

nina foresti said:


> Ugh! I am insulted by this video.
> And Maria never had a British sounding voice. No one -- NO ONE can take the place of Maria Callas either in singing or in speech. It was unwatchable for me. Even those who atttempted to do "Master Class" failed to be Maria (Faye Dunaway did the best at trying).
> When will they learn that Callas was Callas and there will never be one like her again.
> It's annoying!!!!


I have to respect anyone's reactions, but I thought the idea and presentation were clever and charming. What do you mean by "take the place of Callas"? Was there anything inaccurate in the description of her health symptoms? Callas is now a historical figure, and no one expects fictional portrayals or performers' impressions of well-known cultural or public figures to be 100% accurate. Callas's mannerisms were quite recognizable, and she wasn't mocked or caricatured. Her image was simply enlisted in the service of a good cause: bringing a little-understood medical condition to our attention by exploring the possibility that she suffered from it. What's the harm?


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

I love this channel! Recently discovered it the other day!


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> I have to respect anyone's reactions, but I thought the idea and presentation were clever and charming. What do you mean by "take the place of Callas"? Was there anything inaccurate in the description of her health symptoms? Callas is now a historical figure, and no one expects fictional portrayals or performers' impressions of well-known cultural or public figures to be 100% accurate. Callas's mannerisms were quite recognizable, and she wasn't mocked or caricatured. Her image was simply enlisted in the service of a good cause: bringing a little-understood medical condition to our attention by exploring the possibility that she suffered from it. What's the harm?


What's the harm? None, I guess. It's just me and my particular aversion to any exploitative theater for the sake of attempting to show what the person was really like. There is no such animal to me. Judy was Judy (that show was awful) Elvis (coming to your theater soon) was Elvis. Callas was Callas, and when someone speaks with a British accent it drives me nuts. I want her to be her and not someone faking her. I really have a strong feeling that Maria would NOT have liked these Master Class imitations (because that's all they are.)
Her documentaries are so much more satisfying to me.
(So,Nina, other than these brickbats, how do you REALLY feel about the subject?) )


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

MAS said:


> I personally think it’s essential - he was married to her for 10 years, through her transformation and knew as well as a man could in those days, i.e., not much but I think he understood her a little. In a lot of the book he’s pathetic and I don’t think you’ll refer to it much, but it’s a unique view, one that one wouldn’t get from journalists or gossipy biographies. I think he admired her greatly as well as loved her. I don’t think there are a lot of intimate revelations about her either as a woman or an artist, but I’m glad I have it.
> 
> You can get it cheaply in multiples locations, so if you really don’t like it, it won’t cost you much. I can’t say it’s an _important book, _only that it added to my knowledge.


See ya later, I'm on my way to Amazon. Thanks for the good advice.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Many of you guys are much more knowledgeable than me but from what I can tell I think that it was probably more than one factor. There was definitely a decline at the very top after she lost the weight initially, she could hit the notes but they no longer had the power that they used to. But she did some fabulous recordings up till 1956 or maybe 1957. After that the voice started I thought I sharp decline and I wonder if it could have been an illness that caused that. I don't know if we will ever know the full reason for this complex issue.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Seattleoperafan said:


> Many of you guys are much more knowledgeable than me but from what I can tell I think that it was probably more than one factor. There was definitely a decline at the very top after she lost the weight initially, she could hit the notes but they no longer had the power that they used to. But she did some fabulous recordings up till 1956 or maybe 1957. After that the voice started I thought I sharp decline and I wonder if it could have been an illness that caused that. I don't know if we will ever know the full reason for this complex issue.


There were multiple factors, without a doubt: vocal technique, illness, weight loss, stress. The more I know about her and her life and career, the less surprising it seems that her voice would have suffered in one way or another. We focus on her case because of her greatness and fame, but the world is full of voices that run into trouble and careers that end too soon. The voice is vulnerable, like everything in the body.


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

Seattleoperafan said:


> Many of you guys are much more knowledgeable than me but from what I can tell I think that it was probably more than one factor. There was definitely a decline at the very top after she lost the weight initially, she could hit the notes but they no longer had the power that they used to. But she did some fabulous recordings up till 1956 or maybe 1957. After that the voice started I thought I sharp decline and I wonder if it could have been an illness that caused that. I don't know if we will ever know the full reason for this complex issue.


Her top notes had occasional issues even before her weight loss and post weightloss she could still throw out some exceptional ones, the Eb at the end of sempre libera in '55 and the high D at the end of the Scala Norma first act. I also, oddly, find that her performances in '57 find her, on average, in better voice than in '56 but then maybe thats because I'm mostly familiar with her voice in '56 through studio recordings and in '57 through live performances. I think she's always far preferable live post weightloss.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Op.123 said:


> Her top notes had occasional issues even before her weight loss and post weightloss she could still throw out some exceptional ones, the Eb at the end of sempre libera in '55 and the high D at the end of the Scala Norma first act. I also, oddly, find that her performances in '57 find her, on average, in better voice than in '56 but then maybe thats because I'm mostly familiar with her voice in '56 through studio recordings and in '57 through live performances. I think she's always far preferable live post weightloss.


I'm not sure that's true about her studio recordings. In '56 she recorded *La Boheme*, *Il Trovatore* and *Un Ballo in Maschera. *In 57, it was *La Sonnambula*, *Il Barbiere di Siviglia*, *Turandot*, *Manon Lescaut *and *Medea. *I'd say she sounds better on the '56 recordings. Interestingly, of the '57 recordings, she in better voice on the _bel canto _works than she is on the Puccini, but then they were more suited to her gifts anyway. Indeed in both the studio and the live *La Sonnambula *from Cologne she can hit a _fortissimo _Eb and then effect a _diminuendo_ on it before cascading down the scale. '57 is a year of ups and downs, though it ended on a high note as she is in great voice on the live *Un Ballo in Maschera* she sang at La Scala in Decemeber of the year. Only weeks later she had one of the greatest scandals of her career when she was unable to finish a gala performance of *Norma* before the president of Italy.


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

Tsaraslondon said:


> I'm not sure that's true about her studio recordings. In '56 she recorded *La Boheme*, *Il Trovatore* and *Un Ballo in Maschera. *In 57, it was *La Sonnambula*, *Il Barbiere di Siviglia*, *Turandot*, *Manon Lescaut *and *Medea. *I'd say she sounds better on the '56 recordings. Interestingly, of the '57 recordings, she in better voice on the _bel canto _works than she is on the Puccini, but then they were more suited to her gifts anyway. Indeed in both the studio and the live *La Sonnambula *from Cologne she can hit a _fortissimo _Eb and then effect a _diminuendo_ on it before cascading down the scale. '57 is a year of ups and downs, though it ended on a high note as she is in great voice on the live *Un Ballo in Maschera* she sang at La Scala in Decemeber of the year. Only weeks later she had one of the greatest scandals of her career when she was unable to finish a gala performance of *Norma* before the president of Italy.


Yes, I think because I am mainly familiar with her studio recordings in '56 and her live recordings in '57 that I was under the impression she was in better voice in '57. There aren't a great deal of live recordings in '56 compared to '57 as far as I remember and I find her I noticeably better voice in her live Ballo than in the studio.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

MAS said:


> Has anyone watched this video (from May 2022)? It purports to inform that Callas loss of her voice was caused by several physical conditions that built up and finally overwhelmed her health. Interesting theory but, as usual, it’s all speculation.


This is ridiculous! Anyone who thinks that they can diagnose someone's health from 60+ years ago, without access to medical records, is seriously reality challenged. It's only click-bait.


----------



## ALT (Mar 1, 2021)

L-E-T H-E-R D-I-E


----------



## Shaafee Shameem (Aug 4, 2021)

Op.123 said:


> Her top notes had occasional issues even before her weight loss and post weightloss she could still throw out some exceptional ones, the Eb at the end of sempre libera in '55 and the high D at the end of the Scala Norma first act. I also, oddly, find that her performances in '57 find her, on average, in better voice than in '56 but then maybe thats because I'm mostly familiar with her voice in '56 through studio recordings and in '57 through live performances. I think she's always far preferable live post weightloss.


I too have noticed that in her studio recordings, particularly the EMI ones, she sings very lightly with deliberate nasality and much less chest voice. Compare the studio Norma of 1954 to the La Scala 1955. This is noticeable even prior to the weight loss, compare the De Sabata Tosca to her live ones from Mexico or Rio de Janeiro.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

Shaafee Shameem said:


> I too have noticed that in her studio recordings, particularly the EMI ones, she sings very lightly with deliberate nasality and much less chest voice. Compare the studio Norma of 1954 to the La Scala 1955. This is noticeable even prior to the weight loss, compare the De Sabata Tosca to her live ones from Mexico or Rio de Janeiro.


As Callas herself said, she was “singing like a wild cat” in those days. Also, she tended to be more circumspect in the studio, knowing the microphone exaggerated the voice and its effects. Singing out on stage was very different and needed to make a marked effect; before the microphones she had to refine. Later, she even refined her stage performances - also, as her voice started to lose volume and heft, she had to compensate.


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

Shaafee Shameem said:


> I too have noticed that in her studio recordings, particularly the EMI ones, she sings very lightly with deliberate nasality and much less chest voice. Compare the studio Norma of 1954 to the La Scala 1955. This is noticeable even prior to the weight loss, compare the De Sabata Tosca to her live ones from Mexico or Rio de Janeiro.


Yes, there is a nasal production in her studio recordings which is rarely found live and less chest is also true (the end of la mamma morta live and studio for example) but more understandable. I've only ever been bothered by the nasality post-weightloss but in her early EMI recording, the cetra gioconda is another matter entirely, there is more of a reluctance to use chest voice than live. That said, her studio Tosca remains my reference for that work.

Interestingly, Tebaldi also toned down her chest voice in the studio but I don't really understand the tendency towards nasality which didn't really creep into Callas's live singing until long after she'd started adopting the technique in the studio.


----------



## Shaafee Shameem (Aug 4, 2021)

MAS said:


> As Callas herself said, she was “singing like a wild cat” in those days. Also, she tended to be more circumspect in the studio, knowing the microphone exaggerated the voice and its effects. Singing out on stage was very different and needed to make a marked effect; before the microphones she had to refine. Later, she even refined her stage performances - also, as her voice started to lose volume and heft, she had to compensate.


I don’t think the studio recordings are necessarily more refined. Do you think the studio Norma is more refined than the La Scala one? Also, even in the 1965 Tosca, although she is in much worse voice than 1953, she uses more chest voice in Scarpia’s death scene and the torture scene for instance. Whatever her reasons were, I don’t think the placement she adopted for her studio recordings was beneficial in any way.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

Shaafee Shameem said:


> I don’t think the studio recordings are necessarily more refined. Do you think the studio Norma is more refined than the La Scala one? Also, even in the 1965 Tosca, although she is in much worse voice than 1953, she uses more chest voice in Scarpia’s death scene and the torture scene for instance. Whatever her reasons were, I don’t think the placement she adopted for her studio recordings was beneficial in any way.


Yes, I think the studio *Norma* of 1960 is more refined than the Scala Norma just as the studio *Norma* of 1954 is more refined than the preceding live ones of 1952 and 1953. Whatever the state of the voice (and that steadily deteriorated after the weight loss) the details of her singing - not the voice itself - improved and those improvements were cumulative. What she did in that 1960 *Norma *was ahead of the previous essays of the role that came before. 

From a purely vocal production point of view, she could do miracles with her voice in her early days and even for a while after 1953 - some high notes and unsteadiness apart. But once she started to lose her confidence and much of the control over her instrument, the progression of those refinements ceased. As for the change in her placement of the voice I can’t say.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

MAS said:


> Yes, I think the studio *Norma* of 1960 is more refined than the Scala Norma just as the studio *Norma* of 1954 is more refined than the preceding live ones of 1952 and 1953. Whatever the state of the voice (and that steadily deteriorated after the weight loss) the details of her singing - not the voice itself - improved and those improvements were cumulative. What she did in that 1960 *Norma *was ahead of the previous essays of the role that came before.
> 
> From a purely vocal production point of view, she could do miracles with her voice in her early days and even for a while after 1953 - some high notes and unsteadiness apart. But once she started to lose her confidence and much of the control over her instrument, the progression of those refinements ceased. As for the change in her placement of the voice I can’t say.


The role that went throught, and profited from, the most refinement was no doubt Violetta and my favourite performance is the last record we have of her singing it, in London in 1958. In fact she would only sing the role once more, in a Zeffirelli production in Dallas. In London her performance is so moving, so palpably real that it takes you out of the opera house and brings you face to face with real life.

Callas’s Covent Garden Traviata


----------



## Shaafee Shameem (Aug 4, 2021)

MAS said:


> Yes, I think the studio *Norma* of 1960 is more refined than the Scala Norma just as the studio *Norma* of 1954 is more refined than the preceding live ones of 1952 and 1953. Whatever the state of the voice (and that steadily deteriorated after the weight loss) the details of her singing - not the voice itself - improved and those improvements were cumulative. What she did in that 1960 *Norma *was ahead of the previous essays of the role that came before.
> 
> From a purely vocal production point of view, she could do miracles with her voice in her early days and even for a while after 1953 - some high notes and unsteadiness apart. But once she started to lose her confidence and much of the control over her instrument, the progression of those refinements ceased. As for the change in her placement of the voice I can’t say.


But those refinements are those that come with experience, and mainly concerned with phrasing and vocal shading. Her Ballo in 1957 is more refined than the studio, so I don’t think that it has anything to do with it being live or studio. What I observed was that she sang with a different vocal placement, and deliberately lightened her voice in her studio recordings, therefore, some of the studio recordings have somewhat problematic singing at the same time while she was singing very well live. Her singing is not very good in the studio Medea, when the next year in Dallas, she sang magnificently. I think this is because of the wrong placement she adopted for this studio.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

Shaafee Shameem said:


> But those refinements are those that come with experience, and mainly concerned with phrasing and vocal shading. Her Ballo in 1957 is more refined than the studio, so I don’t think that it has anything to do with it being live or studio. What I observed was that she sang with a different vocal placement, and deliberately lightened her voice in her studio recordings, therefore, some of the studio recordings have somewhat problematic singing at the same time while she was singing very well live. Her singing is not very good in the studio Medea, when the next year in Dallas, she sang magnificently. I think this is because of the wrong placement she adopted for this studio.


The Scala 1957 *Ballo *comes after the studio recording so it’s naturally more refined as per my theory above. The Dallas *Medea *likewise comes the year after the Mercury recording where she is exhausted and so vocally compromised. For the most part, her live recordings are “better” histrionically while she presumably toned down or was more subtle before the microphones.


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

MAS said:


> Yes, I think the studio *Norma* of 1960 is more refined than the Scala Norma just as the studio *Norma* of 1954 is more refined than the preceding live ones of 1952 and 1953. Whatever the state of the voice (and that steadily deteriorated after the weight loss) the details of her singing - not the voice itself - improved and those improvements were cumulative. What she did in that 1960 *Norma *was ahead of the previous essays of the role that came before.
> 
> From a purely vocal production point of view, she could do miracles with her voice in her early days and even for a while after 1953 - some high notes and unsteadiness apart. But once she started to lose her confidence and much of the control over her instrument, the progression of those refinements ceased. As for the change in her placement of the voice I can’t say.


I for one don’t see much refinement in her later Norma than in her 1955 Norma since the voice just doesn’t respond the same to the demands she makes of it. The phrasing doesn’t come off as beautifully, the dynamic control isn’t as excellent etc. She may be more attentive to some words here and there but musically she doesn’t have the capacity for her earlier mastery.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Op.123 said:


> I for one don’t see much refinement in her later Norma than in her 1955 Norma since the voice just doesn’t respond the same to the demands she makes of it. The phrasing doesn’t come off as beautifully, the dynamic control isn’t as excellent etc. She may be more attentive to some words here and there but musically she doesn’t have the capacity for her earlier mastery.


I'm not sure I'd agree with you. I find a great deal more light and shade in the live performaces in London in 1952 and Trieste in 1953, both of which preceded the 1954 studio recording, not to mention Rome and La Scala in 1955. In the 1960 she no longer has the big, heroic guns, but certain parts are sung with such pathetic colours, I find it much more moving. It was the first *Norma *I ever owned, and heard, and I still have a great deal of affection for it. I forgive the relative shrillness on top for the added nuances. No doubt some of these "refinements" are due to waning resources, but there is no doubt she is still a great singer and a great Norma. The rest of the cast in the 1960 recording is a good deal better too, Corelli a vast improvement on the awful Filippeschi and the young Ludwig a perhaps surprising choice that paid off. It is amazing that two such different singers should blend so well in the duets, but they do and Ludwig sounds, as she should, ike the younger woman. Stignani was past her best in 1954 and sounds matronly, By and larger, it's still my favourite studio recording of the opera, though La Scala 1955 would still be my first choice.


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

Tsaraslondon said:


> I'm not sure I'd agree with you. I find a great deal more light and shade in the live performaces in London in 1952 and Trieste in 1953, both of which preceded the 1954 studio recording, not to mention Rome and La Scala in 1955. In the 1960 she no longer has the big, heroic guns, but certain parts are sung with such pathetic colours, I find it much more moving. It was the first *Norma *I ever owned, and heard, and I still have a great deal of affection for it. I forgive the relative shrillness on top for the added nuances. No doubt some of these "refinements" are due to waning resources, but there is no doubt she is still a great singer and a great Norma. The rest of the cast in the 1960 recording is a good deal better too, Corelli a vast improvement on the awful Filippeschi and the young Ludwig a perhaps surprising choice that paid off. It is amazing that two such different singers should blend so well in the duets, but they do and Ludwig sounds, as she should, ike the younger woman. Stignani was past her best in 1954 and sounds matronly, By and larger, it's still my favourite studio recording of the opera, though La Scala 1955 would still be my first choice.


Yes, 1955 Scala and Rome are the best combinations of vocal resources and interpretive refinement. I don't dislike the 1960 recording, I would still rather have it to Sutherland's. But while in some parts she is convincing, in other parts not so much. I also prefer Votto's direction in this opera, del Monaco is slightly more to my preference than Corelli and while Ludwig is good I think Simionato is ideal.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Shaafee Shameem said:


> But those refinements are those that come with experience, and mainly concerned with phrasing and vocal shading. Her Ballo in 1957 is more refined than the studio, so I don’t think that it has anything to do with it being live or studio. What I observed was that she sang with a different vocal placement, and deliberately lightened her voice in her studio recordings, therefore, some of the studio recordings have somewhat problematic singing at the same time while she was singing very well live. Her singing is not very good in the studio Medea, when the next year in Dallas, she sang magnificently. I think this is because of the wrong placement she adopted for this studio.


We know that often large voices don't record well with close-up microphones.Nilsson for instance is an example. I am wondering if Callas might have thought that scaling back the size of her voice or giving it a different placement might make her voice record better. I'm just speculating here. In her live recordings before the weight loss when the voice was so big I thought she sounded great although the recordings themselves had some issues. Any thoughts?


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

Seattleoperafan said:


> We know that often large voices don't record well with close-up microphones.Nilsson for instance is an example. I am wondering if Callas might have thought that scaling back the size of her voice or giving it a different placement might make her voice record better. I'm just speculating here. In her live recordings before the weight loss when the voice was so big I thought she sounded great although the recordings themselves had some issues. Any thoughts?


We’re all speculating, even if based on our listening - we don’t know why a singer does what he/she does and what goes through their mind. For instance, know Callas never interpolated the high D at the end of the trio that concludes the first Act of *Norma*, in the studio - a note she always took thrillingly live (though not in her final performances in Paris, when the voice was so unreliable). 
Critic and author Michael Scott (Maria Meneghini Callas) claims that with the gradual loss of the voice, or at least with the changes to it after the slimming, artifice entered her performances, which might have a correlation to the nasality Shaafe Shameen and Op. 123 find in her recordings.

We also need to takes to consideration that Callas was constantly working on her voice during the busiest period of her life, performing and recording with hardly any rest, while adjusting to the weight loss and its resultant physical change to the apparatus she used. One of the critics points specifically to the recording of *Rigoletto *to denote a change in vocal reliability after Callas’s work with de Hidalgo prior to the recording. The year (1955) was an _annus mirabilis _even in her storied career.


----------



## Shaafee Shameem (Aug 4, 2021)

Seattleoperafan said:


> We know that often large voices don't record well with close-up microphones.Nilsson for instance is an example. I am wondering if Callas might have thought that scaling back the size of her voice or giving it a different placement might make her voice record better. I'm just speculating here. In her live recordings before the weight loss when the voice was so big I thought she sounded great although the recordings themselves had some issues. Any thoughts?


Yes, that may very well be her intention, but we don’t find such a placement in the Cetra recordings. I can’t help but think that Walter Legge might have influenced her to lighten the sound.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Shaafee Shameem said:


> Yes, that may very well be her intention, but we don’t find such a placement in the Cetra recordings. I can’t help but think that Walter Legge might have influenced her to lighten the sound.


I'm sure Legge did influence her. After all, recording was still completely new to her and she would have listened to someone who had more experience of the genre than she did. There are some interviews too where she talks about not being able to get away with the same grand gestures you can make in the theatre, how everything has to be smaller.

It's often said that small voices are much easier to record than large ones and I'm sure she was no exception.


----------



## RICK RIEKERT (Oct 9, 2017)

Tsaraslondon said:


> I'm sure Legge did influence her. After all, recording was still completely new to her and she would have listened to someone who had more experience of the genre than she did. There are some interviews too where she talks about not being able to get away with the same grand gestures you can make in the theatre, how everything has to be smaller.
> 
> It's often said that small voices are much easier to record than large ones and I'm sure she was no exception.


In his memoir of Callas, Legge refers only to helping her with her persistent wobble during their 1954 "Forza" recording. Legge writes "the wobble had become so pronounced that I told her if we dared publish the records Angel and EMI would have to give away a seasickness pill with every side, which we could not afford. She took this to heart and worked hard on steadying down the wide pulse in her voice." Legge suggested Rosa Ponselle as the person to give her help, but Callas revealingly snapped back, "I won't see that woman-she started off with better material than I did." Callas did famously ask Legge's wife, Elizabeth Schwartzkopf, for help with her wobble during a dinner with the couple at their favorite Milanese restaurant, Biffi Scala. According to Legge, "Callas walked in as if unconcerned, pecked my wife's cheeks and without sitting down said, ''Show me how you sing top A's and B's and make a diminuendo on them. Walter says mine make him seasick.'' When Schwarzkopf demurred, Callas, ignoring the astonished diners, sang with full voice the notes that were giving her trouble, while Schwarzkopf felt her diaphragm, lower jaw, throat and ribs. Waiters froze in their stride, while guests turned to watch and hear the fun. Within minutes Schwarzkopf was singing the same notes while Callas prodded her in the same places to find out how she kept those notes steady. After 20 minutes or so she said, ''I think I've got it. I'll call you in the morning when I've tried it out,'' and sat down to supper. She did call next day to say it worked, but the recording shows the cure was not complete."


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

RICK RIEKERT said:


> In his memoir of Callas, Legge refers only to helping her with her persistent wobble during their 1954 "Forza" recording. Legge writes "the wobble had become so pronounced that I told her if we dared publish the records Angel and EMI would have to give away a seasickness pill with every side, which we could not afford. She took this to heart and worked hard on steadying down the wide pulse in her voice." Legge suggested Rosa Ponselle as the person to give her help, but Callas revealingly snapped back, "I won't see that woman-she started off with better material than I did." Callas did famously ask Legge's wife, Elizabeth Schwartzkopf, for help with her wobble during a dinner with the couple at their favorite Milanese restaurant, Biffi Scala. According to Legge, "Callas walked in as if unconcerned, pecked my wife's cheeks and without sitting down said, ''Show me how you sing top A's and B's and make a diminuendo on them. Walter says mine make him seasick.'' When Schwarzkopf demurred, Callas, ignoring the astonished diners, sang with full voice the notes that were giving her trouble, while Schwarzkopf felt her diaphragm, lower jaw, throat and ribs. Waiters froze in their stride, while guests turned to watch and hear the fun. Within minutes Schwarzkopf was singing the same notes while Callas prodded her in the same places to find out how she kept those notes steady. After 20 minutes or so she said, ''I think I've got it. I'll call you in the morning when I've tried it out,'' and sat down to supper. She did call next day to say it worked, but the recording shows the cure was not complete."


Yes I know those stories, and they make amusing anecdotes, but Legge was a good record producer, meaning he knew what worked best _in the studio_. I'm sure he made suggestions that Callas would have taken on board and accepted. She said herself that in the theatre you could get away with a huge, grand phrase that would need fining down for a studio recording.

There is of course that other anecdote about her recording Lady Macbeth's Sleepwalking Scene and exiting the studio feeling pretty pleased with herself. "I think you'll find that is some pretty good singing," she said to Legge, to which he replied, "Oh, extraordinary, but I think after you've listened to the playback you'll want to do it again." She was a bit taken aback, but did as he asked and realised straight away that he was right. She had done a pretty good piece of singing qua singing, but she had not done her job as an interpreter. She went back into the studio and gave us one of the most searchingly detailed pieces of singing ever committed to disc. Indeed there is a long interview with her in which she dissects the scene, showing how many colours the singer needs to convey all the shifting thoughts that express Lady Macbeth's fractured state of mind. No doubt there are those who would prefer a more plainly sung account, but I for one am pleased Legge encouraged her to go back and do it again. I think this 1958 recording of the Sleepwalking Scene a good deal better than the one in the compete performance under De Sabata, who I think takes it too fast. Callas may have thought so, because she adopts a slower stance within De Sabata's tempo and (it's so gradual you barely notice) by the end of the scene, the tempo is a bit slower. I wonder what happened at subsequent performances.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Mas:
My thanks to you for suggesting I get the Meneghini Calas book. I am really enjoying reading it and even though he tends to repeat how involved they were with each other ad infinitum I am learning a lot of good info that was not included (or wrongly stated) in other books.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Tsaraslondon said:


> Yes I know those stories, and they make amusing anecdotes, but Legge was a good record producer, meaning he knew what worked best _in the studio_. I'm sure he made suggestions that Callas would have taken on board and accepted. She said herself that in the theatre you could get away with a huge, grand phrase that would need fining down for a studio recording.
> 
> There is of course that other anecdote about her recording Lady Macbeth's Sleepwalking Scene and exiting the studio feeling pretty pleased with herself. "I think you'll find that is some pretty good singing," she said to Legge, to which he replied, "Oh, extraordinary, but I think after you've listened to the playback you'll want to do it again." She was a bit taken aback, but did as he asked and realised straight away that he was right. She had done a pretty good piece of singing qua singing, but she had not done her job as an interpreter. She went back into the studio and gave us one of the most searchingly detailed pieces of singing ever committed to disc. Indeed there is a long interview with her in which she dissects the scene, showing how many colours the singer needs to convey all the shifting thoughts that express Lady Macbeth's fractured state of mind. No doubt there are those who would prefer a more plainly sung account, but I for one am pleased Legge encouraged her to go back and do it again. I think this 1958 recording of the Sleepwalking Scene a good deal better than the one in the compete performance under De Sabata, who I think takes it too fast. Callas may have thought so, because she adopts a slower stance within De Sabata's tempo and (it's so gradual you barely notice) by the end of the scene, the tempo is a bit slower. I wonder what happened at subsequent performances.


I heard her studio recording of Lady Macbeth's sleepwalking scene after I was familiar with the live recording (which I obtained, surprisingly, as a pirated LP, in a plain black box with a plain red label, from a small-town record store in the late 1960s). Unlike you, I was slightly disappointed. The live performance is bone-chillingly real in its projection of a frenzied mind; the vocal colorations and inflections are startlingly imaginative and uncanny. The studio version is a very fine facsimile, created with slightly diminished vocal resources, that for all its art just doesn't convey the same disturbing feeling of real life, and the decision to have her recede into the distance for her final lines, obviously intended as a touch of theatrical realism, has the opposite effect of emphasizing that this is a studio effort. I might agree about the slower tempo in the abstract, but in this case it may contribute to the more studied effect of the performance. In this particular role the going-for-broke brinksmanship of the young Callas performing in the theater makes a difference, and if she'd been recorded in the opera later I think I would have preferred a live performance, ideally with Gobbi, to a studio effort.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> I heard her studio recording of Lady Macbeth's sleepwalking scene after I was familiar with the live recording (which I obtained, surprisingly, as a pirated LP, in a plain black box with a plain red label, from a small-town record store in the late 1960s). Unlike you, I was slightly disappointed. The live performance is bone-chillingly real in its projection of a frenzied mind; the vocal colorations and inflections are startlingly imaginative and uncanny. The studio version is a very fine facsimile, created with slightly diminished vocal resources, that for all its art just doesn't convey the same disturbing feeling of real life, and the decision to have her recede into the distance for her final lines, obviously intended as a touch of theatrical realism, has the opposite effect of emphasizing that this is a studio effort. I might agree about the slower tempo in the abstract, but in this case it may contribute to the more studied effect of the performance. In this particular role the going-for-broke brinksmanship of the young Callas performing in the theater makes a difference, and if she'd been recorded in the opera later I think I would have preferred a live performance, ideally with Gobbi, to a studio effort.


It was the other way round for me. I heard the recital version first and was totally knocked out by both Verdi's expert setting of Shakespeare and Callas's brilliantly detailed interpretation. In fact it was one of the tracks I would play to people, especially actors, who doubted the validity of opera as drama or the ability of the operatic voice to convey complex emotions. This was near the beginning of my discovery of opera and of Callas. Stereo was the new God and EMI had deleted most of her mono recordings, so I actually first got to know and love the Callas voice from her stereo stuff, which was recorded when the vocal problems began to be more pronounced. I've loved that version of the Sleepwalking Scene ever since, and didn't get to hear the live version until some years later. The earlier arias I thought absolutely thrilling, but the Sleepwalking Scene, my favourite part of the score, disappointed me, mostly I think because of De Sabata's too fast tempo. I felt that at that speed, Callas wasn't able to sing with quite the same detail she achieved in the studio. As I said earlier, when she starts singing she adopts a slower attitude within the speed De Sabata sets and, though I haven't used a metronome to check, they both seem to have slowed down a bit by the end.

This was of course the _prima _and Callas is on record as saying that the real work starts after the first performance in front of an audience. To someone who got to know the piece from the studio recording, the live one seems rushed and it feels as if Callas is trying to put the breaks on whenever she can. Note that the orchestral postlude is more at the tempo of the studio performance and quite a bit slower than the introduction.

Here is a truncated version of her analysis of the Scene, which she described as a Mad Scene, which indeed it is.



> How can a mad woman with 20 crazy thoughts jumping from one to the other be conveyed in a straight, lovely kind of evenly paced vocal piece? It cannot... You see, I think she must have at least six mental thoughts that come to her here, one completely different from the other. For she has reached a state of mind that is, shall we say, conscience. She is a very ambitious lady, and for the sake of her vanity, she has persuaded her husband to kill the king so that he could become king. Disaster has come because she could not stand her guilt and went mad. She finally copes with her madness in this Sleepwalking Scene. A mad person, of course, has one thought into another without continuity. One minute she is talking about the bloodstains on her hands, terrified that she can never get them clean, and right away she says, ‘Come now, we must get ready to receive these people, everything else is fine.’ All of a sudden, she comes back to another mental attitude. So you cannot perform it with only one line from beginning to end. You have to break it into every one of her thoughts... Her mind is wandering one minute, terrified the other, commanding the next. And Verdi helps you convey this, for instance, at ‘tanto sangue immaginar,’ by marking the notes sforzando, which means ‘touching’. They are rhythmically accented to convey terror: ‘Could not-i-ma-gine’


Certainly I've always thought Callas's observation of _sforzando_ markings absolutely astonishing. As ever she doesn't just accurately execute the written notes, she understands the point of them.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Tsaraslondon said:


> It was the other way round for me. I heard the recital version first and was totally knocked out by both Verdi's expert setting of Shakespeare and Callas's brilliantly detailed interpretation. In fact it was one of the tracks I would play to people, especially actors, who doubted the validity of opera as drama or the ability of the operatic voice to convey complex emotions. This was near the beginning of my discovery of opera and of Callas. Stereo was the new God and EMI had deleted most of her mono recordings, so I actually first got to know and love the Callas voice from her stereo stuff, which was recorded when the vocal problems began to be more pronounced. I've loved that version of the Sleepwalking Scene ever since, and didn't get to hear the live version until some years later. The earlier arias I thought absolutely thrilling, but the Sleepwalking Scene, my favourite part of the score, disappointed me, mostly I think because of De Sabata's too fast tempo. I felt that at that speed, Callas wasn't able to sing with quite the same detail she achieved in the studio. As I said earlier, when she starts singing she adopts a slower attitude within the speed De Sabata sets and, though I haven't used a metronome to check, they both seem to have slowed down a bit by the end.
> 
> This was of course the _prima _and Callas is on record as saying that the real work starts after the first performance in front of an audience. To someone who got to know the piece from the studio recording, the live one seems rushed and it feels as if Callas is trying to put the breaks on whenever she can. Note that the orchestral postlude is more at the tempo of the studio performance and quite a bit slower than the introduction.
> 
> ...


I hadn't read her comments on the scene before. Thanks. I think it makes a good case for de Sabata's reading of the score! 

Both the urgency of De Sabata's initial tempo and the slowing down toward the end feel natural to me, and I'm sure the transition was purposeful. Lady Macbeth's mind is in a febrile, agitated state, and his orchestra portrays that; the quick figurations lead me to sense her disorientation, the abruptness of her movements and the darting of her eyes as she flits from thought to thought. The slight sense of the orchestra pushing her enhances the impression of irrational compulsion, of something external to her will - of terror - controlling her. The vocal writing becomes more sustained and lyrical later, the mood more pathetic than mad, and de Sabata knows that the tempo needs to broaden to let the singer's phrases expand into that emotion.

Rescigno's opening tempo lacks nervosity; it's more relaxed, and Callas's lines seem calmer, with less of the compulsive, irrational, ejaculatory quality which de Sabata's tempo naturally imposes. She's basically doing the same things, but more deliberately. The musical and emotional contrast between the craziness of the main body of the scene and the more pathetic quality of the closing is suppressed by Rescigno's near-uniformity, though Callas naturally knows what to do within the framework he provides.

I certainly wouldn't say that de Sabata's is the only right way to conduct this, or that there is anything really wrong with what Rescigno does. As a stand-alone presentation, a concert aria, Rescigno's version may be more satisfactory to some. But our first impressions do linger; the 1952 performance was my first exposure to any part of this opera. I've listened to it only a few times, and always with disappointment, since.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

From EMI’s studio recording recording of the Sleepwalking Scene, I learned of the existence of Verdi and, most importantly, discovered Maria Callas. Like Tsaras, I heard the Scala _prima _of the 1952 *Macbeth *years afterwards so the biggest impression was made at that first hearing. It’s held a place in my heart ever since, even after I learned that the voice was not in good shape when she recorded the aria. 
Of course, after I heard the whole opera, it became my one and only version of the opera and my allegiance to the opera, to the recording and Callas as the supreme Lady - after hearing all who came after - remains.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> I hadn't read her comments on the scene before. Thanks. I think it makes a good case for de Sabata's reading of the score!
> 
> Both the urgency of De Sabata's initial tempo and the slowing down toward the end feel natural to me, and I'm sure the transition was purposeful. Lady Macbeth's mind is in a febrile, agitated state, and his orchestra portrays that; the quick figurations lead me to sense her disorientation, the abruptness of her movements and the darting of her eyes as she flits from thought to thought. The slight sense of the orchestra pushing her enhances the impression of irrational compulsion, of something external to her will - of terror - controlling her. The vocal writing becomes more sustained and lyrical later, the mood more pathetic than mad, and de Sabata knows that the tempo needs to broaden to let the singer's phrases expand into that emotion.
> 
> ...


I take all your points and, over the years, I've come to like the De Sabata version better. His conducting, symphonic in scope, is certanly a major contributor to the success of the complete performance and it is a tragedy that we don't have it in better sound. It's just that I miss some of the detail she gets into the slower version of this one aria. For instance the sforzando she talks about on _i-mag-in-ar , _the quietly mechanical, but unearthly _Una...due, _the dip into chest on _non osi entrar_, the strange colouring she uses on the word _vergogna, _which somehow captures something of the love the couple have for each other. She is making many of the same points in the De Sabata version, it's true, but for me the slower speed gives her more time to make them. Though the faster speed De Sabata uses is certainly justified, the slower one of Rescigno is more mesmerising and perhaps more indicative of someone sleepwalking. Maybe both are valid, and, in any case, I doubt any singer has rendered the scene as brilliantly as Callas does in both these versions. 

Interestigly Muti is closer to De Sabata in his complete recording and Abbado closer to Rescigno. Clearly there is a case to be stated for both tempi.


----------

