# Interesting articles about the real cause of Maria Callas's vocal problems



## Philmwri (Apr 8, 2011)

http://www.grreporter.info/en/maria...is_rare_disease_cost_her_career_and_life/3863

http://www.lastampa.it/2010/12/21/e...oken-heart-z9QHOp38idfnQIS50pStjI/pagina.html


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Interesting indeed, though it doesn't explain the marked change in her voice from, say her 1953 *I Puritani* to the 1955 recording of *Aida*. This new information might go part way to explain why the voice deteriorated so quickly from about 1958 onwards, but it had already started to lose power and steadiness before that. Many of the reasons already expounded are equally plausible; the rapid weight loss, the change in repertoire, the heavy roles she sang when young, the intensity of her performances. It always has been fanciful to suggest she died of a broken heart, and this new theory certainly would explain why she should suffer from a heart attack relatively early.

Not the whole story certainly.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

The candle that burns twice as fast lasts half as long.

Well, Callas burned thrice as fast and lasted twice as long; even if it was only a decade. 

No one even comes close in her prime.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

No point in insisting on "the" cause, reason, meaning, etc. of anything. There's almost always more than one and it's usually impossible to know how much of each to factor in. With Callas I suspect all the theories are partly right. Complex person, complex artist, complex vocal issues. This new wrinkle doesn't appear to account for vocal inconsistencies early on, but it could help to explain why the deterioration went so far.

How about that statement that she became a mezzo-soprano, defined as someone who can't reach the high notes! :lol:


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> No point in insisting on "the" cause, reason, meaning, etc. of anything. There's almost always more than one and it's usually impossible to know how much of each to factor in. With Callas I suspect all the theories are partly right. Complex person, complex artist, complex vocal issues. This new wrinkle doesn't appear to account for vocal inconsistencies early on, but it could help to explain why the deterioration went so far.
> 
> How about the statement that she became a mezzo-soprano, defined as someone who can't reach the high notes! :lol:


---_
"Paging Dame Janet! Paging Dame Janet Baker. . . Phone madam. Lord Duck says you need a rollicking laugh."_


----------



## Philmwri (Apr 8, 2011)

How about that statement that she became a mezzo-soprano, defined as someone who can't reach the high notes! :lol:[/QUOTE]

I didn't quite agree with that statement either. How does not being able to sustain high notes make a singer a mezzo-soprano?

Many mezzo-sopranos( Janet Baker, Cecilia Bartoli, Joyce DiDonato, Vivica Genaux, Jennifer Larmore, Maria Malibran, Huguette Tourangeau) have been able to sing and sustain high notes.

I found some videos of Maria Callas singing in the late 1960's and I think she still sounded great.




















After listening to those recordings I feel like she still sounded great not in her prime but still amazing.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

I actually happened to read one of those articles a few weeks ago, and at about the same time I came across a book on vocal technique in which the author stresses the absolute importance of having no register breaks. She mentions Callas as having had marked register breaks and says that this why her voice declined early: she lost her high notes and took to pushing the middle register, etc. As someone who's studied voice I think this is very plausible as a _root_ cause, especially as I can think of very few if any other sopranos who had such noticeable gaps between registers (Elena Souliotis, maybe?). It seems to me that if Callas had cultivated initially a seamless range then she wouldn't have had the problems she had when she was older.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Ms. Souliotis had the same gaps, even more evident, to be sure.

But I'm not sure the root cause was the same for both singers. Ms. Callas was trained by her teacher, Elvira de Hidalgo, almost like a light soprano (what Ms. Hidalgo was) in spite of Ms. Callas obviously dramatic voice. The final product was, in my view, closer to 19th century model of a soprano sfogato, like the historical documents claim it was the firt Norma, Giuditta Pasta. A singer with a robust low and middle registers, and however able to produce thrilling top notes, with a range that went from A2 to D5, but also with noticeable gaps, and a short career. Indeed, to pretend that a soprano sfogato will ever be able to get a seamless range, it's almost to ask for a miracle.

A different case from a Rossinian contralto, like Marietta Alboni, with an even wider range than Ms. Pasta (G2 to Eflat 5), but that was extended from the lower register to sing roles like Norma, and even Amina, though apparently with no great success, as we can read in the chronicles of the period.

In any case, as said before in the thread, the few years of Ms. Callas's career on stage, at the top of her power, are unforgettable, and will remain long in memory as one of the peaks of recorded operatic singing.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

*Schigolch:* A very informed post, and I'm sure you're right about the unlikelihood of a soprano sfogato achieving a seamless range. It's pretty clear to me, too, that it was actually the inequality of Callas' voice that helped her achieve certain memorable vocal colorations and inflections.

What I tend to resent -- and perhaps this is a topic for another thread -- is when critics, etc. seem almost _unhappy_ when a singer's voice has no glaring technical flaws, is perfectly equalized and consistently attractive in timbre. They say things like "Yes, it's a beautiful voice, but does it really _say anything_?" It's one thing for a singer to turn her flaws to expressive advantage and quite another to impose this on other singers under the guise of "correct" or "profound" interpretation. (I'm not claiming that Callas herself encouraged this, but I think some of her admirers have.) Souliotis's career was, I think, a case in point, as she seems to have imitated Callas's flaws rather than her strengths. My point is that Callas was a unique case in the history of 20th century opera, and her vocal technique (as opposed to her interpretive skill) shouldn't serve as a general model.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Bellinilover said:


> It seems to me that if Callas had cultivated initially a seamless range then she wouldn't have had the problems she had when she was older.


Then she would not have been Callas, and would not have had that sheer range of colour at her disposal (greater than any other soprano I know). She would have been just another soprano with a long career. It's crazy to compare Souliotis with Callas anyway. Souliotis lasted only a couple of years. Callas was singing Santuzza and Tosca at the age of 15 ie in 1938 From debut to final operatic performance, her career lasted 27 years, which isn't that bad.

Anyway, at her peak, though she never completely got rid of the breaks in her register, she was able to cunningly disguise them. She could sing a two and a half octave downward chromatic scale, every note cleanly articulated, legato with very little evidence of any breaks in her register. She sometimes forced the chest voice up very high, but that was for dramatic effect. You might call it dangerous. She would have called it responding to the drama.

Michael Scott, in his book _Maria Meneghini Callas_ argues she had a technique second to none, which allowed her to render the music of a composer with a fidelity most singers could not even approach, not just the notes, but the expression as well. He also argues that she lost her voice, not her technique and I tend to agree with him, for in fact she never lost those top notes, just the ability to sustain them. Tebaldi, on the other hand, _always_ had a short top. She pretty much had to pray for her top Cs. When she sang Violetta, she would make a downward transposition for _Sempre libera_ (Ponselle's trick), nor did she ever sing the *Trovatore* Leonora on stage because the role lay to high for her.

As a piece of singing that is both dramatically thrilling and technically astonishing, I suggest you listen to her live performance of Rossini's *Armida*. This is not the work of a singer with a sketchy technique.

I can't remember whether this quote is attributed to Serafin or another conductor, but when someone said disparagingly that Callas had three voices, he replied, "But I would say admiringly that she has at least a dozen; one for joy, one for pain, one for sorrow, one for hate and so on." To suggest that Callas should have tried to cultivate a seamless range is to totally misunderstand what she was about. She was aware of the breaks and worked hard to minimise them, but her dramatic sensibilities would never have allowed her to eradicate them completely, and she used them to her advantage.

It says much, don't you think, that 37 years after her death and 48 after her last appearance on the operatic stage, she divides opinion in much the same way she did when she was still active. What other singer inspires such debate?


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

> GregMitchell: Then she would not have been Callas, and would not have had that sheer range of colour at her disposal (greater than any other soprano I know). She would have been just another soprano with a long career. It's crazy to compare Souliotis with Callas anyway. Souliotis lasted only a couple of years. Callas was singing Santuzza and Tosca at the age of 15 ie in 1938 From debut to final operatic performance, her career lasted 27 years, which isn't that bad.
> 
> Anyway, at her peak, though she never completely got rid of the breaks in her register, she was able to cunningly disguise them. She could sing a two and a half octave downward chromatic scale, every note cleanly articulated, legato with very little evidence of any breaks in her register. She sometimes forced the chest voice up very high, but that was for dramatic effect. You might call it dangerous. She would have called it responding to the drama.
> 
> ...











Outstanding post. . .

. . . and quite agreed on the '52 Callas Rossini_ Armida_. That was one of the first Callas performances I bought when I began to examine her in earnest, and my head had that 'transverse moment' of being knocked completely sideways with her technique, and 'yes,' her beautiful tone. Absolutely gorgeous. Absolutely ferocious. Absolutely delightful in everyway. . . the perfect Enchantress; the likes of which will never be heard again, I imagine.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

GregMitchell said:


> Then she would not have been Callas, and would not have had that sheer range of colour at her disposal (greater than any other soprano I know). She would have been just another soprano with a long career. It's crazy to compare Souliotis with Callas anyway. Souliotis lasted only a couple of years. Callas was singing Santuzza and Tosca at the age of 15 ie in 1938 From debut to final operatic performance, her career lasted 27 years, which isn't that bad.
> 
> Anyway, at her peak, though she never completely got rid of the breaks in her register, she was able to cunningly disguise them. She could sing a two and a half octave downward chromatic scale, every note cleanly articulated, legato with very little evidence of any breaks in her register. She sometimes forced the chest voice up very high, but that was for dramatic effect. You might call it dangerous. She would have called it responding to the drama.
> 
> ...


In the post directly above yours, Greg, I acknowledge that it was the inequalities that helped Callas to achieve certain unique inflections and colorations. And if I was comparing Souliotis to Callas, it was for the purpose of showing Callas as the superior singer/interpretor and Souliotis as something closer to a poor imitation (in _The Metropolitan Opera Guide to Recorded Opera_, Roland Graeme calls Souliotis's Norma "imitation Callas without the genius...next to Callas' supple phrasing, Soultiotis sounds almost amateurish."). While I greatly admire Callas' interpretations and think the natural quality of her voice quite beautiful, I stand by my opinion that, while Callas' technique served _her_ well by allowing her to communicate the drama, it shouldn't be recommended as a _ general model_ for young singers. (By the same token -- Sutherland fan that I am -- I wouldn't recommend that young sopranos emulate Sutherland's style of enunciation.) That's all I was trying to say, and if I said it badly I apologize. I'm now going to bow out of this thread.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Bellinilover said:


> In the post directly above yours, Greg, I acknowledge that it was the inequalities that helped Callas to achieve certain unique inflections and colorations. And if I was comparing Souliotis to Callas, it was for the purpose of showing Callas as the superior singer/interpretor and Souliotis as something closer to a poor imitation (in _The Metropolitan Opera Guide to Recorded Opera_, Roland Graeme calls Souliotis's Norma "imitation Callas without the genius...next to Callas' supple phrasing, Soultiotis sounds almost amateurish."). While I greatly admire Callas' interpretations and think the natural quality of her voice quite beautiful, I stand by my opinion that, while Callas' technique served _her_ well by allowing her to communicate the drama, it shouldn't be recommended as a _ general model_ for young singers. (By the same token -- Sutherland fan that I am -- I wouldn't recommend that young sopranos emulate Sutherland's style of enunciation.) That's all I was trying to say, and if I said it badly I apologize. I'm now going to bow out of this thread.


I agree. Genius of that order is innate. Let it come naturally or it just ends up sounding like affectation; come what may with the vocal problems down the line. . .

Incidentally, I'm a huge fan of Sutherland too; late fifties to early sixties vintages. Cheers.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I can never quite get this mentality which pits one singer against another. Surely it's great we had Callas, Tebaldi, Sutherland, Price, etc, all giving us great singing in their very different ways. Why do we need to enter of false sense of competition on the issues?


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> I can never quite get this mentality which pits one singer against another. Surely it's great we had Callas, Tebaldi, Sutherland, Price, etc, all giving us great singing in their very different ways. Why do we need to enter of false sense of competition on the issues?


I don't think anyone was pitting any one singer against another, but there is nothing wrong with discussing their relative merits (where they excel and where they don't) nor in stating a preference for one or another.


----------

