# Maria Callas! Why?



## michael walsh (Sep 6, 2009)

Clearly, like Luciano Pavaroti, a one-off. But what makes her special to you? To me, it is her convincing acting ability. She doesn't play the part - she IS the part, the heroine. God bless you, Maria. Thank you. You live in the hearts of those you leave behind.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Yes... She certainly had a brilliant vocal ability at her prime... but there were others who had a greater mastery of their "instrument". However, she brought such an incredible sense of feeling... emotion... passion to the roles... even to roles that may have been dismissed as lightweight (as opposed to Wagner, for example). She is like Glenn Gould... not flawless in any way... but able to wrench far more out of the music in spite of any technical flaws than most others. Her Tosca and Mme. Butterfly still give me goosebumps because the passion they convey is "real".


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Callas was one of the greatest opera singers of the C20th, ranking among the likes of Caruso, Gigli, Tebaldi, Schwarzkopf, Sutherland, Pavorotti, etc. etc...


----------



## classidaho (May 5, 2009)

Callas, like Patricia Pettibon need to be seen to be appreciated.........






This is a must view! , Chuck


----------



## michael walsh (Sep 6, 2009)

Hey, you hijacked my Callas thread, but thanks anyway. I enjoyed that. Total loss of inhibition. I couldn't do it; thank goodness some can.


----------



## fpulsipher (Oct 14, 2009)

A Maria Callas cassette was how I was introduced to opera years ago. She remains very close to my heart.


----------



## BalloinMaschera (Apr 4, 2011)

Yes, I think her voice was not always beautiful, her ability to emote was incredible. While most opera singers attempt to inhabit a character- with her, one got the feeling that the character inhabited her. I think the way that she served her art, remains on many levels peerless.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Amazing. Just amazing. I've been listening back to back to the box set of her 100 best moments (6 CDs) that I got as a gift a few weeks ago.


----------



## harmony (Feb 16, 2011)

Callas was at her best in 1950s and everyone says her as the best bel canto singer to this day.

Isn't there any soprano stand above her? So much time has passed and so many singers have done.

Almost all her recordings are in public domain already and I want to listen new voices surpass her.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

My feelings about Maria Callas are rather contradictory. On the one hand she's definitely not one of my favorite sopranos in terms of how much I like the sound of her voice. On the other hand I always have had a lot of Callas in my collection - I even have that 70cd "The Complete Studio Recordings" set. It's sorta like, I enjoy listening to others more most of the time, but her interpretations are such that for many roles she has sung you don't really completely know the character until you've heard Callas' statement on them. She's an interpretative genius, and there are not many (if any) other singers I'd say that about - including those I like more.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

harmony said:


> Callas was at her best in 1950s and everyone says her as the best bel canto singer to this day.
> 
> Isn't there any soprano stand above her? So much time has passed and so many singers have done.
> 
> Almost all her recordings are in public domain already and I want to listen new voices surpass her.


Well, there are plenty of sopranos with better voice and better technique than Callas, but not many with as much stage presence and acting talent, as well as musicality and a personal sense of interpretation of the role. Voice is very, very important, of course, but is not all. When you put everything together, I'd still say that Maria Callas was the number 1 soprano in recorded opera history, to this day.


----------



## harmony (Feb 16, 2011)

I agree with you.
The "voice" I said does not mean "physical voice" or "beauty or technique of physical sound"
but "interpretation/inspiration".


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

I am a huge fan of the early Callas ( esp 1952 and earlier but even as late as 55) when she had total mastery over her voice and could carry her Wagnerian sized voice all the way up to High E.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caYGRDIBAa0: this aria cannot be bettered!!!!!!!!!!!!! It is coloratura genius.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

classidaho said:


> Callas, like Patricia Pettibon need to be seen to be appreciated.........
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If Callas needed to be seen to be appreciated she would have been forgotten long ago. There is hardly any video evidence of her fabulous stage presence. It is her recorded legacy that keeps her alive, and, anyway, in the words of the eminent critic John Steane, when somebody once said you really need to see her, "Oh, but I can and I do." That is her genius. Every fleeting facial expression is expressed with her voice.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Her biggest asset was her innate musicality, and the way she could act with that multi-coloured voice of hers. So it was never perfectly even from top to bottom, and, even in her earlier days, top notes could be harsh or strident, but the _range_ of emotion it expressed was unparalleled.

People often say her technique let her down, but they are wrong. It was her voice that let her down. Even at the end of her career, in her recording of _Arrigo, ah parli a un core_, she can sing a perfect legato two and a half octave chromatic scale, every note cleanly articulated. The top notes are strident and the lowest slightly hoarse, but the scale itself is perfection. Her technique was incredible, allowing her to render music with a musical accuracy many could not approach. If evidence be required, then just listen to either of her two recordings of the Mad Scene from *I Puritani* (Cetra and EMI). Listen to her amazing legato, perfect use of _portamento_, her brilliantly accurate scale passages and chromatic runs, her prodigious breath control. What is astonishing though is how all these technical niceties are brought to the service of the music and the emotion enshrined therein; the scales aren't just scales they are the sighs of a wounded soul.

She was a unique, a musical genius, one of the greatest _musicians_ of the twentieth century, and I very much doubt we will hear her like again.


----------



## Camillorf (Jul 18, 2014)

I am a little confused. I hear some people say that her interpretative skills were great but her technique was not. I thought that in order to be able to express a range of emotions, one would need a great deal of control over their instrument. How else can you convey emotion if not through a mastery of the technical aspects of singing and then being able to use them at will, and in a musical way, to express something. I could be seriously wrong about this, and if I am please let me know. I am actually curious to find out.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Callas was an amazing diva and is among my favorite singers, but the praise for her on this site has gone far past the line of overkill and is bordering on cult-ish.


----------



## Celloman (Sep 30, 2006)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> Callas was an amazing diva and is among my favorite singers, but the praise for her on this site has gone far past the line of overkill and is bordering on cult-ish.


Yeah, tell me about it. How many people have chosen a picture of her for their avatar?
I've counted at least a dozen. 

Enough already!


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> Callas was an amazing diva and is among my favorite singers, but the praise for her on this site has gone far past the line of overkill and is bordering on cult-ish.


On the contrary, I'd say the eulogies were under rather than over the top. Unfortunately some people are so focused on pearly, sweet sounds, they fail to listen to the music. They constantly praise singers with lovely voices, whilst ignoring their technical defects, their inability to cleanly execute coloratura for instance, to differentiate between staccato and scorzando. Both technically and musically Callas had no peers in the twentieth century, though some I'll admit has more conventionally beautiful voices.

Interestingly nobody berates Sutherland for some of her technical failings because of her stunningly brilliant coloratura and the beauty of her voice on high. But she, like most singers, had her limitations, her droopy portamenti, her weak lower register and her inability to sing words.

A beautiful, perfectly even sound does not necessarily mean a great technique. Tebaldi for instance couldn't execute even the most simple of florid music without aspirating or sounding clumsy. Caballe had no real trill. Be treble isn't much good at anything that needs vocal dexterity and she too can't trill.

So, once agin, I state that Callas was an unparalleled musician. If there are those that can't hear it, then so be it, but there are plenty of musicians, both past and present , who would back me up.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Camillorf said:


> I am a little confused. I hear some people say that her interpretative skills were great but her technique was not. I thought that in order to be able to express a range of emotions, one would need a great deal of control over their instrument. How else can you convey emotion if not through a mastery of the technical aspects of singing and then being able to use them at will, and in a musical way, to express something. I could be seriously wrong about this, and if I am please let me know. I am actually curious to find out.


It was Callas's technical proficiency that enabled her to render the music of such a range of composers with such accuracy. Once again I reiterate that it was her voice that let her down eventually , not her technique.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Celloman said:


> Yeah, tell me about it. How many people have chosen a picture of her for their avatar?
> I've counted at least a dozen.
> 
> Enough already!


I wondered how long it would take you all to start.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Yeah! Stop using Callas as your avatar....ya bunch of queens!


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> Callas was an amazing diva and is among my favorite singers, but the praise for her on this site has gone far past the line of overkill and is bordering on cult-ish.


I refute this entirely.

If you prefer another singer, then so be it, but the enthusiasm for her singing and her performances from many of us on this site is genuinely and sincerely felt, and it derives from a deep and wider-range of knowledge about many aspects of 'clasical' music. I can speak for myself and say that there is no 'cult' for me and I feel confident that (in general) there is no 'cult' even for the most ardent of her fans on this site. 
The highest praise can *deservedly* be lavished on her singing and musicality and her influence has been (and continues to be) enormous - yes, there is a lot of praise, but it is not 'overkill'


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Headphone Hermit said:


> I refute this entirely.
> 
> If you prefer another singer, then so be it, but the enthusiasm for her singing and her performances from many of us on this site is genuinely and sincerely felt, and it derives from a deep and wider-range of knowledge about many aspects of 'clasical' music. I can speak for myself and say that there is no 'cult' for me and I feel confident that (in general) there is no 'cult' even for the most ardent of her fans on this site.
> The highest praise can *deservedly* be lavished on her singing and musicality and her influence has been (and continues to be) enormous - yes, there is a lot of praise, but it is not 'overkill'


Balalaika is right IMO. I don't object to anyone's Callas fandom, but I'm a little concerned that the way anyone who criticises her even slightly gets instantly flamed (you know who you are!) might deter some gentler souls from participating on the opera forum. (Or maybe people are more robust than I give them credit for- let's hope so.) FWIW I don't assume that anyone who criticises _my_ favourite singer is retarded and/or has some kind of sinister agenda- and Callas' superfans shouldn't feel that way either. It can't be good for their blood pressure!

By the way, my point has nothing to do with Callas as an artist, but with the existence of operatic sacred cows generally. On another opera forum, it's Franco Corelli (!) who can't be criticised without provoking a furious denunciation of the heretic. I prefer it when it's Callas!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> Callas was an amazing diva and is among my favorite singers, but the praise for her on this site has gone far past the line of overkill and is bordering on cult-ish.


No one on an opera forum should feel shy or ashamed about expressing love for a singer whose voice and art they love. The human voice is the most expressive of instruments, opera is the most dramatic of art forms, and the greatest practioners of that fantastic hybrid art move and inspire people to the highest enthusiasm. Most of us know this, and most of us experience that enthusiasm; if we didn't we wouldn't be here.

Maria Callas was a singer and artist of unique abilities, a performing artist of the highest calibre, whose accomplishments are not only historic but, at least in their audible aspect, forever enshrined in her numerous recordings, many of them documents of performances in the theater. They give us the incomparable opportunity to hear the art of one of the few singers who have had a profound, far-reaching and lasting impact on the art of musical drama - one of the few practitioners of the art from whom, if we are open and perceptive, we can learn and expand our notions of what is possible.

People love the singers they love for a variety of reasons. The most obvious is the sheer impact of the human voice. Our tastes for the voices of different singers vary, and not everyone enjoys the very distinctive voice of Callas. The difficulties which beset that voice and shortened her career and, we have to think, her life, are well-known. Those who don't care for her voice may choose not to listen to her. But if they do so choose, they will be missing an opportunity to learn things about the art of singing, the art of music, and the art of dramatic interpretation that they will not find demonstrated in such fullness by any other singer.

As a former singer who discovered the recordings of Callas half a century ago, I have never ceased to feel gratitude to her for making me a better musician and bringing inspiration and joy to my life. It is anything but a disservice to anyone who frequents this site that those with a deep understanding of her art keep her vividly present in the consciousness of us all.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

There are two sopranos who have impressed me immensely, and by that I mean that I like all their output. And those two are Maria Callas and Mariella Devia. Mariella Devia seems to get little to no recognition on this site. Of Devia, more qualified persons than I have much praise for her.

From this article:


> At 65, in the 41st year of her career ... Her voice is still incredibly fresh and ductile and does not carry any significant sign of deterioration; her indefectible technique does not show through any rift. The voice runs smoothly and unstrained all along its spectrum, the dynamics are varied and the volume becomes louder and then softer with disarming ease. The coloratura is bright and fluid, the legato outstanding. In one word, this is a miracle. Devia is by far the best lyric coloratura soprano of her generation.


A reasonable assessment IMO comparing Callas and Devia is provided in this article: 


> Callas' voice is nowhere near the perfected instrument of Devia, nor is it as beautiful. Yet, through her imperfections Callas was able to permeate the music she sang with her own personality. Devia does not. She prefers letting the music and her voice speak for themselves. That is not to say that one cannot immediately recognize her work through the unique timbre of her voice or the way she uses it - or that she cannot be an exciting singer but rather that Devia rarely lets a personal agenda enter into her singing. The bottom line is that it is merely a differing set of vocal priorities. Both schools are valid and it really is only a matter of personal preference.


I had a Callas avatar for a while (an Aida cover photo) but since I never warmed up to that opera, I changed it. Maybe I should switch to a Mariella Devia avatar next. But Johnny is going to be around for a long while I think.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

Florestan said:


> There are two sopranos who have impressed me immensely, and by that I mean that I like all their output. And those two are Maria Callas and Mariella Devia. Mariella Devia seems to get little to no recognition on this site. Of Devia, more qualified persons than I have much praise for her.
> 
> From this article:
> 
> ...


Your second long quotation is very interesting, and I agree with it. Mariella Devia sings Adina on a recording of L'ELISIR D'AMORE I have with Roberto Alagna. My immediate thought when I first heard her on that recording (having never heard her before) was something like "technically adept, but not much personality." That opinion still stands.

I'm going to say something now that will probably sound way-out, but here goes: I think that Cheryl Studer and Callas are comparable to some extent. I say this not merely because both sopranos sang an almost impossibly wide repertoire (which probably caused their relatively early burnout), but because of the way they used their techniques and musicianship to find characterization in the music itself. With Studer you can hear this in her recorded Salome (Strauss) with Sinopoli, which is a specific character rather than either a vamp or a generic heroic soprano. I don't claim that the sound of Studer's voice was as distinctive as the sound of Callas's, but as far as her musicianship, mastery of different musical styles, and ability to create specific characters aurally are concerned I feel that she is quite similar to Callas.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

GregMitchell said:


> On the contrary, I'd say the eulogies were under rather than over the top. Unfortunately some people are so focused on pearly, sweet sounds, they fail to listen to the music. They constantly praise singers with lovely voices, whilst ignoring their technical defects, their inability to cleanly execute coloratura for instance, to differentiate between staccato and scorzando. Both technically and musically Callas had no peers in the twentieth century, though some I'll admit has more conventionally beautiful voices.
> 
> Interestingly nobody berates Sutherland for some of her technical failings because of her stunningly brilliant coloratura and the beauty of her voice on high. But she, like most singers, had her limitations, her droopy portamenti, her weak lower register and her inability to sing words.
> 
> ...


I'd beware of using false dichotomies and of making generalizations. Personally, I love tonal beauty _and_ I "listen to the music." _Totally artless_ use of a beautiful voice isn't worth listening to, I agree -- but how many famous singers are or have been totally without art? Few to none, I'd say. (If you've ever seen a singers' master class, you know how much thought goes into an interpretation of even a single aria.) As for Sutherland, it would be too simplistic to suggest that her voice was attractive _only_ on high, or to say that she couldn't sing words. Just last week I was listening to "The Art of the Prima Donna" and noticing how good her enunciation was when compared to some of her later 1960's recordings; there's also that 1959 DON GIOVANNI which is only occasionally "cloudy." And even when she was older she wasn't mush-mouthed all of the time. For example, I was stunned to discover this live recording:






Also, it took me a few minutes to conclude who "be treble" might be, but if it's who I think it is, then I'd like to repeat that old adage about not throwing stones if you live in a glass house. Like or dislike whomever you want, but there's no need to call names.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

*GregMitchell*, *Headphone Hermit*
I think you missed the point. *Figleaf* hit the nail on the head


> By the way, my point has nothing to do with Callas as an artist, but with the existence of operatic sacred cows generally. On another opera forum, it's Franco Corelli (!) who can't be criticised without provoking a furious denunciation of the heretic. I prefer it when it's Callas!


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> *GregMitchell*, *Headphone Hermit*
> I think you missed the point. *Figleaf* hit the nail on the head


No. I think we got the point very well.


----------



## Guest (Apr 23, 2015)

GregMitchell said:


> No. I think we got the point very well.


My version of the point:

The way Maria Callas is talked about here typically makes me think:


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> Callas was an amazing diva and is among my favorite singers, but the praise for her on this site has gone far past the line of overkill and is bordering on cult-ish.


Avoid the Callas Cult.

Practice safe sects.

Go sterility and negation.

Go Cult of Schoenberg.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Morimur said:


> Yeah! Stop using Callas as your avatar....ya bunch of queens!


'Screaming' Queens.

_;D_


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

nathanb said:


> My version of the point:
> 
> The way Maria Callas is talked about here typically makes me think:
> 
> View attachment 68639


The way Callas is kvetched about here typically makes _me_ think: '_ressentiment_' (baldness too).


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

http://www.talkclassical.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=68639



Marschallin Blair said:


> The way Callas is kvetched about here typically makes _me_ think: '_ressentiment_' (baldness too).


I'm happy to say I don't know either of those people.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

^
^ 

Incredible - Schoenberg paints a bleary-eyed Andy Warhol 55 years ahead of schedule.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Maria Callas, not perfect in everything she did, but when she delivered, she could bring down the whole house.

Totally kicks butt!

I will study her later on this year.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

elgars ghost said:


> ^
> ^
> 
> Incredible - Schoenberg paints a bleary-eyed Andy Warhol 55 years ahead of schedule.


"_Art is what you can get away with_"- isn't that right, Andy. . . 'Arnold' I mean.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

nathanb said:


> My version of the point:
> 
> The way Maria Callas is talked about here typically makes me think:
> 
> View attachment 68639


Eva Mendes or is my celebrity detector failing to measure up here?


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Albert7 said:


> Maria Callas, not perfect in everything she did, but when she delivered, she could bring down the whole house.
> 
> Totally kicks butt!
> 
> I will study her later on this year.












Well no, Callas was _not_ perfect in that her perfection made other singers feel_ less_ than perfect.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Albert7 said:


> Eva Mendes or is my celebrity detector failing to measure up here?


No, this one's name is 'Wh*re of Babylon'.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Morimur said:


> No, this one's name is 'Wh*re of Babylon'.


I'd hardly call the hacks, halfwits, and nobodies of Hollywood 'Babylonians.'


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Morimur said:


> No, this one's name is 'Wh*re of Babylon'.


Sorry then I claim ignorance about this personage in question.


----------



## Balthazar (Aug 30, 2014)

Leave Maria alone!!!


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Balthazar said:


> Leave Maria alone!!!


Ummm... Kurt Cobain... wow.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Figleaf said:


> I don't object to anyone's Callas fandom, but I'm a little concerned that the way anyone who criticises her even slightly gets instantly flamed (you know who you are!) might deter some gentler souls from participating on the opera forum.


Perhaps it would be better to direct such a criticism to the individual who deserves it rather than tar us all with the same brush?


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> *GregMitchell*, *Headphone Hermit*
> I think you missed the point. *Figleaf* hit the nail on the head


I got your point precisely as you made it.

I don't have a sacred cow (and nor do I think the vast majority of Callas enthusiasts on this site). If you have an issue with a particular poster, addres that poster rather than casting aspersions at us all, please


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Headphone Hermit said:


> I got your point precisely as you made it.
> I don't have a sacred cow (and nor do I think the vast majority of Callas enthusiasts on this site). If you have an issue with a particular poster, addres that poster rather than casting aspersions at us all, please


but it's not related to any one specific poster. no one poster is enough of a Callas queen to have made me make that point. indeed, this is a _group_ trend, and I have appropriately addressed it as such (I would probably say the same thing of raving Sutherland fans if all of them were as intense about it as me lol).


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> but it's not related to any one specific poster. no one poster is enough of a Callas queen to have made me make that point. indeed, this is a _group_ trend, and I have appropriately addressed it as such (I would probably say the same thing of raving Sutherland fans if all of them were as intense about it as me lol).


The question is how much can we balance out criticism and praise for La Divina here? I mean if we say that we like some things from her and dislike other things from her, will that get one jumped on?


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Balthazar said:


> Leave Maria alone!!!


If Chris said that in earth-quaking platforms and with hair that hit the debt ceiling then I might take him seriously.


----------



## Guest (Apr 24, 2015)

Headphone Hermit said:


> Perhaps it would be better to direct such a criticism to the individual who deserves it rather than tar us all with the same brush?


Considering the fact that this forum's rules punish specific call-outs whilst not punishing the original passive-aggressive (or just aggressive) activity, that simply won't work for now.


----------



## Lt.Belle (Jan 19, 2014)

I've learned to appreciate Callas. And with some experience i can even enjoy some aria's sung by her. In fact i think they are best sung by Callas. I don't know if she's the best singer but i do like her style of singing. I love her voice its truly unique.

Some artists remind me of Callas especially Nelly Miricioiu. I included a link of her singing Roberto Devereux i don't think Callas ever sung but its my latest cd with Opera rara omg i love it so much Nelly is perfect! 





edit: rephrased some words


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Originally Posted by Headphone Hermit:
_"Perhaps it would be better to direct such a criticism to the individual who deserves it rather than tar us all with the same brush?"_



nathanb said:


> Considering the fact that this forum's rules punish specific call-outs whilst not punishing the original passive-aggressive (or just aggressive) activity, that simply won't work for now.


Do it in a PM. If someone annoys you there's no harm in telling them how you feel. It may have no effect, but what's to lose?

Besides, no one is talking about intentionally offensive behavior here, are they?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Go Cult of Schoenberg.

A couple of years back there was the Cult of Ligeti.
Then we had the Cult of Frank Zappa. :lol:
For a while there was the Cult of Varese.
Now...? Stockhausen?

Personally there are a slew of performers by whom I'll listen to almost anything (although this doesn't mean everything they do will be great). Among these are Callas and Schwarzkopf but also Wunderlich, Glenn Gould, von Karajan, Gardiner, Lisa della Casa, Argerich, Anne Sophie Mutter, Anne Sofie von Otter, Andrew Manze, and many others.

And then there's Bach. No cult... because Bach IS God.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Morimur said:


> No, this one's name is 'Wh*re of Babylon'.


You give her far too much credit.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Besides, no one is talking about intentionally offensive behavior here, are they?


exactly. it's a cultural critique


----------



## Guest (Apr 27, 2015)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Among these are Callas and Schwarzkopf but also Wunderlich, Glenn Gould, von Karajan, Gardiner, Lisa della Casa, Argerich, Anne Sophie Mutter, Anne Sofie von Otter, Andrew Manze, and many others.


A solid list! I'm sure mine would also include Fischer-Dieskau, Arditti, Savall, Klemperer, Boulez...


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Albert7 said:


> The question is how much can we balance out criticism and praise for La Divina here?* I mean if we say that we like some things from her and dislike other things from her, will that get one jumped on?*


The short answer is yes- and since she's mentioned very frequently, that's a whole lotta walking on eggshells. We all know difficult, touchy people IRL- my question is, why would any rational person seek them out online as well? I'm increasingly stumped for an answer.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Figleaf said:


> The short answer is yes- and since she's mentioned very frequently, that's a whole lotta walking on eggshells. We all know difficult, touchy people IRL- my question is, why would any rational person seek them out online as well? I'm increasingly stumped for an answer.


I have no problem with reasoned criticism of Callas's voice and technical shortcomings, nor of those who find the sudden deterioration in her voice after the mid-50s a serious barrier to enjoyment. I understand though I may disagree. But I do have a problem with those who question her abilities as a musician. Her musicianship has been praised by a string of musicians from instrumentalists, to conductors to fellow singers, not just by a group of sycophantic fans deaf to her faults. Like most of her true fans, I am fully aware but feel that the genius of her musicianship more than compensates. I accept that for others this may not be the case.

In the words of the great conductor Victor De Sabata, "If the public could understand as we do how deeply musical she is, it would be amazed."


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> I have no problem with reasoned criticism of Callas's voice and technical shortcomings, nor of those who find the sudden deterioration in her voice after the mid-50s a serious barrier to enjoyment. I understand though I may disagree. But I do have a problem with those who question her abilities as a musician. Her musicianship has been praised by a string of musicians from instrumentalists, to conductors to fellow singers, not just by a group of sycophantic fans deaf to her faults. Like most of her true fans, I am fully aware but feel that the genius of her musicianship more than compensates. I accept that for others this may not be the case.
> 
> In the words of the great conductor Victor De Sabata, "If the public could understand as we do how deeply musical7'80&@ she is, it would be amazed."


She could be as good as you say, or even better if that's possible- but it's entirely beside the point. What BalalaikaBoy has observed in his 'cultural critique' of the behaviour of the Callas fans here I agree with every word of. I also increasingly resent having to tiptoe around the opera forum to avoid Callas-related flamings, and I'm not the only one: I've made this point politely a number of times and less politely recently, without any success. I think I'm probably done here: the opera forum here has become hostile, uptight and almost entirely devoid of fun, and I find that I no longer want it in my life.


----------



## Guest (Apr 30, 2015)

Figleaf said:


> She could be as good as you say, or even better if that's possible- but it's entirely beside the point. What BalalaikaBoy has observed in his 'cultural critique' of the behaviour of the Callas fans here I agree with every word of. I also increasingly resent having to tiptoe around the opera forum to avoid Callas-related flamings, and I'm not the only one: I've made this point politely a number of times and less politely recently, without any success. I think I'm probably done here: the opera forum here has become hostile, uptight and almost entirely devoid of fun, and I find that I no longer want it in my life.


Can't say I disagree. Ironically, the most civil thread in this subforum is probably the contemporary opera thread.


----------



## Guest (Apr 30, 2015)

This talk of Callas, of Divas and so on ... I've heard it all before!
http://www.theguardian.com/music/2007/dec/14/classicalmusicandopera1


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The question is how much can we balance out criticism and praise for La Divina here? I mean if we say that we like some things from her and dislike other things from her, will that get one jumped on?



Figleaf said:


> The short answer is yes- and since she's mentioned very frequently, that's a whole lotta walking on eggshells. We all know difficult, touchy people IRL- my question is, why would any rational person seek them out online as well? I'm increasingly stumped for an answer.


The true answer is: not necessarily. But as a geat admirer of Callas, statements such as the following - _your _statement, which I have addressed on another thread - cannot but disturb and offend me:

_The fact that Callas belongs to that decadent era is perhaps why her fans like to emphasise her fidelity to the score and her status as the servant (ugh!) of the composer, as if this was the only way to justify the embarrassing and unworthy worship of a mere singer! No singing enthusiast should have to apologise for their idol in such a cringing manner...She managed to restore some measure of expressivity by acting skilfully with her face and body, which along with charisma and temperament allowed her to evince enough individuality to become a 'star' and avoid the generic dullness of the devalued singer in an age of decline, while simultaneously complying with the ridiculous demands of that era's standards of 'musicianship'.
_

Do you really expect that people with a bit more erudition than yourself will not "jump" on nonsense like this? Or take some umbrage at your portrayal of them as loony fanatics?

Just asking.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> The question is how much can we balance out criticism and praise for La Divina here? I mean if we say that we like some things from her and dislike other things from her, will that get one jumped on?
> 
> The true answer is: not necessarily. But as a geat admirer of Callas, statements such as the following - _your _statement, which I have addressed on another thread - cannot but disturb and offend me:
> 
> ...


Do what you want. I'm out of here.


----------



## Guest (Apr 30, 2015)

For the record, any time I read the name "La Divina" in reference to Callas, I typically stop reading that post right there. Pretty reliable indicator, tbh.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

nathanb said:


> For the record, any time I read the name "La Divina" in reference to Callas, I typically stop reading that post right there. Pretty reliable indicator, tbh.


Also for the record (is the CIA recording this?), _I_ don't call Callas "La Divina", but I have _no_ problem with people who do. Why should I? Such nicknames may seem silly or annoying to some, but they are not really a "reliable indicator" of anything except enthusiasm. It's natural to feel that other people's enthusiasms are excessive. If we didn't, we'd probably share them. But they don't automatically mark those people as completely undeserving of our attention, much less deserving of our scorn.

Arguments about singers are never settled; they've gone on and will go on forever. Some people actually enjoy the back and forth and the heat it can generate (within reason, of course). I say a lot of things on this forum that I get "jumped on" for, but as long as the "jumping" is not personal I will take the response for what it's worth. If I disagree with someone's opinions on a subject, I may say so, and if someone wants to argue a point, I'll either argue or decline to. We all have our levels of tolerance for what we regard as conflict, but certainly it's rare that people's expressions of enthusiasm for a singer are designed to _produce_ conflict. If we allow people's fervently expressed pleasure to upset us, how is that a discredit to them?

In life there will be people whose demeanor annoys us. Quite a few, actually (or maybe that's just my perspective! ). Why would we expect TC to be unlike life in this respect?

What do those disgruntled souls passing judgment on this judgmental thread propose? What should we all do to make their lives more pleasant?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> The true answer is: not necessarily. But as a geat admirer of Callas, statements such as the following - _your _statement, which I have addressed on another thread - cannot but disturb and offend me:
> .




Can I ask why we get offended by discussing a singer. Callas' stage performances were fiction not real life. It's no criticism of anyone on TC. I can't see why folk get offended by this.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Can I ask why we get offended by discussing a singer. Callas' stage performances were fiction not real life. It's no criticism of anyone on TC. I can't see why folk get offended by this.


You mistake my point. The offense I refer to in Figleaf's statement is not the undervaluing of Callas' artistry but the characterization of her fans as unworthy, embarrassing, cringing idol worshipers who don't know what real musicianship is (this from a non-musician, by the way). With the underestimation of the singer's art I merely disagree, and I've explained elsewhere in what ways. To the insulting portrayal of her admirers, however, I object, and on their behalf I protest. Making deprecating remarks about people's enthusiasms just because we don't comprehend or share them is at least bad manners, isn't it?


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

nathanb said:


> For the record, any time I read the name "La Divina" in reference to Callas, I typically stop reading that post right there. Pretty reliable indicator, tbh.


Actually it was the Italians who first coined the phrase La Divina when Callas was the undisputed queen of La Scala. It's something they like to do. Sutherland was dubbed La Stupenda.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> Actually it was the Italians who first coined the phrase La Divina when Callas was the undisputed queen of La Scala. It's something they like to do. Sutherland was dubbed La Stupenda.


You know a culture's in decline when people are punished for their virtues instead of praised for them.

_Viva l'Italia!_


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Also for the record (is the CIA recording this?), _I_ don't call Callas "La Divina", but I have _no_ problem with people who do. Why should I? Such nicknames may seem silly or annoying to some, but they are not really a "reliable indicator" of anything except enthusiasm. It's natural to feel that other people's enthusiasms are excessive. If we didn't, we'd probably share them. But they don't automatically mark those people as completely undeserving of our attention, much less deserving of our scorn.
> 
> Arguments about singers are never settled; they've gone on and will go on forever. Some people actually enjoy the back and forth and the heat it can generate (within reason, of course). I say a lot of things on this forum that I get "jumped on" for, but as long as the "jumping" is not personal I will take the response for what it's worth. If I disagree with someone's opinions on a subject, I may say so, and if someone wants to argue a point, I'll either argue or decline to. We all have our levels of tolerance for what we regard as conflict, but certainly it's rare that people's expressions of enthusiasm for a singer are designed to _produce_ conflict. If we allow people's fervently expressed pleasure to upset us, how is that a discredit to them?
> 
> ...


Presumably to abjure vivid self expression, to expound no opinions, and to die.

To this 'Audacity of Hope' I can only reply with the 'Audacity of Nope.'


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

nathanb said:


> For the record, any time I read the name "La Divina" in reference to Callas, I typically stop reading that post right there. Pretty reliable indicator, tbh.


As reliable an indicator as Hans Johst saying that, "When I hear the world 'culture' I reach for my gun."


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

Calling Callas "La Divina" is as cringe-inducing as calling Shakespeare "The Bard"

...and its always accompanied by hyperbole


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

SimonNZ said:


> Calling Callas "La Divina" is as cringe-inducing as calling Shakespeare "The Bard"
> 
> ...and its always accompanied by hyperbole


Yeah, no less a literary eminence than Count Tolstoy himself thought that Shakespeare was inflated nonsense on stilts- but then, his standard of literary excellence was _Uncle Tom's Cabin_.

- One should always consider the analytical rigor of the argument and not the provenance of the source.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> A couple of years back there was the Cult of Ligeti.
> Then we had the Cult of Frank Zappa. :lol:
> For a while there was the Cult of Varese.
> Now...? Stockhausen?
> ...


These things weren't cults. One or two members had enthusiasms that encouraged others to do a little more investigating. It was good-natured and take or leave as much as you want, and passed when people were done investigating. Its useful to have these passing whims.

The Bach thing is interesting because it highlights the difference with the Callas-worship: for a while the Bach enthusiasts had a thread where they gave all the humorous reasons why he was the Worst Composer Ever. Can you imagine the Callas fanatics having the humour to do the same?

As I've said before I don't mind Callas, but the near-religion has turned me off completely.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Yeah, no less a literary eminence than Count Tolstoy himself thought that Shakespeare was inflated nonsense on stilts- but then, his standard of literary excellence was _Uncle Tom's Cabin_.
> 
> - One should always consider the analytical rigor of the argument and not the provenance of the source.


I always enjoy reading your chinese-whisper style free-associations, but they don't serve as a rebuttal.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

SimonNZ said:


> These things weren't cults. One or two members had enthusiasms that encouraged others to do a little more investigating. It was good-natured and take or leave as much as you want, and passed when people were done investigating. Its useful to have these passing whims.
> 
> The Bach thing is interesting because it highlights the difference with the Callas-worship: for a while the Bach enthusiasts had a thread where they gave all the humorous reasons why he was the Worst Composer Ever. Can you imagine the Callas fanatics having the humour to do the same?
> 
> As I've said before I don't mind Callas, but the near-religion has turned me off completely.


You clearly haven't read any of Greg Mitchell's searching critical exegeses on Maria Callas, or Woodduck's, or RES's, or. . .

Is it the """near religion""" of Callas appreciation that turns you off, of just the fact that some people enjoy what others are incapable of?

Because when 'I' think of """near religion,""" the first person who comes to 'my' mind is St. Boulez. . . or at least some of his more starry-eyed followers.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

Actually I very much admire the analysis that Greg takes the time to include on Current Listening.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

SimonNZ said:


> I always enjoy reading your chinese-whisper style free-associations, but they don't serve as a rebuttal.


Yes, but the beggarly dialectician always refutes himself anyway- so what's left for me to do?


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

SimonNZ said:


> Actually I very much admire the analysis that Greg takes the time to include on Current Listening.


There's always hope.

Perhaps the joy will spread.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SimonNZ said:


> Calling Callas "La Divina" is as cringe-inducing as calling Shakespeare "The Bard"
> 
> ...and its always accompanied by hyperbole


Nicknames of praise such as "La Divina," "La Superba, "La Stupenda," and "La" anything, have always been common in opera. If they seem like relics of an earlier era, they are - and so is "The Bard," and so, to a great extent, is opera. It's probably not coincidental that for many people today, opera itself is "cringe-inducing hyperbole."

Well, that is their cross to bear. I always wonder at the modern impulse to sneer at the sensibilities of former times, particularly at the grander emotions, and most particularly at the heroic - at human aspirations to greatness - as if such things were somehow not to be believed or trusted or, therefore, permitted to exist without being subjected to cynical scorn and disparagement. If it's true that the minutiae of everyday life in the modern world rarely call upon those more intense feelings and aspirations, that seems to me all the more reason for a larger-than-life art such as opera to remind us that life iself can sometimes be larger than life.

Shakespeare is actually a pretty fine example of a phenomenon "larger than life." May "The Bard of Avon" - and "La" anyone you please - live on.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Originally Posted by Headphone Hermit:
> _"Perhaps it would be better to direct such a criticism to the individual who deserves it rather than tar us all with the same brush?"_
> 
> Do it in a PM. If someone annoys you there's no harm in telling them how you feel. It may have no effect, but what's to lose?
> ...


Indeed, there is a huge difference between a criticism of a personage that a person is a fan of versus an actual ad hominem attack.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Nicknames of praise such as "La Divina," "La Superba, "La Stupenda," and "La" anything, have always been common in opera. If they seem like relics of an earlier era, they are - and so is "The Bard," and so, to a great extent, is opera. It's probably not coincidental that for many people today, opera itself is "cringe-inducing hyperbole."
> 
> Well, that is their cross to bear. I always wonder at the modern impulse to sneer at the sensibilities of former times, particularly at the grander emotions, and most particularly at the heroic - at human aspirations to greatness - as if such things were somehow not to be believed or trusted or, therefore, permitted to exist without being subjected to cynical scorn and disparagement. If it's true that the minutiae of everyday life in the modern world rarely call upon those more intense feelings and aspirations, that seems to me all the more reason for a larger-than-life art such as opera to remind us that life iself can sometimes be larger than life.
> 
> Shakespeare is actually a pretty fine example of a phenomenon larger than life. May "The Bard of Avon" - and "La" anyone you please - live on.


"Most of my heroes don't appear on no stamps..."

I don't worship anyone honestly. Even the greatest person as determined by popular vote is a mere human at best.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Nicknames of praise such as "La Divina," "La Superba, "La Stupenda," and "La" anything, have always been common in opera. If they seem like relics of an earlier era, they are - and so is "The Bard," and so, to a great extent, is opera.


Callas is dead. Opera isn't.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

nathanb said:


> Callas is dead. Opera isn't.


Callas echoes in eternity. Boulez echoes in a chamber pot.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2015)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Callas echoes in eternity. Boulez echoes in a chamber pot.


Why are you bringing up Boulez?


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

nathanb said:


> Why are you bringing up Boulez?


To highlight the difference between musical genius and musical imposture. Why?

Greatness lives forever. Fads are 'here today, gone later today.'


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2015)

Marschallin Blair said:


> To highlight the difference between musical genius and musical imposture. Why?
> 
> Greatness lives forever. Fads are 'here today, gone later today.'


Do you know her IQ offhand? (Source, please)

I can't think of another way to objectively support a word like "genius".


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The Bach thing is interesting because it highlights the difference with the Callas-worship: for a while the Bach enthusiasts had a thread where they gave all the humorous reasons why he was the Worst Composer Ever. Can you imagine the Callas fanatics having the humour to do the same?

This is an interesting observation. What do we make fun of - what _should_ we make fun of - and why? Without wanting to tackle the whole scope of the question, I think there is a difference between satirizing one of the most universally esteemed composers in history and an operatic soprano who, though almost universally acknowledged to be preeminent in her field, remains a very human object of affection, controversy, and, among her detractors, something oddly like hatred.

The difference, as I see it, is simple: Bach is no longer an object of contention, and as a person he is remote from us. As an artist and as a man, he needs no defense. He is completely and permanently invulnerable. Nothing we can say about him affects anything or anyone in the slightest. He is simply too big for any satire, parody or joke to be taken as an insult by any reasonable person. The same can be said for almost any grand figure of history - and therefore such figures are easily, and often, the objects of humor. But a person of recent times, who lived within the lifetimes of many of us, whose career was a triumph against personal odds, and whose premature loss of that career and early death were truly tragic, must be approached with more thought and discretion, and understandably inspires in people feelings of a personal nature - often, in her case, feelings of compassion and tragic loss - which they cannot feel when confronted with a figure who is long since a monument of Western civilization.

This isn't to say that one cannot properly laugh at such a person. One can laugh at the foibles of anyone, emphatically including oneself. That's healthy - within reason. The Callas fans I know easily find stories about her personal behavior amusing. But I don't think it would be odd if those who know much of her life and career, and who experience the strangely persistent hostility to her and, let's admit it, resentment of her preeminence, would be a little cautious about joining in attempts at outright mockery.

Having said that, I offer a delicious and ridiculous parody of Act 2 of _Tosca_ for the pleasure of anyone acquainted with the classic film, starring Callas and Gobbi, made at Covent Garden in 1964. And for anyone unacquainted with that document, I simply urge you to see it. If you don't know what the big deal about Callas is, you will.

The original: 




The also highly original:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

nathanb said:


> Callas is dead. Opera isn't.


Hate to break it to you, but she's going to outlive all of us.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Hate to break it to you, but she's going to outlive all of us.


You don't find it ironic that people just denied that Callas has become a religion around here? The only person that gets more of _this_ kind of talk than Callas is Mr. Christ himself...


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Hate to break it to you, but she's going to outlive all of us.


Where, where, I want an autograph!! :lol:


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

nathanb said:


> Do you know her IQ offhand? (Source, please)
> 
> I can't think of another way to objectively support a word like "genius".


With alacrity:









_
Si monumentum requiris, circumspice.

_


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Hate to break it to you, but she's going to outlive all of us.


Infinitely and endlessly.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> And then there's Bach. No cult... because Bach IS God.




I think the first person to disagree with that would have been a certain J S Bach!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I must admit is does amaze me this cult thing. Musicians, singers, etc are entertainers. Like footballers. I remember some fan saying of a young Wayne Rooney that "Rooney is God!" Are we getting down to that level? (Actually the 'God' i.e. Rooney limped off during the first half of the game!) These people - singers, actors, sportsmen, etc) are there to entertain us and we can be grateful for the artistry of the great ones. But let's be careful of what is almost tantamount to worship. Callas was certainly a great artist. But as a woman she was considerably less successful - something like Marilyn Monroe - worshipped as an icon while her own life was falling apart. Do I admire their art? Yes! Do I worship at the shrine? No!


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

nathanb said:


> Callas is dead. Opera isn't.


But actually she isn't. Like most great artists, her legacy lives on, and will survive both you and me. I wager that one hundred years from now, if we haven't completely destroyed our planet, people will still be discussing and debating her greatness. Malibran, Pasta and Rubini existed before the existence of recorded sound, but their names still resonate amongst opera lovers, as do the names of Paganini and Moscheles amongst instrumentalists.

Great artists do not die.


----------



## Cesare Impalatore (Apr 16, 2015)

There is a reason why we called Maria Callas divine and it has nothing to do with some kitschy-romantic conception of opera. As competent people already pointed out earlier in this thread, Callas' charisma, subtle acting abilities, emotional appeal etc. were not abstract from or even in contrast with her vocal technique (as some mystics and pseudo-critics suggest) but precisely resulted out of her incredibly rich, masterful vocal artistry.

Then of course we have those really unique, special kind of moments in history which elevate few artists into the pantheon of the all time greats, Callas' Aida in Mexico 1951 falls into this category:


----------



## Polyphemus (Nov 2, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Hate to break it to you, but she's going to outlive all of us.


Good trick for a corpse.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Polyphemus said:


> Good trick for a corpse.


----------



## Polyphemus (Nov 2, 2011)

GregMitchell said:


>


Well can you see her ?


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2015)

GregMitchell said:


> But actually she isn't.


Actually she is.



GregMitchell said:


> Her legacy lives on


That may be true, but that is not the same thing as the person is it.



GregMitchell said:


> Great artists do not die.


They do; everyone dies.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Polyphemus said:


> Well can you see her ?


Every time I hear her!

Of course if you're going to be literal, then no. But the great artists, musicians, composers, writers, architects _all_ live on through their work and the memories of those that saw them, so, yes, in a sense, we can see them.

Steadfastly refusing to see the point does you no favours. Can we see Shakespeare or Bach or Beethoven? No. But they have outlived and will continue to outlive us, whether you like it or not. You cannot reduce great artists to the corporal. They are not immortal in the literal sense. Nobody is. But they are immortal in every other way.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

I don't like sides in Art.

And even in more general terms, just as Bob Dylan (just to use a non-classical composer) said, "I'm always on the outside of wathever side there was".

So, I'm not taking sides here, just sharing my opinion, and my personal experience.

"La Divina" is a nickname that was used several times before Callas, for other singers. In the 20th century, it was first applied to the Italian soprano Claudia Muzio:






I love Muzio's singing. As much as I love Callas's. And, yes, I'm perfectly aware of Muzio's shortcomings. I have a serviceable pair of ears at my disposal, and some musical education, and I could write a small (or not so small) essay on the defects of her singing.

But this is not the point here. Human voice can have a powerful impact on other human beings. The artistry of a singer can, by means of her technique, her natural gifts, her expressiveness,... literally bewitch some listeners. And bewitch them in a live performance, or in a recording from the grave. And that's the reason, I think, why some people feel so concerned about criticism directed to their favorite singer(s).

I'm not ashamed to share with you that I have visited Ms. Muzio's tomb twice ("La sua voce divina le genti d'ogni remoto paese amalió. Messagera di grazia, di forza, di luce, d'arte. Gli amici memori"), left some flowers, and was deeply moved, even if I'm not really an emotional guy.

Maria Callas was a great artist, and of course there are many people that feel strongly about her, and her legacy. The point, in my view, is that these people need to understand that other people can have a different view, share that view, and then we can civilly discuss about it. But also let's recognize that most people love Maria Callas because of her art, and her musicianship, and they are not a bunch of groupies.

If we can do that, I guess everything's fine.


----------



## Polyphemus (Nov 2, 2011)

GregMitchell said:


> Every time I hear her!
> 
> Of course if you're going to be literal, then no. But the great artists, musicians, composers, writers, architects _all_ live on through their work and the memories of those that saw them, so, yes, in a sense, we can see them.
> 
> Steadfastly refusing to see the point does you no favours. Can we see Shakespeare or Bach or Beethoven? No. But they have outlived and will continue to outlive us, whether you like it or not. You cannot reduce great artists to the corporal. They are not immortal in the literal sense. Nobody is. But they are immortal in every other way.


Thank you for making my point for me. There is no doubt that Callas was talented and had an enormous following. To be honest at this point I confess I have no liking whatsoever for opera which seems to have been her chosen field. I am unaware of any recordings of her singing a Mass, Requiem, Stabat Mater, Te Deum etc which I do love. I am also fairly sure she recorded no Mahler.
I would hold Heifetz in similar esteem as you do Callas and like yourself have the ability to see them on DVD etc but I never saw him live. I have seen many of the great conductors live Haitink, Chailly, Jansons, Previn etc, but none of them are more than hugely talented musicians. 
What really gets my goat though is the deification process that these people are somehow elevated to a higher status and are treated in a fashion that raises them above the Hoi Polloi. These people are in fact extremely lucky they have reached the top of their chosen profession and managed to stay there in perhaps the most fickle industry known to man. But are they any better than the scientist who comes up with cure for a disease or the teams of Doctors and nurses who went to the Ebola outbreak in West Africa, I think not.
I think, perhaps Haitink sums it up best when he publicly condemns the 'cult of Mahler', recognising that Mahler wrote fantastic music but he was no god and while his music will live on Mahler like the rest of us was a flawed human being.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Polyphemus said:


> Thank you for making my point for me. There is no doubt that Callas was talented and had an enormous following. To be honest at this point I confess I have no liking whatsoever for opera which seems to have been her chosen field. I am unaware of any recordings of her singing a Mass, Requiem, Stabat Mater, Te Deum etc which I do love. I am also fairly sure she recorded no Mahler.
> I would hold Heifetz in similar esteem as you do Callas and like yourself have the ability to see them on DVD etc but I never saw him live. I have seen many of the great conductors live Haitink, Chailly, Jansons, Previn etc, but none of them are more than hugely talented musicians.
> What really gets my goat though is the deification process that these people are somehow elevated to a higher status and are treated in a fashion that raises them above the Hoi Polloi. These people are in fact extremely lucky they have reached the top of their chosen profession and managed to stay there in perhaps the most fickle industry known to man. But are they any better than the scientist who comes up with cure for a disease or the teams of Doctors and nurses who went to the Ebola outbreak in West Africa, I think not.
> I think, perhaps Haitink sums it up best when he publicly condemns the 'cult of Mahler', recognising that Mahler wrote fantastic music but he was no god and while his music will live on Mahler like the rest of us was a flawed human being.


Well said. I am all for holding the talents of great artists in esteem but that does not make them better than other people. I admire Heifetz's violin playing but (to quote Andre Previn) he was "a lot less god-like when he put his violin down." Some of the stories that have emanated in the way he treated other people do not make for good reading. He was a supremely successful violinist but a much less successful human being. The same can be said of a lot of artists. They have had the good fortune to be (a lot) more talented than the rest of us but that does not afford giving them god-like status when they were human beings as full of flaws as (and often more flawed than) as the rest of us in their private lives.


----------



## silentio (Nov 10, 2014)

schigolch said:


> I don't like sides in Art.
> 
> And even in more general terms, just as Bob Dylan (just to use a non-classical composer) said, "I'm always on the outside of wathever side there was".
> 
> ...


Yay, well done schigolch! I love Muzio too. She is apparently the only female singer of the golden age I can fully enjoy as a singer and an artist, not just for the sake of collecting historical performances.

I have two Divinas


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Polyphemus said:


> Thank you for making my point for me. There is no doubt that Callas was talented and had an enormous following. To be honest at this point I confess I have no liking whatsoever for opera which seems to have been her chosen field. I am unaware of any recordings of her singing a Mass, Requiem, Stabat Mater, Te Deum etc which I do love. I am also fairly sure she recorded no Mahler.
> I would hold Heifetz in similar esteem as you do Callas and like yourself have the ability to see them on DVD etc but I never saw him live. I have seen many of the great conductors live Haitink, Chailly, Jansons, Previn etc, but none of them are more than hugely talented musicians.
> What really gets my goat though is the deification process that these people are somehow elevated to a higher status and are treated in a fashion that raises them above the Hoi Polloi. These people are in fact extremely lucky they have reached the top of their chosen profession and managed to stay there in perhaps the most fickle industry known to man. But are they any better than the scientist who comes up with cure for a disease or the teams of Doctors and nurses who went to the Ebola outbreak in West Africa, I think not.
> I think, perhaps Haitink sums it up best when he publicly condemns the 'cult of Mahler', recognising that Mahler wrote fantastic music but he was no god and while his music will live on Mahler like the rest of us was a flawed human being.


This is where we differ. I feel that great art is as important to life as science. There are some artists who are above the hoi-poloi. They are not just lucky to have made it to the top. They have that indefinable something that makes them different. They are interpretive geniuses and something of their art touches people in a way that you or I cannot dream of doing, and this is what makes them special. The deification of such people worries me not one jot. In fact I find it uplifting that art can still inspire such passions. On the contrary what I find dispiriting in our present day society is the way we seek to reduce everything to the ordinary, to the mundane.

Ian McKellen once said that today's actors go out of their way to prove that they are just like the rest of us, whereas someone like Olivier reveled in his _extra_ordinariness, and he felt that, as a result, we had lost something. I can't but agree.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Well said. I am all for holding the talents of great artists in esteem but that does not make them better than other people. I admire Heifetz's violin playing but (to quote Andre Previn) he was "a lot less god-like when he put his violin down." Some of the stories that have emanated in the way he treated other people do not make for good reading. He was a supremely successful violinist but a much less successful human being. The same can be said of a lot of artists. They have had the good fortune to be (a lot) more talented than the rest of us but that does not afford giving them god-like status when they were human beings as full of flaws as (and often more flawed than) as the rest of us in their private lives.


And I disagree with just about every word of this post. See my response to Polyphemus below.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

silentio said:


> Yay, well done schigolch! I love Muzio too. She is apparently the only female singer of the golden age I can fully enjoy as a singer and an artist, not just for the sake of collecting historical performances.
> 
> I have two Divinas


I have one or two others. Ponselle and Leider come to mind.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

DavidA said:


> I admire Heifetz's violin playing but (to quote Andre Previn) he was "a lot less god-like when he put his violin down." Some of the stories that have emanated in the way he treated other people do not make for good reading. He was a supremely successful violinist but a much less successful human being. The same can be said of a lot of artists.


firstly, the above mentioned 'stories' were and are brought to us by the mass media, which is as reliable as old ladies gossip; secondly, artists aren't supposed to be saints; their god-like status comes from there successful performance, while their private life is none of our business.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

GregMitchell said:


> This is where we differ. I feel that great art is as important to life as science. There are some artists who are above the hoi-poloi. They are not just lucky to have made it to the top. They have that indefinable something that makes them different. They are interpretive geniuses and something of their art touches people in a way that you or I cannot dream of doing, and this is what makes them special. The deification of such people worries me not one jot. In fact I find it uplifting that art can still inspire such passions. On the contrary what I find dispiriting in our present day society is the way we seek to reduce everything to the ordinary, to the mundane.
> 
> Ian McKellen once said that today's actors go out of their way to prove that they are just like the rest of us, whereas someone like Olivier reveled in his _extra_ordinariness, and he felt that, as a result, we had lost something. I can't but agree.


What do you suppose McKellen meant when he said that Olivier reveled in his extra-ordinariness? That is to say: How, precisely, did he do that?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

GregMitchell said:


> And I disagree with just about every word of this post. See my response to Polyphemus below.


Sorry Greg but my old dad who did his bit (5 years under fire) in the 8th army during the war, came back, got over shell shock (without counselling) and held a job down, loved his wife while raising a family, is far more of a hero to me than any of the stars you can mention. I'm glad he was my dad and not Heifetz!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

GregMitchell said:


> This is where we differ. I feel that great art is as important to life as science.


Next time you're ill, go to the opera rather than the doctor!


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Next time you're ill, go to the opera rather than the doctor!


And when the doctor can do no more, he may well suggest a trip to the opera. He might be able to attend to the physical. The spiritual is something he might have a little more difficulty with.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I admit to a suspicion. If I were dying of thirst and starvation in the desert, I might be willing to trade away a whole lot of "great art" for a shake and a juicy hamburger.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

I am appalled by the bitterness and rancour expressed in this thread. It makes me wish to avoid this 'community'

I love Callas' singing. Her performances are often wonderful, her characterisation is supreme, her technical ability and insight into the music is awesome, her music-making brings increadible pleasure to my life. But I categorically deny that I am a member of any form of cult. I am disinterested in how she dressed, what her lifestyle was like, etc etc. For me, she is an iconic singer and I admire her for that and for her impact on recorded music and in re-introducing a number of works into the repertoire. Is she a 'good' person .... quite frankly, I don't care very much at all.
So, please stop slinging mud at those, like me, who are genuine, keen, ardent enthusiasts of her singing and simply accept that some have an enthusism that you don't share
Please?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

GregMitchell said:


> And when the doctor can do no more, he may well suggest a trip to the opera. He might be able to attend to the physical. The spiritual is something he might have a little more difficulty with.


Sorry but Opera is not spiritual. It is entertainment.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Headphone Hermit said:


> I am appalled by the bitterness and rancour expressed in this thread. It makes me wish to avoid this 'community'
> 
> I love Callas' singing. Her performances are often wonderful, her characterisation is supreme, her technical ability and insight into the music is awesome, her music-making brings increadible pleasure to my life. But I categorically deny that I am a member of any form of cult. I am disinterested in how she dressed, what her lifestyle was like, etc etc. For me, she is an iconic singer and I admire her for that and for her impact on recorded music and in re-introducing a number of works into the repertoire. Is she a 'good' person .... quite frankly, I don't care very much at all.
> So, please stop slinging mud at those, like me, who are genuine, keen, ardent enthusiasts of her singing and simply accept that some have an enthusism that you don't share
> Please?


It is not a matter of rancour. It is a matter of prioritising. The fact is you can be a keen Callas fan without worshipping her like something she wasn't. Let's get the facts - on the stage she (like every actor) was dealing with fiction not fact. Let's not get it out of proportion. It's escapism we are dealing with!


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Sorry but Opera is not spiritual. It is entertainment.


Maybe that's the case for you! Personally I couldn't live without music. Sure I could exist, but that's not living.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

"Opera is not spiritual. It is entertainment. It's escapism we are dealing with! Musicians, singers, etc are entertainers. Like footballers. But let's be careful of what is almost tantamount to worship."

I have to wonder exactly what the writer of these remarks would have us be careful of. Too much enjoyment of life, perhaps?

I also have to wonder at the confidence with which the writer would presume to tell the great creative artists of world history that the visions of beauty they gave their lives to, often at great sacrifice of the the things the rest of us consider necessary to our mundane existence, were not "spiritual" and amounted to mere "escapism."

The artist knows how exacting is the work to which he sacrifices so much. He knows how much of himself he puts into it, in the hope that some substantial part of the powers of spirit which are given him to embody in sensuous form will be comprehensible to others who will see and hear what he has done. You cannot go to a person who has devoted his life to art and presume to inform him that his work is not "spiritual." Neither can you tell him that his deep appreciation and ecstatic experience of the art of another is an "escape" from life. The enrichment of life is not an escape from it. Maria Callas said that her art was justified only if it could give people something greater than their everyday lives could provide. She worked hard to live up to her ideal, and she need not have feared for her own contribution to the enrichment of countless lives.

Those whose notion of the "spiritual" is acquired from ancient books, dogmas and rites are welcome to seek it there. But I don't define the realm of spirit by such things. For me, as an artist and lover of the arts in many forms, the experience of art is profoundly spiritual, and has been so from my earliest remembered years. It has occupied the greater part of such time and attention as I've been able to free from mundane concerns. I cannot even conceive of the person I would have been without it, and I thank all those artists profoundly whose inspirations and insights have helped me to feel what I have felt, think what I have thought, and be who I am. The gratitude I feel is simply a natural and inevitable part of living. If that gratitude is "tantamount to worship," I say: "Amen."


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

Bellinilover said:


> What do you suppose McKellen meant when he said that Olivier reveled in his extra-ordinariness? That is to say: How, precisely, did he do that?


*GregMitchell:* The above question, by the way, is a genuine question; it wasn't meant to be sarcastic or "baiting."

What you, or McKellan, were saying is that Olivier didn't try to act for the public like an "ordinary guy" (like artists tend to do today), because in fact his talent and lifestyle _weren't_ ordinary -- is that right? And you're also saying that you wish more artists nowadays carried themselves this way, and that Callas herself did? I honestly don't know what to make of that, nor do I know what Callas was _actually_ like in real life (the media has portrayed her as aloof and even difficult, but was she really this way?). However, I will say two things I think might be relevant, somehow. The first is something I remember hearing Richard Bonynge say shortly after his wife, Joan Sutherland, died. He said something to the effect, of, "I don't believe she was ever fully aware how magnificent (i.e. how magnificent a singer) she really was" -- implying that Sutherland herself was rather unassuming and not the popular image of a "diva." The other happens to concern Olivier's contemporary John Gielgud. In talking about himself once, Gielgud was listing things he didn't do well, which included card games and sports; he then added, "I'm really very incompetent in many ways." I just thought it was interesting that this great actor considered not being able to do things that "common" people do a defect of some kind.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

This question isn't motivated by anti-Callas feeling (as I've said I like her, but not to the degree some other do), but a request for information or clarification:

Whenever I read opera or vocal singers cite _their_ favorite singers, or give desert island lists or talk about influences I seldom see Callas' name mentioned, at least certainly not proportionate to the "pre-eminance" that is commonly refered to on TC.

Why would this be?


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

SimonNZ said:


> This question isn't motivated by anti-Callas feeling (as I've said I like her, but not to the degree some other do), but a request for information or clarification:
> 
> Whenever I read opera or vocal singers cite _their_ favorite singers, or give desert island lists or talk about influences I seldom see Callas' name mentioned, at least certainly not proportionate to the "pre-eminance" that is commonly refered to on TC.
> 
> Why would this be?


I've actually seen Callas mentioned as an influence quite a few times by sopranos of the bel-canto/coloratura type.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

I haven't so much, but if a number of others who doubtless have done more reading on the subject than I say that they have, then I'm quite prepared to accept that I'm not looking in the right places.

But is this so? I mean to the extent that I see Fischer Dieskau spoken of as an influence or desert island listening by other singers?


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

SimonNZ said:


> I haven't so much, but if a number of others who doubtless have done more reading on the subject than I say that they have, then I'm quite prepared to accept that I'm not looking in the right places.
> 
> But is this so? I mean to the extent that I see Fischer Dieskau spoken of as an influence or desert island listening by other singers?


When I've seen Callas' name mentioned as an influence by coloratura/bel canto sopranos of recent times, it's usually mentioned in tandem with names like Sutherland and Caballe. I think the idea is that no _one_ of those singers had _every_ desirable quality, but taken together they represent the full range of what is possible in bel canto, at least for the soprano voice.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> "Opera is not spiritual. It is entertainment. It's escapism we are dealing with! Musicians, singers, etc are entertainers. Like footballers. But let's be careful of what is almost tantamount to worship."
> 
> I have to wonder exactly what the writer of these remarks would have us be careful of. Too much enjoyment of life, perhaps?
> 
> ...


Sorry your existence is "mundane" (your word). Mine certainly isn't. While art certainly enriches my life it is certainly not everything to me. Yesterday I took my grandchildren out for tea and that provided me with an experience far greater and richer than listening to any opera singer could. That doesn't mean I don't appreciate Callas et al. But there are some things in my life that are far more enriching. 
As to the spiritual I think you have set the bar vastly too low if you think that the spiritual is just ancient books, dogmas and rites. I am thankful that the arts (especially music) have enriched my life. Just there are things that enrich it more .


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

sharik said:


> firstly, the above mentioned 'stories' were and are brought to us by the mass media, which is as reliable as old ladies gossip; secondly, artists aren't supposed to be saints; their god-like status comes from there successful performance, while their private life is none of our business.


Not correct. They were recounted by people who knew him. And because someone is talented - whether singer, instrumentalist, actor, sportsman - it does not give them a god-like status.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Not correct. They were recounted by people who knew him. And because someone is talented - whether singer, instrumentalist, actor, sportsman - it does not give them a god-like status.


Well, I don't know--I'll admit that there are some musicians of my acquaintance who sort of remind me of Bacchus.


----------



## Guest (May 2, 2015)

Blancrocher said:


> Well, I don't know--I'll admit that there are some musicians of my acquaintance who sort of remind me of Bacchus.


Probably brass players?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

TalkingHead said:


> Probably brass players?


Had a friend whose father played in a leading London orchestra. The drinking that went on (in those days at least) was quite phenomenal. Her dad used to come home drunk after a concert and knock her and her mother about which led to the home breaking up. Hence she wasn't too keen on her kids learning music!


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

SimonNZ said:


> I haven't so much, but if a number of others who doubtless have done more reading on the subject than I say that they have, then I'm quite prepared to accept that I'm not looking in the right places.
> 
> But is this so? I mean to the extent that I see Fischer Dieskau spoken of as an influence or desert island listening by other singers?


Callas was admired by a great deal of singers, particularly sopranos. Caballe worshiped her, thanking her for opening doors to a whole world of forgotten music. Ricciarelli once admonished people not to believe a singer who didn't listen to Callas. I paraphrase but her words were something like this

"_All_ sopranos pour out the orange juice and coffee in the morning and put a Callas record on to try and understand just how she did what she did."

June Anderson reckoned she was the greatest soprano of the twentieth century.

I have seen her name mentioned in interview by Gheorghiu, Fleming, Netrebko, Cotrubas, Bumbry (who talks at length about Callas's fidelity to the printed score), Bartoli, Arroyo, Bergonzi, Dessay, Malfitano, Podles. Schwarzkopf admired her enormously, and talks about her at length in her memoir of Walter Legge "On and Off the Record". Jon Vickers said the two names that created the greatest revolution in opera after the war were Wieland Wagner and Callas. When asked what were the highest points in his career, he said, "I have sung with Callas."

Even Scotto, who was slightly bitchy about the way Callas behaved to her during the recording of *Medea* (Scotto had just replaced her in Edinburgh in *La Sonnambula*, remember), goes on at length about Callas's mastery of the forgotten art of _portamento_ and how she used to attend, when she was a young singer at La Scala, every one of Callas's performances to drink in and learn from her.

So yes, I'd say it was so.

Not only singers by the way. Conductors too often spoke highly of her; Serafin of course, but also Giulini, Karajan, Bernstein, De Sabata, Gavazzeni. And instrumentalists too. Claudio Arrau, who would make his students listen to Callas singing Bellini to help them understand how to phrase Chopin. Victoria Mullova, who said her greatest discovery on coming to the West was the art of Callas. "God, that woman taught me so much about phrasing!"

But don't take my word for it. Wikipedia has a selection of quotes here

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Maria_Callas

She was never a canary fancier's favourite, but a musician's singer, yes.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Bellinilover said:


> *GregMitchell:* The above question, by the way, is a genuine question; it wasn't meant to be sarcastic or "baiting."
> 
> What you, or McKellan, were saying is that Olivier didn't try to act for the public like an "ordinary guy" (like artists tend to do today), because in fact his talent and lifestyle _weren't_ ordinary -- is that right? And you're also saying that you wish more artists nowadays carried themselves this way, and that Callas herself did? I honestly don't know what to make of that, nor do I know what Callas was _actually_ like in real life (the media has portrayed her as aloof and even difficult, but was she really this way?). However, I will say two things I think might be relevant, somehow. The first is something I remember hearing Richard Bonynge say shortly after his wife, Joan Sutherland, died. He said something to the effect, of, "I don't believe she was ever fully aware how magnificent (i.e. how magnificent a singer) she really was" -- implying that Sutherland herself was rather unassuming and not the popular image of a "diva." The other happens to concern Olivier's contemporary John Gielgud. In talking about himself once, Gielgud was listing things he didn't do well, which included card games and sports; he then added, "I'm really very incompetent in many ways." I just thought it was interesting that this great actor considered not being able to do things that "common" people do a defect of some kind.


I don't think that's what I meant at all. I just think that performers, great performers, are not ordinary. Sutherland, for all her down to earth appearance, was not in the least bit ordinary. She was a phenomenon.

There are some performers, Olivier in his early days was one of them, who perform at such a level of intensity that they are in fact extraordinary. Interesting that they probably aren't much good at the things that "normal" people do easily. Zeffirelli once said that when Olivier eventually settled down and found happiness with Joan Plowright, his performances lost something of the edge they once had. Callas lived for work and music until she met Onassis and fell madly in love. Until that point music had been her life and when Onassis became the centre of her life, her art suffered.

I don't think we can go back to those times. Going back to the dawn of opera and the stage, great actors and singers have always been lionised. Not so very long ago the Hollywood star system did everything to market their stars as somehow above the crowd, carefully shielding them from bad press. Stars were not accessible, and the studios did their best to make sure they remained inaccessible. Olivier was part of that system, remember, as was his first wife, the troubled, but brilliant, Vivien Leigh.

Modern life has changed everything. Through the internet and things like twitter, artists are ever more accessible to us. Look at Joyce DiDonato, the very model of a modern prima donna, intelligent, a great performer, in touch with her fans through the internet, and, it would seem, with her head very firmly screwed on. Does she view herself as extraordinary? Probably not, but I'm sure she's self-aware enough to know that what she does, she does better than a lot of other people. That is why she is at the top of her profession. It has very little to do with luck, but a great deal to do with work and application.


----------



## Guest (May 2, 2015)

DavidA said:


> Had a friend whose father played in a leading London orchestra. The drinking that went on (in those days at least) was quite phenomenal. *Her dad used to come home drunk after a concert and knock her and her mother about* which led to the home breaking up. Hence she wasn't too keen on her kids learning music!


Sounds like the sort of household *Beethoven* experienced. But yes, alcohol and drug abuse is pretty widespread in the classical music industry: http://www.theguardian.com/music/2009/feb/28/classical-music-and-opera-drugs-alcohol


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

GregMitchell said:


> I don't think that's what I meant at all. I just think that performers, great performers, are not ordinary. Sutherland, for all her down to earth appearance, was not in the least bit ordinary. She was a phenomenon.
> 
> There are some performers, Olivier in his early days was one of them, who perform at such a level of intensity that they are in fact extraordinary. Interesting that they probably aren't much good at the things that "normal" people do easily. Zeffirelli once said that when Olivier eventually settled down and found happiness with Joan Plowright, his performances lost something of the edge they once had. Callas lived for work and music until she met Onassis and fell madly in love. Until that point music had been her life and when Onassis became the centre of her life, her art suffered.
> 
> ...


I would certainly disagree with Zeferelli about Olivier's performances losing their edge - Otello at the National? There is also a sad note on Olivier's marriage to Plowright in Zieger's biography: "Formally their relationship remained unstrained; a good face was put upon it all. In practice they grew further and further apart and Olivier felt himself isolated in the heart of his own family."
Sad indeed for Callas. Getting involved with Onassis like she did was a bit like getting into bed with a rattlesnake!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Sorry your existence is "mundane" (your word). Mine certainly isn't. While art certainly enriches my life it is certainly not everything to me. Yesterday I took my grandchildren out for tea and that provided me with an experience far greater and richer than listening to any opera singer could. That doesn't mean I don't appreciate Callas et al. But there are some things in my life that are far more enriching.
> As to the spiritual I think you have set the bar vastly too low if you think that the spiritual is just ancient books, dogmas and rites. I am thankful that the arts (especially music) have enriched my life. Just there are things that enrich it more .


Your response is disingenuous. No, my existence is not "mundane," in the derogatory sense you intend that statement, and I don't need you to be "sorry" about it. You know very well what I'm talking about when I speak of the mundane (i.e., ordinary, everyday, practical) aspects of life. Or were you born to a life of privilege and leisure?

Have you ever had to spend a large percentage of your time working at a job which had no intrinsic meaning for you, just to put food on the table and pay the rent? A great many people have; in fact it may be safe to say that a majority of people throughout human history have had to spend much of their lives in unrewarding labor. Even working people who enjoy the relative luxury of living in modern societies find themselves having to devote a large portion of their time to activities which have only survival value.

For an artist who is given no advantages in life, making his way in the world is often very difficult. For most it means giving a portion - often a painfully large portion - of the time he would devote to the work he loves to some meaningless job by which he hopes to buy himself time to pursue his art. You may have no personal experience of this; in fact, from the tone and content of your statements I feel pretty sure that you have no first-hand concept of what I'm talking about. But of course it isn't only artists who are forced by the practical needs of living to make great sacrifices merely to survive and fulfill worldly obligations which may bring them little personal reward.

The arts have been of profound importance to human beings as far back, probably, as human beings have been human. This is an obvious matter of record. There are very good reasons for this, reasons deeply rooted in human nature. I suspect, though, that any attempt that could be made to discuss them would be lost on you. To anyone who would look a serious artist or lover of the arts in the face and say "what you've struggled to devote your life to is just entertainment, mere escapism - like football," it is really not easy to think of anything to say that's likely to be understood (as your present response to me shows). But I need to inform you that when you dismiss as trivial an aspect of human life which has been of such universal importance and value to people, and assume a pose of "spiritual" superiority, you are trivializing the very lives of others whose values and beliefs happen to differ from yours.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

U


Woodduck said:


> Your response is disingenuous. No, my existence is not "mundane," in the derogatory sense you intend that statement, and I don't need you to be "sorry" about it. You know very well what I'm talking about when I speak of the mundane (i.e., ordinary, everyday, practical) aspects of life. Or were you born to a life of privilege and leisure?
> 
> Have you ever had to spend a large percentage of your time working at a job which had no intrinsic meaning for you, just to put food on the table and pay the rent? A great many people have; in fact it may be safe to say that a majority of people throughout human history have had to spend much of their lives in unrewarding labor. Even working people who enjoy the relative luxury of living in modern societies find themselves having to devote a large portion of their time to activities which have only survival value.
> 
> ...


i certainly wasn't born into a life a privilege! I am a working class lad. Like you I enjoy the arts enormously. But I do not put them in first place. I've travelled to some of the poorest places in the world and visited people who live without electricity or any of the things that we have in the West that mean we can enjoy the arts. These people have no opportunity to enjoy the arts - they are in fact wondering where the next meal is comng from. Some of them haven't even a roof over their heads - they live on the street. When you're in places like this it does put the arts in perspective.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

DavidA said:


> It is not a matter of rancour. It is a matter of prioritising. The fact is you can be a keen Callas fan without worshipping her like something she wasn't. Let's get the facts - on the stage she (like every actor) was dealing with fiction not fact. Let's not get it out of proportion. It's escapism we are dealing with!


if you took the trouble to read my post, you might be able to see that I do not worship Callas (or any other human who has ever lived). I have never given an impression that I do get my appreciation of Callas out of proportion.

If someone does (in your opinion) do that, then please addresss your post to *them * and not to me


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Headphone Hermit said:


> if you took the trouble to read my post, you might be able to see that I do not worship Callas (or any other human who has ever lived). I have never given an impression that I do get my appreciation of Callas out of proportion.
> 
> If someone does (in your opinion) do that, then please addresss your post to *them * and not to me


I was actually agreeing with your post. Sorry if my post gave the wrong impression.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

^^^ fair enough!:tiphat:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> U
> 
> i certainly wasn't born into a life a privilege! I am a working class lad. Like you I enjoy the arts enormously. But I do not put them in first place. I've travelled to some of the poorest places in the world and visited people who live without electricity or any of the things that we have in the West that mean we can enjoy the arts. These people have no opportunity to enjoy the arts - they are in fact wondering where the next meal is comng from. Some of them haven't even a roof over their heads - they live on the street. When you're in places like this it does put the arts in perspective.


I have no doubt that you enjoy the arts, but if you actually enjoyed them "like me" you would not speak of them as you do.

It's good that you agree that life can be burdensome for people. Maybe the next step is to understand that life can also afford experiences that lift people's eyes from the grindstone, elevate their sagging spirits, allow them to express their deepest feelings, and offer glimpses of beauty and ecstasy. To a young person trapped in a life where little else gives him hope for the future, the bright revelation of art can be a beacon lighting his way, inspiring him with a sense of life's possibilities. It might even quite literally save his life.

Without wishing to talk about myself in any detail, I will tell you that I was such a young person. The nature of my particular struggles are unimportant; everyone's struggles are different. What is important is that I had art and music to show me that life was far richer more beautiful than the people and circumstances which surrounded me and threatened to drag me down. No one knows better than I what art is and what it is for.

What art may be for anyone else is none of my concern, and I would not for a moment tell anyone how, or how much, they should value it. But I can and will tell them that they are not qualified to pronounce judgment on its value for the rest of humanity. It goes without saying that the fundamental human need is sheer physical survival. But acknowledging that is a far cry from relegating art to the status of "escapist entertainment" and "football." If that's what it is for you, I have no objection, but no person's experience - not yours and not that of someone wondering about his next meal - "puts the arts in perspective." Only the whole ongoing experience of humanity does that. And as I look at humanity's experience - as well as my own - I see the arts being given a place of great importance in humanity's scale of values. Isn't it conceivable that many of us value that next meal largely because it will allow us to paint another picture, hear another symphony, or appreciate the insight and power of an artist like Maria Callas?


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

*GregMitchell:* Thanks for clearing up that point. Originally, I had thought you meant that once upon a time famous artists thought of themselves as extraordinary, and behaved as though they were, whereas nowadays even famous people try to act more like the common man or woman on the street, and that that's a shame. As for the Hollywood you allude to, I missed it as I was born in the late 1970's. Yet it's obvious even to me that there was much more of a gulf between, say, Hollywood actors and their fans back in the 1940's or 1950's than there is now.

I can well imagine the discipline it must take to be a truly great performer. At the same time, I have to admit that it makes me sad to think of how unhappy Callas was for much of her life, of how much she "suffered for her art." To cite a parallel from the non-classical world: as much as I love Judy Garland, there are times when I wish her personal life had been more stable -- not only because it would have been healthier for her, but also because it would have given her more good vocal years. On the other hand, would she have been "Judy Garland" without the private pain? Would Callas have been Callas? Probably not. (I want to add that Callas was apparently a much more analytical, self-aware artist than was Garland, who seems to have done things mostly by instinct.)

The debate between Woodduck and DavidA seems to be over whether the arts are a route of some sort to the divine (or to God, if you believe in Him) or whether they're nothing more than "entertainment." Woodduck takes the former view, while DavidA seems to take the latter(?). I won't attempt to take a position, but what I do believe is that it's not the arts so much as gracious behavior that takes the "edge" off of life, and that a love of the arts tends to be a quality that gracious people have. I don't know if it's a cause and effect situation or not, but I do think the two qualities ("artistic" and "gracious") are correlated.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Sorry but Opera is not spiritual. It is entertainment.


Opera is spiritual to me. Badly-written fairy tales are merely entertaining.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> This is where we differ. I feel that great art is as important to life as science. There are some artists who are above the hoi-poloi. They are not just lucky to have made it to the top. They have that indefinable something that makes them different. They are interpretive geniuses and something of their art touches people in a way that you or I cannot dream of doing, and this is what makes them special. The deification of such people worries me not one jot. In fact I find it uplifting that art can still inspire such passions. On the contrary what I find dispiriting in our present day society is the way we seek to reduce everything to the ordinary, to the mundane.
> 
> Ian McKellen once said that today's actors go out of their way to prove that they are just like the rest of us, whereas someone like Olivier reveled in his _extra_ordinariness, and he felt that, as a result, we had lost something. I can't but agree.


"The Great Souled Man sees greatness in others."

- Aristotle, fourth century B.C.E.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> "Opera is not spiritual. It is entertainment. It's escapism we are dealing with! Musicians, singers, etc are entertainers. Like footballers. But let's be careful of what is almost tantamount to worship."
> 
> I have to wonder exactly what the writer of these remarks would have us be careful of. Too much enjoyment of life, perhaps?
> 
> ...


There certainly are books, dogmas, and rites which approach pedantry or burlesque according to whether they are taken seriously or not- but great singing and music to me is anything but.

The emotional elation I experience from it is immediate and intuitive and deeper than anything that can be put into words.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

KenOC said:


> I admit to a suspicion. If I were dying of thirst and starvation in the desert, I might be willing to trade away a whole lot of "great art" for a shake and a juicy hamburger.


Yes, but then what?


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> I have no doubt that you enjoy the arts, but if you actually enjoyed them "like me" you would not speak of them as you do.
> 
> It's good that you agree that life can be burdensome for people. Maybe the next step is to understand that life can also afford experiences that lift people's eyes from the grindstone, elevate their sagging spirits, allow them to express their deepest feelings, and offer glimpses of beauty and ecstasy. To a young person trapped in a life where little else gives him hope for the future, the bright revelation of art can be a beacon lighting his way, inspiring him with a sense of life's possibilities. It might even quite literally save his life.
> 
> ...


Great art isn't a means to a higher end for me- it is the highest possible end.

It inspires me to cultivate the best from within myself and to appreciate the best in others. It makes life in all of its creative, variegated richness vividly come to life.

I can do without the Good Book.

I could never do without good music.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Marschallin Blair said:


> "The Great Souled Man sees greatness in others."
> 
> - Aristotle, fourth century B.C.E.


Nothing is easier than finding flaws in others. Flaws are certainly there to be found. We notice when people act badly or foolishly. What we are apt to miss are the daily acts of courage, determination, and dedication which enable people to get the business of life done and allow them to achieve great things despite every obstacle, whether those obstacles come from the world around them or from within themselves.

I am impatient with attempts to tear down the characters and reputations of people who have achieved extraordinary things, particularly if their work has proved capable of inspiring others to higher insight or achievement or a greater sense of what it is to be human. Few of us know the responsibility laid upon those who are chosen by life to bear the burden of genius and to struggle, against obstacles we cannot imagine, to give to the world something we - and even they - cannot fully comprehend. We are not wrong to regard such people with a certain amount of awe and reverence. It isn't really the person we revere - generally we don't know the person - but the power within them, the power which, as we experience it, brings us closer to the fullness of our own humanity.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Nothing is easier than finding flaws in others. Flaws are certainly there to be found. We notice when people act badly or foolishly. What we are apt to miss are the daily acts of courage, determination, and dedication which enable people to get the business of life done and allow them to achieve great things despite every obstacle, whether those obstacles come from the world around them or from within themselves.
> 
> I am impatient with attempts to tear down the characters and reputations of people who have achieved extraordinary things, particularly if their work has proved capable of inspiring others to higher insight or achievement or a greater sense of what it is to be human. Few of us know the responsibility laid upon those who are chosen by life to bear the burden of genius and to struggle, against obstacles we cannot imagine, to give to the world something we - and even they - cannot fully comprehend. We are not wrong to regard such people with a certain amount of awe and reverence. It isn't really the person we revere - generally we don't know the person - but the power within them, the power which, as we experience it, brings us closer to the fullness of our own humanity.


Sure, how many times do we see the ecstasy but not the agony that went into the unflowering of genius?

I have the '_highest_' respect for those who can give me a beatific vision of life as it should and ought to be- not only for the unrivaled creativity that went into the endeavor but for the emotional toll that it cost them as well.

I don't put such geniuses on a pedestal- because I feel to worship another is to disrespect one's self. I do however feel that a fervent, intelligent appreciation is an elementary courtesy which is any great artist's due.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Y


Marschallin Blair said:


> Great art isn't a means to a higher end for me- it is the highest possible end.
> 
> It inspires me to cultivate the best from within myself and to appreciate the best in others. It makes life in all of its creative, variegated richness vividly come to life.
> 
> ...


That's fine if it's your opinion. We are just different. To me (eg) seeing a school established in a remote place in the world where no-one could read and write and seeing the look on the kids' faces when they realised they might have a way out of poverty has been a higher end even than great art. To me a day out with my grandchildren is more rewarding that a night at the opera. I enjoy the opera but other things come first. To me the Good Book speaks far more than art. Art is something that enriches my life but the Good Book has changed my life. That's not to deprecate great art as some people appear to think I'm doing. I love it, especially music and drama. Just I value other things more highly.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Y
> 
> That's fine if it's your opinion. To me (eg) seeing a school established in a remote place in the world where no-one could read and write and seeing the look on the kids' faces when they realised they might have a way out of poverty has been a higher end even than great art. To me a day out with my grandchildren is more rewarding that a night at the opera. I enjoy the opera but other things come first. To me the Good Book speaks far more than art. Art is something that enriches my life but the Good Book has changed my life.


Well 'of course' its my opinion: I'm an artist (well, I can dress fierce). I think for myself (well, 'mostly'- _Harper's Bazaar_ and_ Italian Vogues_ aside).


----------



## Diminuendo (May 5, 2015)

Is it just me or has this thread gone maybe just a little tiny bit of topic? But then again this is what Callas does


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Diminuendo said:


> Is it just me or has this thread gone maybe just a little tiny bit of topic? But then again this is what Callas does


There are enough Callas threads on this site that one could spend weeks going through them. Not sure there is any more can be said that isn't already said in one or more of those threads.


----------



## sabrina (Apr 26, 2011)

To this day I find it difficult to understand how did it happen that such a huge star, almost from the very beginning of her career, has no live recording of any opera she had performed. At that time technology was good enough for video recording. I have a DVD with young Corelli in Turandot, why not Maria Callas? There are some bits from Tosca, and of course parts of her recitals but it's far of being enough. So her legacy does not rely too much on her acting. But she rules in so many of the parts she sang (Rosina, Armida, Norma, Violetta, Gilda, Turandot and many others). No other soprano has such a large dominance.
When she was young she sang Wagner and Bellini within a few days...maybe she payed for that later in life. 
Anyway she is in a league of her own. There are many great sopranos, she is unique!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Florestan said:


> There are enough Callas threads on this site that one could spend weeks going through them. Not sure there is any more can be said that isn't already said in one or more of those threads.


Imagine how many threads there would be if her voice didn't go into decline so early. Many blame her weight loss.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Imagine how many threads there would be if her voice didn't go into decline so early. Many blame her weight loss.












I imagine how many more Callas threads there would be if people were 'better' rather than 'bitter.'


----------



## Dongiovanni (Jul 30, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> I can do without the Good Book.
> 
> I could never do without good music.


Great two-liner ! My idea as well.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Dongiovanni said:


> Great two-liner ! My idea as well.


Why? Some of us have the privilege of enjoying both!


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

DavidA said:


> Why? Some of us have the privilege of enjoying both!


Well said sir!

(plus a minimum of 3 more characters. How did you get away with a reply consisting in its entirety of "no".)


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Bellinilover said:


> Your second long quotation is very interesting, and I agree with it. Mariella Devia sings Adina on a recording of L'ELISIR D'AMORE I have with Roberto Alagna. My immediate thought when I first heard her on that recording (having never heard her before) was something like "technically adept, but not much personality." That opinion still stands.


I agree that recording of L'Elisir d'Amore is weak and I don't think it is just Devia (she is wonderful in Donizetti's Adelia). Maybe because it is a studio recording? But I found a wonderful L'Elisir d'Amore with Valeria Esposito, conducted by Niels Muus.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Why? Some of us have the privilege of enjoying both!


I enjoy the occasional romp through _Muggle's Book of Magic_ as much as anyone else.


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

Marschallin Blair said:


> I enjoy the occasional romp through _Muggle's Book of Magic_ as much as anyone else.


Dear Marschallin, have you done something wonderful with your hair? Is it even more blonde? It looks amazing.

Perhaps you can help me as this thread has gone seriously off topic. Why do atheists love to dismiss religious folk for their intemperance of other faiths while simultaneously mocking anyone with faith? As an atheist myself I've never understood that position.

Or we could just stick to the music? :tiphat:


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

Trigger happy. Apologies.


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

Diminuendo said:


> Is it just me or has this thread gone maybe just a little tiny bit of topic? But then again this is what Callas does


+1

(and 13 other characters,)


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Belowpar said:


> Trigger happy. Apologies.


Apologies neither required nor desired. _;D_

I live for high drama, myself.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Belowpar said:


> Dear Marschallin, have you done something wonderful with your hair? Is it even more blonde? It looks amazing.
> 
> Perhaps you can help me as this thread has gone seriously off topic. Why do atheists love to dismiss religious folk for their intemperance of other faiths while simultaneously mocking anyone with faith? As an atheist myself I've never understood that position.
> 
> Or we could just stick to the music? :tiphat:


Lord Belowpar, I feel almost as fabulous as I look _;D_ - but to address shallower things: I only brought up the Good Book to begin with because it was in response to another poster's fervid inclination to bring up his religion yet again in a classical musical thread.

So, _'tu quoque' _on that one.


----------



## Badinerie (May 3, 2008)

A great many people who don't listen to Opera or Classical music have heard of Maria Callas. You don't get that kind of fame for being average...

GregMitchell's post at page 9 #132 should be enough to prove a point. 

To be revered so by those "In the trade" is telling.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

KenOC said:


> I admit to a suspicion. If I were dying of thirst and starvation in the desert, I might be willing to trade away a whole lot of "great art" for a shake and a juicy hamburger.


Then why, for the love of God, Ken, aren't you hedging your bet and posting in a Burger Survivalist Forum?


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Sorry but Opera is not spiritual. It is entertainment.


It depends on the quality of the mind interacting with it.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

SimonNZ said:


> This question isn't motivated by anti-Callas feeling (as I've said I like her, but not to the degree some other do), but a request for information or clarification:
> 
> Whenever I read opera or vocal singers cite _their_ favorite singers, or give desert island lists or talk about influences I seldom see Callas' name mentioned, at least certainly not proportionate to the "pre-eminance" that is commonly refered to on TC.
> 
> Why would this be?


Because you have very little contact with the real world of music lovers, perhaps?

I'll never forget one Christmas when I was in San Francisco, the Classical Annex of Tower Records had multiple HUGE endcaps of nothing but Callas cd's, in addition to almost HALF of one of their walls being nothing but Callas as well.

I didn't see any Boulez on any of the endcaps, incidentally.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Then why, for the love of God, Ken, aren't you hedging your bet and posting in a Burger Survivalist Forum?


I looked for one, but this forum was as close as I could find.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Because you have very little contact with the real world of music lovers, perhaps?
> 
> I'll never forget one Christmas when I was in San Francisco, the Classical Annex of Tower Records had multiple HUGE endcaps of nothing but Callas cd's, in addition to almost HALF of one of their walls being nothing but Callas as well.
> 
> I didn't see any Boulez on any of the endcaps, incidentally.


Endcaps are displays? I see them for Andre Rieu - what does that prove?

For my response to the "in the real world" idea: please see my (and many others) response to ArtMusic for using the same gambit.

I was originally referring to desert island lists like those made by classical singers at the end of gramophone or BBC Music magazine, or on the maore famous Radio 4 Desert Island Discs. I seldom - if at all- see Callas' name mentioned, in contradiction of what is usually presented on threads like this as unanimous industry recognition of her preeminance. (Though I haven't researched the matter any more thoroughly than that).

My suspicion is that they - perhaps sharing something like my own view - possibly see her as the opera equivalent of Glenn Gould: a genius of a kind and essential listening, but also in many ways eccentric, frustrating and all too individual to be a sole or even first recommendation.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

KenOC said:


> I looked for one, but this forum was as close as I could find.


You came to the right place for bull.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

I was kind of expecting someone to react to this statement I made:

"My suspicion is that they - perhaps sharing something like my own view - possibly see her as the opera equivalent of Glenn Gould: a genius of a kind and essential listening, but also in many ways eccentric, frustrating and all too individual to be a sole or even first recommendation."


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Let's keep the posts focused on the content of the thread and not on other members.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SimonNZ said:


> I was originally referring to desert island lists like those made by classical singers at the end of gramophone or BBC Music magazine, or on the maore famous Radio 4 Desert Island Discs. I seldom - if at all- see Callas' name mentioned, in contradiction of what is usually presented on threads like this as unanimous industry recognition of her preeminance. (Though I haven't researched the matter any more thoroughly than that).
> 
> My suspicion is that they - perhaps sharing something like my own view - possibly see her as the opera equivalent of Glenn Gould: a genius of a kind and essential listening, but also in many ways eccentric, frustrating and all too individual to be a sole or even first recommendation.


I don't think Callas has ever been viewed as "eccentric," either personally or artistically, by other singers, musicians, or people associated with the music industry (does that cover everybody relevant to your question?). Glenn Gould, of course, was eccentric - delightfully so, I'd say - by anyone's definition, both in his ideas on music-making and in his personal habits. Callas was, personally, not particularly odd. She was merely a very hard-working and immensely gifted singer/actress whose personality traits, positive and negative, were no more peculiar than most people's, unless enormous drive and strength of will are considered eccentricities. Some of her statements and actions engendered controversy, as do those of many celebrities, but to her colleagues she was known primarily as an exceptionally conscientious artist and a considerate, though perfectionistic, collaborator. As for her singing, her voice was not and is not liked by everyone, and its premature deterioration is well-known, but she is generally acknowledged to have been a superbly skilled vocalist in her prime and one with unique musical and dramatic insights into the works she sang. Her acting was likewise uniquely creative and compelling. This combination of musical and dramatic power made her pre-eminent among singers of her generation, and has by widespread consent not been equalled by anyone since. There is really no substantial disgreement about this within the professional worlds of music and opera.

In light of this, it's hard for me to know just what your own impressions of Callas's reputation are, or who you're referring to when you speak of her being viewed as "eccentric" or "frustrating." But if you want to know what a number of distinguished people in her field think about her, here is an interesting page from Wikiquote:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Maria_Callas

These may suggest that those who think of her as a supremely accomplished artist and a figure of unique importance in her field are no more "eccentric" than she was.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

Thanks, but see you're doing this thing where if I suggest that she isn't universally admired then that's an attack. Like if I only rate her 9 out of 10 then that's not good enough.

I don't doubt a great many admire her, or that they have good reason - and I like her perfectly well. I guess my issue is more with the "if Callas did it, then obviously that's going to be the best recording" rhetoric. I haven't seen that reflected in my (albeit limited) survey of the opinions of modern singers. My suspicion is that they like her fine - if only a more sober 9 out of 10, say.

(not that I rate people with these number systems, but to make a point...)


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

^^^ 

I have also noticed the same thing that SimoNZ ponits to - that current performers seldom refer to Callas as a point of reference or as an exemplar. 

I am a huge fan of Callas' singing and my taste is that her performances are often head and shoulders above the competition, so I find it puzzling that she is so seldom mentioned in interviews with current performers. For me to answer why this should be would be pure speculation as I have never been able to talk directly with any current performers. If anyone has any concrete knowledge of why this is (as opposed to hypothesis or speculation), it would be useful to lay that informed opinion before us :tiphat:


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

SimonNZ said:


> Thanks, but see you're doing this thing where if I suggest that she isn't universally admired then that's an attack. Like if I only rate her 9 out of 10 then that's not good enough.
> 
> I don't doubt a great many admire her, or that they have good reason - and I like her perfectly well. I guess my issue is more with the "if Callas did it, then obviously that's going to be the best recording" rhetoric. I haven't seen that reflected in my (albeit limited) survey of the opinions of modern singers. My suspicion is that they like her fine - if only a more sober 9 out of 10, say.
> 
> (not that I rate people with these number systems, but to make a point...)


Personally, in my already rather long experience (close to 40 years now, and counting ), it has *always* been rewarding and interesting to listen to anything sung by Maria Callas, and I rate her 10/10. This doesn't mean that any recording from her would automatically be my favorite, and even less that problematic category you mention: 'the best'.

Callas's approach to singing was not idiosyncratic, trying to understand the score (the score that was available to her in the 1950s) as music an drama never is. And her teachers and favorite conductors weren't idiosyncratic either. Pretty much standard, though high quality, stuff. In my view the real difference was the talent, and the hard work. Not the approach. Callas didn't lead any musicological revolution, she was merely a supremely talented performer.

Callas also had a sizable amount of sopranos trying to follow closely in her steps, certainly. For instance, I'm rather fond in a way of one of these 'clones', Lucia Aliberti:






About modern singers... well, I think you will be surprised that quite a few of them are not really aware about the history of operatic singing, anyway, but I'm not familiar with the poll you mention.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SimonNZ said:


> Thanks, but see you're doing this thing where if I suggest that she isn't universally admired then that's an attack. Like if I only rate her 9 out of 10 then that's not good enough.
> 
> I don't doubt a great many admire her, or that they have good reason - and I like her perfectly well. I guess my issue is more with the "if Callas did it, then obviously that's going to be the best recording" rhetoric. I haven't seen that reflected in my (albeit limited) survey of the opinions of modern singers. My suspicion is that they like her fine - if only a more sober 9 out of 10, say.
> 
> (not that I rate people with these number systems, but to make a point...)


I didn't perceive your question about whether Callas is perceived as "eccentric" or "frustrating" as an attack. I perceived it as a question. I wasn't sure what you meant by those words, or who you thought might be applying them to her, so I offered my view of her and what I believe is the prevailing view within the fields of music and opera. I don't know what you mean by my "doing this thing." I did the only thing I could think of, given the question you appeared to be asking. It doesn't matter to me how many points out of ten anyone gives her. That's their business.

The "rating" and "ranking" of various singers and their recordings is a fun game, one enthusiasts in all fields like to play. All sensible people understand that there is an element of subjectivity, along with objective considerations, in choosing "better" or "best." Frankly I can't imagine any professional singer who knows her art and craft even attempting to rate and rank other singers on a primitive scale of 1 to 10. You say you don't actually want to do this, but it isn't clear to me just what you do want to do. Do you want to know what percentage of modern opera singers would choose Callas as their primary vocal, musical, and dramatic exemplar among all the singers of whom we have recorded evidence? I have no idea. Neither, by your own words, do you. I would only ask: if there must be a clear winner in that imaginary contest, who do you think it would be? Would you be disappointed if a poll were taken and it turned out to be Maria Callas?

If we are evaluating operatic artists (whether or not we want to try to rank them), we are looking at a multidimensional art form, one which includes vocal quality, vocal technique, musicianship, musical interpretation, dramatic insight, acting ability, and artistic personality or "charisma." How an opera singer is rated is obviously going to depend upon which of these dimensions of her job we are asking about. It's my observation that the primary one of these for which Callas is criticized by those who dislike her is the first - vocal quality. Did she have a first-rate instrument to work with? Was the voice "beautiful"? Some people think not, while others love her voice for its peculiar timbral and expressive qualities. Callas herself never contended that her voice was innately "the best." She worked to make it the best it could be, and to make its innate qualities work for her. But ultimately she was philosophical about her native gifts, saying "some say I have a beautiful voice, some say I do not. All I can say is, those who do not like it should not come to hear me sing." Of course, the quality of her voice suffered considerably over the last decade or so of her operatic career. This isn't controversial, and people differ in how well they can overlook or tolerate her increasing vocal problems in order to enjoy the other aspects of her work. On those other aspects, however, we don't encounter much informed disagreement. Callas was an extraordinary artist, musically and dramatically, who astonished even the most experienced colleagues in her own day, and whose impact on her field was by common consent greater than that of any other single singer of recent times. Volumes have been written on the many dimensions and implications of her artistic achievement and professional influence, and I'm quite sure that when you take your poll among singers, you will not find many who would deny her importance. Whether they would choose her recording of a given role or aria as their personal favorite, or as a specific object of emulation, would depend on any number of factors, including, we should admit frankly, whether they regard her achievements as anywhere near within the reach of their own capabilities.

Since I still don't know exactly what information your remarks were intended to elicit, I'm not assuming that I've answered them to your satisfaction. I do suspect, though, that if the subject of Maria Callas and her art were of any actual interest to you, you would be more interested in understanding and exploring it than in speculating upon nonexistent popularity polls.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

As for the question of why Callas' versions of operas don't often seem to be mentioned today as points of reference, surely it's partly because they tend to be cut -- the bel canto ones at least. Few people today want a cut LUCIA DI LAMMERMOOR or LA SONNAMBULA as their "reference" recordings for those operas. Even TOSCA -- while the famous recording under de Sabata is without a doubt great, there's little point in denying that the _instrumental_ aspect of Puccini's score is heard to much better advantage in a stereo, as opposed to a monaural, recording.


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

We are at a strange time to evaluate her worth as a singer. We are too close. We are one of the first generations to enjoy recordings. I think her reputation will eventually lie with how future generations view those recordings and the icing on the cake will be her stage reputation. 


Having said that...carry on, nothing will stop compare and contrast.


For my part I enjoy it when someone points to what they consider a particularly fine recording. Sometimes I am convinced and sometimes not. I don't bother to much with comments that seek to knock someone's reputation. I either enjoy their singing or I don't and though I can be convinced to listen again to someone, you'll never convince me I don't enjoy someone else. Through this forum I hope to become more discerning as to what is possible with the human voice and possibly my own tastes will evolve.

Finally I love listening to Callas and I will never spend time deciding if she scores 93 or 94 etc on some scale of great singers. 

Carry on...I've said my bit.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Belowpar said:


> We are at a strange time to evaluate her worth as a singer. We are too close. We are one of the first generations to enjoy recordings. I think her reputation will eventually lie with how future generations view those recordings and the icing on the cake will be her stage reputation.
> 
> Having said that...carry on, nothing will stop compare and contrast.
> 
> ...


I agree with all your points except the first. I don't think her singing is hard to evaluate at all. "Evaluation" is not the same as "liking," about which there will always be differences. Technique, musicality, dramatic imagination - her accomplishments in these areas were understood by her contemporaries, and even shifting historical perspectives have not altered those understandings very much, nor are they likely to.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> I agree with all your points except the first. I don't think her singing is hard to evaluate at all. "Evaluation" is not the same as "liking," about which there will always be differences. Technique, musicality, dramatic imagination - her accomplishments in these areas were understood by her contemporaries, and even shifting historical perspectives have not altered those understandings very much, nor are they likely to.


Recently listened to Callas' Mimi. Do I admire the artistry - yes - it is the highest level. Do I prefer it to (eg) Freni, who has less artistry but is far more natural for the part? No.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Bellinilover said:


> As for the question of why Callas' versions of operas don't often seem to be mentioned today as points of reference, surely it's partly because they tend to be cut -- the bel canto ones at least. Few people today want a cut LUCIA DI LAMMERMOOR or LA SONNAMBULA as their "reference" recordings for those operas. Even TOSCA -- while the famous recording under de Sabata is without a doubt great, there's little point in denying that the _instrumental_ aspect of Puccini's score is heard to much better advantage in a stereo, as opposed to a monaural, recording.


Good points. Callas's "complete" opera recordings have achieved the rather separate status of "historical" documents and generally do not represent the latest scholarly understandings or performance traditions of these works. Even many Callas lovers will want to have two "reference" versions of an opera, for the reasons you state. Probably the most extreme example of this is Cherubini's _Medea_, originally a French opera with spoken dialogue. But, of course, the original version has never had an exponent of the title role as brilliantly compelling as Callas in the bastardized version we all know. With many operas, a full understanding of the work requires that we have more than one recording, and "the Callas version" is, often enough, one of the essential ones for the unique insights she brings to bear.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Recently listened to Callas' Mimi. Do I admire the artistry - yes - it is the highest level. Do I prefer it to (eg) Freni, who has less artistry but is far more natural for the part? No.


I know what you mean (while differing with your preference). Sometimes with Callas it's a triumph of art over nature. I don't find her voice a natural for Gilda - Callas a cloistered teenage virgin? - but I wouldn't want to miss out on her _Rigoletto_ with Gobbi. And what she does with her voice to create Butterfly has to be heard to be believed.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> I agree with all your points except the first. I don't think her singing is hard to evaluate at all. "Evaluation" is not the same as "liking," about which there will always be differences. Technique, musicality, dramatic imagination - her accomplishments in these areas were understood by her contemporaries, and even shifting historical perspectives have not altered those understandings very much, nor are they likely to.


That's a very, very important point. For the longest time I was so fixated on volume, timbre, and legato- as if they were the most overriding criteria in the world for a singer.

Then when I started really good-faith """"listening"""" to Callas and following along with the libretti- and actually seeing and hearing how she modulated and nuanced every syllable of text with the most intelligent use dramatic inflection, shading, and coloring- I thought: "My God. This woman's a musical genius."


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Recently listened to Callas' Mimi. Do I admire the artistry - yes - it is the highest level. Do I prefer it to (eg) Freni, who has less artistry but is far more natural for the part? No.


To each her or his own certainly- but I'll take 'beautifully (and intelligently) expressed' over 'beautiful sounding' any day.

Freni's Butterfly 'envelops' me. Callas' absolutely 'slays' me.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> To each her or his own certainly- but I'll take 'beautifully (and intelligently) expressed' over 'beautiful sounding' any day.
> 
> Freni's Butterfly 'envelops' me. Callas' absolutely 'slays' me.


I couldn't imagine Mimi slaying anyone! If she did she would cease to be Puccini's Mimi!


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> I agree with all your points except the first. I don't think her singing is hard to evaluate at all. "Evaluation" is not the same as "liking," about which there will always be differences. Technique, musicality, dramatic imagination - her accomplishments in these areas were understood by her contemporaries, and even shifting historical perspectives have not altered those understandings very much, nor are they likely to.


For a technical analysis of her voice I bow to you every time, but I used the word worth and I suppose I should have said it's to early to evaluate her legacy. Won't stop you lot trying just that.

"Legend has it that, while preparing Richard Nixon for his historic visit to China in 1972, Henry Kissinger mentioned that Chinese Prime Minister Chou En-Lai was an avid student of French history. During his trip, Nixon met with Chou in the walled garden of the Forbidden City. As they walked slowly around the lily ponds, Nixon remembered Kissinger's comment. To break the ice, he asked Chou what he thought had been the impact of the French revolution on western civilization. Chou En-Lai considered the question for a few moments. Finally, he turned to Nixon and replied, "The impact of the French revolution on western civilization - too early to tell."


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Belowpar said:


> For a technical analysis of her voice I bow to you every time, but I used the word worth and I suppose I should have said it's to early to evaluate her legacy. Won't stop you lot trying just that.
> 
> "Legend has it that, while preparing Richard Nixon for his historic visit to China in 1972, Henry Kissinger mentioned that Chinese Prime Minister Chou En-Lai was an avid student of French history. During his trip, Nixon met with Chou in the walled garden of the Forbidden City. As they walked slowly around the lily ponds, Nixon remembered Kissinger's comment. To break the ice, he asked Chou what he thought had been the impact of the French revolution on western civilization. Chou En-Lai considered the question for a few moments. Finally, he turned to Nixon and replied, "The impact of the French revolution on western civilization - too early to tell."


At what point, would you say, is it _not_ too early to evaluate someone's legacy? When will the grand announcement be made that the awaited legacy has arrived and is open to evaluation? Who will make that announcement? Who will do the evaluating?

A legacy - to answer my own question (which is perhaps obnoxious, for which I apologize!) - is not a stagnant quantity fixed in time, which arrives at some specific moment and enshrines itself unchanging for all time. Nor is a legacy determined or defined by any single authority or observer. An artist's legacy is the sum total of the effects of her art on the world. It comes into being as soon as she gives of her art, and it continues to exist indefinitely thereafter for as long as the effects of that art continue to affect the world. Time does not create a legacy, but merely adds to it or alters it as the world's perspective changes. Callas's legacy exists right now, in the consciousness of all those touched by her art, and in the lives of all those whose course in life would have been different had she not lived. Only they can tell you what her legacy is, and even they cannot tell you everything. No one can do that, or ever will be able to do that.

A human being does not become, at some arbitrary point long after her death, a marble statue on a pedestal in a museum.

How Callas's continuing legacy will appear to future generations, we can only guess. Some of our guesses will be accurate extrapolations from what we know, others mere speculation. But a significant part of it is quite concrete and quite present right now for anyone who wants to listen to it and study it. For anyone interested in assessing her place in history - her legacy as it exists at this moment, the only moment we have - her recordings are the place to begin. One of our safest extrapolations, I believe, will be to trust that those documents will always occupy a unique and special place in the history of the art of singing. If the evidence of her achievements encompassed no more than that - but of course it does, and will - there would be no reason to think that her legacy will fade, or that the future will find it less than remarkable.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

> Originally Posted by Belowpar View Post
> 
> For a technical analysis of her voice I bow to you every time, but I used the word worth and I suppose I should have said it's to early to evaluate her legacy. Won't stop you lot trying just that.
> 
> "Legend has it that, while preparing Richard Nixon for his historic visit to China in 1972, Henry Kissinger mentioned that Chinese Prime Minister Chou En-Lai was an avid student of French history. During his trip, Nixon met with Chou in the walled garden of the Forbidden City. As they walked slowly around the lily ponds, Nixon remembered Kissinger's comment. To break the ice, he asked Chou what he thought had been the impact of the French revolution on western civilization. Chou En-Lai considered the question for a few moments. Finally, he turned to Nixon and replied, "The impact of the French revolution on western civilization - too early to tell."





Woodduck said:


> At what point, would you say, is it _not_ too early to evaluate someone's legacy? When will the grand announcement be made that the awaited legacy has arrived and is open to evaluation? Who will make that announcement? Who will do the evaluating?
> 
> A legacy - to answer my own question (which is perhaps obnoxious, for which I apologize!) - is not a stagnant quantity fixed in time, which arrives at some specific moment and enshrines itself unchanging for all time. Nor is a legacy determined or defined by any single authority or observer. An artist's legacy is the sum total of the effects of her art on the world. It comes into being as soon as she gives of her art, and it continues to exist indefinitely thereafter for as long as the effects of that art continue to affect the world. Time does not create a legacy, but merely adds to it or alters it as the world's perspective changes. Callas's legacy exists right now, in the consciousness of all those touched by her art, and in the lives of all those whose course in life would have been different had she not lived. Only they can tell you what her legacy is, and even they cannot tell you everything. No one can do that, or ever will be able to do that.
> 
> ...


Presumably compulsive truth tellers like Henry Kissinger and Chou En-Lai.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> I couldn't imagine Mimi slaying anyone! If she did she would cease to be Puccini's Mimi!


The miracle of Callas's performance is that it is so convincing, given that she was also the perfect Lady Macbeth and Medea. There is never the hint of a suggestion that she is play acting, or even scaling down her personality and voice. She simply becomes Mimi. I find that in this performance Act III becomes the focal point of the role, and she expresses Mimi's desperation at this point in the opera better than anyone. Considering she only ever sang it in the studio, it's quite an achievement.

That said, hers is not the only Mimi I'd want to hear, and I thoroughly enjoy the more natural sounding Mimis of Freni and De Los Angeles too.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

GregMitchell said:


> The miracle of Callas's performance is that it is so convincing, given that she was also the perfect Lady Macbeth and Medea. There is never the hint of a suggestion that she is play acting, or even scaling down her personality and voice. She simply becomes Mimi. I find that in this performance Act III becomes the focal point of the role, and she expresses Mimi's desperation at this point in the opera better than anyone. Considering she only ever sang it in the studio, it's quite an achievement.
> 
> That said, hers is not the only Mimi I'd want to hear, and I thoroughly enjoy the more natural sounding Mimis of Freni and De Los Angeles too.


While not underestimating Callas' achievement, it sounds to me more like the great singer acting Mimi rather than being Mimi. As you say, the others sound more natural.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

SimonNZ said:


> Thanks, but see you're doing this thing where if I suggest that she isn't universally admired then that's an attack. Like if I only rate her 9 out of 10 then that's not good enough.
> 
> I don't doubt a great many admire her, or that they have good reason - and I like her perfectly well. I guess my issue is more with the "if Callas did it, then obviously that's going to be the best recording" rhetoric. I haven't seen that reflected in my (albeit limited) survey of the opinions of modern singers. My suspicion is that they like her fine - if only a more sober 9 out of 10, say.
> 
> (not that I rate people with these number systems, but to make a point...)


You can't have it all ways. You say you are not aware of modern singers universally admiring her, but when people point you to a web link with admiring quotes from other artists and singers, you say it doesn't prove your point, because she didn't feature that often on Desert Island Discs. So what?

Actually I am not really aware of any singers naming past singers as particular influences. Callas herself had very little interest in singers of the previous generation, Ponselle excepted, whom she revered beyond all others. I don't see many singers talking about Schwarzkopf or Sutherland or De Los Angeles either, let alone earlier greats such as Ponselle, Leider, Lehmann, Flagstad, Muzio et al. Does that make those singers any less great?

In my experience, singers and singing students spend very little time listening to other singers for fear of absorbing too much of their interpretations. As for singing students, I've found they will often denigrate singers of the past without even really listening to them. I remember meeting a young singing student a few years ago. His heroes where the singers he was hearing on stage now, and he openly laughed at the idea that Callas was as great as people said. I played him a recording of Callas singing the Mad Scene from *I Puritani* and he sat open-mouthed in amazement. He just kept saying, "Oh my God, how does she do that? It's incredible." He had a similar reaction when I played him a recording of Janet Baker singing Mahler's _Ich bin der Welt abhanden gekommen_. He was putting her down without ever really having heard her. Sometimes we have to open people's ears to things. I see no harm in that.

As for always assuming her recordings are going to be the best, often they are not the most all-round recommendable. Casting on some of them is questionable, and of course most of them are in mono sound, but I find they are the recordings I go back to most often, for the insights and musical imagination enshrined therein.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> While not underestimating Callas' achievement, it sounds to me more like the great singer acting Mimi rather than being Mimi. As you say, the others sound more natural.


Well it doesn't sound so to me in the least. She is utterly charming in the first and second act, heart-breakingly desperate in the third (her singing of the one word _Dorme?_ brings a lump to my throat every time I hear it, that gentle upward _portamento_ so expressive of Mimi's deep love for Rodolfo) and delicately, pathetically moving in the last. I wonder if you'd feel the same if you'd never heard her do anything else.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> *You can't have it all ways.* You say you are not aware of modern singers universally admiring her, but when people point you to a web link with admiring quotes from other artists and singers, you say it doesn't prove your point, because she didn't feature that often on Desert Island Discs. So what?
> 
> Actually I am not really aware of any singers naming past singers as particular influences. Callas herself had very little interest in singers of the previous generation, Ponselle excepted, whom she revered beyond all others. I don't see many singers talking about Schwarzkopf or Sutherland or De Los Angeles either, let alone earlier greats such as Ponselle, Leider, Lehmann, Flagstad, Muzio et al. Does that make those singers any less great?
> 
> ...


_"Heads, I win- tales, you lose." _

I am of course always grateful for undoctrinaire opinion that saves me from my own charlatanry.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

GregMitchell said:


> Well it doesn't sound so to me in the least. She is utterly charming in the first and second act, heart-breakingly desperate in the third (her singing of the one word _Dorme?_ brings a lump to my throat every time I hear it, that gentle upward _portamento_ so expressive of Mimi's deep love for Rodolfo) and delicately, pathetically moving in the last. I wonder if you'd feel the same if you'd never heard her do anything else.


Of course if I'd never seen Olivier as Henry V I wouldn't recognise him as Charlie Rice! I agree with everything you've said about the Callas performance but it still seems 'acted' which it is of course. But opinions are subjective!


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> Well it doesn't sound so to me in the least. She is utterly charming in the first and second act, heart-breakingly desperate in the third (her singing of the one word _Dorme?_ brings a lump to my throat every time I hear it, that gentle upward _portamento_ so expressive of Mimi's deep love for Rodolfo) and delicately, pathetically moving in the last. I wonder if you'd feel the same if you'd never heard her do anything else.


Callas really sinks her hook into me as well with that third act _Boheme_ of hers. So many other gorgeously-sung Mimis sound more like preciosity, affectation, and surface sheen by way of comparison.

I positively _love_ Freni, Scotto, and De Los Angeles in the role- but Callas is just subsumed into another category of emotion entirely for me.

Her verisimilitude is all too real.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Of course if I'd never seen Olivier as Henry V I wouldn't recognise him as Charlie Rice! I agree with everything you've said about the Callas performance but it still seems 'acted' which it is of course. But opinions are subjective!


They are.

But then categories of analysis like 'shading,' 'inflection,' and 'coloring' have as much to do with signing as they do with drama.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> They are.
> 
> But then categories of analysis like 'shading,' 'inflection,' and 'coloring' have as much to do with signing as they do with drama.


Do you know what you mean by this comment? Or do you mean 'singing' rather than signing?


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Do you know what you mean by this comment? Or do you mean 'singing' rather than signing?


'I' know what I mean by my comment, but do 'you' know what I mean by my bad spelling?

'Baeuty,' 'glam0ur,' 'faschion,' 'signing'- I think you can figure out what I was blonde-trying to say. _;D_


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

GregMitchell said:


> You can't have it all ways. You say you are not aware of modern singers universally admiring her, but when people point you to a web link with admiring quotes from other artists and singers, you say it doesn't prove your point, because she didn't feature that often on Desert Island Discs. So what?


So nothing. I wasn't trying to say anything grandiose or sweeping, and I wasn't trying to have anything both ways - i was asking for feedback to a partially formed speculation. The link to admiring quotes wasn't helpful because they came from a variety of ages not the current generation/s of working or emerging singers, which was my focus. Besides, I could put together a collection of admiring soundbites for practically any singer - my question was about influence and percieved importance.

The only thing I wished to highlight was that all the talk of "Obviously pre-eminent. Obviously." I see on the Callas threads doesn't tally with what (limited) reading I've done with interviews etc. I'm asking if the "obvious" is really "obvious", or if, maybe, it would help the Callas cause on TC if that rhetoric were dialled down just a notch.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

SimonNZ said:


> So nothing. I wasn't trying to say anything grandiose or sweeping, and I wasn't trying to have anything both ways - i was asking for feedback to a partially formed speculation. The link to admiring quotes wasn't helpful because they came from a variety of ages not the current generation/s of working or emerging singers, which was my focus. Besides, I could put together a collection of admiring soundbites for practically any singer - my question was about influence and percieved importance.
> 
> The only thing I wished to highlight was that all the talk of "Obviously pre-eminent. Obviously." I see on the Callas threads doesn't tally with what (limited) reading I've done with interviews etc. I'm asking if the "obvious" is really "obvious", or if, maybe, it would help the Callas cause on TC if that rhetoric were dialled down just a notch.


Well obviously I think the obvious _is_ obvious, and in terms of musicianship in her field (that is Italian opera of the eighteen and nineteenth centuries) Callas's influence was and is huge, and that she is the pre-eminent soprano of the post war generation.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> In my experience, singers and singing students spend very little time listening to other singers for fear of absorbing too much of their interpretations. As for singing students, I've found they will often denigrate singers of the past without even really listening to them. I remember meeting a young singing student a few years ago. His heroes where the singers he was hearing on stage now, and he openly laughed at the idea that Callas was as great as people said. I played him a recording of Callas singing the Mad Scene from *I Puritani* and he sat open-mouthed in amazement. He just kept saying, "Oh my God, how does she do that? It's incredible." He had a similar reaction when I played him a recording of Janet Baker singing Mahler's _Ich bin der Welt abhanden gekommen_. He was putting her down without ever really having heard her. Sometimes we have to open people's ears to things.


I suspect that ignorance of the accomplishments of artists of the past is less common among instrumentalists than among singers. Instrumentalists, especially players of such demanding instruments as the violin or cello, have to work very intensively at sheer technique in order to play any worthwhile music at a level of competence that makes them worth hearing. Mediocre pianists are a dime a dozen, and everyone looking for a career knows it and either works like the devil or gives it up. All the instrumentalists I've known have extended that conscientiousness to paying close attention to the established greats in their field, have been very much aware of how musicians of earlier generations played, and have formed definite opinions about various noted predecessors and their technical and interpretive approaches.

Singing seems a rather different sort of pursuit, much more tied to ego than does the playing of instruments. The voice is the most personal of instruments, an intimate expression of our physical, mental and emotional being, and the way we sing can seem, to a beginner or an amateur, a nakedly personal statement, criticism of which is likely to sting. For a vocal student it can take time for "my voice" to become "the voice" - an instrument much like any other, from which we can step back a little in order to analyze it critically and understand what it ought to be able to do, and, importantly, what we need to set aside in our self-conscious selves in order to enable it to do that. No young violinist says to himself "I'll do it this way because I feel like it" - but in the less clearly objective realm of singing, where producing the sound is almost wholly a matter of "how it feels," it's easy to mistake one's subjective experience for basic reality. And this goes not just for beginning singers: it's all too obvious that there are legions of singers populating our stages who need to take off their winged helmets and get back to the studio for a reality check.

Given the sensitivity of the human ego, comparisons of one's voice and technique to those of the greatest singers may be uncomfortable and unwelcome. One may justify one's ignorance as a wish not to be "influenced," to maintain one's "individuality" - as if anything worthwhile in art or life has ever been accomplished without the influence of others. The desire not to merely copy the interpretations of other singers is legitimate; but certainly a better solution than listening to no one is listening to as many others as possible, in order to enlarge one's sense of what is musically and interpretively possible. If a singer has strong musical instincts and some imagination, such broad-based listening will only sharpen her faculties; if she doesn't, then copying other singers will at least awaken her awareness and give her a place to start.

Callas (to return to a semblance of being on topic) always stressed the primary and absolute importance of training the voice thoroughly, and constantly credited her teachers and mentors. Her teacher at the Athens Conservatoire, Elvira de Hidalgo, tells how Maria, as a student, would arrive at school early and leave late, day after day, in order to listen in on the lessons of her fellow students. Callas later explained that she always felt that one could learn something from everyone, even if only lessons in what not to do from the worst singers. In interviews she speaks of her voice and art in objective, almost impersonal terms, in terms of what "one" does, rather than what "I" do, and above all in terms of what a musician must do to serve music. This is an attitude which seems to me far more characteristic of instrumental musicians than of singers.

It would be hard to find a singer more individual than Callas - and one less preoccupied with her own "individuality." The lesson I see in this is: learn to sing, become a thorough musician, master your craft in every detail - and you will not have to fear losing your identity, but will only enrich and sharpen it, by listening to the great singers of past or present.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SimonNZ said:


> So nothing. I wasn't trying to say anything grandiose or sweeping, and I wasn't trying to have anything both ways - i was asking for feedback to a partially formed speculation. The link to admiring quotes wasn't helpful because they came from a variety of ages not the current generation/s of working or emerging singers, which was my focus. Besides, I could put together a collection of admiring soundbites for practically any singer - my question was about influence and percieved importance.
> 
> The only thing I wished to highlight was that all the talk of "Obviously pre-eminent. Obviously." I see on the Callas threads doesn't tally with what (limited) reading I've done with interviews etc. I'm asking if the "obvious" is really "obvious", or if, maybe, it would help the Callas cause on TC if that rhetoric were dialled down just a notch.


The artistic and historic importance of Callas in the field of opera has always been appreciated by those who have taken an interest in it. There are a number of people on this forum who have done exactly this. They have posted a great deal of information over the years. They have offered detailed descriptions of her recorded performances. They have provided plenty of guidance, for those interested in looking for it, to anyone sincerely interested in understanding the work and impact of this unique artist. They have also composed lengthy posts, trying to take seriously the questions and objections raised by others who don't understand what all the fuss is about.

If all you can ask, in light of this, is why your "limited" reading of "interviews etc." hasn't proven to your satisfaction that Callas is as "pre-eminent" (in some unstated sense of the term) as you imagine others think she is, I think it has to be doubted that you have any actual interest in Maria Callas at all. Correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Of course if I'd never seen Olivier as Henry V I wouldn't recognise him as Charlie Rice! I agree with everything you've said about the Callas performance but it still seems 'acted' which it is of course. But opinions are subjective!


Not having heard Callas' Mimi, I do recall something a critic named Patrick Giles -- obviously a great fan of Callas -- wrote years ago in an OPERA NEWS appreciation, to the effect that 'even Callas occasionally sounded affected, particularly in the cold environment of a recording studio.' Maybe "affected" isn't the word I would have used, but I can guess what you mean, DavidA, by saying that the performance _sounded acted_. I don't think it's necessarily a criticism; on the contrary, it's only to be expected that every singer will not be a natural for each and every role she undertakes, and that sometimes more in the way of conscious coloring of the voice is necessary to achieve the desired aural effect. I don't think many opera fans would deny that someone like Freni was more of a _natural_ Mimi than Callas was; maybe she could embody Mimi by the sheer sound of her voice, whereas Callas' (darker) voice needed more conscious lightening to sound appropriately innocent? Yet saying all of this doesn't mean that Callas' performance wasn't successful in its own right. Too many people seem to have an all-or-nothing approach to these things.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> The artistic and historic importance of Callas in the field of opera has always been appreciated by those who have taken an interest in it. There are a number of people on this forum who have done exactly this. They have posted a great deal of information over the years. They have offered detailed descriptions of her recorded performances. They have provided plenty of guidance, for those interested in looking for it, to anyone sincerely interested in understanding the work and impact of this unique artist. They have also composed lengthy posts, trying to take seriously the questions and objections raised by others who don't understand what all the fuss is about.
> 
> If all you can ask, in light of this, is why your "limited" reading of "interviews etc." hasn't proven to your satisfaction that Callas is as "pre-eminent" (in some unstated sense of the term) as you imagine others think she is, I think it has to be doubted that you have any actual interest in Maria Callas at all. Correct me if I'm wrong.


I'll correct you, but I fear we're just going to continue talking past each other. I do have an interest in Callas, just no interest in the worshipful rhetoric. And the defensiveness over asking a seemingly innocent question like "why don't I see more young singers saying this" - which Headphone Hermit noted also, btw - just confirmes my frustrated opinion, shared by others, that if you're not speaking of her with unreserved reverance then that's the equivalent of hate.

This answer which only now comes from Greg would have satisfied me:



> In my experience, singers and singing students spend very little time listening to other singers for fear of absorbing too much of their interpretations. As for singing students, I've found they will often denigrate singers of the past without even really listening to them.


...but instead we have to go through all the "are you saying it isn't obvious? what are your motives? everybody loves her!" stuff. I think she's as open to question and criticism as any other singer or artist, and I'm quite happy - want, even - to be convincingly corrected. But all the reverential "its obvious" stuff isn't convincing. And getting through all the "how dare you" stuff is tiresome.

Don't bother - I'm done. i don't care now if I never hear another one of her records for another decade.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SimonNZ said:


> I'll correct you, but I fear we're just going to continue talking past each other. I do have an interest in Callas, just no interest in the worshipful rhetoric. And the defensiveness over asking a seemingly innocent question like "why don't I see more young singers saying this" - which Headphone Hermit noted also, btw - just confirmes my frustrated opinion, shared by others, that if you're not speaking of her with unreserved reverance then that's the equivalent of hate.
> 
> This answer which only now comes from Greg would have satisfied me:
> 
> ...


If you intended this as a description of anything I've said in my attempts to talk to you, you haven't really read anything I've said. If you review my posts to you (see post #180 in particular, to which you didn't respond), you will find neither "worshipful rhetoric" nor "unreserved reverence" but a genuine effort (at no little cost in time, I want you to know) to try to understand and respond to your apparent perplexity. I have asked you what, exactly, you hope to get out of this exchange, and you have done nothing to make that clear, but have ignored or dismissed everything I and others have taken the time and trouble to say. And only now, as you walk away in a huff, you finally tell us that all you needed to hear is that singers don't listen much to other singers? Sorry, but the rest of your remarks on this thread, disparaging other people's presumed attitudes and behavior, undermine the credibility of that assertion.

Let me remind you (and anyone else who hasn't noticed) that the title of this thread is_ "Maria__ Callas! Why?"_ It should not come as a huge surprise that some of us, who think we have some pretty good ideas why, have been attempting to share them. I must say it's a little strange being accused of any sort of inappropriate or unpleasant behavior because we've done this.

It's really too bad that what you claim is an actual "interest in Callas" is so easily negated by a senseless fit of pique. it renders that claim less believable now than ever. But if you want to take your toys and go home, I am surely not going to try to stop you.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> If you intended this as a description of anything I've said in my attempts to talk to you, you haven't really read anything I've said. If you review my posts to you (see post #180 in particular, to which you didn't respond), you will find neither "worshipful rhetoric" nor "unreserved reverence" but a genuine effort (at no little cost in time, I want you to know) to try to understand and respond to your apparent perplexity. *I have asked you what, exactly, you hope to get out of this exchange, and you have done nothing to make that clear, *but have ignored or dismissed everything I and others have taken the time and trouble to say. And only now, as you walk away in a huff, you finally tell us that all you needed to hear is that singers don't listen much to other singers? Sorry, but the rest of your remarks on this thread, disparaging other people's presumed attitudes and behavior, undermine the credibility of that assertion.
> 
> Let me remind you (and anyone else who hasn't noticed) that the title of this thread is_ "Maria__ Callas! Why?"_ It should not come as a huge surprise that some of us, who think we have some pretty good ideas why, have been attempting to share them. I must say it's a little strange being accused of any sort of inappropriate or unpleasant behavior because we've done this.
> 
> It's really too bad that what you claim is an actual "interest in Callas" is so easily negated by a senseless fit of pique. it renders that claim less believable now than ever. But if you want to take your toys and go home, I am surely not going to try to stop you.


Sigh...but I shouldn't need to answer that question - I wanted a reasonably simple answer to what I assumed was a very simple question. In no other context on TC would I first need to explain my motives for asking in the first place. I even said at the beginning I wasn't trying to be provocative. No matter, anything questioning is taken as anti-Callas. Doesn't this alone suggest that maybe these's something wrong?

I didn't respond to 180 because you spent some time (and, oh dear, effort) in criticising a 'ranking" I had already said i don't use but was only employing in that one post to try and convey a larger truth in shorthand: that "9 out of 10" isn't seemingly good enough wrt Callas.

And I'm not "huffing off", I just don't find this helpful, especially in getting and we're clearly talking past each other.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SimonNZ said:


> Sigh...but I shouldn't need to answer that question - I wanted a reasonably simple answer to what I assumed was a very simple question. In no other context on TC would I first need to explain my motives for asking in the first place. *I even said at the beginning I wasn't trying to be provocative.* No matter, anything questioning is taken as anti-Callas. Doesn't this alone suggest that maybe these's something wrong?
> 
> I didn't respond to 180 because you spent some time (and, oh dear, effort) in criticising a 'ranking" I had already said i don't use but was only employing in that one post to try and convey a larger truth in shorthand: that "9 out of 10" isn't seemingly good enough wrt Callas.
> 
> And I'm not "huffing off", I just don't find this helpful, especially in getting and we're clearly talking past each other.


OK. The last thing I want to do on this thread is discourage curiosity! If you're satisfied in thinking that the reason that you don't see singers in interviews mention Callas is that they just don't listen to other singers and are therefore as ignorant about her as the rest of us, I'm satisfied that you're satisfied. Honestly - not knowing what interviews with what singers you've read - I can't see of what value that information (if true) could possibly be, except as an indication that maybe Callas isn't being neglected (if she is) because she deserves to be neglected. I had to think that your interest went a bit deeper than that, and had to be motivated by some unstated assumptions or intentions.

You say you were not trying to be provocative. Your first post under this thread said that "Calling Callas "La Divina" is as cringe-inducing as calling Shakespeare 'The Bard'...and it's always accompanied by hyperbole." Your next comment was "As I've said before I don't mind Callas, but the near-religion has turned me off completely." To be turned off completely to a singer by the fact that she has an extremely devoted following suggested to me that your subsequent efforts to determine how popular she is from unspecified interviews with unnamed present-day singers (whether she might be viewed as an "eccentric" or a mere "9 out of 10") represented something more than idle curiosity. I did initially make an effort not to take a defensive tone, despite the jabs at her fans and the odd nature of your inquiry, and to address what I thought the underlying question was - namely, does Callas deserve all the praise she receives? I do think that's the important question here, don't you? But, if you're not really asking it, and are content to express annoyance with the fact that there are people whose devotion to her exceeds the level you deem proper, there's not much to be said.

I do seriously wonder - and I'm not talking only to you here - why people must disparage or mock others for their enthusiasm, especially enthusiasm for creatures as harmless as singers. God knows there are fans on this forum drooling over singers I wouldn't cross the street to hear. But so what? I may think their sensibilities and standards abysmal, but I wouldn't dream of telling them so or complaining about their delirious rhetoric or their "quasi-religious devotion." I may well express my disagreement with their tastes and judgments if the subject comes up for discussion - but to announce that their behavior is offensive?

The world of opera is an interlocking network of fan clubs. Is a lot of it silly and tasteless? Yeah - just like the world in general. That needn't ruin it for us, or disguise the fact that there's truly great art beneath the sometimes extravagant hype. I think its a mistake to look at the hype before we look at the artist - and equally a mistake to dismiss the hype as nothing more than hype.

Forget "La Divina." That's just people having fun. But Callas herself will withstand serious scrutiny and survive the hype very nicely. You might even find that she justifies most of it.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> OK. The last thing I want to do on this thread is discourage curiosity! *If you're satisfied in thinking that the reason that you don't see singers in interviews mention Callas is that they just don't listen to other singers and are therefore as ignorant about her as the rest of us, I'm satisfied that you're satisfied.* Honestly - not knowing what interviews with what singers you've read - I can't see of what value that information (if true) could possibly be, except as an indication that maybe Callas isn't being neglected (if she is) because she deserves to be neglected. I had to think that your interest went a bit deeper than that, and had to be motivated by some unstated assumptions or intentions.
> 
> You say you were not trying to be provocative. Your first post under this thread said that "Calling Callas "La Divina" is as cringe-inducing as calling Shakespeare 'The Bard'...and it's always accompanied by hyperbole."


I'm sure you're aware that Greg offered this among other thoughts, and I was demonstrating that that would be a simple answer to a simple question, one hopefully of a few others which is all I was looking for, even if not the final word.

And I said i wasn't trying to be provocative when I asked this specific question, not the earlier stuff, as I'm sure you're also aware.

And...

But really, lets just agree to stop.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SimonNZ said:


> I'm sure you're aware that Greg offered this among other thoughts, and I was demonstrating that that would be a simple answer to a simple question, one hopefully of a few others which is all I was looking for, even if not the final word.
> 
> And I said i wasn't trying to be provocative when I asked this specific question, not the earlier stuff, as I'm sure you're also aware.
> 
> ...


Agree to cease fire.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> If you intended this as a description of anything I've said in my attempts to talk to you, you haven't really read anything I've said. If you review my posts to you (see post #180 in particular, to which you didn't respond), you will find neither "worshipful rhetoric" nor "unreserved reverence" but a genuine effort (at no little cost in time, I want you to know) to try to understand and respond to your apparent perplexity. I have asked you what, exactly, you hope to get out of this exchange, and you have done nothing to make that clear, but have ignored or dismissed everything I and others have taken the time and trouble to say. And only now, as you walk away in a huff, you finally tell us that all you needed to hear is that singers don't listen much to other singers? Sorry, but the rest of your remarks on this thread, disparaging other people's presumed attitudes and behavior, undermine the credibility of that assertion.
> 
> *Let me remind you (and anyone else who hasn't noticed) that the title of this thread is "Maria Callas! Why?"* It should not come as a huge surprise that some of us, who think we have some pretty good ideas why, have been attempting to share them. I must say it's a little strange being accused of any sort of inappropriate or unpleasant behavior because we've done this.
> 
> *It's really too bad that what you claim is an actual "interest in Callas" is so easily negated by a senseless fit of pique. it renders that claim less believable now than ever. But if you want to take your toys and go home, I am surely not going to try to stop you.*


A dialectic always presupposes a common denominator of rationality and good-faith effort. It doesn't presuppose stifling, stonewalling, and evading.

At least not since Socrates' time.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> OK. The last thing I want to do on this thread is discourage curiosity! If you're satisfied in thinking that the reason that you don't see singers in interviews mention Callas is that they just don't listen to other singers and are therefore as ignorant about her as the rest of us, I'm satisfied that you're satisfied. Honestly - not knowing what interviews with what singers you've read - I can't see of what value that information (if true) could possibly be, except as an indication that maybe Callas isn't being neglected (if she is) because she deserves to be neglected. I had to think that your interest went a bit deeper than that, and had to be motivated by some unstated assumptions or intentions.
> 
> You say you were not trying to be provocative. Your first post under this thread said that "Calling Callas "La Divina" is as cringe-inducing as calling Shakespeare 'The Bard'...and it's always accompanied by hyperbole." Your next comment was "As I've said before I don't mind Callas, but the near-religion has turned me off completely." To be turned off completely to a singer by the fact that she has an extremely devoted following suggested to me that your subsequent efforts to determine how popular she is from unspecified interviews with unnamed present-day singers (whether she might be viewed as an "eccentric" or a mere "9 out of 10") represented something more than idle curiosity. I did initially make an effort not to take a defensive tone, despite the jabs at her fans and the odd nature of your inquiry, and to address what I thought the underlying question was - namely, does Callas deserve all the praise she receives? I do think that's the important question here, don't you? But, if you're not really asking it, and are* content to express annoyance with the fact that there are people whose devotion to her exceeds the level you deem proper*, there's not much to be said.
> 
> ...


I never had much use for musical Puritanism, myself- where there's this haunting suspicion, that someone, somewhere, may be having entirely too much fun enthusing over music that makes them feel empowered, engaged, and alive.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

SimonNZ said:


> Don't bother - I'm done. i don't care now if I never hear another one of her records for another decade.


Dear Simon - I can understand your frustration but as a keen Callas fan, I'd simply ask that you don't hold Callas herself (or even her singing) as responsible for your frustration (and besides, you would be missing out on so much magic).

When I was a child, I noticed that it was impossible for a Liverpool fan to have anything positive to say about Everton (or Man Utd etc) but I rather hoped that discussion of classical music might be more nuanced than such tribal loyalties. I still hope it can be so :tiphat:


----------



## RES (Oct 30, 2014)

Never been on this thread before but it always looms as an option beneath the now also-dead thread about the Warner studio recording remasterings of 2014. So I thought I'd answer the title question from my perspective as a writer on Callas. Nothing is simple but all the stuff I see about 'acting' and 'having to see her' are red herrings. Sure, the videos of her add something, but she can be entirely appreciated through the music. The essence of Callas is that she was the greatest *musician* of the 20th century. She seldom spoke about herself in relation to other singers, only great instrumentalists. That is, she transcended even what the composers wrote in their scores (even with the nasty 'traditional cuts' of her epoch). Every gesture that moves us is in the music. As for stagecraft, she moved very little. As she said herself, "If you want to know how to act on stage, all you have to do is listen to the music..., you will find every gesture there." Most musicians can't extract every nuance of expression from the written notes, but she did, consistently, and even went well beyond them. I think the composers would have been stunned by musical gestures she bought to bear that they wrote but whose intense execution they hadn't even considered. She was music incarnate. That can't be said about any other singer, at least none whose work can be heard. That's "Maria Callas! Why?"


----------

