# Zinka Milanov tries a new Maria Callas record



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

Zinka Milanov's savage sense of humor:




__ https://www.facebook.com/Zinka.Kunc.Milanov/posts/2993509814036447


----------



## VitellioScarpia (Aug 27, 2017)

Tuoksu said:


> Zinka Milanov's savage sense of humor:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


However, Callas had a good quip her debut night about Milanov. La Zinka did not have a success a couple of years earlier with her Norma (it was a long time from 1940), so when Callas heard that La Zinka was getting applause by walking down the aisle, Callas said "Since she can't get an applause by singing Norma, she gets the applause she wants in Norma by walking down the aisle." :lol:


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

I see neither of the two women was fond of the other. Zinka in this interview attributed Callas' success to scandals.


----------



## aussiebushman (Apr 21, 2018)

I'll get crucified for saying this - but Milanov could sing. Callas merely acted!


----------



## silentio (Nov 10, 2014)

Tuoksu said:


> I see neither of the two women was fond of the other. Zinka, in this interview, attributed Callas' success to scandals.


To her credit, despite the slightly imperious tone, she did give some fair assessments about Callas, that the scandals should not distract us from "the fact that she was an excellent singer," that Callas sang well from "1949 to 1956" and was excellent in bel-canto roles. She was also impartial in her opinion about Tebaldi, that she had a gorgeous voice but was not so much of an actress. This interview surprised me a bit since from what I heard about the Milanov-Nilsson feud, I would expect her to be more bitchy toward her junior rivals


----------



## VitellioScarpia (Aug 27, 2017)

silentio said:


> To her credit, despite the slightly imperious tone, she did give some fair assessments about Callas, that the scandals should not distract us from "the fact that she was an excellent singer," that Callas sang well from "1949 to 1956" and was excellent in bel-canto roles. She was also impartial in her opinion about Tebaldi, that she had a gorgeous voice but was not so much of an actress. This interview surprised me a bit since from what I heard about the Milanov-Nilsson feud, I would expect her to be more bitchy toward her junior rivals


Unfortunately, it appears that she was unable to be fair about herself. I heard an interview that Richard Mohr did with her in the early 80's for a Met broadcast that needs to be heard to be believed. My roommate at the time, who could not care less about opera, heard what the interview and said "That woman thinks that she's divinity." She was too full of herself.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

aussiebushman said:


> I'll get crucified for saying this - but Milanov could sing. Callas merely acted!


Or Milanov merely sang notes. Callas made music. For someone who merely acted, she's revered by an awful lot of people who have never seen her.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

Milanov was, reportedly, an old fashioned singer who just sang. Nothing extra was vouchsafed. Some say that she barely knew what the opera was about (I read this in some opera singer’s biography - maybe Robert Merrill’s, who was not chary with anecdotes about other singers).


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

I wish there was a collection of her wit and wisdom. I want to do a speech about her at Toastmasters, but I don't feel like investing in a book.


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

aussiebushman said:


> I'll get crucified for saying this - but Milanov could sing. Callas merely acted!


Callas sang better than anyone who's ever been recorded. Only for 4 years though (1949-1953).

Edit: 4 years on recording, but I assume everything before 1949 could be included too.


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

VitellioScarpia said:


> Unfortunately, it appears that she was unable to be fair about herself. I heard an interview that Richard Mohr did with her in the early 80's for a Met broadcast that needs to be heard to be believed. My roommate at the time, who could not care less about opera, heard what the interview and said "That woman thinks that she's divinity." She was too full of herself.


I remember reading something about somebody telling her something along the lines of "your voice was like silver tonight." and she replied "no, like gold" or close enough to make no difference.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Tuoksu said:


> Callas sang better than anyone who's ever been recorded. Only for 4 years though (1949-1953).
> 
> Edit: 4 years on recording, but I assume everything before 1949 could be included too.


Only 4 years? 
*1954* 
Lucia di Lammermoor at La Scala under Karajan 
Alceste at La Scala under Giulini
Norma - studio recording
La Forza Del Destino - Studio recording
Il Turco in Italia - Studio recording
Puccini Arias recital disc
Lyric & Coloratura recital disc
La Vestale - La Scala 
San Remo Radio Concert (fabulous performances of _Martern aller Arten_ and _D'amore al dolce impero_)

*1955*
La Sonnambula at La Scala under Bernstein
La Traviata at La Scala under Giulini
Norma in concert in Rome under Serafin
Studio recording of Madama Butterfly under Karajan 
Studio recording of Rigoletto with Gobbi under Serafin 
Lucia di Lammermoor in Berlin under Karajan
Norma at La Scala under Votto (arguably the greatest of all her performances of the role)

*1956*

Studio recording of Il Trovatore under Karajan
Studio recording of La Boheme under Votto
Studio recording of Un Ballo in Maschera under Votto

*1957*
Studio recording of Il Barbiere di Siviglia
Studio recording of La Sonnambula
Anna Bolena at La Scala under Gavazzeni (undoubtedly oe of her greatest nights in the theatre)
La Sonnambula in Cologne under Votto
Un Ballo in Maschera at La Scala under Votto

*1958*
La Traviata in Lisbon under Ghione
La Traviata at Covent Garden under Rescigno (arguably her most emotionally shattering performance of the role ever)
Verdi Arias in the studio 
Mad Scenes in the studio
Medea in Dallas under Rescigno

Admittedly there is a tailing off after this, but there are still some great performances ahead of her, like the 1959 studio recording of La Gioconda, the 1960 studio recording of Norma, the two French recitals and the studio recording of Carmen.

I'd say she had a good deal more than 4 years.


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

Tsaraslondon said:


> Only 4 years?
> *1954*
> Lucia di Lammermoor at La Scala under Karajan
> Alceste at La Scala under Giulini
> ...


I'm not saying her singing was bad after those 4 years(though some was painful to listen to). My statement was based on the premise that, to me, Callas between 1949 and 1953 (especially live) was as close to perfection as it gets. Big, dark, opulent, and beautiful rivaling the great spinti and drammatici before her, but also with superhuman agility and amazing huge acuti. That was in my opinion the best voice EVER and I would bet anyone to bring forward anything as perfect as her live Macbeth, Armida, Nabucco, Gioconda, Aida, Trovatore and others from that era.

Maria's my favorite singer, second to none, for those 4 years alone. But after that, we have to admit the voice became less than it used to be(whatever happened to Armida in just 2 years??), hence my statement wouldn't hold in many places and would be somehow unfair. For example, given the Verdi Arias from 1958, I'd rather listen to Cerquetti or Tebaldi for most of it. But if you give me a compilation of the Callas Verdi arias recorded before 1953, however, Cerquetti and Tebaldi would fade into oblivion forever.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Tuoksu said:


> I'm not saying her singing was bad after those 4 years(though some was painful to listen to). My statement was based on the premise that, to me, Callas between 1949 and 1953 (especially live) was as close to perfection as it gets. Big, dark, opulent, and beautiful rivaling the great spinti and drammatici before her, but also with superhuman agility and amazing huge acuti. That was in my opinion the best voice EVER and I would bet anyone to bring forward anything as perfect as her live Macbeth, Armida, Nabucco, Gioconda, Aida, Trovatore and others from that era.
> 
> Maria's my favorite singer, second to none, for those 4 years alone. But after that, we have to admit the voice became less than it used to be(whatever happened to Armida in just 2 years??), hence my statement wouldn't hold in many places and would be somehow unfair. For example, given the Verdi Arias from 1958, I'd rather listen to Cerquetti or Tebaldi for most of it. But if you give me a compilation of the Callas Verdi arias recorded before 1953, however, Cerquetti and Tebaldi would fade into oblivion forever.


If I could be beamed to you and the virus **** was over, I'd kiss you French style on both of your cheeks ;-)


----------



## VitellioScarpia (Aug 27, 2017)

Tuoksu said:


> I remember reading something about somebody telling her something along the lines of "your voice was like silver tonight." and she replied "no, like gold" or close enough to make no difference.


There's a funny Milanov story as told by Bonaldo Giaiotti in the interview below. In case you do not understand Italian I will relate it here very briefly. After Milanov retired, she was with a couple of admirers listening to some of her recordings (apparently Giaiotti was there). She was on a rocking chair quietly while the admirers where extolling her high notes. Later they were saying "where can you find low notes like these?" Milanov, still rocking, asked "And the middle?" Precious...


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Tuoksu said:


> I'm not saying her singing was bad after those 4 years(though some was painful to listen to). My statement was based on the premise that, to me, Callas between 1949 and 1953 (especially live) was as close to perfection as it gets. Big, dark, opulent, and beautiful rivaling the great spinti and drammatici before her, but also with superhuman agility and amazing huge acuti. That was in my opinion the best voice EVER and I would bet anyone to bring forward anything as perfect as her live Macbeth, Armida, Nabucco, Gioconda, Aida, Trovatore and others from that era.
> 
> Maria's my favorite singer, second to none, for those 4 years alone. But after that, we have to admit the voice became less than it used to be(whatever happened to Armida in just 2 years??), hence my statement wouldn't hold in many places and would be somehow unfair. For example, given the Verdi Arias from 1958, I'd rather listen to Cerquetti or Tebaldi for most of it. But if you give me a compilation of the Callas Verdi arias recorded before 1953, however, Cerquetti and Tebaldi would fade into oblivion forever.


I both agree and disagree, for, though the voice was no doubt at its best during those four years, the performances I'd most like to be transported back for are pretty much all those from 1955, *Anna Bolena* from 1957, the Covent Garden *Traviata* and Dallas *Medea* of 1958, and even the Covent Garden *Tosca* of 1964 (still, for those people I know who saw it, the greatest performance they ever saw). That isn't to say of courtse that I wouldn't want to also have been there for the Mexico *Aida* of 1951, the *Armida* and *Macbeth* of 1952, and the Covent Garden *Norma* from that year, the Florence and La Scala *Medea*s etc, but I love _tutta_ Callas. I think she developed as an artist after the weight loss and I would still call 1955 her _annus miarbilis_, the year when voice and art reached their truest equilibrium.

Incidentally, when it comes to the Verdi recital of 1958, about half of it is taken up by arias from *Macbeth*. It's not a programme I would like to hear Tebaldi sing, nor one she would have attempted, apart from the aria from *Don Carlo*, and I still prefer Callas in that aria. The *Macbeth* arias have only been bettered by Maria herself live at La Scala, or at least the first two were. The _Sleepwalking Scene_ is better realised in the studio recital, parly due to a slower tempo and Callas's more detailed interpretation. Did Cerquetti ever sing Lady Macbeth? I don't know.


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

Seattleoperafan said:


> If I could be beamed to you and the virus **** was over, I'd kiss you French style on both of your cheeks ;-)


:lol: .... :tiphat:


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

Tsaraslondon said:


> I both agree and disagree, for, though the voice was no doubt at its best during those four years, the performances I'd most like to be transported back for are pretty much all those from 1955, *Anna Bolena* from 1957, the Covent Garden *Traviata* and Dallas *Medea* of 1958, and even the Covent Garden *Tosca* of 1964 (still, for those people I know who saw it, the greatest performance they ever saw). That isn't to say of courtse that I wouldn't want to also have been there for the Mexico *Aida* of 1951, the *Armida* and *Macbeth* of 1952, and the Covent Garden *Norma* from that year, the Florence and La Scala *Medea*s etc, but I love _tutta_ Callas. I think she developed as an artist after the weight loss and I would still call 1955 her _annus miarbilis_, the year when voice and art reached their truest equilibrium.
> 
> Incidentally, when it comes to the Verdi recital of 1958, about half of it is taken up by arias from *Macbeth*. It's not a programme I would like to hear Tebaldi sing, nor one she would have attempted, apart from the aria from *Don Carlo*, and I still prefer Callas in that aria. The *Macbeth* arias have only been bettered by Maria herself live at La Scala, or at least the first two were. The _Sleepwalking Scene_ is better realised in the studio recital, parly due to a slower tempo and Callas's more detailed interpretation. Did Cerquetti ever sing Lady Macbeth? I don't know.


Sorry I forgot to also mention the 1964-1969 recordings too. I was thinking of Ballo, Don Carlo, Trovatore, Aida, Vespri and Otello.
Roles that are completely owned by Callas regardless of the time frame are out of the question of course, that includes Macbeth, Norma and Medea (even though Serafin's cuts in the studio recording ruined it a little for me). The studio macbeth arias are incredible, they made me fall in love with the opera (my favorite) but after I heard the Scala de Sabata from 1952 I never ever returned to those. I LOVE vieni t'affretta in the hamburg 1958 recital despite the crack on "e retrocede". 
But in roles that aren't extremely dramatic , like the late Verdi roles I mentioned above, I'd rather go for a very beautiful spinto voice. Callas provided great musical and dramatic precision and insight in those, but at some point you can't just pretend that hollowed squeezed sound is beautiful, at some point only the chest voice was impressively beautiful (even though it works incredibly for Violetta.) It's not the weight loss, it's her literally squeezing her huge voice for expression.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Tuoksu said:


> Sorry I forgot to also mention the 1964-1969 recordings too. I was thinking of Ballo, Don Carlo, Trovatore, Aida, Vespri and Otello.


These, I admit, can be hard to listen to and I have what I call a wobble tolerance. Sometimes I find them impossible to listen to. Other times I am drawn in by the artistry and notice the problems less. Even in these later recordings, her sense of Verdian style and line never deserts her. In any case, Leonora in *Il Trovatore*, Elena in *I Vespri Siciliani*, and Amelia in *In Ballo in Maschera* are much more Callas roles than Tebaldi ones, as Tebaldi never really had the requisite vocal flexibility.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Tuoksu said:


> Callas sang better than anyone who's ever been recorded. Only for 4 years though (1949-1953).
> 
> Edit: 4 years on recording, but I assume everything before 1949 could be included too.


She had some good days after the weight loss like her 57 Lucia ( where she sounded amazing) , but for the most part I agree. I just wish we had better recordings from the early period. The first Norma was during her weight loss so she was likely about half way and she was still magnificent here and the sound was good. Her studio Anna Bolena was great but unlike Sutherland she avoided the notes above the staff, which can be so fabulous if done well like Joan did.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Seattleoperafan said:


> She had some good days after the weight loss like her 57 Lucia ( where she sounded amazing) , but for the most part I agree. I just wish we had better recordings from the early period. The first Norma was during her weight loss so she was likely about half way and she was still magnificent here and the sound was good. Her studio Anna Bolena was great but unlike Sutherland she avoided the notes above the staff, which can be so fabulous if done well like Joan did.


She didn't record Anna Bolena in the studio, only the Mad Scene. Nor did she avoid any high notes. She sang what Donizetti wrote, just didn't interpolate any stratospheric notes, which, personally, I prefer.

PS Not sure which Lucia you are referring to here. She recorded it in the studio in 1953 and 1959, but the most famous one is the live Berlin from 1955, conducted by Karajan.


----------



## VitellioScarpia (Aug 27, 2017)

I think that if we focus only on Callas' voice, however brilliantly she sang or how much we like it, we do her a disservice. Callas herself did not particularly like her instrument even early on but "learned to accept it". What is marvelous about Callas is that when others sing notes or phrases, Callas is singing in "paragraphs" as Terrence McNally acutely pointed out in his preface to Ardoin's Callas Legacy. Callas knew her worth very clearly as an artist and was clear about what state she was going through. The only time she wavered in her clarity was allowing herself to be convinced to do the final tour because she needed the emotional support at that time but I am convinced that she knew better.

But returning the conversation of the Milanov/Callas parallel, I believe that La Zinka should have retired about 8 to 10 years earlier than she did in 1966. The Forza and Gioconda recordings in 1958 came too late and they do not offer any artistic rewards from her. Even the famed Aida of 1955 is already showing signs of her waning vocal capabilities. The Met Ernani's with Del Monaco was characterized as "early Verdi does not suit late Milanov". I contend that it would have not suited her early either. Her technique was limited, she was not musically insightful, and her acting was limited to a few grand vocal gestures. For example, her 1940 Norma with Jagel is fun because she is in full mother-bear voice and although one can hear her laboring with the coloratura, she gives this "don't mess around with me" sound that is quite exciting. But she was not as famed as Norma as Ponselle or even Cigna (who I do not believe to be a good Norma).

Unfortunately, La Zinka was also not spontaneously exciting and illuminating singer as, for example, Tebaldi could be even late in her career. Milanov is definitely in the _Stimme_ diva category and spare in the _Kunst_. So, when the voice started to go, there is not much to hold onto like we can with Callas and others: Tebaldi, Olivero, Leontyne Price, Schwarzkopf, Nilsson (yes, she was more than just loud _acuti_), Scotto, etc. In my book, they are more complete artists than Milanov.

P.S.: Charlie Handelman, get your ammunition ready to _obliterate_ me... :tiphat:


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

Tsaraslondon said:


> These, I admit, can be hard to listen to and I have what I call a wobble tolerance. Sometimes I find them impossible to listen to. Other times I am drawn in by the artistry and notice the problems less. Even in these later recordings, her sense of Verdian style and line never deserts her. In any case, Leonora in *Il Trovatore*, Elena in *I Vespri Siciliani*, and Amelia in *In Ballo in Maschera* are much more Callas roles than Tebaldi ones, as Tebaldi never really had the requisite vocal flexibility.




Yes I agree, and I'd add Aida. I also wish the pre-1953 Callas sang Desdemona. It would have been the best. But I guess the non-very-title role didn't appeal to her. I'm glad we have Clara Petrella for that though.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Tsaraslondon said:


> She didn't record Anna Bolena in the studio, only the Mad Scene. Nor did she avoid any high notes. She sang what Donizetti wrote, just didn't interpolate any stratospheric notes, which, personally, I prefer.
> 
> PS Not sure which Lucia you are referring to here. She recorded it in the studio in 1953 and 1959, but the most famous one is the live Berlin from 1955, conducted by Karajan.






 Someone on here pointed me towards this 57 Rome recording and it made me very happy. I don't know later Callas very well as I tend to avoid her then.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

I agree with those who have pointed out the huge difference between Milanov and Callas, being that Milanov was very much about making the most aesthetically pleasing sound she could (thus sacrificing expression in the process) and Callas sought to express the truth of the music and libretto even if that meant sacrificing beauty of tone.

Callas was indeed at her best technically from 1949-53, but her interpretation deepened from 1955 on and that's one reason why her second Gioconda, Norma AND Tosca remain favourites (although I'm not sure I would choose the stereo studio Tosca over the earlier more famous one). Whilst I recognise technical defects and see no reason to pretend they aren't there, I personally am far more captivated by artistry, dramatic involvement and emotional expression when listening to opera. A couple of months ago I listened to a number of recordings of the act two duet from Don Carlo with a friend. One of the recordings was one of the takes from the 1972-73 unpublished Callas/Di Stefano duets album. Whilst her voice was shot to pieces, none of the other singers listened to (Freni, Caballe, Ricciarelli) phrased Elisabetta's part with such loving caresses. Most sopranos sing music, Callas even at the very end of her career sang meaning.

I would also note that Callas' voice tends to be better on those studio duets than it was in the live concerts that followed. (Although this is very much a relative concept, her voice had deteriorated so much.)

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Seattleoperafan said:


> Someone on here pointed me towards this 57 Rome recording and it made me very happy. I don't know later Callas very well as I tend to avoid her then.


There is also the superb Anna Bolena from 1957 which I recalled you liked as well. You've said in the past that you find it difficult to listen to Callas much, but is it worth searching out some of the better late live recordings? Have you heard the 1955 La Scala Norma and Sonnambula? Traviata from the same year and later great performances such as the Pirata, Poliuto and Dallas Medea?

N.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Seattleoperafan said:


> Someone on here pointed me towards this 57 Rome recording and it made me very happy. I don't know later Callas very well as I tend to avoid her then.


Well you should defiinitely try the 1955 Berlin performance then


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

The Conte said:


> I agree with those who have pointed out the huge difference between Milanov and Callas, being that Milanov was very much about making the most aesthetically pleasing sound she could (thus sacrificing expression in the process) and Callas sought to express the truth of the music and libretto even if that meant sacrificing beauty of tone.
> 
> Callas was indeed at her best technically from 1949-53, but her interpretation deepened from 1955 on and that's one reason why her second Gioconda, Norma AND Tosca remain favourites (although I'm not sure I would choose the stereo studio Tosca over the earlier more famous one). Whilst I recognise technical defects and see no reason to pretend they aren't there, I personally am far more captivated by artistry, dramatic involvement and emotional expression when listening to opera. A couple of months ago I listened to a number of recordings of the act two duet from Don Carlo with a friend. One of the recordings was one of the takes from the 1972-73 unpublished Callas/Di Stefano duets album. Whilst her voice was shot to pieces, none of the other singers listened to (Freni, Caballe, Ricciarelli) phrased Elisabetta's part with such loving caresses. Most sopranos sing music, Callas even at the very end of her career sang meaning.
> 
> ...


I would compare Early 1949-1953 Callas to a young prodigy musician with a masterful technique who plays an expensive, rare and very well-tuned instrument, and later Callas to the same musician who gained more experience and further refined his technique and who now plays a worn-out, cheaper version of the same instrument.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Tuoksu said:


> I would compare Early 1949-1953 Callas to a young prodigy musician with a masterful technique who plays an expensive, rare and very well-tuned instrument, and later Callas to the same musician who gained more experience and further refined his technique and who now plays a worn-out, cheaper version of the same instrument.


I agree with your first idea and your second if it refers to Callas post 1958 (although there are exceptions, such as the Pirata and the Carmen, not to mention the Poliuto where she treads very carefully and so avoids too much in the way of strain and wobble). However what about Callas 1954 to 58? Is not most of her work from that period (especially the magic year of 55) not that of a supreme artist who still has an almost perfect technique married to some of the most profound artistry ever heard in music?

N.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

The Conte said:


> There is also the superb Anna Bolena from 1957 which I recalled you liked as well. You've said in the past that you find it difficult to listen to Callas much, but is it worth searching out some of the better late live recordings? Have you heard the 1955 La Scala Norma and Sonnambula? Traviata from the same year and later great performances such as the Pirata, Poliuto and Dallas Medea?
> 
> N.


Thank you so much! Please read my comments in the post immediately below where I will address these.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Tsaraslondon said:


> Well you should defiinitely try the 1955 Berlin performance then


Ok. I was wrong. My favorite aria by her is Armida - D'amore Al Dolce Impero ( 1952) and she did the same aria in 54 in recital and there was a noticeable decline in the volume and excitement of the climax of the aria, so based on that and the awful state of her voice in her video recitals I just ignored most of her later work. I am blown away by her in the excerpts I heard in Lucia, Traviata, and Media from 55 that you two recommended to me. Her Eb's are not as big as a her vocal peak, but they are maybe more beautiful and perfect for the arias. I can't say based on these if the voice as a whole as as large, but it is lovely and perfectly controlled throughout. I just was not expecting this. Was she mostly in great voice in 55 or was she starting her slide in other performances??? I am still more partial to the sound of Sutherland's voice, but there is no denying that in these 55 recordings Calls still had it.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Seattleoperafan said:


> Ok. I was wrong. My favorite aria by her is Armida - D'amore Al Dolce Impero ( 1952) and she did the same aria in 54 in recital and there was a noticeable decline in the volume and excitement of the climax of the aria, so based on that and the awful state of her voice in her video recitals I just ignored most of her later work. I am blown away by her in the excerpts I heard in Lucia, Traviata, and Media from 55 that you two recommended to me. Her Eb's are not as big as a her vocal peak, but they are maybe more beautiful and perfect for the arias. I can't say based on these if the voice as a whole as as large, but it is lovely and perfectly controlled throughout. I just was not expecting this. Was she mostly in great voice in 55 or was she starting her slide in other performances??? I am still more partial to the sound of Sutherland's voice, but there is no denying that in these 55 recordings Calls still had it.


I always say 1955 was Callas's _annus mirabilis_, the year that voice and art were at their truest equilibrium, and fortunately many performances from this year have been preserved in sound. The weight loss had freed her as a performing artist and the voice, though probably slightly reduced in volume, was still a firm and powerful instrument. According to Giulini, after the weight loss, "She became another woman and a new world of expression opened to her. Potentials held in the shadows emerged. In every sense, she had been transformed."

The year had started inauspiciously with her learning the role of Maddalena in a few days, as Del Monaco had declared himself too unwell to sing Manrico, but felt he could sing Chénier. (Who knows the vicissitudes of tenors?). Her Maddalena, as can be heard from the recording, is rather interesting, but the opera is emphatically a tenor vehicle and one wonders why she bothered.

However her next production at La Scala was a triumph. This was the Visconti/Bernstein *La Sonnambula*. She followed this with a Zeffirelli production of *Il Turco in Italia* (unfortunately not recorded), but then topped even these successes with the famous Visconti/Giulini *La Traviata*, one of the most famous productions in La Scala's history, and also mercifully preserved in sound.. Next up was a Rome radio broadcast of *Norma* under Serafin, in which she is in terrific voice.

Summer recording sessions produced the Karajan conducted *Madama Butterfly*, the Serafin *Rigoletto* with Gobbi, and the Serafin *Aida*.

Early in September La Scala took the Karajan production of *Lucia di Lammermoor* to Berlin, where she had a stupendous success. Maybe prophetically, the critic Desmond Shawe-Taylor said of these performances, "I dare say she will never sing better than she does now; there is Greek resin in her voice which will never be quite strained away; she will never charm us with the full round ductile tone of Muzio or [Rosa] Raisa or Ponselle. But she has sudden flights, dramatic outbursts of rocketing virtuosity, of which even those more richly endowed singers were hardly capable."

After that, she went to Chicago for the second time, where her roles were Elvira in *I Puritani*, Leonora in *Il Trovatore* with Bjoerling, and Butterfly (the only time she sang the role on stage). None of these peformances were recorded but Bjoerling called her Leonora "perfection". The final performance of Butterfly was also the scene for the first big scandal of her career, when a process server stuffed a summons into the sash of her kimono as she exited the stage and she went mad. Paparazzi just happened to be on hand to capture the moment and the rest is history.

She finished the year by opening the La Scala season with what many believe to be her finest performances ever of *Norma* with Simionato and Del Monaco. Fortunately the opening night was recorded too. It is, without any doubt, the performance of Norma I would take to that proverbial desert island.

There were still some great performances to come in the future, but no other year would be as spectaular as 1955. I'm tempted to say no other singer in history has had a year filled with such success, She was at the absolute apex of her career and I suppose there is only one way to go from there.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Tsaraslondon said:


> I always say 1955 was Callas's _annus mirabilis_, the year that voice and art were at their truest equilibrium, and fortunately many performances from this year have been preserved in sound. The weight loss had freed her as a performing artist and the voice, though probably slightly reduced in volume, was still a firm and powerful instrument. According to Giulini, after the weight loss, "She became another woman and a new world of expression opened to her. Potentials held in the shadows emerged. In every sense, she had been transformed."
> 
> The year had started inauspiciously with her learning the role of Maddalena in a few days, as Del Monaco had declared himself too unwell to sing Manrico, but felt he could sing Chénier. (Who knows the vicissitudes of tenors?). Her Maddalena, as can be heard from the recording, is rather interesting, but the opera is emphatically a tenor vehicle and one wonders why she bothered.
> 
> ...


You are so kind to educate me on something so momentous. I will check these recordings out.


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

The Conte said:


> I agree with your first idea and your second if it refers to Callas post 1958 (although there are exceptions, such as the Pirata and the Carmen, not to mention the Poliuto where she treads very carefully and so avoids too much in the way of strain and wobble). However what about Callas 1954 to 58? * Is not most of her work from that period (especially the magic year of 55) not that of a supreme artist who still has an almost perfect technique married to some of the most profound artistry ever heard in music*?
> 
> N.


Of course that applies to Callas even up until her death. My point is, I never meant to dismiss her work immediately after 1953. Some of my favorites of hers are from that era, and I'd still listen to Callas up to 1960 in some roles rather than anyone else. 
I was simply referring to her timbre/vocal production in my "instrument" part of the analogy. My original statement was simply that Callas for 4 years sang better than *everyone*. That doesn't mean that after that her singing was bad or sub-par. It only lost some of the extra points that made it _the _best ever before 1953. 
The "fat sound" of pre-1952 as Sutherland described it was actually beautiful in a way she and her husband compared to Flagstad (huge, pouring out of her etc), flattered more by live recordings than by studio recordings since in studio she's already developed the later habits of restraining the voice (her film vs theater analogy). Sutherland even claimed that nobody who's heard Callas after 1952 has really heard Callas.

Let's compare:





This is a perfectly beautiful voice in my opinion: easy, full-bodied with perfect use of chest voice and even from top to bottom. 
Then this :






There is a difference in terms of overall beauty and fullness of tone, as well as size and power but not that much, because she's singing live (not restraining, letting go completely) and it's a dramatic aria.
The same applies to Lady Macbeth. The 1959 Hamburg Concert and 1958 studio arias are still light years ahead of any other lady macbeth I've ever heard. . But her 1952 is just something else that even her own 1958 lady macbeth is almost no competition. The singing is supreme with both voices, but the voice is just not the same. Abigaille's aria however is painful to listen to and I can only listen to 1949-1952 excerpts anymore (again, because of the voice not the singing.)

But then when we take this Butterfly from 1955:






It's a masterpiece of great singing, and I can hear the young virginal Butterfly, as opposed to the womanly, voluptuous (almost matronly) Butterfly of Tebaldi. But the squeezed restrained timbre of Maria is obviously not flattered by such Puccini music whose primary demand is vocal beauty and I enjoy Tebaldi more in this role who opted to keep her sumptuous spinto for the same role.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Tuoksu said:


> Of course that applies to Callas even up until her death. My point is, I never meant to dismiss her work immediately after 1953. Some of my favorites of hers are from that era, and I'd still listen to Callas up to 1960 in some roles rather than anyone else.
> I was simply referring to her timbre/vocal production in my "instrument" part of the analogy. My original statement was simply that Callas for 4 years sang better than *everyone*. That doesn't mean that after that her singing was bad or sub-par. It only lost some of the extra points that made it _the _best ever before 1953.
> The "fat sound" of pre-1952 as Sutherland described it was actually beautiful in a way she and her husband compared to Flagstad (huge, pouring out of her etc), flattered more by live recordings than by studio recordings since in studio she's already developed the later habits of restraining the voice (her film vs theater analogy). Sutherland even claimed that nobody who's heard Callas after 1952 has really heard Callas.
> 
> ...


I agree with most of this, except the last bit. I can't take Tebaldi in *Butterfly* at all, _because_ she sounds, as you point out, too womanly, almost matronly, however beautiful the actual voice. For me it is at odds with the character, and my preferred Butterflies, apart from Callas, are De Los Angeles, Scotto, Toti Dal Monte and Freni. Of course they don't sound like a fifteen year old, or even an eighteen year old in the last acts, but belief is suspended and they are all able to give a convincing _impression _of a young girl, where Tebaldi just sounds like Tosca or Maddalena.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Seattleoperafan said:


> Ok. I was wrong. My favorite aria by her is Armida - D'amore Al Dolce Impero ( 1952) and she did the same aria in 54 in recital and there was a noticeable decline in the volume and excitement of the climax of the aria, so based on that and the awful state of her voice in her video recitals I just ignored most of her later work. I am blown away by her in the excerpts I heard in Lucia, Traviata, and Media from 55 that you two recommended to me. Her Eb's are not as big as a her vocal peak, but they are maybe more beautiful and perfect for the arias. I can't say based on these if the voice as a whole as as large, but it is lovely and perfectly controlled throughout. I just was not expecting this. Was she mostly in great voice in 55 or was she starting her slide in other performances??? I am still more partial to the sound of Sutherland's voice, but there is no denying that in these 55 recordings Calls still had it.


This is what TC is for in my opinion. Comments that make us listen to singers who aren't our favourites and reevaluate our opinions of them. (I recently bought a live Nilsson Turandot because some of your comments prompted me to listen to her more.)

I too prefer the 52 Armida aria over the 54 and the final high note is raw on the 54 compared with the earlier recording. There are a number of factors in play here, though. The two performances took place in entirely different circumstances. The earlier comes from a complete performance of the opera in the theatre conducted by Callas' bel canto mentor, Serafin, whilst the second was recorded in a radio studio with the pedestrian Simonetto. Callas was almost always more involved when performing a total role on stage in an opera than she was in concert or in a studio. Therefore the 52 performance is far more exciting than the concert version from 54. Whilst the high note is raw at the end of the aria in 54, that wasn't a consistent feature of Callas' singing until later on. (In fact in the same concert she sang Marten alle Arten in Italian and her voice is much freer and the high notes firmer than in the Armida aria.)

There is some discussion about when Callas' voice started to deteriorate and as with all singers it was a gradual process. (It's also good to remember that singers have 'on' and 'off' nights and there isn't a firm date where you can divide a singers recordings into pre decline and post decline.) Ardoin thought that the first appearance of the Callas wobble was in the Suor Angelica aria on the Puccini Arias disc from 54. However, he also notes the strain in her voice in a rising phrase in Ah, vieni al tempio from her Puritani recording in 53. Some have commented on how EMI's microphones and the recording technology of the time didn't capture her voice easily. I have extreme tolerance for wobble and technical shortcomings if there is artistry and expression that compensates for it. However, I recognise that by 57/58 Callas had too many flaws for some people to enjoy her art even though there were some more triumphs to come.

N.


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

Tsaraslondon said:


> I agree with most of this, except the last bit. I can't take Tebaldi in *Butterfly* at all, _because_ she sounds, as you point out, too womanly, almost matronly, however beautiful the actual voice. For me it is at odds with the character, and my preferred Butterflies, apart from Callas, are De Los Angeles, Scotto, Toti Dal Monte and Freni. Of course they don't sound like a fifteen year old, or even an eighteen year old in the last acts, but belief is suspended and they are all able to give a convincing _impression _of a young girl, where Tebaldi just sounds like Tosca or Maddalena.


Funny side note though: I think we have a distorted idea of what an 18 year old should sound like :lol: I sounded womanly at 18 or even 14, Ponselle was very matrony probably since she was 13 and she sounds 40 at 21. I think the visual factor is far more lacking in most of the great singers' roles rather than their vocal characterization, in terms of realism. We know for a fact what 18 year olds look like, but every single one of them sounds different. Certain vocal qualities we expect are just artefacts of our own imagination. For instance, I don't recall me or my peers/friends/sisters sounding "angelic/pure/innocent" at 18 or even 15 :lol:. Vocal acting however, is something else and that's far more important to me but that is more about phrasing, dynamics, diction, declamation, rather than altering one's timbre.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Tuoksu said:


> Funny side note though: I think we have a distorted idea of what an 18 year old should sound like :lol: I sounded womanly at 18 or even 14, Ponselle was very matrony probably since she was 13 and she sounds 40 at 21. I think the visual factor is far more lacking in most of the great singers' roles rather than their vocal characterization, in terms of realism. We know for a fact what 18 year olds look like, but every single one of them sounds different. Certain vocal qualities we expect are just artefacts of our own imagination. For instance, I don't recall me or my peers/friends/sisters sounding "angelic/pure/innocent" at 18 or even 15 :lol:. Vocal acting however, is something else and that's far more important to me but that is more about phrasing, dynamics, diction, declamation, rather than altering one's timbre.


That's all true enough. I suppose, for me, Tebaldi just has the wrong voice character, hence my preference for the singers I mentioned above in the role of Butterfly.


----------



## VitellioScarpia (Aug 27, 2017)

Tsaraslondon said:


> That's all true enough. I suppose, for me, Tebaldi just has the wrong voice character, hence my preference for the singers I mentioned above in the role of Butterfly.


I will not argue about taste. However, I do not buy the basis of your argument that a singer may be disqualified because she sounds too womanly to incarnate a teenager. Based on that statement, Callas would not qualify because in the last scene, the overwhelming _Tu, tu, piccolo Iddio_, she does not sound at all as she did the rest of the opera. Instead, she unfurls her big dramatic soprano for that devastating ending which is the whole dramatic point Puccini is making.

Opera is a representational art but not a realistic one. If we went for just looks and sound, then we would not have enjoyed famous Salomes like Rysanek, Nilsson, Norman, Behrens, Jones, Goltz, or Caballé. The only ones that would have qualified would have been Welistch and perhaps Studer (did she ever sing it on stage?). Then, if we add the physique, will we disqualify singers because they don't fit a dress? Wait, isn't that happening these days to our general chagrin?


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

VitellioScarpia said:


> I do not agree with the basis of your argument that a singer may be disqualified because she sounds too womanly to incarnate a teenager. In that case, should singers like Rysanek, Nilsson, Norman, Behrens, Jones, Goltz, Caballé or Stratas have never sung Salome (just to list a few famous ones)? The only ones that would have qualified would have been Welistch and perhaps Studer (did she ever sang it on stage?). Additionally, Maddalena in Andrea Chènier is also supposed to be a teenager, however, we do accept the lusty sounds of many _spintos_ and dramatics.


I think Tsaras might have meant the interpretation (?). If we considered just the voice, I think Callas would be even more unfit for singing a 15 or 18 years old teenager than Tebaldi but she was absolutely genius in her interpretations - she seemed to be able to make her more dramatic and somewhat darker voice very fit for "innocent" soprano roles (e.g. Mimi) just thanks to the way she understood the character and conveyed that understanding. Not meaning that she doesn't sound the way she sounds, but she maybe just uses her voice and vocal acting more effectively.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

annaw said:


> I think Tsaras might have meant the interpretation (?). If we considered just the voice, I think Callas would be even more unfit for singing a 15 or 18 years old teenager than Tebaldi but she was absolutely genius in her interpretations - she seemed to be able to make her more dramatic and somewhat darker voice very fit for "innocent" soprano roles (e.g. Mimi) just thanks to the way she understood the character and conveyed that understanding. Not meaning that she doesn't sound the way she sounds, but she maybe just uses her voice and vocal acting more effectively.


Quite. Tebaldi, and many oher singers with a basically rich, beautiful sound, tend always to use the same vocal placement. Hence, if you listen to Tebaldi sing Mimi, Butterfly, Tosca and Manon Lescaut they all sound basically like the same person, where Callas creates four very different vocal characters. She does this in Verdi too and her Lady Macbeth is a million miles away from her Gilda, dark hued and piercing for Lady Macbeth, forwardly placed and brighter for Gilda.

John Steane once said something along the lines of her being brilliant in the art of vocal make-up. Though the voice was one of the most easily identifiable ever, it was never quite the same in different roles and she adapted its basic sound to suit the role and the music she was singing. If she had had a perfectly even, integrated instrument, she would probaby not have been able to do this, but it was the imperfections in the voice itself that allowed her to colour it at will.

This can also be quite subtle. Take for instance the roles of Amina and Rosina, both recorded in the studio in 1957. She uses the same basic forwardly placed, light sound for both roles but they still emerge as totally different characters and it's not just a case of the it being in the music. Callas can somehow make us feel that happiness for one is completely different from that for the other.

When it comes to Butterfly, VitellioScarpia himself noted that Callas only lets her full voice out for the final aria when left alone. Even in the love duet she holds it in check. She remains the child-bride wakening to passion.

VS also says we would not have enjoyed various Salomes if looks and sound ony were taken into character. The question of looks is of course an entirely different one and deserves a topic all of its own. (I seem to remember there is one somewhere.) Here we are talking about sound. I have never liked Nilsson in the role of Salome, mostly because the voice character is pretty much the same as her Elektra. She doesn't convince me for one second that she is the young girl described in the libretto. Welitsch was, and still is, my yardstick. I also like Behrens on the Karajan recording, when she still had that silvery sound on top. My belief is suspended in a way it isn't when Nilsson sings the role.


----------



## VitellioScarpia (Aug 27, 2017)

Tsaraslondon said:


> Quite. Tebaldi, and many oher singers with a basically rich, beautiful sound, tend always to use the same vocal placement. Hence, if you listen to Tebaldi sing Mimi, Butterfly, Tosca and Manon Lescaut they all sound basically like the same person, where Callas creates four very different vocal characters. She does this in Verdi too and her Lady Macbeth is a million miles away from her Gilda, dark hued and piercing for Lady Macbeth, forwardly placed and brighter for Gilda.
> 
> ... Callas only lets her full voice out for the final aria when left alone. Even in the love duet she holds it in check. She remains the child-bride wakening to passion.
> 
> VS also says we would not have enjoyed various Salomes if looks and sound ony were taken into character. The question of looks is of course an entirely different one and deserves a topic all of its own. (I seem to remember there is one somewhere.) Here we are talking about sound. I have never liked Nilsson in the role of Salome, mostly because the voice character is pretty much the same as her Elektra. She doesn't convince me for one second that she is the young girl described in the libretto. Welitsch was, and still is, my yardstick. I also like Behrens on the Karajan recording, when she still had that silvery sound on top. My belief is suspended in a way it isn't when Nilsson sings the role.


We all know that Callas, like her or not, was unique in her ability to subtly change color and intent to represent a character while carefully integrating every detail in the music to tell the story. But that's one in a million among _major singers_ as it were. Hence _La Divina_ which is truly well deserved in my opinion.

Back to _non-divinities_, the question is complicated and no so clear cut. I believe that we react to certain voice qualities differently, the different voices as sound _speak_ to some us and not to others. Most singers fall in the category of using a single vocal position for singing, unless they are straining or have an imperfect technique. Tebaldi is only one but the same can be said of most other favorites. What allows them to differentiate characters is the musicality, acuity in word usage and emphasis, and the phrasing.

Scotto, for example, a favorite singer of mine is a case in point. As sound _per se_, there is no real difference between her Liù or Butterfly (to pick two recordings made about the same time) but the impeccable diction and word emphasis, rhythm and her fantastic phrasing make the interpretation. However much I love her _Butterfly_, when we arrive to the final scene I mentioned above, it is not as devastating as Callas' because the voice cannot go beyond its own limits. To me, that moment calls for a superhuman effort that summons all the pride and suffering of humanity in those phrases, and thus my admiration for the realization that Callas gives us. As voice, Tebaldi could have achieved that differentiation (e.g., her Decca Lauretta) but she chose not to do it. To me, it is not a voice issue: it is an interpretive one.

I do not generally hear Price, Freni, Behrens, Caballé or de los Ángeles offering a more differentiated sound in different characters than Nilsson, Rysanek, W. Meier, or Flagstad sound in theirs. Unless we are dealing with an indifferent singer to the musical values (I will not name names), it is more about _our_ reaction to their basic sound plus their interpretation that makes us more or less attuned to their art.

I love being surprised by the unexpected. For example, Scotto was a tremendous surprise to me. As sound itself, I would have never thought her as Elena (Vespri), Butterfly, Desdemona, Giorgetta, Angelica, Luisa, and especially Gioconda. However, she turned the tables many times because of what she did with her means: give a compelling interpretation even when she could not actually do what she was trying to do. She shares that with late Callas.

P.S.: These are my opinions and feelings. I am sharing them as one would in a conversation among friends, and not to indict or lecture anyone. I make this clarification because sometimes in trying to write concisely, this aspect may get lost and someone may feel offended when there is no intent at offending. I like these forums as way of sharing and exchanging of our experiences with something we all love and cherish: art.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

VitellioScarpia said:


> I do not generally hear Price, Freni, Behrens, Caballé or de los Ángeles offering a more differentiated sound in different characters than Nilsson, Rysanek, W. Meier, or Flagstad sound in theirs. Unless we are dealing with an indifferent singer to the musical values (I will not name names), it is more about _our_ reaction to their basic sound plus their interpretation that makes us more or less attuned to their art.


I've started to get a feeling that producing such differentiated sound might be harder for sopranos. An interesting aspect I've discovered is that the male voices seem to put more focus on vocal acting than females (with a few exceptions like Callas). Maybe this is just because I'm more familiar with male voice but I haven't heard anyone say that a soprano overinterpreted or overdramatised a role, meanwhile this has been said about for example DFD (lieder) or Gigli. Windgassen, Di Stefano, Corelli and even MDM all managed to sound different in different roles as well. I guess that's the reason why Di Stefano managed to convincingly sing tenor roles from Edgardo to Manrico while his voice itself was not really fit for the latter. This applies to many (bass-)baritones as well - many very intelligent interpreters. My theory so far, if such trend even exists, has been that vocal acting is just more difficult in higher register.

(Not saying that sopranos cannot be as dramatic as the tenors and baritones, but that's just a trend I've recently noticed. As I said though, it might have something to do with my own inexperience.)


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

VitellioScarpia said:


> We all know that Callas, like her or not, was unique in her ability to subtly change color and intent to represent a character while carefully integrating every detail in the music to tell the story. But that's one in a million among _major singers_ as it were. Hence _La Divina_ which is truly well deserved in my opinion.
> 
> Back to _non-divinities_, the question is complicated and no so clear cut. I believe that we react to certain voice qualities differently, the different voices as sound _speak_ to some us and not to others. Most singers fall in the category of using a single vocal position for singing, unless they are straining or have an imperfect technique. Tebaldi is only one but the same can be said of most other favorites. What allows them to differentiate characters is the musicality, acuity in word usage and emphasis, and the phrasing.
> 
> ...


I actually agree with you, and Callas was unusual, if not unique, in being able to change the basic sound of her voice to suit the character she was portraying. John Steane also noted in one of his reviews of her Amina, that wgen Amina was asked to sing with all the desperation in her heart, Callas doesn't suddenly sing out in the voice of Norma, she continues to think upwards and remains totally in character.

Other singers, even those I like a lot, don't necessarily have that ability or that range. De Los Angeles is a favourite singer of mine, but she tended always to sing roles that suited her, so her Puccini roles were Mimi, Lauretta, Angelica and Butterfly and she sang Massenet's Manon rather than Puccini's. She may have been able to sing Tosca, but the basic voice character would have been wrong. She was also careful which Verdi roles she sang, sticking to Amelia in *Simon Boccanegra*, Violetta and Desdemona.

Maybe, as you say, it is _my_ reaction to the sound of certain voices that makes me think they are more suited to one role than another, hence I can enjoy Tebaldi as Tosca, Giorgetta or Minnie but not Mimi or Butterfly. Nilsson never sounded like a Salome to me, but is perfectly cast as Elektra.

Callas is certainly not a singer I would think of as having the right voice for Mimi, but her recording of the role is so successful that she compounds expectations.


----------



## VitellioScarpia (Aug 27, 2017)

annaw said:


> I've started to get a feeling that producing such differentiated sound might be harder for sopranos. An interesting aspect I've discovered is that the male voices seem to put more focus on vocal acting than females (with a few exceptions like Callas). Maybe this is just because I'm more familiar with male voice but I haven't heard anyone say that a soprano overinterpreted or overdramatised a role, meanwhile this has been said about for example DFD (lieder) or Gigli. Windgassen, Di Stefano, Corelli and even MDM all managed to sound different in different roles as well. I guess that's the reason why Di Stefano managed to convincingly sing tenor roles from Edgardo to Manrico while his voice itself was not really fit for the latter. This applies to many (bass-)baritones as well - many very intelligent interpreters. My theory so far, if such trend even exists, has been that vocal acting is just more difficult in higher register.
> 
> (Not saying that sopranos cannot be as dramatic as the tenors and baritones, but that's just a trend I've recently noticed. As I said though, it might have something to do with my own inexperience.)


You make an interesting observation. However, I do not hear male voices sound more differentiated than female ones among characters in any significant way be it Corelli, MDM, Gigli, Windgassen. Let's take Gobbi, a great vocal actor, his differentiation is interpretive more than the basic sound of his voice. That is not the case with Callas: she achieves sounding unrecognizable at first listen as Butterfly, Amina or Mimì if you had in your mind her sound of Lucia (which she made more dramatic in sound than was the norm at the time), Medea or Norma (let alone Macbeth or Gioconda!).

DFD in lieder, especially in recordings, is a different animal because he used the microphone cleverly to support lightening his sound to a tenor quality sometimes which would be a challenge in a larger venue. If you listen DFD in opera (records) the sound is less varied. Back to my point in 42, his basic sound does not speak to me. I admire him and have many of his recordings, but I do not _love him_.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

VitellioScarpia said:


> You make an interesting observation. However, I do not hear male voices sound more differentiated than female ones among characters in any significant way be it Corelli, MDM, Gigli, Windgassen. Let's take Gobbi, a great vocal actor, his differentiation is interpretive more than the basic sound of his voice. That is not the case with Callas: she achieves sounding unrecognizable at first listen as Butterfly, Amina or Mimì if you had in your mind her sound of Lucia (which she made more dramatic in sound than was the norm at the time), Medea or Norma (let alone Macbeth or Gioconda!).
> 
> DFD in lieder, especially in recordings, is a different animal because he used the microphone cleverly to support lightening his sound to a tenor quality sometimes which would be a challenge in a larger venue. If you listen DFD in opera (records) the sound is less varied. Back to my point in 42, his basic sound does not speak to me. I admire him and have many of his recordings, but I do not _love him_.


That's actually a fair point - they do not sound different but they interpret differently. Even when it comes to character tenors like Stolze. I listened to his Walther (Sawallisch _Tannhäuser_) which is absolutely wonderful but he still sounds like Stolze. What makes his Mime different from his Walther is the way he uses legato, lyricism and phrasing but yes, as you say, even tenors don't necessarily change the way they sound.

DFD was my intro into lieder and I am quite fond of him but not in heavy bass-baritone rep (he maybe shouldn't have sung Wotan...). But when he sang roles which where fit to his voice, like Wolfram, he could be very marvellous!


----------



## VitellioScarpia (Aug 27, 2017)

Talking about liking to be surprised by a singer challenging my expectations, one case is Joan Sutherland. I became indifferent to Sutherland, however great she might be in Bel Canto roles because of her basic sound which does not speak to me and lack of variety/characterization. Then comes her Turandot. Even if a studio confection, she nailed that role wonderfully well. None of the technical (coloratura, trills, etc.) that were he calling card could be called in. Dame Joan took a tremendous artistic risk and she succeeded. She made Turandot a real character and bettered, in some aspects, more naturally suited singers. I think that her Turandot is more effective to me than Inge Borkh's rendition of the role (again, a matter of taste), however much I like Borkh's Turandot recording. 

The other surprise from her was Esclarmonde. Although it requires more coloratura than Turandot, she sounds like Valkyrie and totally projects the immensely passionate music written in the role. Her studio recording in 1975 and especially the live performances in SF, 1974, attest how passionate Dame Joan could really be.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

VitellioScarpia said:


> Talking about liking to be surprised by a singer challenging my expectations, one case is Joan Sutherland. I became indifferent to Sutherland, however great she might be in Bel Canto roles because of her basic sound which does not speak to me and lack of variety/characterization. Then comes her Turandot. Even if a studio confection, she nailed that role wonderfully well. None of the technical (coloratura, trills, etc.) that were he calling card could be called in. Dame Joan took a tremendous artistic risk and she succeeded. She made Turandot a real character and bettered, in some aspects, more naturally suited singers. I think that her Turandot is more effective to me than Inge Borkh's rendition of the role (again, a matter of taste), however much I like Borkh's Turandot recording.
> 
> The other surprise from her was Esclarmonde. Although it requires more coloratura than Turandot, she sounds like Valkyrie and totally projects the immensely passionate music written in the role. Her studio recording in 1975 and especially the live performances in SF, 1974, attest how passionate Dame Joan could really be.


Sutherland's Turandot was a surprise for me also, and still one of the few roles I really like her in. I did have *Esclarmonde* on LP, but never replaced it when I moved to CD. I didn't really like the opera enough and can't remember that much about it.


----------



## damianjb1 (Jan 1, 2016)

Tsaraslondon said:


> I always say 1955 was Callas's _annus mirabilis_, the year that voice and art were at their truest equilibrium, and fortunately many performances from this year have been preserved in sound. The weight loss had freed her as a performing artist and the voice, though probably slightly reduced in volume, was still a firm and powerful instrument. According to Giulini, after the weight loss, "She became another woman and a new world of expression opened to her. Potentials held in the shadows emerged. In every sense, she had been transformed."
> 
> The year had started inauspiciously with her learning the role of Maddalena in a few days, as Del Monaco had declared himself too unwell to sing Manrico, but felt he could sing Chénier. (Who knows the vicissitudes of tenors?). Her Maddalena, as can be heard from the recording, is rather interesting, but the opera is emphatically a tenor vehicle and one wonders why she bothered.
> 
> ...


When I think of Callas in 1955 and how great she was I'm reminded of a quote I love - "The sun begins it's descent at midday". One of my all time favourite Callas moments is the last 5 minutes of Act 1 of Gioconda in the 1959 recording. For me it has everything I love most about her. Other than Norma I'm not much of a fan of bel canto so some of her most famous roles don't do much for me. In terms of studio recordings another favourite of mine is her Forza Leonora. I deeply regret there isn't a live recording of her in that role. I think it's one of her best roles. It was also one of Tebaldi's best roles so maybe she didn't want the comparison.


----------



## damianjb1 (Jan 1, 2016)

VitellioScarpia said:


> Talking about liking to be surprised by a singer challenging my expectations, one case is Joan Sutherland. I became indifferent to Sutherland, however great she might be in Bel Canto roles because of her basic sound which does not speak to me and lack of variety/characterization. Then comes her Turandot. Even if a studio confection, she nailed that role wonderfully well. None of the technical (coloratura, trills, etc.) that were he calling card could be called in. Dame Joan took a tremendous artistic risk and she succeeded. She made Turandot a real character and bettered, in some aspects, more naturally suited singers. I think that her Turandot is more effective to me than Inge Borkh's rendition of the role (again, a matter of taste), however much I like Borkh's Turandot recording.
> 
> The other surprise from her was Esclarmonde. Although it requires more coloratura than Turandot, she sounds like Valkyrie and totally projects the immensely passionate music written in the role. Her studio recording in 1975 and especially the live performances in SF, 1974, attest how passionate Dame Joan could really be.


I wonder if being conducted by someone other than her husband had something to do with how great that Turandot is. I also think she had the ideal voice for the role. A big voice with a very easy top. The same reason Netrebko is having such success with the role. I don't think Wagnerian sopranos are the right voice for the role because (other than Nilsson) they often don't have that ease at the top.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

damianjb1 said:


> When I think of Callas in 1955 and how great she was I'm reminded of a quote I love - "The sun begins it's descent at midday". One of my all time favourite Callas moments is the last 5 minutes of Act 1 of Gioconda in the 1959 recording. For me it has everything I love most about her. Other than Norma I'm not much of a fan of bel canto so some of her most famous roles don't do much for me. In terms of studio recordings another favourite of mine is her Forza Leonora. I deeply regret there isn't a live recording of her in that role. I think it's one of her best roles. It was also one of Tebaldi's best roles so maybe she didn't want the comparison.


I don't think fear of _comparisons_ with Renata had anything to do with Callas not singing more Leonoras in *Forza* on stage. It is most probable there were no offers for her to sing that opera, given her change in repertoire and everyone wanting her for *Lucia* or *Norma*, *Traviata*, or even *Medea*.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

MAS said:


> I don't think fear of _comparisons_ with Renata had anything to do with Callas not singing more Leonoras in *Forza* on stage. It is most probable there were no offers for her to sing that opera, given her change in repertoire and everyone wanting her for *Lucia* or *Norma*, *Traviata*, or even *Medea*.


Indeed I think she would have been more likely to enjoy the challenge. When Legge once suggested that they did *Norma* together, alternating as Adalgisa and Norma, Callas was quite excited by the challenge, and it was Tebaldi who refused. Mind you this was in Callas's core repertoire so I suppose you can understand Tebaldi's reluctance.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Milanov no doubt had too high an opinion of her own work, but the only thing I resent her for is monoplizing Bjorling on some major opera recordings when she was past her prime and when he ought to have been cast opposite Tebaldi and Callas during their great years. Had he not died too young we might also have had him alongside Price, Moffo, Scotto and others.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> Milanov no doubt had too high an opinion of her own work, but the only thing I resent her for is *monoplizing Bjorling on some major opera recordings *when she was past her prime and when he ought to have been cast opposite Tebaldi and Callas during their great years. Had he not died too young we might also have had him alongside Price, Moffo, Scotto and others.


I cannot understand how did she even manage that...? It's a shame there's not a recording of Callas and Björling together. That would have been such a marvellous collaboration on record!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

annaw said:


> I cannot understand how she even managed that...? It's a shame there's not a recording of Callas and Björling together. That would have been such a marvellous collaboration on record!


The record labels were rather strict about contracts with singers. Bjorling was an RCA asset, Callas an EMI, Tebaldi a Decca, Nilsson also a Decca for several years... Sometimes "borrowing" was arranged. I'm grateful for the friendly relationship between RCA and Decca that gave us the Nilsson/Tebaldi/Bjorling/Leinsdorf _Turandot_ and the Nilsson/London/Brouwenstijn/Vickers/Gorr/Leinsdorf _Walkure._

I believe the only time Bjorling and Callas worked together was in a production of _Trovatore_ in Chicago. I don't think we have any recording of it (Tsaraslondon can tell you for sure).


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> The record labels were rather strict about contracts with singers. Bjorling was an RCA asset, Callas an EMI, Tebaldi a Decca, Nilsson also a Decca for several years... Sometimes "borrowing" was arranged. I'm grateful for the friendly relationship between RCA and Decca that gave us the Nilsson/Tebaldi/Bjorling/Leinsdorf _Turandot_ and the Nilsson/London/Brouwenstijn/Vickers/Gorr/Leinsdorf _Walkure._
> 
> I believe the only time Bjorling and Callas worked together was in a production of _Trovatore_ in Chicago. I don't think we have any recording of it (Tsaraslondon can tell you for sure).


Thanks, yes, now it makes sense! Somehow I forgot about the contracts. That Leinsdorf _Die Walküre_ is really wonderful (I actually think I discovered it partly thanks to your recommendation) but I've been wanting to listen to Leinsdorf's _Turandot_ as well as Björling is one of my favourite tenors in the Italian repertoire and I love Nilsson.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> I believe the only time Bjorling and Callas worked together was in a production of _Trovatore_ in Chicago. I don't think we have any recording of it (Tsaraslondon can tell you for sure).


Yes it was just *Il Trovatore* in Chicago. Callas's Leonora was "perfection" according to Bjoerling.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

Tsaraslondon said:


> Yes it was just *Il Trovatore* in Chicago. Callas's Leonora was "perfection" according to Bjoerling.


Vis-à-vis the Chicago *Il Trovatore*, Rudolf Bing, General Manager at the Metropolitan Opera at the time, said (I paraphrase) "Björling didn't know _what_ he was singing, but _she_ knew. It was her quiet listening, rather than his singing, that made an impression."


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

MAS said:


> Vis-à-vis the Chicago *Il Trovatore*, Rudolf Bing, General Manager at the Metropolitan Opera at the time, said (I paraphrase) "Björling didn't know _what_ he was singing, but _she_ knew. It was her quiet listening, rather than his singing, that made an impression."


I imagine she could upstage anyone, except maybe Gobbi, who also knew.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Tsaraslondon said:


> Yes it was just *Il Trovatore* in Chicago. Callas's Leonora was "perfection" according to Bjoerling.


And there isn't a recording of it. However, there were rumors that a recording was made (in house I believe as that was the practice at the time). There was even a story that Carol Fox had had the Callas recordings made at the house destroyed as she didn't want to be upstaged by her! (It would seem that Fox was highly unpopular and a number of stories rose up ascribing all sorts of crimes to her.)

I'm writing this from distant memory at the moment, but I'm just about to go and investigate further in my well stocked library.

N.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

The Conte said:


> And there isn't a recording of it. However, there were rumors that a recording was made (in house I believe as that was the practice at the time). There was even a story that Carol Fox had had the Callas recordings made at the house destroyed as she didn't want to be upstaged by her! (It would seem that Fox was highly unpopular and a number of stories rose up ascribing all sorts of crimes to her.)
> 
> I'm writing this from distant memory at the moment, but I'm just about to go and investigate further in my well stocked library.
> 
> N.


It is a great tragedy that none of her Chicago operas were ever recorded, or, if they were, then lost. By all accounts she was at the top of her form on both occasions.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

I can't find any evidence about the Chicago performances being recorded and I know I read about the Carol Fox story online. John Ardoin in the Callas legacy says that the second Chicago Trovatore with Bjorling, Turner and Weede was recorded, but the known copy was destroyed and doesn't give any more detail than that.

If only the first night had been recorded as the cast there included Stignani and Bastianini instead of Turner and Weede.

I too wish Callas' Chicago performances (both from 1954 and 1955) had been preserved in sound. She performed five operas there including Traviata and Lucia in 54 (her debut was as Norma with Picchi and Simionato, but we have her singing with them elsewhere and Scala 55 has a better cast over all). The Traviata was one of the few times she sang with Gobbi on stage and the Lucia was with Di Stefano and Guelfi.

From 55 I would want the first night Trov cast and Butterfly with Di Stefano.

N.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

The Conte said:


> I can't find any evidence about the Chicago performances being recorded and I know I read about the Carol Fox story online. John Ardoin in the Callas legacy says that the second Chicago Trovatore with Bjorling, Turner and Weede was recorded, but the known copy was destroyed and doesn't give any more detail than that.
> 
> If only the first night had been recorded as the cast there included Stignani and Bastianini instead of Turner and Weede.
> 
> ...


Callas also sang *I Puritani* in Chicago in 1955, though if preference would manifest a recording, I'd prefer the 1954 debut *Norma* with Simionato, followed by that *Trovatore* and the incandescent *Lucia*, also 1954. Critic Claudia Cassidy says Donizetti might have written the Mad Scene for the audience, as "near pandemonium broke out," and that "the aisles were full of men pushing as close to the stage as possible." Her singing must've been stupendous, her voice still in half fat state. Cassidy writes, "to use a voice of that size with such superb technical command, and to subordinate that technique to the mood of the music - that is singing in the grand manner." However, she was clearly disappointed in the Callas *Butterfly* performances: "if she were anyone else, I would say the music does not lie in her voice."


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

MAS said:


> However, she was clearly disappointed in the Callas *Butterfly* performances: "if she were anyone else, I would say the music does not lie in her voice."


I've always felt that Callas as Butterfly is a triumph of art over nature. Her recording is amazing, but if I just dip into the love duet I have to admit that the sheer sound of it doesn't give me much pleasure. For me the smoke and acid in her tone (weird metaphors, I know) save bel canto opera from blandness, but Puccini's sumptuousness doesn't want saving.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> I've always felt that Callas as Butterfly is a triumph of art over nature. Her recording is amazing, but if I just dip into the love duet I have to admit that the sheer sound of it doesn't give me much pleasure. For me the smoke and acid in her tone (weird metaphors, I know) save bel canto opera from blandness, but Puccini's sumptuousness doesn't want saving.


She never sang it again, so maybe she felt so too. In fact Puccini played very little part in her stage career. She gave up Turandot as soon as she could and even Tosca she barely touched after she made the 1953 recording, at least until her comeback in 1964. She never sang it at La Scala, nor any other Puccini role.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> I've always felt that Callas as Butterfly is a triumph of art over nature. Her recording is amazing, but if I just dip into the love duet I have to admit that the sheer sound of it doesn't give me much pleasure. For me the smoke and acid in her tone (weird metaphors, I know) save bel canto opera from blandness, but Puccini's sumptuousness doesn't want saving.


Unfortunately, Legge's choice for Pinkerton was Nicolai Gedda, who doesn't raise the sumptuousness quotient. Besides, Puccini's music was too simple for Callas. She needed complexity to display her gifts.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

I've said it before, but it's worth saying again. I wish Callas had been in the 1954 recording with Di Stefano and Gobbi and De los Angeles with Gedda and Boriello. That would have been a much better natural fit and De los Angeles (who I find much more suited to Butterfly) would still have most likely made her later stereo recording, which is my favourite and so three better recordings all round. However, this is all 2020 vision and the recording producers of recording labels had no way of knowing whether what looked good on paper would yield gold in the studio.

N.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Milanov would be rolling over in her grave if she knew Maria would hijack her discussion thread online LOL She would NOT be pleased.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

Seattleoperafan said:


> Milanov would be rolling over in her grave if she knew Maria would hijack her discussion thread online LOL She would NOT be pleased.


Well, she asked for it by mistreating Maria's records! :lol:
All you need is to mention *her* name and it goes off...


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Seattleoperafan said:


> Milanov would be rolling over in her grave if she knew Maria would hijack her discussion thread online LOL She would NOT be pleased.


Poor Zinka. I guess her work just doesn't require much comment.


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> Poor Zinka. I guess her work just doesn't require much comment.


I don't find her recorded legacy particularly satisfying. Recordings caught in the late 1930s suggest that her voice was very beautiful:






It's just that it was another 20 years before she made her stereo records.

Her debut in 1927 places her alongside Caniglia, Bruna Rasa, Favero, Carbone etc. Given that context she was quite a survivor... but it might not make her records any more enjoyable.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Poor Zinka. I guess her work just doesn't require much comment.


If you catch her before her last 5 years of recorded work she can be quite wonderful. Her Leonora is really wonderful and the critics still love it and she does one of the best Suicidio's out there with magnificent chest notes combined with thrilling high notes. It must have been a thrill to hear her sing Verdi in an opera house as her voice was supposed to be enormous and she could do all the dynamics the music calls for. I didn't always love her but when she was really on she could be an amazing singer.


----------



## Andante Cantabile (Feb 26, 2020)

Going back to where it all began in this thread (post #1): those photos posted on Facebook. The photos + captions were most likely staged by a publicist with the underlying intention of fabricating a Callas-Milanov rivalry and then capitalise on it. La Zinka didn't invent this joke and certainly didn't write the photo captions either. Furthermore, if one observes carefully, Milanov's hairdo and dress style indicate that the photos were most possibly taken in the mid-1940s, a time when Callas was still an unknown (she had left Greece in later 1945 and was then struggling hard to further her career). By the time the publicist generated his/her trick, Callas was world-famous and poor La Zinka became unwittingly used by the publicist to make cash.


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

The Conte said:


> I've said it before, but it's worth saying again. I wish Callas had been in the 1954 recording with Di Stefano and Gobbi and De los Angeles with Gedda and Boriello. That would have been a much better natural fit and De los Angeles (who I find much more suited to Butterfly) would still have most likely made her later stereo recording, which is my favourite and so three better recordings all round. However, this is all 2020 vision and the recording producers of recording labels had no way of knowing whether what looked good on paper would yield gold in the studio.
> 
> N.


As much as I enjoy Milanov and di Stefano in _La Forza del Destino_ and _Gioconda_ I would be happier if they were Callas/di Stefano pairings.

As an aside, I noticed in a Decca discography a little mention which is rather intriguing and I have not heard about elsewhere:
>I060
Pr: James Walker (m) Eng: Gil Went (m)
Pr: Christopher Raeburn (s) Eng: Roy Wallace (s)
4-12 Sep 1958 Santa Cecilia, Rome
Santa Cecilia Academy Orchestra, Franco Patanè
*[a] BELLINI Norma
Giuseppe di Stefano (tenor) Pollione*
* GIORDANO Andrea Chénier : Un dì, all'azzurro
[c] PUCCINI Tosca : Recondita armonia & E lucevan
[d] PUCCINI Turandot : Non piangere, Liù!
[e] PUCCINI Turandot : Nessun dorma! 
...
[a] Unpublished: incomplete [band numbers evidently n/a], 


Source:http://images.cch.kcl.ac.uk/charm/liv/pubs/DeccaComplete.pdf

I had not heard about di Stefano going anywhere near Pollione... I wonder if he knew a stereo re-recording with Callas was in the works? Cerquetti was around at that time too. Rather intriguing to imagine the various possible combinations.*


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

Revitalized Classics said:


> As much as I enjoy Milanov and di Stefano in _La Forza del Destino_ and _Gioconda_ I would be happier if they were Callas/di Stefano pairings.
> 
> As an aside, I noticed in a Decca discography a little mention which is rather intriguing and I have not heard about elsewhere:
> >I060
> ...


*

I doubt Del Monaco would've been happy to see another tenor sing "his" repertoire at Decca! Was this about the time of the aborted Di Stefano Mefistofele?*


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

MAS said:


> I doubt Del Monaco would've be happy to see another tenor sing "his" repertoire at Decca! Was this about the time of the aborted Di Stefano *Mefistofele*?


Yes! di Stefano's schedule would make your head spin, the producers must have had a heart attack when he stepped out of the Mefistofele with a summer of recordings planned

Jun-July '58 Starts and leaves Mefistofele w. Serafin
July-August '58 Italian songs w. Olivieri
July-August '58 Forza del Destino w. Previtali
September '58 Starts recital w. Patane including Pollione aria but does not complete it
Nov '58 Redoes recital with Patane minus Pollione

As you note, Del Monaco had Pollione in his active repertoire and had recorded the aria in the same hall 3 years earlier. Decca also had Cerquetti under contract and she had stepped in for Callas at the start of the year in Rome. I believe they recorded some of Norma together along with Simionato but it was cancelled.


----------

