# Pre-diet Callas (1950) vs Post-diet Callas (1956) in Trovatore aria



## Concertantek364 (Mar 13, 2021)

In this new contest poll format, let's get Callas to compete with herself 

Which version of Callas' rendition of "D'amor sull'ali rosee" do you prefer? Please share your thoughts on your choice.

*1950, Mexico City (role debut)*






*1956, EMI studio recording (the last time she sang the role complete in any setting)*






I am excluding myself from the voting since my opinion over the question has been known.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The contrast here is perplexing. The recording ambiences are so different that I almost feel as if I'm hearing two different voices, but how much the difference is also a matter of changes in the voice itself is hard to tell. I suspect both factors are in play. 

The 1950 Callas voice here sounds larger, fuller, warmer, rounder, mellower than the 1956 one, with a little more chest voice in the mix. After hearing the older recording, I was strongly struck by the thinner, drier, more astringent quality of her later sound. No doubt because of the live venue, she was also musically freer and more expressive in 1950 - perhaps a bit indulgently so at some moments, with a slight loss of momentum, and a touch of vulgarity at the aria's high climax (Callas could never really float the high notes), but I'm sure it all worked beautifully in the theater. I seem to recall that she believed in holding back a bit in the recording studio, perhaps in the way that acting for film often needs to be more restrained than acting on the stage. In any case I find her studio effort here musically fine but unexciting, partly because I'm aware of the diminished quality of the voice.

I prefer the 1950 version.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> The contrast here is perplexing. The recording ambiences are so different that I almost feel as if I'm hearing two different voices, but how much the difference is also a matter of changes in the voice itself is hard to tell. I suspect both factors are in play.
> 
> The 1950 Callas voice here sounds larger, fuller, warmer, rounder, mellower than the 1956 one, with a little more chest voice in the mix. After hearing the older recording, I was strongly struck by the thinner, drier, more astringent quality of her later sound. No doubt because of the live venue, she was also musically freer and more expressive in 1950 - perhaps a bit indulgently so at some moments, with a slight loss of momentum, and a touch of vulgarity at the aria's high climax (Callas could never really float the high notes), but I'm sure it all worked beautifully in the theater. I seem to recall that she believed in holding back a bit in the recording studio, perhaps in the way that acting for film often needs to be more retrained than acting on the stage. In any case I find her studio effort here musically fine but unexciting, partly because I'm aware of the diminished quality of the voice.
> 
> I prefer the 1950 version.


Everything you said so well, plus the optional thrilling high note!!! I was thinking of doing a similar Callas/ Callas post, but you did it beautifully! Thank you.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

The 1950 version is extremely exciting: the voice at its zenith, perhaps, when one felt Callas could do anything with it. The role is not yet what it would become, but a wonderful first try. The second, her last attempt at the part, is more elegant, much quieter and more suited to the character, the phrases more finished; the voice is leaner, smoother, more controlled, perhaps by necessity, but a nobler sound except at the top. It is still my favorite studio recording of the role. When I think of Leonora, it’s in Callas’s voice.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

First off, I'd just like to say that I don't much like Pristine's Ambient stereo effort. I prefer Warner's transfer, which is straight mono and which you can hear here





.

It might also be interesting to add a bit of background to the Mexico performance. This was the first time Callas was ever singing Leonora. She had asked Serafin to help her prepare the role, but he had refused, saying that it wouldn't be right as she would be singing with another conductor (though he did eventually conduct her in the role in Naples in 1951) so Callas prepared the role alone. However, even without the input of Serafin, her musical instincts are invariably correct.

I agree with everything Woodduck says about the change in the voice over the intervening years, and yet I do prefer the later version. I think that unless you can float the written top Db (few can) Verdi's alternative, which she sings on the 1956 Karajan works better. Callas retained the top Db for the 1951 Naples performance, but it has gone by the time of the 1953 La Scala performance under Votto. I assume this was a musical decision, as in 1953 her top notes were stiil in fine shape (this is the year of the studio recordings of *Lucia di Lammermoor*, *I Puritani* and *Tosca*). Callas obviously thought that the note obtruded too much on the atmosphere that she had created, and I agree with her. Though both performances are very fine, and we'd be lucky to hear anything as good today, ultimately I prefer the greater musical refinement of the later performance, and that is the one that gets my vote.


----------



## Concertantek364 (Mar 13, 2021)

Tsaraslondon said:


> First off, I'd just like to say that I don't much like Pristine's Ambient stereo effort. I prefer Warner's transfer, which is straight mono and which you can hear here


Since it's still within the 12-hour window of editing one's post, I have changed the YouTube video of the 1956 EMI studio version to the Warner 2004 remastering.


----------



## Viardots (Oct 4, 2014)

1956 EMI recording for me. No doubt her top voice was more secure and she was vocally more robust and healthy in her pre-diet years, but musically the 1956 studio effort was significantly more satisfying and her voice was still in good shape. The sense of vulnerable fragility and poignancy she was able to unravel from the score by 1956 was fully in line with the sad nocturnal mood and atmosphere of the piece in hand.


----------



## JTS (Sep 26, 2021)

We had one of those cases where only a Callas fan would want to hear the 1950 version more than once as the primitive recording and background rules it out. You cannot possibly compare version made in the theatre as a once off under those conditions with one made in the studio meant as a permanent record. Callas was intelligent enough to know this and would have refined her interpretation accordingly.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Having not as yet voted or read any responses, I can only say this was one of the easiest choices I've ever had to make.
On one hand, they took a person standing in the booth with the "cans" on her ears and saying, "Let me try that part again..." etc. until it came out "perfectly" ... and lost every bit of spontaneity and emotion of the Mexican version with her stunning trills and passion for the words.
I have always disliked studio recordings anyway. I think one needs the actual production to add to the excitement of the role.
Put me down for #1.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

nina foresti said:


> Having not as yet voted or read any responses, I can only say this was one of the easiest choices I've ever had to make.
> On one hand, they took *a person standing in the booth with the "cans" on her ears and saying, "Let me try that part again..." etc. until it came out "perfectly"* ... and lost every bit of spontaneity and emotion of the Mexican version with her stunning trills and passion for the words.
> I have always disliked studio recordings anyway. I think one needs the actual production to add to the excitement of the role.
> Put me down for #1.


'...a person standing in the booth with the "cans" on her ears and saying, "Let me try that part again..." etc. until it came out "perfectly"'

Exactly how I feel about the studio version, and studio recordings in general. We're fortunate to have such recordings by artists we don't have the privilege of hearing live, but there's no doubt that many of our most vital recorded performances of music come from the opera house or the concert hall. That's definitely true of Callas's recorded legacy (think Medea, Lucia, Amina, Lady Macbeth, etc.). Making great music means brinksmanship, going to the edge, not knowing how it will come out but trusting your knowledge, taste, training and instincts. A musical performance is an improvisation, not a document, and I'm in complete sympathy with musicians who dislike recordings even though I'm glad most of them are willing to submit to the process. Of course there's always Glenn Gould...


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

I think it would be interesting to discuss artists who managed to be exciting in studio recordings. I love what everyone said and I see both sides of the argument on this selection. This was what I had hoped for in a Callas/ Callas contest and it was done well here.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

MAS said:


> The 1950 version is extremely exciting: the voice at its zenith, perhaps, when one felt Callas could do anything with it. The role is not yet what it would become, but a wonderful first try. The second, her last attempt at the part, is more elegant, much quieter and more suited to the character, the phrases more finished; the voice is leaner, smoother, more controlled, perhaps by necessity, but a nobler sound except at the top. It is still my favorite studio recording of the role. When I think of Leonora, it's in Callas's voice.


There is a live performance at La Scala in 1953, that, to me, has a better balance of voice and interpretation as far as Callas's traversal of the role is concerned. It may be my favorite of her live *Il Trovatore * performances, though I do still like her "wildcat" ones!


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Six years is a long time for singers, a lot can change with the voice with or without losing weight. Also, 1950 Callas was in the early stage of her career whereas by 1956 I would imagine she had developed much of her interpretation of a role.

That said, now I need to listen.


----------



## silentio (Nov 10, 2014)

Each version has its own attraction. The 1951 performance impresses by the fact that this is a colossal voice with precise coloratura. Is there any precedent to such a Leonora? Maybe Friday Leider, Emmy Destinn, or Lillian Nordica, but not anyone around her generation. In the 1956 version, the voice is less attractive, but the performance has more nuances. I vote for the 1956 since this is the recording that made me love Verdi. 

Btw, I'm surprised that Callas didn't keep Leonora (and Gilda) longer in her repertoire as she did with Violetta.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

SanAntone said:


> Six years is a long time for singers, a lot can change with the voice with or without losing weight. Also, 1950 Callas was in the early stage of her career whereas by 1956 I would imagine she had developed much of her interpretation of a role.
> 
> That said, now I need to listen.


Neither. I prefer the performance from 1953.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

And here's the version from 1953 that gives us a mixture of the more extrovert style of Mexico, with some of the refinement of the 1956 one:






In the end I voted for the 1956 version as whilst the voice is thinner than we hear in Mexico, there is something to be said for the studio version's less is more pathos.

The 1953 one beats both hands down for me, though.

N.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

I voted for the studio rec.

I dont subscribe to the view that live recordings necessarily deliver the goods better than a studio rec - if that was the case then all the great opera cycles - solti ring etc - were done just for the sake of reference. A studio recording is a performance in itself. Go and watch Horowitz video recording Mozart pc 23 with Giulini conducting and tell me there is some spontaneity lacking.

Callas' audience the day she recorded that 2nd recording was the conductor and the orchestra and anyone else who happened to be there - regardless of how many takes etc.

So onto my evaluation.

Both performances made a big impact on me - equally so - the extended high note in the live recording was spectacular though unexpected and did not quite work for me - my only criticism. The second recording - vocally more refined if, as others have pointed out - the upper registers are not flawless - the articulation and phrasing is very seductive - more mature as one would expect - and since that is such an important aspect of Callas' singing - it's one of the reasons I want to listen to her more than any other - I voted for the studio recording.

I liked the 1953 version a lot too - the best of both worlds perhaps - voice in near full bloom and growing artistry.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> '...a person standing in the booth with the "cans" on her ears and saying, "Let me try that part again..." etc. until it came out "perfectly"'
> 
> Exactly how I feel about the studio version, and studio recordings in general. We're fortunate to have such recordings by artists we don't have the privilege of hearing live, but there's no doubt that many of our most vital recorded performances of music come from the opera house or the concert hall. That's definitely true of Callas's recorded legacy (think Medea, Lucia, Amina, Lady Macbeth, etc.). Making great music means brinksmanship, going to the edge, not knowing how it will come out but trusting your knowledge, taste, training and instincts. A musical performance is an improvisation, not a document, and I'm in complete sympathy with musicians who dislike recordings even though I'm glad most of them are willing to submit to the process. Of course there's always Glenn Gould...


Of course the theatre was Callas's natural milieu, but she was particularly good at bringing the theatre into the studio, and I don't think anyone would ever accuse her of lacking spontaneity or being emotionless. Even in the studio, she could make the music sound as if it were newly created in her mouth. You yourself, Woodduck find her Butterfly almost too emotionally shattering to listen to, and the recording was made _before_ she sang in in the theatre.

I love all my live Callas recordings (often despite the ghastly sound) but the studio recordings have their place too. Incidentally, the image of Callas standing in a booth in a studio with cans on, saying, "Let me try that again!" is quite ridiculous. If you've seen any photos of opera recordings of the day, you will see the singers on a stage with the orchestra, no cans, no booths. Like most musicians, she performed for the microphone and trusted her producer, Walter Legge, to tell her what was good and what needed doing again.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Seattleoperafan said:


> I think it would be interesting to discuss artists who managed to be exciting in studio recordings. I love what everyone said and I see both sides of the argument on this selection. This was what I had hoped for in a Callas/ Callas contest and it was done well here.


To me, Seattle, it is an impossibility because one needs to have the actual costume, the make-up, the partner they are singing with so they can see facial expressions, the conductor, in order to stir excitement within themselves and deliver it to the audience. The other way all you are doing is staring at a microphone in front of you in an enclosed box, and a music stand with the music on it, and some earphones to hear when they tell you to stop and try it again, etc. This does not promote enthusiasm or nervous energy so needed when actually onstage.
What it DOES do, is give you a pure, clear and perfect sound, perhaps repeated numerous times till one got it right, and in so doing squeezes all the "juice" out of the performance.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Tsaraslondon said:


> Of course the theatre was Callas's natural milieu, but she was particularly good at bringing the theatre into the studio, and I don't think anyone would ever accuse her of lacking spontaneity or being emotionless. Even in the studio, she could make the music sound as if it were newly created in her mouth. You yourself, Woodduck find her Butterfly almost too emotionally shattering to listen to, and the recording was made _before_ she sang in in the theatre.
> 
> I love all my live Callas recordings (often despite the ghastly sound) but the studio recordings have their place too. Incidentally, the image of Callas standing in a booth in a studio with cans on, saying, "Let me try that again!" is quite ridiculous. If you've seen any photos of opera recordings of the day, you will see the singers on a stage with the orchestra, no cans, no booths. Like most musicians, she performed for the microphone and trusted her producer, Walter Legge, to tell her what was good and what needed doing again.


I'm far from having heard all of Callas's live recordings, but I've heard most of the studio ones more than once, and I appreciate fully her ability to bring a role to life regardless of the medium or milieu. The Butterfly you mention is one of the most extraordinary of her studio efforts, as is her Carmen, and in both cases it's the astonishing creativeness with which she "reads" the musical lines that makes listening to her an endlessly absorbing and powerful experience. No one needs to convince me of her artistic powers. That said, her live performances are to some degree a different experience even when the interpretations are very much the same. Her studio Medea doesn't come close to her live recordings for excoriating intensity, and in fact I find it rather dull and haven't been tempted to hear it a second time (more the opera's fault than hers, however). Although that is perhaps the most extreme example, what are generally considered her best Lucia (Berlin) and Norma (La Scala) are also live (to give just two examples), and I doubt that had she recorded Lady Macbeth in the studio it would have equaled in dramatic urgency the live performance we have. I'm one who doesn't think her live sleepwalking scene, uncanny in its evocation of an unhinged mind, is matched by her later, less spontaneous-sounding recording in the studio Verdi recital. I can only imagine how incredibly vivid her Carmen would have been had she made it part of her repertoire and recorded it live (when the recording came out, Conrad Osborne felt that it sounded like an extraordinary sketch for a characterization and hoped she would sing it in the house).

Based on what several here have said, I listened to Callas's 1953 recording of this aria, and I agree that it's the best of the three. It has more urgency than the studio job, plus more refinement than the somewhat rough-and-ready 1950 performance. But I still have to say that the slight awkwardness of the latter doesn't bother me when set against the spontaneity, passion and vocal plenitude on display that night in the theater.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

nina foresti said:


> To me, Seattle, it is an impossibility because one needs to have the actual costume, the make-up, the partner they are singing with so they can see facial expressions, the conductor, in order to stir excitement within themselves and deliver it to the audience. The other way all you are doing is staring at a microphone in front of you in an enclosed box, and a music stand with the music on it, and some earphones to hear when they tell you to stop and try it again, etc. This does not promote enthusiasm or nervous energy so needed when actually onstage.
> What it DOES do, is give you a pure, clear and perfect sound, perhaps repeated numerous times till one got it right, and in so doing squeezes all the "juice" out of the performance.


Nina, I see your side. But why is it that pop singers like Streisand or Garland can produce very involved studio recordings but it seems to elude the ability of opera singers. Perhaps having to be someone else is an extra layer that they must contend with that pop good pop singers can get around. Just musing here. Perhaps, also, they are more used to the medium of using microphones. One other thought: recitals where the artist uses music seem less spontaneous than recitals without. In operatic recordings I believe they always have the music in front of them, whereas most pop singers don't use the sheet music.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Seattleoperafan said:


> Nina, I see your side. But why is it that pop singers like Streisand or Garland can produce very involved studio recordings but it seems to elude the ability of opera singers. _Perhaps having to be someone else is an extra layer that they must contend with that pop good pop singers can get around. _Just musing here. Perhaps, also, they are more used to the medium of using microphones. One other thought: recitals where the artist uses music seem less spontaneous than recitals without. In operatic recordings I believe they always have the music in front of them, whereas most pop singers don't use the sheet music.


You said it yourself. They are just being themselves and not trying to play a part of another character. BIG difference.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Seattleoperafan said:


> Nina, I see your side. But why is it that pop singers like Streisand or Garland can produce very involved studio recordings but it seems to elude the ability of opera singers. Perhaps having to be someone else is an extra layer that they must contend with that pop good pop singers can get around. Just musing here. Perhaps, also, they are more used to the medium of using microphones. One other thought: recitals where the artist uses music seem less spontaneous than recitals without. In operatic recordings I believe they always have the music in front of them, whereas most pop singers don't use the sheet music.


Opera is a theatrical art form, and it is best performed and experienced in the theater. Pop music is song driven, and a good singer can put a song across in the studio without any difficulty. However, the sterile conditions of a studio, without the environment of the theater and the adrenaline infused performance on stage in front an audience, usually produce a competent but rarely inspired performance.

Yes, one can achieve a good record of an opera in a studio recording - but it has always been my view that the best performances are live in the theater. That said, live recordings are hit and miss, they may not always document a great performance.


----------



## JTS (Sep 26, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> Opera is a theatrical art form, and it is best performed and experienced in the theater. Pop music is song driven, and a good singer can put a song across in the studio without any difficulty. However, the sterile conditions of a studio, without the environment of the theater and the adrenaline infused performance on stage in front an audience, usually produce a competent but rarely inspired performance.
> 
> Yes, one can achieve a good record of an opera in a studio recording - but it has always been my view that the best performances are live in the theater. That said, live recordings are hit and miss, they may not always document a great performance.


Obviously there are good live performances of opera but they tend now to be on DVD which is as it should be. One reason of the studio performances was the totally inadequate sound that could be captured from a live stage. Of course with the vast improvement of techniques we now have a means of capturing live performances in really good sound. I find the Callas performance from Mexico whatever its virtues to be unlistenable because of the sound. If we hadn't got the studio recording we would have a very restricted idea of what the singer actually sounded like. Of course a performance of songs is different as it is not a drama but it is interesting that even pop bands are recorded and sold live.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

nina foresti said:


> To me, Seattle, it is an impossibility because one needs to have the actual costume, the make-up, the partner they are singing with so they can see facial expressions, the conductor, in order to stir excitement within themselves and deliver it to the audience. The other way all you are doing is staring at a microphone in front of you in an enclosed box, and a music stand with the music on it, and some earphones to hear when they tell you to stop and try it again, etc. This does not promote enthusiasm or nervous energy so needed when actually onstage.
> What it DOES do, is give you a pure, clear and perfect sound, perhaps repeated numerous times till one got it right, and in so doing squeezes all the "juice" out of the performance.


You have a very strange idea of how classical recordings are made. I don't think I've ever seen photos of an opera recording where the singers are in a booth with cans on their heads. The layout depends on the venue, but usually the singers will be on a stage in front of the orchestra, as they would be at a concert performance. A good producer will also encourage his singers to interact with each other, at least by looking at each other.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

JTS said:


> Obviously there are good live performances of opera but they tend now to be on DVD which is as it should be. One reason of the studio performances was the totally inadequate sound that could be captured from a live stage. Of course with the vast improvement of techniques we now have a means of capturing live performances in really good sound. I find the Callas performance from Mexico whatever its virtues to be unlistenable because of the sound. If we hadn't got the studio recording we would have a very restricted idea of what the singer actually sounded like. *Of course a performance of songs is different as it is not a drama but it is interesting that even pop bands are recorded and sold live.*


Many pop bands sound awful live - nothing like the studio performances. I do listen to some pop and rock (70s) and always go for the studio albums.


----------



## JTS (Sep 26, 2021)

PlaySalieri said:


> Many pop bands sound awful live - nothing like the studio performances. I do listen to some pop and rock (70s) and always go for the studio albums.


Oh agreed! When they don't have the studio effects.


----------



## JTS (Sep 26, 2021)

Tsaraslondon said:


> You have a very strange idea of how classical recordings are made. I don't think I've ever seen photos of an opera recording where the singers are in a booth with cans on their heads. The layout depends on the venue, but usually the singers will be on a stage in front of the orchestra, as they would be at a concert performance. A good producer will also encourage his singers to interact with each other, at least by looking at each other.


The sound stage for Decca's Ring


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

JTS said:


> Oh agreed! When they don't have the studio effects.


I think in pop and rock the records sound so well balanced and full sound - good producers know how to get that - but out on a noisy stage and with respect - pop stars are not so well disciplined and well trained as their classical counterparts - which is why the BBC usually lip synched on top of the pops and any TV performances ie they know how shoddy it's going to sound if done live.


----------



## JTS (Sep 26, 2021)

PlaySalieri said:


> I think in pop and rock the records sound so well balanced and full sound - good producers know how to get that - but out on a noisy stage and with respect - pop stars are not so well disciplined and well trained as their classical counterparts - which is why the BBC usually lip synched on top of the pops and any TV performances ie they know how shoddy it's going to sound if done live.


My son works in the pop music industry and he says that if they are going to make a video a lot of intensive rehearsal and retakes goes into it because what is acceptable live is simply not acceptable in the cold medium of DVD still less audio recording. Sometimes there is a mixture of life performance and studio put into the same video


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

JTS said:


> The sound stage for Decca's Ring
> 
> View attachment 160367











This photo shows another recording session 1959 - obviously done in a theatre


----------



## JTS (Sep 26, 2021)

Off topic but a recording session of Dessay recording Bach. How it is done


----------



## Concertantek364 (Mar 13, 2021)

The 1956 EMI _Trovatore_ was recorded in the La Scala theatre in August that year. This was exactly how the recording session was set up inside the theatre, with raised platforms and microphones; the singers and conductor were placed in front of the orchestra:



The picture shows the recording session of _La bohème _with Callas, Di Stefano, Anna Moffo, Rolando Panerai and Nicola Zaccaria, and conductor Antonino Votto. The_ Trovatore _session took place at exactly the same venue and with the same set up just shortly before the Bohéme session within the same month.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Concertantek364 said:


> The 1956 EMI _Trovatore_ was recorded in the La Scala theatre in August that year. This was exactly how the recording session was set up inside the theatre, with raised platforms and microphones; the singers and conductor were placed in front of the orchestra:
> 
> 
> 
> The picture shows the recording session of _La bohème _with Callas, Di Stefano, Anna Moffo, Rolando Panerai and Nicola Zaccaria, and conductor Antonino Votto. The_ Trovatore _session took place at exactly the same venue and with the same set up just shortly before the Bohéme session within the same month.


I see no cans or recording booth.

Inidentally I have experience of recording - as a member of a chorus for the recording of a West End show I was in, as a soloist and as a backing singer. We recorded the musical at Abbey Road, one of the most famous recording venues in the world. We were in one of the big studios and orchestra and chorus were recorded together just as we would have performed in the theatre, but without the stage movement. As a backing singer, we would usually be in a booth singing along to a playback. When I recorded as a soloist, I at first laid down a guide vocal, which was used for the instrumental track. I then went into the booth and sang to what they had recorded. The producer encouraged me to exaggerate facial expression as this helped with vocal expression. For instance, smiling whilst singing will put a smile into the voice, and so forth. Expression becomes more important because the listener doesn't have any visual clues as to what is going on.

Some singers are particularly good at this kind of vocal acting, Callas and Gobbi being the prime examples. You only have to hear Callas sing two words, one after the other in *I Pagliacci* to hear what I mean. As Tonio scuttles away after his confrontation with Nedda, she sings the word _lurido_ in a voice dripping with loathing, only to change to all smiles and sensuality, when she greets her lover by name, _Silvio, a quest'ora_. When people talk about Callas being a great actress, it wasn't just her physical acting they were talking about, it is the wide palette of vocal colour she used to convey different emotions. It is amazing that she could do this without disturbing the musical line or straying from the notes written in the score. In some ways she was as much the ideal recording artist as she was a stage animal.


----------



## Concertantek364 (Mar 13, 2021)

Thank you all for your participation and contributions to discussions in this poll :tiphat: 

Polling is still open here for a few days more. Meanwhile, a new poll of Callas competing against herself in "Suicidio" from La Gioconda has just been opened - please check it out.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Seattleoperafan said:


> Nina, I see your side. But why is it that pop singers like Streisand or Garland can produce very involved studio recordings but it seems to elude the ability of opera singers. Perhaps having to be someone else is an extra layer that they must contend with that pop good pop singers can get around. Just musing here. Perhaps, also, they are more used to the medium of using microphones. One other thought: recitals where the artist uses music seem less spontaneous than recitals without. In operatic recordings I believe they always have the music in front of them, whereas most pop singers don't use the sheet music.


No one is saying that a fine production cannot be had in the studio version rather than just the live version, particularly when you are referring to fine actors who are able to deliver a heartfelt rendering through unstaged performances alone in a booth. 
But I think one might admit that as wonderful as their studio performance can be, so much more so would it be live when they add a stronger impetus with an audience breathing life in front of them and other singers to induce more excitement into the character aspects of the role as well as the singing. 
Remember also that individual singers like Garland and Streisand, who behind a mike can deliver magic, are only one person and not engaging with other players at the same time as singing. Compare that to their live shows where suddenly they feel that extra flow of adrenalin. They don't have to worry about emoting to the degree that a complete show insists upon.
Even a concert version of an opera must lose some of that inner excitement when one is only doing a "stand and deliver" in front of an audience, with their music on a stand, where they need to break away from the character as they peruse the music on the stand.
Same is true of studio versions that have complete orchestras and other characters nearby but only in rehearsal form.
There is quite a difference when we are talking about only1 person recording one aria in a studio booth as opposed to an entire cast rehearsing in an open studio atmosphere.


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

Despite the fact that I agree with The Woodduck & Tsaras I have voted the EMI's 1956 recording, because of the superior sound. I know that 1950's Maria was (generally) stronger than 1956's but so awful recording as the first couldn't have been voted by me.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Dimace said:


> Despite the fact that I agree with The Woodduck & Tsaras I have voted the EMI's 1956 recording, because of the superior sound. I know that 1950's Maria was (generally) stronger than 1956's but so awful recording as the first couldn't have been voted by me.


I voted for 1956 too. I prefer the greater refinement of her singing.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Tsaraslondon said:


> I see no cans or recording booth.
> 
> Inidentally I have experience of recording - as a member of a chorus for the recording of a West End show I was in, as a soloist and as a backing singer. We recorded the musical at Abbey Road, one of the most famous recording venues in the world. We were in one of the big studios and orchestra and chorus were recorded together just as we would have performed in the theatre, but without the stage movement. As a backing singer, we would usually be in a booth singing along to a playback. When I recorded as a soloist, I at first laid down a guide vocal, which was used for the instrumental track. I then went into the booth and sang to what they had recorded. The producer encouraged me to exaggerate facial expression as this helped with vocal expression. For instance, smiling whilst singing will put a smile into the voice, and so forth. Expression becomes more important because the listener doesn't have any visual clues as to what is going on.
> 
> Some singers are particularly good at this kind of vocal acting, Callas and Gobbi being the prime examples. You only have to hear Callas sing two words, one after the other in *I Pagliacci* to hear what I mean. As Tonio scuttles away after his confrontation with Nedda, she sings the word _lurido_ in a voice dripping with loathing, only to change to all smiles and sensuality, when she greets her lover by name, _Silvio, a quest'ora_. When people talk about Callas being a great actress, it wasn't just her physical acting they were talking about, it is the wide palette of vocal colour she used to convey different emotions. It is amazing that she could do this without disturbing the musical line or straying from the notes written in the score. In some ways she was as much the ideal recording artist as she was a stage animal.


Tsaraslondon: You are speaking of something entirely different from me. I was only referring to 1 aria by 1 singer who was called to the studio to sing that aria and nothing else. No staging, no other singers, and only an orchestra to back them up.
What you are showing is almost like a rehearsal of the final performance with an entire cast and orchestra present.
Very different from what I am referring to. 
And in my opinion there are relatively few who can accomplish the emotion and depth in a studio atmosphere like a Gobbi or a Callas etc. is able to without the complete and true production to stir their inner juices.


----------



## Concertantek364 (Mar 13, 2021)

nina foresti said:


> I was only referring to 1 aria by 1 singer who was called to the studio to sing that aria and nothing else. No staging, no other singers, and only an orchestra to back them up.


What's shown in the above picture is the stage of La Scala converted to serve as the recording studio and the 1956 EMI Trovatore and many of Callas' complete opera recordings with La Scala were taped this way - a method of recording operatic works typical of the long-playing record era and beyond. When Callas recorded an aria, only she would be standing in front of the orchestra and conductor and she sang into the microphone placed in front of her. The chorus and other singers would not be present on stage while she was recording the aria. There were certainly no cans and recording booth where her studio recording sessions are concerned.



nina foresti said:


> Having not as yet voted or read any responses, I can only say this was one of the easiest choices I've ever had to make.
> *On one hand, they took a person standing in the booth with the "cans" on her ears *and saying, "Let me try that part again..." etc. until it came out "perfectly" ... and lost every bit of spontaneity and emotion of the Mexican version with her stunning trills and passion for the words.
> I have always disliked studio recordings anyway. I think one needs the actual production to add to the excitement of the role.
> Put me down for #1.


Perhaps your use of "booth" and "cans" in your earlier post was actually meant to be metaphorical, rather than literal?


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

It is obvious that the ways of recording an album are different for opera singers than they are for the Garland/Streisand crowd or announcers for radio and tv commercials. I certainly cannot speak to that method which is foreign to me. It is an area I am unfamiliar with.
I am visualizing, for example, Streisand with Kris Kristofferson in "A Star is Born" when she is in the recording booth. This is the kind of scene I am speaking of.
Obviously, there are different ways of recording a single aria (or song) so I take this as a learning experience. Thank you.


----------



## Azol (Jan 25, 2015)

Oh, looks like I missed quite some polls lately... onto it!
In fact, 1950 is my favorite of the two, despite awful sound etc. Callas was definitely a stage animal so I learn to appreciate any bits and pieces that are available from her live recordings. In 1956 studio she is much more reserved, even her trills at the very beginning aren't of the same full-bodied quality. She has it under control and the atmosphere is there, but, as one who haven't been able to witness any of her stage appearances, I try to absorb live recordings as much as possible, so it's a no-brainer for me.


----------

