# How long was Maria Callas's "Good" period?



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

So I've heard people say that Callas was great at a certain period, but that she lost her greatness over time, or perhaps at some crucial juncture. I don't know which, really, I'm not that knowledgeable about Callas. But I was wondering what people's opinions were about what was her "Best" period and then perhaps her "good" period, and then a period in which she had lost her luster. Maybe you don't think she ever lost her luster, that's fine too. I just wanted opinions about this subject. Thanks!


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

I think the general consensus is that, while Callas never lost her powers as a musician/interpreter/actress, her voice showed definite signs of decline by the late 1950's.


----------



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

I want examples! Is there record proof of her voice's decline? I guess I want something of an objective account. Are there certain recordings in which she is A+ then suddenly recordings in which she is less than perfect?


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Long enough.


----------



## Diminuendo (May 5, 2015)

The voice definitely declined, but even at the very end she could still amaze you. The interpretations deepened and she gained more insight into roles. Like the French recitals in which the voice doesn't respond like it used to, but the singing is just amazing in another respects. Right until the end she could do things that other singers just dream of. But later it wasn't always pretty. The high notes in particular became an effort. But singing is so much more than that and she gave so much in other ways. All of these are of course personal opinions and differ from person to person. Some don't lake the later performances at all. I myself have never thought of her career having periods. She always gave her best and that is enough for me.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

1952 was when she started losing weight and the real problems began in a slow progression after that. A few of the early recordings after the weight loss were still at the top of her game. A real barometer of the decline was that before the weight loss she regularly performed Wagner and Turandot. Never after 52. Also those gigantic, not to be believed D's and Eb's were a shadow of their former selves if she sang them at all .


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

Greg Mitchell had the inspired idea of reviewed the recent remastering's in the reverse chronological order.

Worth skipping through this tread for the answers you want, both for Greg's reviews and the comments that follow.
From memory the first 10-15 pages were before it was even released!

http://www.talkclassical.com/33051-new-maria-callas-box.html


----------



## Tietjens Stolz (Jun 2, 2015)

Seattleoperafan said:


> 1952 was when she started losing weight and the real problems began in a slow progression after that. A few of the early recordings after the weight loss were still at the top of her game. A real barometer of the decline was that before the weight loss she regularly performed Wagner and Turandot. Never after 52. Also those gigantic, not to be believed D's and Eb's were a shadow of their former selves if she sang them at all .


Please allow me to correct you - plenty of photographic evidences as well as the memoirs of Callas' husband Giovanni Battista Meneghini and Tito Gobbi indicate that Maria started to lose weight in the summer of 1953 (rather than 1952). She in fact gained weight in the period 1951-early 1953. Paradoxically it is during this period of weight gain that she dropped the heavy Wagner roles and Turandot completely from her stage repertoire. The reason behind doing so should therefore be attributed to the personal choice that Callas made with regard to the direction of her operatic career (with greater attention to the bel canto operas) rather than any change/alteration in her vocal powers.

As recounted by Tito Gobbi, in March-April 1953 (when the EMI recording sessions for I Puritani took place), Callas' weight reached such a peak that her beloved mentor Tullio Serafin berated her openly, chiding that her legs were like those of elephants and even fetching a weighing scale and asking her to take her weight. Serafin's ultra-insensitivity greatly shocked and trampled the pathologically insecure Callas and in turn drove her toward progressively stricter diet regimes. The ascendency of Audrey Hepburn to super-stardom in the worlds of films and fashion also supplied additional motivations for Callas to lose weight. It was sometime in mid-1953, as recalled by Meneghini, that some tape worms were discovered and then removed from Callas' body and Meneghini pointed out that from that point onward, the diet regime that Callas put herself through began to take effect. What happened thereafter is well-known history.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Maybe the best way of charting Callas's vocal decline is to listen to her two recordings of *Tosca*, the first made in 1953 when at her vocal peak, and the second in 1964, the year before she retired from the operatic stage, and the year of the famous Zeffirelli production at Covent Garden, which marked her return to the operatic stage after a short hiatus. In the latter recording, the top of the voice is perilous to say the least, and the top Cs mostly emerge as not much better than shrieks. Her artistry however remains undimmed, and there are places when she is even more moving here than in the 1953 recording. The end of _Vissi d'arte_ tests her to the limit, but she is still more touching and involved than many more firm-voiced sopranos. She is ever the great artist doing the best she can with what she has. Her musicality and intelligence is never in doubt. The voice might fail her. Her musicianship does not.

It is also completely misleading to suggest, as Seattleoperafan does, that the voice started to fail her as early as 1952. There is no doubt that the voice changed quality after the voice loss, but post 1954, when she sang in *La Vestale* at La Scalal pencil thin and glamorous, some of her greatest performances were still ahead of her, including an astonishingly brilliant *Norma* at La Scala in 1955. Sure she gave up singing Wagner and *Turandot* quite early, but that no doubt had more to do with the success of her Elvira in *I Puritani* in 1949, when she alternated the role with the Brunnhilde of *Die Walkure*. From that day on she concentrated more and more on _bel canto_ roles. She herself stated that she dropped the role of Turandot as quickly as she could ("because it's not very good for the voice, you know"), and her antipathy for Puccini in general was well known. Even Tosca didn't figure that much in her career at this time, and in fact she never once sang a Puccini role at La Scala during her glory years there.

In answer to the OP, I'd argue that she may have lost her voice, but she never lost her greatness. Even in those late recitals of the mid 1960s, there are flashes of genius to offset the evident vocal decline.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

schigolch said:


> Long enough.


Well admittedly the voice on top has a hard edge in the 1960 recording, but the middle of the voice is still quite beautiful. Technically, it is a lot better than most of what you will hear today, the _fioriture_ exquisite, and the downward chromatic scale breathtakingly accurate. In some ways I actually prefer the second studio *Norma*. Her portrayal has deepened since 1954 and the supporting cast is better than on the earlier one, but the best of all her Normas is to be found live at La Scala in 1955 (best heard on Divina records).


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

I do prefer her 1954 Norma at La Scala, over all other recordings, but this is a matter of taste, of course. 

It's true the voice was not at her peak in 1960, however the drama is so well served, that one can forget about some rather displeasing notes at her top range.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

It's been going strong since 1949 and shows no signs of going into decline any time soon. Just look at the threads dedicated to her on TC!

N.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Bellinilover said:


> I think the general consensus is that, while Callas never lost her powers as a musician/interpreter/actress, her voice showed definite signs of decline by the late 1950's.


^this is why I love Sutherland more than Callas. she was only 3 years younger than Callas, but stayed vocally fresh until the early 70s, at which point she started declining (in Callas's defense, she kept the lower and lower-middle in tact far better than Sutherland. Sutherland's voice......totally fell apart from the middle down).


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> ^this is why I love Sutherland more than Callas. she was only 3 years younger than Callas, but stayed vocally fresh until the early 70s, at which point she started declining (in Callas's defense, she kept the lower and lower-middle in tact far better than Sutherland. Sutherland's voice......totally fell apart from the middle down).


Fascinating, for the exact same reason I prefer Callas. I'm a sucker for musicianship, intelligent interpretation, vocal acting and above all an intense emotional connection to a role. Technique is necessary, but there is so much more to opera singing.

N.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

The Conte said:


> Fascinating, for the exact same reason I prefer Callas. I'm a sucker for musicianship, intelligent interpretation, vocal acting and above all an intense emotional connection to a role. Technique is necessary, but there is so much more to opera singing.
> 
> N.


I cannot but agree. For some people opera is just about voice. For me it is about far, far more.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

GregMitchell said:


> I cannot but agree. For some people opera is just about voice. For me it is about far, far more.


This is too much of a dichotomy. I'm a huge Sutherland fan, yet for me opera is not and never has been "just about voice."

The issue, rather, is that some of us hear musicality and drama in Sutherland's singing, and see character in those (well-directed) opera performances of hers preserved on video; others fail to hear/see this, and that's fine. But I think it's safe to say that those of us who generally prefer Sutherland/Caballe/whomever to Callas are well aware of the fact that opera is about a great deal more than just perfect tone.


----------



## DarkAngel (Aug 11, 2010)

Seattleoperafan said:


> 1952 was when she started losing weight and the real problems began in a slow progression after that. A few of the early recordings after the weight loss were still at the top of her game. A real barometer of the decline was that before the weight loss she regularly performed Wagner and Turandot. Never after 52. Also those gigantic, not to be believed D's and Eb's were a shadow of their former selves if she sang them at all .


Check this timeline from 1952-59 of Callas "Spargi D'amaro Pianto" climax notes compiled by turnipoverlord (the greatest vinyl collection of Callas youtube performances on planet earth, make his homepage a favorite immediately)

The 52 Mexico series are effortless supremely powerful electrifying, then we have some off nights like 56 Naples where Maria completely blows final note......but surprise the final 59 performance is one of the very best, don't give up on our great diva just yet the fire and excitement is still there!


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Bellinilover said:


> This is too much of a dichotomy. I'm a huge Sutherland fan, yet for me opera is not and never has been "just about voice."
> 
> The issue, rather, is that some of us hear musicality and drama in Sutherland's singing, and see character in those (well-directed) opera performances of hers preserved on video; others fail to hear/see this, and that's fine. But I think it's safe to say that those of us who generally prefer Sutherland/Caballe/whomever to Callas are well aware of the fact that opera is about a great deal more than just perfect tone.


^exactly. I've always found Sutherland to be dramatic and intense. granted, it doesn't always 100% fit the character, but she has a heroic intensity and regal, queenly quality to her which shine through in her recordings. it might not be as versatile as Callas was, but the voice had plenty of personality.


----------



## Tietjens Stolz (Jun 2, 2015)

This thread has gone OFF the rail. The REAL issue here, as stated by the original poster, is how long Callas' prime is. Please leave aside comparison between Callas and any other singer (we have more than enough of this already) and go back to the original issue.

P.S. There are already more than enough Callas threads on TC. The issue could actually have been brought up in "La Divina" thread started by Diminuendo.


----------



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

DarkAngel said:


> Check this timeline from 1952-59 of Callas "Spargi D'amaro Pianto" climax notes compiled by turnipoverlord (the greatest vinyl collection of Callas youtube performances on planet earth, make his homepage a favorite immediately)
> 
> The 52 Mexico series are effortless supremely powerful electrifying, then we have some off nights like 56 Naples where Maria completely blows final note......but surprise the final 59 performance is one of the very best, don't give up on our great diva just yet the fire and excitement is still there!


I found this video to be very fascinating. Looking on wikipedia, I read a cursory account of her history... Did she really have/use a tapeworm to lose weight? Is that just hearsay? I ask because that sounds almost insane to me, but considering today's standards of beauty and the length people will go to to obtain said standards of beauty... I wouldn't put it past a famous person to willingly use tapeworms. I've even joked that tapeworms should be a weight loss method when I was younger, but I never heard of a case in which that might actually be the case! It seemed just a bad joke, but apparently there was a rumor around that she used such a method. Ok, just a rumor, but I find it funny because I've used this as a joke before, and here we have a real rumor of it being used, whether it was used or not, it was a real rumor. Whether that's even possible or not, at least some section of the population THOUGHT it was possible in order to spread such rumor. I find it completely possible that she lost the weight on her own, through her own will, exercise, and diet plan, and whatnot. In fact, I assume that's so.

Anyway, none of that has to do with how she sounded during this time or another time. It sounds like people say she sounded good at X time, then worse at Y time, then better at Z time, then just bad after that. So there was a middle period when she sounded worse and yet she recovered.... for a time... Then that was basically it. Then she died. Actually I can't see on the wiki how she died. How the heck did she die anyway?


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Panorama said:


> Please allow me to correct you - plenty of photographic evidences as well as the memoirs of Callas' husband Giovanni Battista Meneghini and Tito Gobbi indicate that Maria started to lose weight in the summer of 1953 (rather than 1952). She in fact gained weight in the period 1951-early 1953. Paradoxically it is during this period of weight gain that she dropped the heavy Wagner roles and Turandot completely from her stage repertoire. The reason behind doing so should therefore be attributed to the personal choice that Callas made with regard to the direction of her operatic career (with greater attention to the bel canto operas) rather than any change/alteration in her vocal powers.
> 
> As recounted by Tito Gobbi, in March-April 1953 (when the EMI recording sessions for I Puritani took place), Callas' weight reached such a peak that her beloved mentor Tullio Serafin berated her openly, chiding that her legs were like those of elephants and even fetching a weighing scale and asking her to take her weight. Serafin's ultra-insensitivity greatly shocked and trampled the pathologically insecure Callas and in turn drove her toward progressively stricter diet regimes. The ascendency of Audrey Hepburn to super-stardom in the worlds of films and fashion also supplied additional motivations for Callas to lose weight. It was sometime in mid-1953, as recalled by Meneghini, that some tape worms were discovered and then removed from Callas' body and Meneghini pointed out that from that point onward, the diet regime that Callas put herself through began to take effect. What happened thereafter is well-known history.


DAMN, I just love the incredibly high level of knowledge the people on this forum display over and over!!!


----------



## Tietjens Stolz (Jun 2, 2015)

Seattleoperafan said:


> DAMN, I just love the incredibly high level of knowledge the people on this forum display over and over!!!


This is the photo taken of Callas and Serafin during the Mar-Apr 1953 EMI recording session for I Puritani. Callas certainly kept a brave face in front of the camera but one can imagine that deep down she was horribly devastated by her mentor's very unkind and insensitive remarks about her weight:










Coming back to the question of the OP, I think her vocal prime lasted from 1949 to 1957. There were still some vocally and interpretively stellar performances ahead of her in 1956 (such as Anna Bolena at La Scala in Apr 1957, La Sonnambula at Cologne in July 1957 and Medea in Dallas in November 1958 - alas the performances in which equilibrium was achieved between vocal health and interpretive power were becoming fewer in number), but problems were already becoming pretty obvious in the upper region of her voice during that year, sounding as though she was becoming less and less able to muster sufficient breath support to sustain her high notes. Just compare two recordings of her rendition of Leonora's Act 4 aria "D'amor sull'ali rose" (Il Trovatore) in a live performance at La Scala in February 1953 (when she was at her heaviest) and that in August 1956 (by then she was quite pencil thin) for the EMI recording conducted by Karajan, it's not difficult for one to notice that Callas' upper voice was more secure and in better shape in 1953 than in 1956.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Panorama said:


> Just compare two recordings of her rendition of Leonora's Act 4 aria "D'amor sull'ali rose" (Il Trovatore) in a live performance at La Scala in February 1953 (when she was at her heaviest) and that in August 1956 (by then she was quite pencil thin) for the EMI recording conducted by Karajan, it's not difficult for one to notice that Callas' upper voice was more secure and in better shape in 1953 than in 1956.


_But_, as I'm sure Panorama would agree, and as others have pointed out. her artistry remains undimmed, for instance the way she articulates the trills, binds the _fioriture_ into the line and integrates the cadenza into the melodic close. Her sense of the musical shape of the aria, and her command of the long legato line are unparalleled. Her vocal powers may have started to dim, but her musicianship has not.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> ^exactly. I've always found Sutherland to be dramatic and intense. granted, it doesn't always 100% fit the character, but she has a heroic intensity and regal, queenly quality to her which shine through in her recordings. it might not be as versatile as Callas was, but the voice had plenty of personality.


I agree that Sutherland wasn't just a canary and did use her voice for dramatic means at times. However, I too agree that Callas was more versatile and she used not only her voice and the text to embody a role's emotional content, but also the music.

N.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

I started with Sutherland - but once I heard Callas - I haven't looked back.

I find pre 1955 recordings she is generally flawless in all ways. She started doing a lot of work with HMV in the late 50s and many people judge her on that work - obviously still potent as an opera star but with a declining voice. 

My wife hates Callas - loves Caballe - points to her vocal perfection etc.


----------



## Il Maestro (Oct 27, 2015)

Callas wasn't just an exceptional singer, but also a great artist. Whilst her voice may her failed her towards the end of her career, her artistry remained intact. To be fair, I have always found Callas' voice more _interesting_ than _conventionally beautiful_. Yes, the voice was fresher and she was in full command of it until about the mid-fifties, then it began to decline. But, as others have pointed out, there is still much to enjoy from her later recordings. Her Carmen, recorded in 1964, remains the most convincing and seductive portrayal on record, as far as I am concerned.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> ^exactly. I've always found Sutherland to be dramatic and intense. granted, it doesn't always 100% fit the character, but she has a heroic intensity and regal, queenly quality to her which shine through in her recordings. it might not be as versatile as Callas was, but the voice had plenty of personality.


I just cannot see what this pointless exercise is about, setting Sutherland against Callas. Let's just say they were two very different artists, with different priorities and were both great in their way. Why fight over them when we can have recordings of both. I certainly have!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Artistry remains undimmed by time as long as the mind is intact. Unfortunately the body does not always respond to the artistry. Rudolf Serkin was a great artist who kept playing and recording rather too long after his body had started to decline. Callas too - the artistry is always there. Unfortunately some of her last recordings - e.g. the Tosca and the Carmen - are somewhat of a trial to listen to.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

stomanek said:


> I started with Sutherland - but once I heard Callas - I haven't looked back.
> 
> I find pre 1955 recordings she is generally flawless in all ways. She started doing a lot of work with HMV in the late 50s and many people judge her on that work - obviously still potent as an opera star but with a declining voice.
> 
> My wife hates Callas - loves Caballe - points to her vocal perfection etc.


I actually love Caballe too, but she is no more perfect than any other singer. She had a tendency to aspirate (nowhere near as much as many of today's singers, mind you), her coloratura runs could be sketchy and her trills a bit hit and miss. Of course at its peak, it was a voice of surpassing beauty, even throughout its range, with amazing breath control and the ability to float pianissimo top notes second to none, though she would often indulge them at the expense of the music. Though her response to the emotional content of the music could be a tad generic, there is no doubting her emotional commitment. I consider her Norma from Orange with Jon Vickers second only to Callas (by contrast her studio recording is a bit earthbound). She also adored Callas, and Callas had an enormous amount of admiration for her, at one time giving Caballe the jewellery she had worn as Norma.

PS Incidentally, Callas recorded for Columbia here in the UK, and Angel in the US, both labels eventually taken under the HMV imprimatur.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

stomanek said:


> *I started with Sutherland - but once I heard Callas - I haven't looked back.
> *
> I find pre 1955 recordings she is generally flawless in all ways. She started doing a lot of work with HMV in the late 50s and many people judge her on that work - obviously still potent as an opera star but with a declining voice.
> 
> My wife hates Callas - loves Caballe - points to her vocal perfection etc.


I must confess I find posts like this puzzling. Why stop enjoying one great singer because you have heard another?


----------

