# Why Must You Take Sides: Sutherland and Callas



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

There seem to be so many rabid fans of La Divina who give no room for anyone else both here and in other opera discussion arenas. Am I the only person on this board who is bereft that both La Divina and La Stupenda are gone? I love both in equal measure. Both so different, but never will there ever be their likes again. Why must we take sides I wonder? Which is greater, Mt. Everest or Mt. Rainier? Both are beyond fabulous? All non flame comments welcome.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

In this particular conflict, it seems there is only one side, actually. I can't recall seeing many fanatical Sutherland admirers who would go around shouting how "La Stupenda" owns (privately, of course - woe to living singers who dare to touch it) the X role(s), how she is the one and the only or about how X (modern) singer is not worthy to even lit a candle by her altar. How X artistic quality died with her. How some operas shouldn't be even staged again until she is resurrected. No, that is all domain of Callas people. If we consider them a "side", then the other side is not that of Sutherland admirers, it's whole rest of the world. People who didn't accidentally clog their ears collecting, as miraculous relic, dust from stages on which Callas performed.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Seattleoperafan said:


> *There seem to be so many rabid fans of La Divina who give no room for anyone else both here and in other opera discussion arenas. *Am I the only person on this board who is bereft that both La Divina and La Stupenda are gone? I love both in equal measure. Both so different, but never will there ever be their likes again. Why must we take sides I wonder? Which is greater, Mt. Everest or Mt. Rainier? Both are beyond fabulous? All non flame comments welcome.


Tell me about it. At least one of them copies-and-pastes all his many Callas posts, word for word, onto another discussion board, in case there's anyone left on the internet who hasn't seen them.  Constructive suggestions for anyone fed up of the bad attitude displayed by this faction and of the flaming of those admitting to being fed up with it might include the following: 1. Avoid the moribund opera forum here and move the opera discussions into a social group (which could be invitation only) or use the Composers' Guestbooks section, where AFAIK those people rarely venture. 2. Avoid this site entirely and just blog- rather a lonely occupation probably, but at least you can delete the comments which seem unhelpful. 3. Check out foreign language sites- there's a chance that this particular flavour of antisocial online behaviour is an anglophone phenomenon. Even if this turns out not to be the case, you'll have found a welcome distraction and had a chance to brush up your high school German/French/whatever.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Yes it is silly to me too.
Both were mega talents and entirely different. We might personally prefer one over the other but that does not diminish the talent of the other in any way, it is simply a subjective taste.

On one hand we have a soprano whose high notes are exquisitely spectacular and powerful and has a beautiful voice to match. A classic lady who exudes dignity and commands respect.

On the other, a committed performer who bravely attempts those high notes even if she happens to wobble them sometimes but she does it with grit. A person who is exciting to watch and dedicates herself to performing the work come scritto. A personality that commands attention with her fiery character.

Apples vs Oranges.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

nina foresti said:


> Yes it is silly to me too.
> Both were mega talents and entirely different. We might personally prefer one over the other but that does not diminish the talent of the other in any way, it is simply a subjective taste.
> 
> On one hand we have a soprano whose high notes are exquisitely spectacular and powerful and has a beautiful voice to match. A classic lady who exudes dignity and commands respect.
> ...


I agree, but for me vocally my favorite Callas was pre weight loss Callas who's high notes were rock solid and positively gigantic.


----------



## Steatopygous (Jul 5, 2015)

Both astounding singers who belong in every one's collection.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Seattleoperafan said:


> There seem to be so many rabid fans of La Divina who give no room for anyone else both here and in other opera discussion arenas. Am I the only person on this board who is bereft that both La Divina and La Stupenda are gone? I love both in equal measure. Both so different, but never will there ever be their likes again. Why must we take sides I wonder? Which is greater, Mt. Everest or Mt. Rainier? Both are beyond fabulous? All non flame comments welcome.


Your question is legitimate, but you must surely realize that you will not be able to confine the conversation to "non-flame comments." I see two already: they flame a "faction" known as "the Callas people."

As with the "modernist" versus "traditionalist" debates on TC, there is no better way to ensure the perpetuation of faction-like behavior than to issue blanket accusations based on collectivized judgments of putative groups.

Personally, I have no difficulty ignoring people whose behavior irritates me - and no compunction about calling them on it if it irritates me too much to be ignored. Some here may remember a couple of occasions on which I took Callas fans gently to task for gratuitously comparing Tebaldi to Callas in music Callas never sang, and for posting large photos of Callas in a thread about Maria Guleghina. In both cases my criticisms were taken in good grace. I believe this is the only proper approach to a "problem" which is here being overblown. Hostile remarks only add fuel to the fire one is trying to fight.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

I take heart hearing from so many respected members of this group who could even be a silent majority who recognize the towering talents of both of these very different women:tiphat:


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Woodduck said:


> Personally, I have no difficulty ignoring people whose behavior irritates me - and no compunction about calling them on it if it irritates me too much to be ignored. Some here may remember a couple of occasions on which I took Callas fans gently to task for gratuitously comparing Tebaldi to Callas in music Callas never sang, and for posting large photos of Callas in a thread about Maria Guleghina. In both cases my criticisms were taken in good grace. I believe this is the only proper approach to a "problem" which is here being overblown. Hostile remarks only add fuel to the fire one is trying to fight.


My highest esteem, I hope I too will reach nirvana one day.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Aramis said:


> My highest esteem, I hope I too will reach nirvana one day.


I find it very easy to reach nirvana... I just listen to one of my favourite Maria Callas recordings.



N.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

I know many opera fans, and can confidently assure you that most of them are fond of both singers.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Seattleoperafan said:


> There seem to be so many rabid fans of La Divina who give no room for anyone else both here and in other opera discussion arenas.


_rabid_ may be exaggerating somewhat! However, I too am frustrated when fans of La Divina not only think that she is the best exponent of a particular role, but that they can't bear to listen to other recordings of the role with a different singer in. The only instance where I would only want to listen to one recording of an opera is where there are very few recordings of that opera and there is only one available recording with a decent performance. Of the roles Callas recorded there is only one where there is absolutely no other recording that has something to recommend it and so I always turn to hers and that is La Vestale. I am a huge Callas fan, but also (I hope) a realist. Other characteristics of the _rabid_ Divina fan is to prefer a recording of an ensemble work over other recordings just because it has Callas in it, despite the fact that the rest of the cast are below par. There is nothing wrong with adoring Callas, even worshiping her (what else would be appropriate for 'La Divina' after all?) It annoys me when the love becomes _fundamentalist_ in nature.

The same goes for the (fewer in number, at least in these parts) Sutherland nuts. I enjoy both Callas and Sutherland, where their roles coincided I mostly prefer Maria, but there are a few things that they both sang in which I prefer Sutherland. There are some arias which suit Sutherland's temperament and vocality better than they did Callas' (the Bell Song from Lakme is the main one that comes to mind). I find that on form Callas trumps Sutherland at less than her best (think Anna Bolena live in 1957 versus Sutherland for DECCA), but Sutherland at her best beats second class Callas (Convien partir/Il faut partir anyone?)

That _rabid_ fans of one or other of the two can claim that they prefer all of their heroines recordings over the other soprano might just mean that the judgement of the fanatic can't be trusted.

N.


----------



## Badinerie (May 3, 2008)

I don't really think there are any Callas fans that think everything she sang was better than any other Soprano singing the same role. It is easy however, to forget though the magnitude of Callas's Fame. 

Millions of Non classical music lovers, indeed non music lovers over the whole world know who Maria Callas was and would be hard pressed to name any other Soprano's.

I'll admit to sometimes getting wrapped up in the legend, but not for ever. There are too many wonderful Soprano's out there past and present.

She was so Hypnoticaly Fascinating though, as a performer and a Personality.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Badinerie said:


> *I don't really think there are any Callas fans that think everything she sang was better than any other Soprano singing the same role.* It is easy however, to forget though the magnitude of Callas's Fame.
> 
> Millions of Non classical music lovers, indeed non music lovers over the whole world know who Maria Callas was and would be hard pressed to name any other Soprano's.
> 
> ...


There are a few on TC. 

N.


----------



## Badinerie (May 3, 2008)

Naaahhhhhh! Really? :lol:


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

The Conte said:"Millions of Non classical music lovers, indeed non music lovers over the whole world know who Maria Callas was and would be hard pressed to name any other Soprano's."



Callas was the Kim Kardashian of her day, beautiful, charismatic, lover of the richest man in the world who dumped her for Jackie O, the most famous woman in the world. She was all over the media. There is also Master Class and Lisbon Traviata, two very famous plays about her. There was also the very powerful scene with her singing in it in the blockbuster movie Philadelphia, lip synched with the uber famous Tom Hanks. Callas has had better PR than other sopranos. She only became really famous after she became model thin, and by that time most the best recordings of her voice at it's peak were behind her, and the ones before 53 were mostly recorded with sub par recording techniques. Still, she turned out some riveting performances in her new glamorous form. Sutherland and Callas both had plenty of detractors respectively: Sutherland for her sloppy diction, her transvestite looks and her perceived lack of drama, and Maria, most notably, for the many people who find her voice inherently ugly. My sister, an opera singer and well respected voice teacher in Germany, thinks Callas' voice is ugly and can't listen to it, even early fat Callas. For me, the phenomenal, freakish talent of both trump everything else!


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Seattleoperafan said:


> The Conte said:"Millions of Non classical music lovers, indeed non music lovers over the whole world know who Maria Callas was and would be hard pressed to name any other Soprano's."


Actually I was quoting Badinerie.

N.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Seattleoperafan said:


> Callas was the Kim Kardashian of her day


Except that Kim Kardashian's only apparent talent is to be famous.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

Seattleoperafan said:


> There seem to be so many rabid fans of La Divina who give no room for anyone else both here and in other opera discussion arenas. Am I the only person on this board who is bereft that both La Divina and La Stupenda are gone? I love both in equal measure. Both so different, but never will there ever be their likes again. Why must we take sides I wonder? Which is greater, Mt. Everest or Mt. Rainier? Both are beyond fabulous? All non flame comments welcome.


I'm someone who, when given a choice between Maria Callas and Joan Sutherland, usually chooses to listen to Sutherland. Yet I respect and appreciate Callas; she was a musical genius. I find that with Callas, however, a lot of _stuff_ gets in the way, in a way that it doesn't with Sutherland: the fascination (obsession, even) the general public has with Callas' personal life, the "Callas mystique" and the hyperbole that tends to come with it -- and then the late-career vocal decline. Sad to say, it's the extra-musical "drama" that tends to put me off Callas. I know it shouldn't, but it does. If I could only appreciate Callas' talent without all that other stuff, I'd be much happier.


----------



## Braddan (Aug 23, 2015)

Becca said:


> Except that Kim Kardashian's only apparent talent is to be famous.


Or for having no discernible talent whatsoever. We have a few of them on this side of the pond as well. The last classical concert I was at was practically empty and yet a few weeks of a pantomime at the same venue starring someone from reality show will sell out.

I love both Sutherland and Callas but neither to fanatical extremes. They have both left a rich legacy for us to enjoy and appreciate and we were lucky to have them


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

*


The Conte said:



That rabid fans of one or other of the two can claim that they prefer all of their heroines recordings over the other soprano might just mean that the judgement of the fanatic can't be trusted.
N.

Click to expand...

*

I agree.

No doctrinaire nonsense.

So 'everything in moderation, _including_ moderation.'

If a singer does something supremely better than others, I'm not going to shy away from saying so- no matter how many great recordings they have.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Seattleoperafan said:


> _Callas was the Kim Kardashian of her day. . . _


I wasn't aware that informed musical opinion thought so:

"*I happen to think that Callas was the greatest singer of the 20th century. . . Callas was superhuman.* She was on a whole other plane. She really was a Diva - the goddess - and the rest of us are basically her handmaidens."

-June Anderson

"The Enduring Legacy of Maria Callas", Jason Victor Serinus, San Francisco Classical Voice, Jan 2, 2012

--

"That is such a difficult question.* There are times when certain people are blessed - and cursed - with an extraordinary gift, in which the gift is almost greater than the human being.* Callas was one of these people. It was as if her own wishes, her life, her own happiness were all subservient to this incredible, incredible gift that she was given, this gift that reached out and taught us things about music that we knew very well, but showed us new things, things we never thought about, new possibilities. I think that is why singers admire her so. I think that's why conductors admire her so. I know it's why I admire her so."

-John Ardoin

replying to Patsy Swank upon being asked, "Was it worth it to Maria Callas? She was a lonely, unhappy, often difficult woman." in Callas, A Documentary (1978)

--

"*I adored this lady, and I respected her work ethic.* She always wanted to improve her understanding of a piece. "Casta Diva", [for instance] - *what interested me most was how she gave the runs and the cadenzas words. That always floored me. I always felt I heard her saying something - it was never just singing notes. That alone is an art. It's an art that you can try to achieve, but you can't copy, because that's just imitating without delving into [how she felt] about that particular fioritura. ... how many other artists since Callas have you heard and thought, "She sang gorgeously, but I never cried?"
*
-Martina Arroyo

James C. Whitson, "The Callas Legacy," Opera News, October, 2005

--

"*Callas modernized our metier. *Her life was a tireless creative search. She was one of the first to recognize the importance of being an actress as well as a singer, and was uncompromising in her belief that, *in order to achieve a complete dramatic performance, all aspects of the operatic genre require equal attention. She was a pioneer in restoring forgotten repertoire and in exploring new ways of musical interpretation.*"

- Cecilia Bartoli

"Maria Callas," Time, Nov. 2, 2006

--

"*Callas studied the text, the meaning of the words, and as a result, she became a diva. She became the Great Callas.* Because she studied the character, she entered the mind of the character, and she brought the character to life onstage. Today, young singers don't have this mindset. They don't have the kind of technique that Callas had. ...*Price, Milanov, and Tebaldi had stupendous voices and great careers. [But] Callas, as a performer, as someone who expressed the real meaning of the words, was the best. The best. There is no doubt about this - not only for her sound, but because she studied so much. Callas is the diva. *She is important to young singers, because she was a serious singer onstage, and she left a great legacy. I don't know, though, if they can listen and learn from what she left on her recordings."

- Carlo Bergonzi

"The Callas Legacy" by James C. Whitson in Opera News, October 2005

--

*"Callas? She was pure electricity."*

- Leonard Bernstein

John Ardoin, Callas: The Art and the Life, 1974

--

"She opened a new door for us, for all the singers in the world, a door that had been closed. Behind it was sleeping not only great music but great idea of interpretation. She has given us the chance, those who follow her, to do things that were hardly possible before her. *That I am compared with Callas is something I never dared to dream. It is not right. I am much smaller than Callas.*"

- Monserrat Caballe

John Ardoin, Callas: The Art and the Life, 1974

--

"*I used to listen again and again to recordings by Maria Callas. She was so musical and so theatrical at the same time. That is rare! I admire the way she cares for the words, so that everything comes from the text.* She takes everything from the text and the music to elaborate a character and make her really interesting and impressive. *She brings her own nature to the part - what she is, her passion, her fragility, doubts, feelings, violence - everything she is. And she never betrays the text or the music. *We're very different, thank goodness, and I am happy with my own voice. But I feel very close to her in terms of discipline - trying to be as disciplined as she. She is an example to follow! Maybe in the past, people were more interested in voice and beautiful sounds. Maria Callas changed that. She arrived, brought a new way of doing opera, opened the way for us. We don't have any excuse now for not doing it!"

- Natalie Dessay

David J. Baker, "Mad About the Girl," Opera News vol. 72, no. 3, September 2007

--

*"Callas, way above the rest. Tebaldi had a fantastic voice, like an angel's. But even when Callas's voice wasn't perfect, she had so much interpretation. Opera is storytelling. Feelings must be conveyed. Acting must be moving. And Callas had it all."*

-Giuseppe Di Stefano

"Stages of Di Stefano" by Jonathan Kendall in Opera News, January 2000

--

"Maria had in her blood, in her veins, in her subconscious all the tradition of the Greek Tragedy. She was born that way. In fact, she had her best time during 10 years. That was very short. But the "Myth of La Callas" will continue for ever, because she did so much! *She was a magnetic force on stage, the others didn't exist anymore. It's a gift of Nature, a gift of God. It' a talent, a great talent.*"

- Leyla Gencer






--

"The Chicago Lucia [1954], which I witnessed, absolutely blew everybody's mind, because she stopped the show in the middle of the mad scene. She bowed, [while] the audience went wild, and kept that pose for fourteen minutes. Callas was our lesson, in those days, for how one performed. *She had such complete ... we say in German "souveränität" - being above everything. She had this aura of magic. People were always mystified by what she did....Tebaldi had a much more beautiful voice and didn't have that hollow, breathy sound, which at times was just plain ugly. [But] Callas was unusual because despite the sound of her voice, the force of her personality just magnetized people. *It was so present, it came across the footlights at you, that ferocity of hers. *It was just all-encompassing. Callas brought the personality, the drama, the magic, the surreal quality to the bel canto roles that Sutherland never did."*

- Evelyn Lear

James C. Whitson ,"The Callas Legacy," Opera News, October 2005

--
*
"In all her recordings, one witnesses this incredible technique at work, whether it is Puritani, Sonnambula, Lucia, Norma or Abduction, [or] turning around to sing Gioconda and Kundry. This ability to devour all of vocal music history, and take it into herself and spew out such excellent examples of all these different styles - you just think, "How is a voice able to encompass all of this?" Well, it's not the voice, it's the woman behind the voice."*

*"No coloratura or fioritura was ever done for its own sake - it was always at the service of some expressive challenge....Her runs always gave the impression of being done so effortlessly. *I liken it to the greatest ballerinas - they never made you aware of how painful it is to be en pointe.* Callas transcended and transformed pain and difficulty into sheer weightlessness and ease and joy. It's absolute perfection in itself, and then on top of that she overlays expression - that's the thing I adored about this singer. She must have spent hours, days, weeks, years on this art, you know? The one I'm floored by is the Entfuhrung that she did. ["Martern aller Arten"] is just beyond belief. I don't think anyone has sung it better. . ."*

*"There was some wonderful demonic thing that worked inside of her to fuse the elements of technique and expression and transcend the [roles she assayed.] ... She's an inspiration to everyone that follows her. . ."*

- Catherine Malfitano

James C. Whitson, "The Callas Legacy," Opera News, October 2005

--

*"Listening to Callas is like reading Shakespeare: you're always going to be knocked senseless by some incredible insight into humanity. She is a huge bonfire! The thread, the "inner serpent" that she would get in certain music was so complete - for example, in the Lucia recording, the phrase "Alfin, son tua." Lucia, at her absolute happiest moment, would have said to Edgardo, "I am finally yours." For me, the woman Lucia came to life in that moment, and I understood why she was out of her mind, you know? You've got it all in that one phrase."*

- Aprile Millo

James C. Whitson, "The Callas Legacy," Opera News, October, 2005

If you want more you can go to:

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Maria_Callas#Callas_:_The_Art_and_the_Life_.281974.29


----------



## Green pasture (Aug 11, 2015)

Dear Marschallin darling (and this applies to all other Callas fans as well):

You would have noticed that for quite a while until now, I and other fellow Maria aficionado have stayed completely away from this thread. 

As you would be able to understand, Maria will always remain the supreme operatic artist in "our" hearts. However, we should learn at the same time to honour and respect the feelings and sensibilities of those who, to varying degrees, do not share our enthusiasm for Maria (I understand that for many this is obsessive, and I would not argue with any who thinks and feels this way, as you are completely entitled to your opinion), or those who have relatively more moderate views about her than we do. To whatever degree we may differ from them or disagree with them, we still have to uphold their freedom of articulating and expressing their opinions and views. And we should try to avoid doing anything to trample their sensibilities. 

I admit that the posting of the two large-sized Maria-as-Abigaille-in-Nabucco pictures in the Maria Guleghina thread has been a big and thoughtless mistake on my part. That's the reason why I accepted Woodie our Chair Professor of Musical Philosophy and Ethics's gentle admonition in good grace and removed the pictures from the thread as soon as I got his message. 

I would be most gratified and appreciative if "we" could do out part and respect the sensibilities of those who do not share our sentiments and enthusiasm for Maria, or those who hold a relatively more moderate view towards her with respect to other operatic artists. As you might already have understood, there is no such thing as uniform or monolithic opinion and every iconic artist in Classical Music invites a great variety and spectrum of views and feelings towards them. This is the reality we must accept, albeit with an open mind. In this regard I have come to deeply admire and even cherish DarkAngie's absolutely consistent composure, calmness and nonchalance towards different opinions expressed on Maria. He has become a role model of open-mindedness from whom we can learn a lot.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

plumblossom said:


> Dear Marschallin darling (and this applies to all other Callas fans as well):
> 
> You would have noticed that for quite a while until now, I and other fellow Maria aficionado have stayed completely away from this thread.
> 
> ...


Hiya plumm! _;D_

I thank you for your guiding thoughts- but I must dissent.

I, like you, believe in a healthy and diverse plurality of tastes and interests in any forum.

But unlike yourself, I do not believe in speaking in glosses or in euphemistic stylizations when matters of truth or beauty are paramount- because then 'good manners,' so-called, become the 'worst possible manners.' We end up lying to ourselves and in disrespecting others by doing so.

People can like what they want. People can say what they think.

I've always been libertarian on everything- 110%.

But I think the most important thing in any civilized forum is not the right to 'agree'- but rather the right to 'not' to. . .

Woodduck's a doll- and I love him- but I love my freedom more.

Eagles don't flock together.


----------



## Green pasture (Aug 11, 2015)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Hiya plumm! _;D_
> 
> I thank you for your guiding thoughts- but I must dissent.
> 
> ...


Marschallin darling, hope you would understand that my 'like' for your reply is a mark of my respect for your view. However I still have to stand by what I have said in my post here and I am sure you would be able to understand with good graces.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

*


plumblossom said:



Marschallin darling, hope you would understand that my 'like' for your reply is a mark of my respect for your view. However I still have to stand by what I have said in my post here and I am sure you would be able to understand with good graces. 

Click to expand...

*Plummie, Sweetie, you can go your way and I can go mine- nothing's more eminently civilized in my book than liberty.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

It was too much to hope that this thread could be reserved for those people like me who are fans BOTH of Maria Callas AND Joan Sutherland. There are too many threads for discussion where Callas is the only opera star who EVER EVER EVER existed. My Kim Kardashian comment was ONLY referring to her being omnipresent in the media in her day, NOT to her being talentless. I remember Callas being all over the news and the gossip magazines back in the day and even non opera fans knew who the Greek diva was. If you read my initial post you would see that I have utmost respect for the Callas as a towering artist. I am sorry my statement had to set you off on a long post trying to convince me to worhsip La Divina, which I do.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Seattleoperafan said:


> It was too much to hope that this thread could be reserved for those people like me who are fans BOTH of Maria Callas AND Joan Sutherland. There are too many threads for discussion where Callas is the only opera star who EVER EVER EVER existed. My Kim Kardashian comment was ONLY referring to her being omnipresent in the media in her day, NOT to her being talentless. I remember Callas being all over the news and the gossip magazines back in the day and even non opera fans knew who the Greek diva was. If you read my initial post you would see that I have utmost respect for the Callas as a towering artist. I am sorry my statement had to set you off on a tirade trying to convince me to worhsip La Divina, which I do.


What 'tirade'?

I simply provided a list of stellar professional musicians who gushed praise for Callas' ' ' talent ' ' and not her glamorous looks- as you'd falsely have people assume was the sole reason for her post-1953 fame. . .

If you've read any of my backlog, Seattleoperafan, you'd know that I'm a huge early-Sutherland fan; 'early' for me being about 1959-1962. To my knowledge, I have every cd she's ever done.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Marshallin Blair,I am sorry I gave that impression. Please forgive. Callas had plenty of talent left after her weight loss and many, many examples could be given, but I find her vocally superior before and just after the weight loss but most of her career is remembered after she became Hollywood glamorous. There is no question that she became much more liberated as a physical actress after her transformation, and for many Callas fans it was as an interpreter that they most admire her. I can't speak for you. As to whether her slow vocal decline was the result OF the weight loss alone is another matter. The late studio Norma has many insights not found in her early studio Norma, but her voice was much better in the early recording. As to which is ultimately the better recording, that is a matter of opinion and for what one is looking for. I also am very aware that early Sutherland is a different artist in many ways that later Sutherland.Many only like her before her voice changed around 62. Again, please forgive the misunderstanding. I am often quick to type the first thing that comes to mind. It is a failing of mine. Even in my earlier post, though, I am sure you read where I said, "Still, she turned out some riveting performances in her new glamorous form." It must have gotten lost, though, in the other point I was making.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Seattleoperafan said:


> *Marshallin Blair,I am sorry I gave that impression. Please forgive.* Callas had plenty of talent left after her weight loss and many, many examples could be given, but I find her vocally superior before and just after the weight loss but most of her career is remembered after she became Hollywood glamorous. There is no question that she became much more liberated as a physical actress after her transformation, and for many Callas fans it was as an interpreter that they most admire her. I can't speak for you. As to whether her slow vocal decline was the result OF the weight loss alone is another matter. The late studio Norma has many insights not found in her early studio Norma, but her voice was much better in the early recording. As to which is ultimately the better recording, that is a matter of opinion and for what one is looking for. I also am very aware that early Sutherland is a different artist in many ways that later Sutherland.Many only like her before her voice changed around 62. Again, please forgive the misunderstanding. I am often quick to type the first thing that comes to mind. It is a failing of mine.


Seattleoperafan, there is nothing to forgive!- I _like_ you.

I enjoy your constant championing of the really huge and the really pristine high-end voices out there- whether its the Birgit's, the Caballe's, the Alessandra Marc's, or the Sutherland's.

The thing that chaffes on me is when Callas isn't given her due as a technical singer or as an artist.

Her voice _per se_ as 'volume' and as 'timbre' did indeed plateau and then start to decline roughly around 1954- true enough.

But her supreme wizardry as a musician and as an artist really flowered after that with all of the myriad colorings, shadings, and dramatic inflections that she singlehandedly brought to the table.

I've heard more beautiful singing at times- sure; but never singing so beautifully expressed, so dramatically compelling, and so true.

Sutherland's 1959 Covent Garden Lucia thrills me- but Callas' gives me chills, elation, and tears.

Two years ago, I wouldn't listen to Callas at all. I was a dyed in the wool Joan Sutherland fan.

Now I listen to nothing but Callas.

Anyway, I can see the 'pro-Sutherland' and 'pro-Callas' things from both sides- like a Necker Cube- having been there, myself.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

I feel much, much better now. Great post, darlin'. Callas can surely take your breath away, sometimes with just one tiny note placed just right!!!!!


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

*


Seattleoperafan said:



I feel much, much better now. Great post, darlin'. Callas can surely take your breath away, sometimes with just one tiny note placed just right!!!!!

Click to expand...

*
. . . and Joanie can be fierce when she wants to be.

<Kiss.>


----------



## Steatopygous (Jul 5, 2015)

Both of these great voices had such highly distinctive voices/styles that their voices are instantly recognisable. This is interesting.
After 40 years of opera listening, there are relatively few singers that I can confidently say I would recognise in the first bar, if not the first note. Callas and Sutherland are certainly two - the very first note - along with Pavarotti, Fischer-Dieskau and a handful of others. There are a number of qualities that make that happen and, for me, they are all good.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Steatopygous said:


> Both of these great voices had such highly distinctive voices/styles that their voices are instantly recognisable. This is interesting.
> After 40 years of opera listening, there are relatively few singers that I can confidently say I would recognise in the first bar, if not the first note. Callas and Sutherland are certainly two - the very first note - along with Pavarotti, Fischer-Dieskau and a handful of others. There are a number of qualities that make that happen and, for me, they are all good.


 Bravo!To me, a singer can only be great if they have their own personal sound: Nilsson, Flagstad, L. Price, J. Norman, Bjorling, L. Warren, Milanov, Corelli, J. Kaufmann, Ponselle, Caruso, M. Horne,Tebaldi, Ruffo, Podles, D. Daniels. My sister, an opera singer/ voice teacher says one is born with it. The same holds for all of my favorite pop singers as well: Streisand, D. Summer, Sinatra, Cher, Bing Crosby, Doris Day. With all the singers I mentioned, all it takes is one note and you can guess who they are. To me most contemporary opera and pop singers sound "generic". Few exceptions.


----------



## gardibolt (May 22, 2015)

I like them both but prefer Callas generally. I can't say that I've carefully compared their particular roles that they've done in common, though. In any event, that doesn't make me anti-Sutherland.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

Steatopygous said:


> Both of these great voices had such highly distinctive voices/styles that their voices are instantly recognisable. This is interesting.
> After 40 years of opera listening, there are relatively few singers that I can confidently say I would recognise in the first bar, if not the first note. Callas and Sutherland are certainly two - the very first note - along with Pavarotti, Fischer-Dieskau and a handful of others. There are a number of qualities that make that happen and, for me, they are all good.


Not that they sound identical by any means, but it occurred to me recently while listening to her as the Queen of the Night that June Anderson sounds quite a lot like Joan Sutherland. I don't just mean that she had similar coloratura abilities to the older soprano; I mean that her actual timbre, mid-range, sounds similar, with that similar light-dark coloration and even similar foggy enunciation. I hold that if one were to hear just a few notes sung by Anderson, one might think it was Sutherland singing.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Bellinilover said:


> Not that they sound identical by any means, but it occurred to me recently while listening to her as the Queen of the Night that June Anderson sounds quite a lot like Joan Sutherland. I don't just mean that she had similar coloratura abilities to the older soprano; I mean that her actual timbre, mid-range, sounds similar, with that similar light-dark coloration and even similar foggy enunciation. I hold that if one were to hear just a few notes sung by Anderson, one might think it was Sutherland singing.


Interesting point. Of note, both Sutherland and to a less degree Anderson were both very accomplished coloraturas with voices of some size.They shared very similar facial bone structure, which could account for some similarity of tone. Sutherland and Nilsson shared very exaggerated bone structure which likely helped in projecting the sound. Anderson's features were less exaggerated than Sutherland's but look related.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Speaking of vocal "color," it's clear to me that one of the innate differences between the voices of Callas and Sutherland (and most other singers, in fact) is the possibility of achieving an extraordinary range of coloration, or alterations in timbre. Some of the very qualities of Callas's voice that make it strangely attractive to some and peculiarly unattractive to others - qualities of timbral complexity - enable her to alter its resonances for specific dramatic purposes in ways that few other singers can match. Setting her Gilda or Butterfly alongside her Medea or Carmen offers a rather startling experience of vocal transformation, the various possible timbral adjustments directed, of course, by a keen dramatic intelligence. My belief is that Callas needed that odd, sometimes beautiful, sometimes ugly voice (which I generally love to listen to!) in order to give full scope to her musical imagination, and that the (often warranted) accusations of blandness leveled at Sutherland and many another singer are not merely a matter of a more prosaic imagination but of a less adaptable vocal timbre. Ultimately I find the Callas voice a deeply _human_ one, holding within itself a full range of emotions, including the horrible ones she needs for some of the characters she plays. In this sense "La Divina" is more the "essential woman" and less the "goddess" than is Sutherland, who at her best suggests something superhuman in the sheer brilliance, beauty, and freedom of the sound she makes.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Figleaf said:


> Tell me about it. At least one of them copies-and-pastes all his many Callas posts, word for word, onto another discussion board, in case there's anyone left on the internet who hasn't seen them.


Would the same spirit of disinterested fairness impel you to point out the exact same behavior of a Renée Fleming fan who habitually double-posts their favorite opera heroines _du jour_?

- I only bring this up because they 'liked' your anti-Callas post.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Would the same spirit of disinterested fairness impel you to point out the exact same behavior of a Renée Fleming fan who habitually double-posts their favorite opera heroines _du jour_?
> 
> - I only bring this up because they 'liked' your anti-Callas post.


I only know of one major Fleming fan here, and he's a pretty nice guy. Even if (for argument's sake) he wasn't, there's still only _one_ of him, not a whole online claque which spends all its time throwing the virtual equivalent of rotten fruit at anyone who isn't Fleming. Nor does any Fleming admirer that I know of go around reprimanding people for 'liking' certain posts. And why do you say 'anti-Callas'? I don't blame the singer for the behaviour of some of her admirers.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Nothing is more idiotic to me than the singer cult to the exclusion of other singers. While we all have our preferences let's just rejoice we have these marvellous voices on record to listen to: Callas, Sutherland, Caballe, Simionato, Georghui, Tebald Price et al. The singer cult beings us down top the level of the soccer moron who can't bear any other team than his own and hates everyone else who plays the game. Let's appreciate the wonderful talents before us and (while keeping our preferences) rejoice join the differences they bring. 
I love the story of Sutherland who when asked whether she was a 'Prima Donna' said: "Prima Donna? I was brought up on a farm in Australia with six brothers and sisters. If you played the prima donna in our house you got sent to bed without supper!"
Good on yer Joanie!


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

There is another interesting and revealing story about Ms. Sutherland and a Prima Donna.

When she was recording a "Norma" with herself singing the starring role, and Ms. Caballé singing Adalgisa, one day Ms. Caballé arrived with a bucket of flowers, as a gift to Ms. Sutherland. The Australian diva said: "Oh, how nice, flowers for the Prima Donna", and Ms. Caballé quickly rectified; "No, flowers from the Prima Donna".


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

schigolch said:


> There is another interesting and revealing story about Ms. Sutherland and a Prima Donna.
> 
> When she was recording a "Norma" with herself singing the starring role, and Ms. Caballé singing Adalgisa, one day Ms. Caballé arrived with a bucket of flowers, as a gift to Ms. Sutherland. The Australian diva said: "Oh, how nice, flowers for the Prima Donna", and Ms. Caballé quickly rectified; "No, flowers from the Prima Donna".


I've never heard this anecdote with Caballe before- so I didn't know where it was going. When I read the last sentence I almost exhaled my espresso all over the computer monitor.

Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.

Great story.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Nothing is more idiotic to me than the singer cult to the exclusion of other singers. While we all have our preferences let's just rejoice we have these marvellous voices on record to listen to: Callas, Sutherland, Caballe, Simionato, Georghui, Tebald Price et al. The singer cult beings us down top the level of the soccer moron who can't bear any other team than his own and hates everyone else who plays the game. Let's appreciate the wonderful talents before us and (while keeping our preferences) rejoice join the differences they bring.
> I love the story of Sutherland who when asked whether she was a 'Prima Donna' said: "Prima Donna? I was brought up on a farm in Australia with six brothers and sisters. If you played the prima donna in our house you got sent to bed without supper!"
> Good on yer Joanie!


I completely agree- only I think a more apt metaphor for the comparison would be to use a 'religious zealot ' and not a "soccer moron."

You know- the whole: _"Thou shalt not have any gods before mine"_ nonsense.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Figleaf said:


> I only know of one major Fleming fan here, and he's a pretty nice guy. Even if (for argument's sake) he wasn't, there's still only _one_ of him, not a whole online claque which spends all its time throwing the virtual equivalent of rotten fruit at anyone who isn't Fleming. Nor does any Fleming admirer that I know of go around reprimanding people for 'liking' certain posts. And why do you say 'anti-Callas'? I don't blame the singer for the behaviour of some of her admirers.


'Rotten Fruit for Fabled Enemies"- an imaginary pot of one's own stirring.

'Yeah,' right. . .

Candid, fair, and honest postings about the _technical aspects _and _dramatic abilities _of different singers is legitimate musical criticism- and not personal invective, as some politically-correct types would have everyone falsely believe.

Some of us like to weigh and assay the relative merits of different singers in order to come to a more informed aesthetic appreciation of *all *of them.

No two singers are ever equal in aptitude or ability.


----------



## Balthazar (Aug 30, 2014)

Seattleoperafan said:


> It was too much to hope that this thread could be reserved for those people like me who are fans BOTH of Maria Callas AND Joan Sutherland. There are too many threads for discussion where Callas is the only opera star who EVER EVER EVER existed.


It was a laudable attempt, Seattleoperafan. :tiphat:



Marschallin Blair said:


> Two years ago, I wouldn't listen to Callas at all.
> 
> Now I listen to nothing but Callas.


_"Beware the zeal of the convert."_


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Balthazar said:


> _"Beware the zeal of the convert."_


^ Not everyone has sects appeal.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I think it's extraordinarily narrow minded just to listen to one singer no matter how great they are. No singer has it all and other singers have so much to offer. But then I enjoy a variety of approaches.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> I think it's extraordinarily narrow minded just to listen to one singer no matter how great they are. No singer has it all and other singers have so much to offer. But then I enjoy a variety of approaches.


Agreed.

'Moribund.'

'Reactionary.'

'_Monotheistic_.'


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Marschallin Blair said:


> I've never heard this anecdote with Caballe before- so I didn't know where it was going. When I read the last sentence I almost exhaled my espresso all over the computer monitor.
> 
> Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.
> 
> Great story.


I've heard the story before, but with the word "Diva" substituted for "Prima Donna".

N.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Well I suppose _all_ prima donnas can behave like prima donnas sometimes. Rudolf Bing said that Tebaldi had dimples of steel.

As for down to earth Sutherland, I once heard an anecdote about a rehearsal going on a lot longer than it should have, and Sutherland deciding she'd had enough..

The director told her Callas would have carried on until they got it right.

"Well I'm not Callas," she retorted, "and anyway she's not singing so well nowadays." And with that she swept out.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

In response to the OP, I don't see that one has to take sides either, though I have, and am entitled to, my preferences, which most of you will be aware of.

There is no doubt that Sutherland was a great singer and I have enormous admiration for her. It's just that as a singer, and a voice, she rarely really _speaks_ to me. I can be amazed and astonished by the technique and the beauty of the voice on high, but she is not a singer I listen to often. I certainly don't wish to flame Sutherland fans, nor do I wish to denigrate a great singer in any way, and she was undoubtedly one of the greats. I do however wonder why Callas comes in for so much vitriol from those who don't respond to her. Is it any wonder we fans get heated in her defence?


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

DavidA said:


> I think it's extraordinarily narrow minded just to listen to one singer no matter how great they are. No singer has it all and other singers have so much to offer. But then I enjoy a variety of approaches.


I agree completely. But personally, I don't fault anyone for only wanting to listen to one or a handful of singers or operas or composers -- if that's what makes the person happy. What I do dislike is when people attempt to laud their own personal favorites as _objectively_ the greatest singers who ever lived, period. I'm not saying anyone here is doing this, but I see it on Youtube all the time.


----------



## Braddan (Aug 23, 2015)

GregMitchell said:


> I certainly don't wish to flame Sutherland fans, nor do I wish to denigrate a great singer in any way, and she was undoubtedly one of the greats. I do however wonder why Callas comes in for so much vitriol from those who don't respond to her. Is it any wonder we fans get heated in her defence?


I've been a Sutherland fan for as long as I can remember and am *not* in the least put out by your observations.  I find the whole thing utterly bizarre. I enjoyed your anecdote about Sutherland in the recording studio. Joan was famous for her no-nonsense, down to earth personality, very typical of our Antipodean cousins. I think we can forgive all of our great divas their occasional moments of prima donna like behaviour. In contrast, we probably all know the story of her letting Caballe take the centre of the podium during the recording of Turandot for the climax of Act 1. I was also reminded of a little story she once told about them meeting once in Philadelphia which amused me at the time so I did a search and managed to find it.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

GregMitchell said:


> In response to the OP, I don't see that one has to take sides either, though I have, and am entitled to, my preferences, which most of you will be aware of.
> 
> There is no doubt that Sutherland was a great singer and I have enormous admiration for her. It's just that as a singer, and a voice, she rarely really _speaks_ to me. I can be amazed and astonished by the technique and the beauty of the voice on high, but she is not a singer I listen to often. I certainly don't wish to flame Sutherland fans, nor do I wish to denigrate a great singer in any way, and she was undoubtedly one of the greats. I do however wonder why Callas comes in for so much vitriol from those who don't respond to her. Is it any wonder we fans get heated in her defence?


I respond differently to Sutherland than to Callas. Callas is more of an emotional response and as such it could be easier to get more emotional in one's defense of her. I am not big into basketball but know enough to liken Sutherland to Michael Jordan, who did everything higher and further and more spectacularly than almost everyone else. Sutherland was the same. She is WTF amazing with what she can do with her voice. I think that is enough. I also really like her a lot, plus her voice is so beautiful, both in it's early and mature forms. Callas was a real artist, and in her early days was similar to Michael Jordan with what she could do with her voice as well, but, of course, very differently than our Australian songbird.


----------



## Green pasture (Aug 11, 2015)

For me Joanie is assuredly one of the greats. It's just that my reaction to her is rather different from those towards Maria and other operatic greats. To me her voice and temperament, with its Wagnerian size, amazing flexibility, dazzling and stunning highs, are tailor-made for heroines with supernatural and otherworldly aura, as well as moments of triumphant exaltations. This explains why, for me, Massenet's Esclaremonde, which she and her hubby Richard Bonynge played a hugely vital role in its revival in the later 20th century, is her greatest operatic role. Her rendition of "Let the bright seraphim" from Handel's Samson remains to this day unrivalled and I would never want to be without it. While in the cases of Lucia and Elvira (I Puritani) my own personal preference is clearly Maria, Joanie's 'otherworldly' vocal aura is also viable for moments of these heroine's madness and complete separation from reality (and I would go for her pre-1962 live and studio recordings for her clearer diction in those years). In the case of Norma (there is no need to mention my preference here), I acknowledge that Joanie's emphasis on the motherly and womanly side of the heroine, on top of her otherworldly aura, appeal to many who take the faithless Pollione's words that Norma is a "sublime donna", making her place as one of 20th-century's great Normas alongside Callas, Caballe, Ponselle well justified.

To sum up, while Maria would always remain supreme in my heart, I would not want to be without Joanie (as well as Lotte Lehmann, Frida Leider, Kirsten Flagstad, Magda Olivero, Victoria de los Angeles, Elisabeth Grummer, etc.).

Maria visiting a pleasantly surprised Joanie unannounced during the rehearsal for Joanie's role debut as Lucia at CG in Feb 1959.



















Maria visiting a joyful Joanie in dressing room during the latter's performance as Queen Marguerite in Meyerbeer's Les Huguenots at La Scala in 1962.


----------



## Steatopygous (Jul 5, 2015)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Agreed.
> 
> 'Moribund.'
> 
> ...


You sure are angry at religion. Could I respectfully ask you to leave it out of your asides?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bellinilover said:


> I agree completely. But personally, I don't fault anyone for only wanting to listen to one or a handful of singers or operas or composers -- if that's what makes the person happy. What I do dislike is when people attempt to laud their own personal favorites as _objectively_ the greatest singers who ever lived, period. I'm not saying anyone here is doing this, but I see it on Youtube all the time.


Absolutely right. Opera is an entertainment and we should go away feeling satisfied by our interaction with it. If people want to listen exclusively to a singer - whether Callas, Sutherland, Caballe, etc - then they have every right to do so.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

GregMitchell said:


> In response to the OP, I don't see that one has to take sides either, though I have, and am entitled to, my preferences, which most of you will be aware of.
> 
> There is no doubt that Sutherland was a great singer and I have enormous admiration for her. It's just that as a singer, and a voice, she rarely really _speaks_ to me. I can be amazed and astonished by the technique and the beauty of the voice on high, but she is not a singer I listen to often. I certainly don't wish to flame Sutherland fans, nor do I wish to denigrate a great singer in any way, and she was undoubtedly one of the greats.* I do however wonder why Callas comes in for so much vitriol from those who don't respond to her. Is it any wonder we fans get heated in her defence?*


frankly Greg I haven't noticed Maria coming in for 'vitriol', at least on TC. Most people (including me) admire her greatly as an artist. However, that doesn't mean we feel her to be beyond criticism which some of her fans apparently do. Every artist comes in for criticism - Sutherland did - but that doesn't make it vitriol.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Callas was at Joan's premiere as Lucia and said something to the effect:"I couldn't do that"... referring to her running all over the stage while doing coloratura feats. They were fans of each other.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Seattleoperafan said:


> Callas was at Joan's premiere as Lucia and said something to the effect:"I couldn't do that"... referring to her running all over the stage while doing coloratura feats. They were fans of each other.


One must remember that much of these so called 'rivalries' are a thing of the media and misguided fans. Great artists tend to admire each other's art. Unfortunately there are occasions when egos get in the way but I don't think this was the case Callas / Sutherland


----------



## Green pasture (Aug 11, 2015)

Seattleoperafan said:


> Callas was at Joan's premiere as Lucia and said something to the effect:"I couldn't do that"... referring to her running all over the stage while doing coloratura feats. They were fans of each other.












What Maria went to see was the dress rehearsal on February 15th 1959 (as shown in the photos), not the premiere itself on February 17th. Given Maria's huge popularity with opera audience in London, had she gone to the premiere, she would end up stealing the limelight from Joanie, and Maria was graceful enough to avoid that.

According to Franco Zeffirelli, who directed the production, Maria said to Joanie, "You are a great artist. I would have been jealous of anyone singing so well, but not of you. Of course you owe a lot to others, and you might include me among them, but we all owe somebody something."


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> frankly Greg I haven't noticed Maria coming in for 'vitriol', at least on TC. Most people (including me) admire her greatly as an artist. However, that doesn't mean we feel her to be beyond criticism which some of her fans apparently do. Every artist comes in for criticism - Sutherland did - but that doesn't make it vitriol.


There is another thread somewhere in which certain members tried to ascribe her fame simply to the way she has been marketed.

There was also at least one member who repeatedly used to make comments like "She had no voice" or, "Well Callas couldn't sing", referring constantly to Callas's "caterwauling", and such things. I don't think any other great singer comes in for such ridiculous remarks.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

The "vitriol" and "hate" are always a reaction. An artist greatly loved will be, inevitably, equally hated. So it is with Callas, the reason why she receives far-fetched, ridiculous criticism is simply because she receives similiarly far-fetched, ridiculous worship and it smites some people.

Speaking for myself, I have been a fan of her ever since my earliest opera experiences. But you will hardly ever see me writing the positive stuff about her. That is because I find that she gets not only enough, but too much. I don't want to be a member of a cult. At the same time, I am often tempted to write impish things about her, as if I would be genuine Callas hater. That is always the case when I feel that somebody's love for Callas gets so high, that it comes close to being one and same with hatred and disrespect towards other singers. There is just too much resentment and contempt for things non-Callas, and while I can't forbid a person to limit him/herself to listening opera recordings from 50's-60's for the rest of his/her life, I do have a BIG problem though when reading comments along the lines of: "no, I haven't listened to her performance of Norma... but is she Callas? No? Then why does this stupid bitch even touch this role? Disgrace!". I wonder if Callas herself, being the kind person she seems to have been, would be happy to know this will be a major part of her legacy.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Aramis said:


> The "vitriol" and "hate" are always a reaction. An artist greatly loved will be, inevitably, equally hated. So it is with Callas, the reason why she receives far-fetched, ridiculous criticism is simply because she receives similiarly far-fetched, ridiculous worship and it smites some people.
> 
> Speaking for myself, I have been a fan of her ever since my earliest opera experiences. But you will hardly ever see me writing the positive stuff about her. That is because I find that she gets not only enough, but too much. I don't want to be a member of a cult. At the same time, I am often tempted to write impish things about her, as if I would be genuine Callas hater. That is always the case when I feel that somebody's love for Callas gets so high, that it comes close to being one and same with hatred and disrespect towards other singers. There is just too much resentment and contempt for things non-Callas, and while I can't forbid a person to limit him/herself to listening opera recordings from 50's-60's for the rest of his/her life, I do have a BIG problem though when reading comments along the lines of: "no, I haven't listened to her performance of Norma... but is she Callas? No? Then why does this stupid bitch even touch this role? Disgrace!". I wonder if Callas herself, being the kind person she seems to have been, would be happy to know this will be a major part of her legacy.


How contrary you are.

Anyway its not a _major_ part of her legacy. It isn't even a minor one. That is just your perception.

Other singers get it too, believe it or not. Only the other day, I was talking to a Sutherland fan, who claimed that she couldn't even listen to any other Norma but Sutherland, and that Callas was the worst as she screamed her way all through the role! That is when I get exasperated, when people come up with rubbish that is patently untrue.

The sad fact is that I have yet to hear a Norma who begins to match the achievement of Ponselle (admittedly only in excerpts), Callas, Caballe and Sutherland, which is why, when it comes to *Norma*, I will stick to older recordings. Not for nothing is Norma considered the most difficult role in the repertoire, more difficult than all three Brunnhildes, according to Lilli Lehmanna. Bartoli's recent bash at it is best forgotten. But I live in hope, and when that someone comes along, I will welcome them with open ears.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Steatopygous said:


> You sure are angry at religion. Could I respectfully ask you to leave it out of your asides?


^ Would you have the good grace to quote me in full context to begin with?- as you combine two 'separate' postings of mine into one quote- and then on top of that, you don't anchor this floating abstraction in any way to the preceding posts that I was responding to in the first place.

When DavidA speaks in a disparagingly manner of, his words, not mine- "the singer* cult*"- then naturally some additional religious metaphors are likely to come into the conversation as well, since, as we all know: religions are just popular cults.

Here's the full context of what I was initially responding to, with regards to the (alleged) starry-eyed fanaticism of Callas fans being part of a "singer *cult*":



> DavidA: Nothing is more idiotic to me than the singer* cult *to the exclusion of other singers. While we all have our preferences let's just rejoice we have these marvellous voices on record to listen to: Callas, Sutherland, Caballe, Simionato, Georghui, Tebald Price et al. The singer* cult *beings us down top the level of the soccer moron who can't bear any other team than his own and hates everyone else who plays the game. Let's appreciate the wonderful talents before us and (while keeping our preferences) rejoice join the differences they bring.
> I love the story of Sutherland who when asked whether she was a 'Prima Donna' said: "Prima Donna? I was brought up on a farm in Australia with six brothers and sisters. If you played the prima donna in our house you got sent to bed without supper!"
> Good on yer Joanie!


http://www.talkclassical.com/40440-why-must-you-take-3.html#post963437


----------



## Green pasture (Aug 11, 2015)

I am exiting from this thread forever, having said everything I feel I would like to say.  To fellow Callas fans, please exit as gracefully and tactfully as you can and avoid posting and saying anything that will make the entire thread go haywire.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> How contrary you are.
> 
> Anyway its not a _major_ part of her legacy. It isn't even a minor one. That is just your perception.
> 
> ...


This reminds me of the Lord Harewood interview with Callas where he says that _bel canto _is in "some ways" harder to sing than Wagner.

- To which Callas, cavalierly and graciously- but sharply and quickly- rejoinds: "In 'EVERY' way."

Lord Harewood just stopped in his tracks and went no further- he knew how right she was.

She went on to explain how in _bel canto_ one is completely exposed.

Unlike Wagner, there is no roaring orchestra to cover up one's faults.


----------



## Diminuendo (May 5, 2015)

Taking sides is just idiotic. I haven't heard a singer that could be realistically compared to another. All singers are so different vocally and in their personalities. Many of these things were invented by the press and crazy fans continued. Like many old feuds they are so pointless. I just like good singers and not so much bad singers. Some singers I love and some admire. I haven't yet found a perfect singer. Some singers just convey the drama for me better than others.

Callas for me does that better than other singers. For example I really liked her Manon Lescaut recording, but then again I really loved seeing the Met Scotto Domingo performance. Some singers get through to me and some don't. 

I wish that people stopped comparing singers, but I guess some people just have to do that. And if they want to do it then they should be allowed to do it. It only becomes a problem when it hurts others. And if you don't like a certain singer that's fine by me. It would be pretty impossible to like every singer in the world. It's interesting to know about peoples opinions, but you don't have to keep saying that you don't like something. 

Great singers admire each other. And the fans of great singers should respect other great singers and their fans. Opera and classical music has so much to offer and enjoy. Life is too short to waste on bad behavior


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Comparison can be a good thing though, as long as it's not negative. I see no problem pointing out that, in comparison to Callas and Sutherland, Caballe's coloratura could be sketchy and her trills somewhat vague. On the other hand one can point out that Caballe's sustained pianissimi were absolutely sublime. The piano dolce climax in O patria Mia, for instance, Caballe manages more easily than any other singer I've heard, better than Tebaldi and Price, and certainly better than Callas, who, by the way, is nowhere near as bad as many critics would have you believe. These sort of comparisons are fine. On the other hand, both Price and Tebaldi had instruments possibly more suited to the role of Aida, though one might also point out the occasional strain in Tebaldi's singing (she had a notoriously short top) in comparison to Price. Comparisons that point out both a singer's strengths as well as their weaknesses are not at all bad.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

GregMitchell said:


> There is another thread somewhere in which certain members tried to ascribe her fame simply to the way she has been marketed.
> 
> There was also at least one member who repeatedly used to make comments like "She had no voice" or, "Well Callas couldn't sing", referring constantly to Callas's "caterwauling", and such things. I don't think any other great singer comes in for such ridiculous remarks.


I've read those kinds of comments about Callas on Amazon.com, so I know what you are talking about. I wouldn't say, though, that no other great singer comes in for comparable criticism, as I have read horrendous and absolutely ridiculous remarks --even from professional critics -- about singers I particularly admire, Sutherland included. Being American I'm all for freedom of speech; on the other hand I can't help thinking it's sad when people have a forum to make comments about performers that are not only mean but very untrue. I'm almost tempted to say it borders on slander.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> Comparison can be a good thing though, as long as it's not negative. I see no problem pointing out that, in comparison to Callas and Sutherland, Caballe's coloratura could be sketchy and her trills somewhat vague. On the other hand one can point out that Caballe's sustained pianissimi were absolutely sublime. The piano dolce climax in O patria Mia, for instance, Caballe manages more easily than any other singer I've heard, better than Tebaldi and Price, and certainly better than Callas, who, by the way, is nowhere near as bad as many critics would have you believe. These sort of comparisons are fine. On the other hand, both Price and Tebaldi had instruments possibly more suited to the role of Aida, though one might also point out the occasional strain in Tebaldi's singing (she had a notoriously short top) in comparison to Price. Comparisons that point out both a singer's strengths as well as their weaknesses are not at all bad.


'Comparison.'

Its absolutely not bad.

Its what we do every day- every time we go to the market and pick this vegetable over that vegetable or this petite fillet over that one.

Weighing and assaying- looking for the best quality in things. It human-all-too-human.

'Discernment' would be a better word for this though.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bellinilover said:


> I've read those kinds of comments about Callas on Amazon.com, so I know what you are talking about. I wouldn't say, though, that no other great singer comes in for comparable criticism, as I have read horrendous and absolutely ridiculous remarks --even from professional critics -- about singers I particularly admire, Sutherland included. Being American I'm all for freedom of speech; on the other hand I can't help thinking it's sad when people have a forum to make comments about performers that are not only mean but very untrue. I'm almost tempted to say it borders on slander.


When you make scene an icon and give her names like la Divina and la Stupenda then you will always have peopke pushing the hate button. We might compare the hate that Karajan - 'Das Wunder Karajan' - generated. Why? He was very good and he was very successful, which many critics don't like. We must remember that critics are often failed musicians, composers, etc and hence like to harp on the thing they do best - failure! Hence the vitriol directed at certain siccessful people in nearly every profession by people who haven't themselves made it. 
However, as a Callas admirer myself though not a member of the cult, I would add that nothing is more likely to turn me off Maria than the uncritical neo-worship that sometimes goes on. Callas fans, please give us a break when we mention your idol may have had feet of clay sometimes!


----------



## Steatopygous (Jul 5, 2015)

Marschallin Blair said:


> ^ Would you have the good grace to quote me in full context to begin with?- as you combine two 'separate' postings of mine into one quote- and then on top of that, you don't anchor this floating abstraction in any way to the preceding posts that I was responding to in the first place.
> 
> When DavidA speaks in a disparagingly manner of, his words, not mine- "the singer* cult*"- then naturally some additional religious metaphors are likely to come into the conversation as well, since, as we all know: religions are just popular cults.
> 
> ...


I don't want to get into an argument with you. I have noticed that you very frequently make disparaging remarks about religion. There was no need for you to do it in the two posts I quote. Your attitude to religion is entirely a matter for you, but I see no need to introduce it into irrelevant threads. I enjoy a lot of what you write, but I see no reason to spoil my day with anti-religion rhetoric. There is a solution, though I'm very sorry to do it because I will miss the good stuff you write, but if you insist on using music subjects for snide remarks about religion - and they are snide - I am going to place you on ignore.


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

DavidA said:


> When you make scene an icon and give her names like la Divina and la Stupenda then you will always have peopke pushing the hate button. We might compare the hate that Karajan - 'Das Wunder Karajan' - generated. Why? He was very good and he was very successful, which many critics don't like. We must remember that critics are often failed musicians, composers, etc and hence like to harp on the thing they do best - failure! Hence the vitriol directed at certain siccessful people in nearly every profession by people who haven't themselves made it.
> However, as a Callas admirer myself though not a member of the cult, I would add that nothing is more likely to turn me off Maria than the uncritical neo-worship that sometimes goes on. Callas fans, please give us a break when we mention your idol may have had feet of clay sometimes!


This is a hilariously self-contradictory post, and I read it several times to decide whether it was intentional or not. On the one hand, you use ad hominem attacks on any criticisms of your preferred musician (any criticisms of Karajan obviously stem from resentful failure, as opposed to simply preferring different interpretative approaches) while at the same time, you ask Callas fans to refrain from attacking you for any criticisms of their preferred musician.

How about everyone just treating everyone else as having good faith opinions, and accept that not everyone has the same tastes as everyone else? Just a suggestion.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

*


Seattleoperafan said:



Callas was at Joan's premiere as Lucia and said something to the effect:"I couldn't do that"... referring to her running all over the stage while doing coloratura feats. They were fans of each other.

Click to expand...

*Yeah, Sutherland had something akin to reverence for Callas' singing:

"I stood and watched Callas through my own special peephole [which Sutherland actually had someone at Covent Garden secretly make for her] and was astonished at the impact both Maria and Stignani made. I remember how Callas worked, she was always indefatigable. You couldn't fault her. The impact of _Norma _and her _Aida _and _Il Trovatore _made me wonder if I had the audacity to continue."

- Brian Adams, _La Stupenda: A Biography of Joan Sutherland_ (London and Melbourne: Hutchinson, 1981)










When Sutherland was asked if she thought about Callas' _Norma_ in her own preparation for the role, she said: "Oh, of course! She was unforgettable. When I began working on it, I thought of nothing else. I couldn't even conceive of any other way of doing it."

Richard Bonynge then added: "Callas was phenomenal in the role. . . Really, you New Yorkers can have no idea of what that woman's voice was like. . . The sheer _size_ of the voice, and what she could do with it! When she sang with Stignani, the Adalgisa, you couldn't tell which was which sometimes. She had such a beautifully rich and dark quality at the bottom of the voice, and yet all the high notes were there too."

- "The Pinnacle," _Opera News_, April 4, 1970

This was a view of Callas that Bonynge apparently expressed over and over again: ". . . I mean this was such a colossal voice. It just sort of poured out of her, the way Flagstad's did. . . . Callas had a huge voice. When she and Stignani sang _Norma_, at the bottom of the range you could barely tell who was who."

- "Conversation Piece," _Opera News_, December 4, 1982


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Steatopygous said:


> I don't want to get into an argument with you. I have noticed that you very frequently make disparaging remarks about religion. There was no need for you to do it in the two posts I quote. *Your attitude to religion is entirely a matter for you, but I see no need to introduce it into irrelevant threads.* I enjoy a lot of what you write, but I see no reason to spoil my day with anti-religion rhetoric. There is a solution, though I'm very sorry to do it because I will miss the good stuff you write, but* if you insist on using music subjects for *snide *remarks about religion* - and they are snide - *I am going to place you on ignore.*


_Mutatis mutandis_ for DavidA, will you mete out the same impartial standard and put him on ignore as well?


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

"
This was a view of Callas that Bonynge apparently expressed over and over again: ". . . I mean this was such a colossal voice. It just sort of poured out of her, the way Flagstad's did. . . . Callas had a huge voice. When she and Stignani sang Norma, at the bottom of the range you could barely tell who was who." 
Of course, the Callas being described was Callas prior to her weight loss. This was when Callas was at her vocal peak and she was unbelievable. Just listen to her live Armida or her studio Norma from this period. She still had much to offer as a slender diva but her voice to my ears was never of the same volume or with such an almost unlimited extension at the top. Her interpretations continued to grow and got better as she aged, but the voice Sutherland marveled at was much diminshed after 53.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

*


Seattleoperafan said:



"
This was a view of Callas that Bonynge apparently expressed over and over again: ". . . I mean this was such a colossal voice. It just sort of poured out of her, the way Flagstad's did. . . . Callas had a huge voice. When she and Stignani sang Norma, at the bottom of the range you could barely tell who was who." 
Of course, the Callas being described was Callas prior to her weight loss. This was when Callas was at her vocal peak and she was unbelievable. Just listen to her live Armida or her studio Norma from this period. She still had much to offer as a slender diva but her voice to my ears was never of the same volume or with such an almost unlimited extension at the top. Her interpretations continued to grow and got better as she aged, but the voice Sutherland marveled at was much diminshed after 53.

Click to expand...

*Sure.

But then Sutherland's interpretations 'and' voice plateaued and then slightly declined from the mid-nineteen sixties on.

The pristine silvery perfection of the late fifties and very early sixties was never to come back.


----------



## Steatopygous (Jul 5, 2015)

Marschallin Blair said:


> _Mutatis mutandis_ for DavidA, will you mete out the same impartial standard and put him on ignore as well?


Thank you for the post above this one to which I am replying - it is informative and interesting, and typical of the reason I would hate to ignore you. David A is not having the same affect on me as you. If he were, I would respectfully request him too. In general I value posts from both of you. (But you could put him on ignore if he irks you too much.) 
"Respectfully" is not just a locution, I mean it. Of course you are entitled to your views but - now that you know that they jar me when introduced unnecessarily, and apparently a couple of others - I am hoping you will exercise restraint. It is a polite and respectful request. 
If we want to discuss religion/music - and quite often I do - there is a forum expressly designed for it. I won't complain if you post disparaging remarks there.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Sure.
> 
> But then Sutherland's interpretations 'and' voice plateaued and then slightly declined from the mid-nineteen sixties on.
> 
> The pristine silvery perfection of the late fifties and very early sixties was never to come back.


There are quite a few who only really like early Sutherland and, yes, the voice did change. BUT, unlike Callas, Sutherland sang coloratura spectacularly up until her early 60's and sang enormous Eb's till her late 50's and huge secure D's until her early 60's. The word is that Bonynge had Sutherland move towards a darker placement and lesss crisp diction in an effort to prolong her career. Her voice changed, but they worked with this. If that was indeed the case, it surely worked. I really like the sound of Sutherland in her late 50's and early 60's. The voice sounded bigger, darker and rounder and I liked the sound of her later high notes despite the fact that the Eb's went away. The low register, which was comparatively weak compared to the rest of her voice, got stronger later in her career.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

howlingfantods said:


> This is a hilariously self-contradictory post, and I read it several times to decide whether it was intentional or not. On the one hand, you use ad hominem attacks on any criticisms of your preferred musician (any criticisms of Karajan obviously stem from resentful failure, as opposed to simply preferring different interpretative approaches) while at the same time, you ask Callas fans to refrain from attacking you for any criticisms of their preferred musician.
> 
> How about everyone just treating everyone else as having good faith opinions, and accept that not everyone has the same tastes as everyone else? Just a suggestion.


I think you have entirely misunderstood what I was trying to say. I wasn't talking about criticism - something every musician must put up with and expect - but unmerited vitriol. For example the sort of criticism meted out to Rafael Kubelik in Chicago by the critic Claudia Cassidy. The fact that Kubelik had forgotten more about music than Cassidy ever knew was lost on most people who just wanted the vitriol. Thankfully other appreciated how great a musician Kubelik was.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

One other point I'd like to make which is not often put forward: Callas is indisputably one of, if not the greatest, actress to ever grace the operatic stage. It didn't hurt that she looked like a movie star. Joan was not the born actress Maria was, but watch one of her Mad Scenes from Lucia, arguably her greatest role, from early in her career to her very last performance in her early 60's in Barcelona. She is totally physically committed to her involvement with the role. Even Callas herself was impressed with Joan's portrayal. She is always moving purposefully across the stage and realistically acting out every nuance of the role. Her acting was not always on this same level in other roles, but Zeffirelli coached her and she submitted to his guidance and many miraculous performances ensued. Callas was a great Lucia, NO DOUBT, but Lucia will always be identified with Sutherland, and justifiably so. She sang it more than any other role and for decades!!!! Even though Sutherland was one of the greatest Normas ever, there is no doubt that in this role, Callas was untouchable. But Lucia is a different matter.


----------



## Green pasture (Aug 11, 2015)

Seattleoperafan said:


> One other point I'd like to make which is not often put forward: Callas is indisputably one of, if not the greatest, actress to ever grace the operatic stage. It didn't hurt that she looked like a movie star. Joan was not the born actress Maria was, but watch one of her Mad Scenes from Lucia, arguably her greatest role, from early in her career to her very last performance in her early 60's in Barcelona. She is totally physically committed to her involvement with the role. Even Callas herself was impressed with Joan's portrayal. She is always moving purposefully across the stage and realistically acting out every nuance of the role. Her acting was not always on this same level in other roles, but Zeffirelli coached her and she submitted to his guidance and many miraculous performances ensued. Callas was a great Lucia, NO DOUBT, but Lucia will always be identified with Sutherland, and justifiably so. She sang it more than any other role and for decades!!!! Even though Sutherland was one of the greatest Normas ever, there is no doubt that in this role, Callas was untouchable. But Lucia is a different matter.


I have to concur. Joanie managed to make Lucia her own and in the memories of one-two generations of opera goers the role is forever identified with her, despite the undeniable path-breaking greatness of Maria's portrayal. In Maria's case, the one role that she indisputably owns in the memories of opera lovers, rather than Norma, Violetta or Anna Bolena, is actually Medea, which she was 'born to sing.'


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

plumblossom said:


> I have to concur. Joanie managed to make Lucia her own and in the memories of one-two generations of opera goers the role is forever identified with her, despite the undeniable path-breaking greatness of Maria's portrayal. In Maria's case, the one role that she indisputably owns in the memories of opera lovers, rather than Norma, Violetta or Anna Bolena, is actually Medea, which she was 'born to sing.'


Why, oh, why, couldn't Medea or Norma by Callas have been filmed!!!! She was a few years too soon for the technology.


----------



## gardibolt (May 22, 2015)

Seattleoperafan said:


> Why, oh, why, couldn't Medea or Norma by Callas have been filmed!!!! She was a few years too soon for the technology.


Nonsense. They were filming full operas in Italy on 35mm film in the 1940s and 1950s. I have several with Gobbi in my collection. They _chose_ not to film Callas, for whatever reason, and we are all the poorer for their stupid, stupid choices.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

gardibolt said:


> Nonsense. They were filming full operas in Italy on 35mm film in the 1940s and 1950s. I have several with Gobbi in my collection. They _chose_ not to film Callas, for whatever reason, and we are all the poorer for their stupid, stupid choices.


Was a movie version of MEDEA filmed but not released? I'm almost sure I remember seeing photos from it in a Callas biography once.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Bellinilover said:


> Was a movie version of MEDEA filmed but not released? I'm almost sure I remember seeing photos from it in a Callas biography once.


The Pasolini movie of *Medea* with Callas as its star is not of the opera. It's Pasolini's own adaptation of Euripides. A succes d'estime rather than a commercial success, Callas looks superb and is mesmerisising to watch. It's available on DVD.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Aramis said:


> In this particular conflict, it seems there is only one side, actually. I can't recall seeing many fanatical Sutherland admirers who would go around shouting how "La Stupenda" owns (privately, of course - woe to living singers who dare to touch it) the X role(s), how she is the one and the only or about how X (modern) singer is not worthy to even lit a candle by her altar. How X artistic quality died with her. How some operas shouldn't be even staged again until she is resurrected. No, that is all domain of Callas people. If we consider them a "side", then the other side is not that of Sutherland admirers, it's whole rest of the world. People who didn't accidentally clog their ears collecting, as miraculous relic, dust from stages on which Callas performed.


Callas was a highly controversial artist and the emotional connection she had with whatever she was performing is rather like a drug. Therefore it isn't surprising that her recordings attract a certain amount of obsession. I have never met a Sutherland fan who will deny that her diction wasn't always clear, but there are Callas fans who deny her technical shortcomings (these started in 1953). It's this obsessive, fundamentalist placing of Callas on a pedestal that sets a small number of Callas fans apart (and it is a very small number). It's interesting, but I don't know of another singer that inspires the same kind of blind idolisation. There is also a very small number of Callas haters who are equally biased, but in the opposite direction (any Callas recording of a role is the worse example of that role on disc etc.)

There is so much to discover when listening to a recording anew or seeing a singer live that you have seen many times before. I'd much rather listen with open ears than a closed mind.

N.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

This kind of relates to what Conte wrote directly above: I was in the Kennedy Center gift shop yesterday evening and noticed that, aside from current stars like Jonas Kaufmann, the _only_ solo CD of a singer they had in stock was a Maria Callas compilation. Now, I respect Callas greatly, but seeing that CD sort of brought home to me that for many who know little of opera, Maria Callas -- not Joan Sutherland, Renata Tebaldi, Renata Scotto, or someone else -- is "the" opera diva. Frankly, I don't know whether this is a good thing or a bad thing.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Bellinilover said:


> This kind of relates to what Conte wrote directly above: I was in the Kennedy Center gift shop yesterday evening and noticed that, aside from current stars like Jonas Kaufmann, the _only_ solo CD of a singer they had in stock was a Maria Callas compilation. Now, I respect Callas greatly, but seeing that CD sort of brought home to me that for many who know little of opera, Maria Callas -- not Joan Sutherland, Renata Tebaldi, Renata Scotto, or someone else -- is "the" opera diva. Frankly, I don't know whether this is a good thing or a bad thing.


It's a shame that some of the big stars aren't better known (for example I'm fairly sure that most of the general public in England have no idea who Anna Netrebko is).

I imagine the shop in Washington just stocks what sells.

N.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

The Conte said:


> It's a shame that some of the big stars aren't better known (for example I'm fairly sure that most of the general public in England have no idea who Anna Netrebko is).
> 
> I imagine the shop in Washington just stocks what sells.
> 
> N.


I am sure there are more then you give them credit for Conte, they only keep stum for reason we all know on public forums.
You hardly hear anyone speak about Bartolli also, to name another.

If you are not in one special corner, then you are a loser. That's how it works.
Mind you Conte this is NOT personal at you, more general though


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

If anyone thinks a certain singer isn't talked about enough, there's only one solution to the problem.

Talk about her.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> If anyone thinks a certain singer isn't talked about enough, there's only one solution to the problem.
> 
> Talk about her.


I am sure you know exactly how I intended my post Wooduck.
People aren't bothered any more by the endless bashing :tiphat:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I was trying to be amusing, in my own peculiar way.


----------



## ericpno (Feb 23, 2016)

i remember the callas/tebaldi rivalry better, and rabid IS the best word for it, despite the fact that callas and tebaldi had nothing to do with it. it was in the press and in the minds of those rabid opera fans who screamed 'brava' before the piece was even over, and who couldn't resist making a ridiculous conversation of it at cocktail parties. i love callas even though i cringe at her stickers, which were legendary. i love sutherland even when she gets that flabby semi mezzo sound in her middle register. it was her upper register, trills, and her phenomenal fioratura that i really loved. and speaking of her coloratura, wasn't her close friend marilyn horne's coloratura cleaner? i love beverly sills' intoxicatingly beautiful middle register - before she lost it. renata scotto had a middle register so beautiful is was heartbreaking, even though i couldn't stand her strident upper register. elisabeth schwartzkopf had a wonderful, but very unusual voice. if you want to hear a soprano singing german lieder, listen to schartzkopf , whose phrasing sounds as if it was carved in alabaster. tebaldi's voice was, in maturity, so opulant and lusterous, that perhaps in her time couldn't be beat. at least once, callas congratulated tebaldi backstage (although it is true that callas had retired from the stage). i read a story recently that once, when tebaldi took a new role, and asked for recordings to help hew work on the role. they named of few, diplomatically omitting callas' recording. later they found her listening, and she looked up and asked, "why didn't you tell me that maria's recording is the best." note she didn't say 'callas', she said 'maria'. doesn't sound like much of a rivalry to me. it seems to me that there are a lot of people who know a little about music and like to talk endlessly about it, despite the fact that they don't know VERY much about it. although there were only four or five years difference in callas' and sutherland's ages, callas' career was earlier than sutherland's. callas' early recording of norma (1952?) included sutherland in the ingenue role of clotilde, and callas warmly encouraged sutherland, saying, "mind the voice, and we will hear great things of you." this story says a great deal, especially when it was dame joan relating it. if callas had done nothing to cause the public to call her 'la divina', no one would have done so, and if sutherland had done nothing to cause anyone to call her 'la stupenda', they wouldn't have done so. why do we need to create rivalries between these singers when none actually existed between any of them?


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Pugg said:


> I am sure there are more then you give them credit for Conte, they only keep stum for reason we all know on public forums.
> You hardly hear anyone speak about Bartolli also, to name another.
> 
> If you are not in one special corner, then you are a loser. That's how it works.
> Mind you Conte this is NOT personal at you, more general though


Oh, I didn't mean that I think opera fans don't know who Anna Netrebko is or that they don't talk about her enough. I meant that I wouldn't be surprised if most people in the UK who don't regularly go to opera didn't know who she is. Whereas I would expect most of them to have heard of Maria Callas.

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

ericpno said:


> It seems to me that there are a lot of people who know a little about music and like to talk endlessly about it, despite the fact that they don't know VERY much about it.


Very true, but there's nobody like that on TC at least... :devil:

N.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

The Conte said:


> Oh, I didn't mean that I think opera fans don't know who Anna Netrebko is or that they don't talk about her enough. I meant that I wouldn't be surprised if most people in the UK who don't regularly go to opera didn't know who she is. Whereas I would expect most of them to have heard of Maria Callas.
> 
> N.


Didn't Netrebko do a Last Night at the Proms about 9 years ago where she flirted shamelessly with some of the men whilst singing _Meine Lippen sie küssen so heiß_? I am sure that there are a lot of the male TV audience who know her if for no other reason that that :lol:


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> If anyone thinks a certain singer isn't talked about enough, there's only one solution to the problem.
> 
> Talk about her.


Nobody talks about Mariella Devia around here. Love her in the DVD La Fille du Regiment! :lol:

Oops, this is a Callas/ Sutherland thead I better not go off track.

Well I like Callas and Sutherland. I got overdosed on Callas and have not been listening as much. Was slow to warm up to Sutherland but just purchased another opera starring Sutherland today. Problem with Callas is she only recorded a few of the operas I am into (Sonnambula, Anna Bolena, Tosca).


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Florestan said:


> Nobody talks about Mariella Devia around here. Love her in the DVD La Fille du Regiment! :lol:
> 
> Oops, this is a Callas/ Sutherland thead I better not go off track.
> 
> Well I like Callas and Sutherland. I got overdosed on Callas and have not been listening as much. Was slow to warm up to Sutherland but just purchased another opera starring Sutherland today. Problem with Callas is she only recorded a few of the operas I am into (Sonnambula, Anna Bolena, Tosca).


Devia is a fine singer, but not a _legendary_ singer.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Becca said:


> Didn't Netrebko do a Last Night at the Proms about 9 years ago where she flirted shamelessly with some of the men whilst singing _Meine Lippen sie küssen so heiß_? I am sure that there are a lot of the male TV audience who know her if for no other reason that that :lol:


I remember seeing it. I found it all rather vulgar I'm afraid.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> I remember seeing it. I found it all rather vulgar I'm afraid.


while I found your comment funny in a classist opera queen sort of way**, I think it was entirely appropriate given the character is a _nightclub dancer_.

**for clarification, this was not meant passive-aggressively. humor which projects a subtle sense of superiority is among my favorite types lol


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> while I found your comment funny in a classist opera queen sort of way**, I think it was entirely appropriate given the character is a _nightclub dancer_.
> 
> **for clarification, this was not meant passive-aggressively. humor which projects a subtle sense of superiority is among my favorite types lol


Are you saying nightclub dancers can't be classy? Maybe you haven't seen Marlene Dietrich in *The Blue Angel*.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> Are you saying *nightclub* dancers can't be classy?


It depends where you come from, Greg.

In Poland, 'night club' is a building inhabited by ladies of negotiable affection - the building often being decorated with large posters of scantily-clad females in unrealistically gymnastic poses. Never been in one myself, but it appears as if they might be synonymous with brothels .... and Mrs H would certainly never approve of me going to one.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Headphone Hermit said:


> It depends where you come from, Greg.
> 
> In Poland, 'night club' is a building inhabited by ladies of negotiable affection - the building often being decorated with large posters of scantily-clad females in unrealistically gymnastic poses. Never been in one myself, but it appears as if they might be synonymous with brothels .... and Mrs H would certainly never approve of me going to one.


Ha ha ha. Well I'm guessing _that_ sort of nightclub was not the type Lehar had in mind!


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> Ha ha ha. Well I'm guessing _that_ sort of nightclub was not the type Lehar had in mind1


yes - if you said "I like going to night-clubs a lot" to my acquaintances east of the Elbe, then they would think it very strange that I would admit to it. Maybe Ms Netrebko had a particular idea of 'night-club' when someone told her this is a song for a nightclub singer


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> Devia is a fine singer, but not a _legendary_ singer.


But that has no bearing on Woodduck's comment to talk about singers not talked about enough.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Well, this thread has certainly degenerated.

No, I take that back. It degenerated at about the second post.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Well, this thread has certainly degenerated.
> 
> No, I take that back. It degenerated at about the second post.


I am sorry you didn't enjoy it. I thought some good points were made unless you were firmly in one camp or the other.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Seattleoperafan said:


> I am sorry you didn't enjoy it. I thought some good points were made unless you were firmly in one camp or the other.


Oh, but I did enjoy it. Degeneracy can be fun.

(Yes, good points were made, along with the other kind. :tiphat


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Oh, but I did enjoy it. Degeneracy can be fun.
> 
> (Yes, good points were made, along with the other kind. :tiphat


I've been told I'm a degene....


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Seattleoperafan said:


> I've been told I'm a degene....


You're a guy who loves opera. What do you expect?


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

I've heard of GenX and GenY but there is also a DGen??!


----------



## Aleksandar (Feb 21, 2015)

......................


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Aleksandar said:


> ......................


It's ok Aleksandar, they're just talking in American.

N.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Becca said:


> I've heard of GenX and GenY but there is also a DGen??!


The funniest statement posted on here in a while!!!!! LOL


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Seattleoperafan said:


> There seem to be so many rabid fans of La Divina who give no room for anyone else both here and in other opera discussion arenas. Am I the only person on this board who is bereft that both La Divina and La Stupenda are gone? I love both in equal measure. Both so different, but never will there ever be their likes again. Why must we take sides I wonder? Which is greater, Mt. Everest or Mt. Rainier? Both are beyond fabulous? All non flame comments welcome.


I am not that fond of either one. Depending on the opera I might go one way or the other.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I think taking sides in opposing camps about opera singers is pretty stupid as it puts us in the same league as the more mindless breed of football fans. I enjoy a wide variety of opera singers: Tebaldi, Price, Callas, Sutherland, etc.. Why do we have to make them rivals? Leave that to the tabloids and the brain dead.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

I'm not sure stating a preference for one singer over another _is_ taking sides. I prize musicality coupled with expressivity over sheer beauty, but I accept that for others the reverse is true. So if I state a firm preference for Callas over Sutherland (or Tebaldi for that matter), I don't see it as taking sides, and I don't see it as in any way a criticism of the estimable qualities of the latter singers.

However they are very different singers, with a very different approach to their art, and it seems to me quite natural that one might prefer one to the other. Sutherland was a very great singer. I accept that absolutely, but, however beautiful her voice, however thrilling her top notes, however thrilling her coloratura, she is a singer who rarely, if ever, _speaks_ to me and I don't see there is anything wrong in admitting that.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

I should add that on balance we probably have more Sutherland of better sound quality recordings than with Callas and that might bias my selection, but vocally Callas has it over Sutherland simply because Sutherland's diction was somewhat muddied. But both had beautiful voices.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Fritz Kobus said:


> I should add that on balance we probably have more Sutherland of better sound quality recordings than with Callas and that might bias my selection, but vocally Callas has it over Sutherland simply because Sutherland's diction was somewhat muddied. But both had beautiful voices.


Since I don't understand the languages at all it doesn't matter for me at all. I listen more to Sutherland because of the beauty and security of her voice.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

GregMitchell said:


> *I'm not sure stating a preference for one singer over another is taking sides.* I prize musicality coupled with expressivity over sheer beauty, but I accept that for others the reverse is true. So if I state a firm preference for Callas over Sutherland (or Tebaldi for that matter), I don't see it as taking sides, and I don't see it as in any way a criticism of the estimable qualities of the latter singers.
> 
> However they are very different singers, with a very different approach to their art, and it seems to me quite natural that one might prefer one to the other. Sutherland was a very great singer. I accept that absolutely, but, however beautiful her voice, however thrilling her top notes, however thrilling her coloratura, she is a singer who rarely, if ever, _speaks_ to me and I don't see there is anything wrong in admitting that.


Of course stating a preference isn't taking sides. We all have our preferences. Nothing wrong with that. What I am talking about is the almost bovine behaviour by certain of the clacks following singers. That is ridiculous.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

Was Sutherland's diction as bad as I've heard stated? If so, that's a major flaw.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Bonetan said:


> Was Sutherland's diction as bad as I've heard stated? If so, that's a major flaw.


It depends what period. When she sang those famous performances of *Lucia di Lammermoor* at Covent Garden in 1959, it was quite good, and it's also quite good on her first recital discs, but it soon deteriorated, and there was a time you'd be hard pressed to know just what language she was singing in. For me it's a major stumbling block, but I accept that many people don't feel the same.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> It depends what period. When she sang those famous performances of *Lucia di Lammermoor* at Covent Garden in 1959, it was quite good, and it's also quite good on her first recital discs, but it soon deteriorated, and there was a time you'd be hard pressed to know just what language she was singing in. For me it's a major stumbling block, but I accept that many people don't feel the same.


I too can enjoy some of her early work but not much of her later. You can't sing with specific expression if you can't project distinct vowels and consonants. There's no use darkening a vowel if nobody can tell what it is.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

One thing I don't think Sutherland gets enough credit for is that she had the weight to sing dramatic rep, but also the ability to do so in a way which was more gentle and conveyed more femininity. Callas was all HOT emotion. Saucy, debaucherous Carmen, vengeful Norma, [email protected]#$%y Abigaille, suicidal Gioconda, nasty Lady Macbeth, etc. she conveyed a range of intense human emotion, but there was always an abundance of spice, a sort of spitfire defiance. Sure, she deserves the credit for her complexity and intensity. If these are what I'm looking for in the moment, she'll be the first place I look, but at the same time, it was NEVER simple. There was never "just singing". 

This is a matter of tastes of course, but by and large, I actually feel like I can listen to Joan Sutherland to relax in a way which will never be true of Callas. Callas demands commitment, demands full attention, and as spectacular as she was at her peak, somethings you just want something to relax to with a cup of tea after a long day.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> This is a matter of tastes of course, but by and large, I actually feel like I can listen to Joan Sutherland to relax in a way which will never be true of Callas. Callas demands commitment, demands full attention, and as spectacular as she was at her peak, somethings you just want something to relax to with a cup of tea after a long day.


I used to have the LP of Sutherland singing operetta arias. Many were in English, so diction wasn't a concern. I wouldn't say she was the most stylish and winsome interpreter of the rep, but the sound was glorious and the whole thing was a great bubble bath.


----------



## RogerExcellent (Jun 11, 2018)

Both Both Both I can not choose I refuse


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Sutherland is the Woodbird on Solti's Ring Cycle. I can't remember who but someone commented that while she was no station announcer she wasn't that bad. I agree. It's a horribly difficult part to sing and still be totally comprehensible.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> One thing I don't think Sutherland gets enough credit for is that she had the weight to sing dramatic rep, but also the ability to do so in a way which was more gentle and conveyed more femininity. Callas was all HOT emotion. Saucy, debaucherous Carmen, vengeful Norma, [email protected]#$%y Abigaille, suicidal Gioconda, nasty Lady Macbeth, etc. she conveyed a range of intense human emotion, but there was always an abundance of spice, a sort of spitfire defiance. Sure, she deserves the credit for her complexity and intensity. If these are what I'm looking for in the moment, she'll be the first place I look, but at the same time, it was NEVER simple. There was never "just singing".


As a counter to what you call Callas's "spitfire defiance," one of my favorite Callas performances is actually Rosina in Barbiere. Her Una voce poco fa has almost ruined that aria for me by other performers. Too many over-sing and make Rosina sound bipolar or demented rather than sly, coy, and capable of being gently sweet but also mischievously dangerous when she doesn't get her way. Callas adds enough ornamentation so that the aria isn't dull, while also hitting that rare bulls-eye balancing act of Rosina's character that I mentioned above: 




One tiny moment to point out: how she phrases the "ma" at 3:33 (lead to from about 3:30). Ever since hearing her do this, I miss it it every other performance I've heard. There's something in that tiny moment that is just so pitch perfect for the character of Rosina that all the vocal fireworks in the world in other performances can't capture.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

But is this it? Are Callas and Sutherland the pinnacle of soprano operatic performers? I know that is not the point of this thread, but I am curious if there are other sopranos that rate as highly?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Fritz Kobus said:


> But is this it? Are Callas and Sutherland the pinnacle of soprano operatic performers? I know that is not the point of this thread, but I am curious if there are other sopranos that rate as highly?


Flagstad and Nilsson rate as highly for me, mainly because they specialized in Wagner and Strauss, which Callas and Sutherland rarely touched. If there was a soprano that dominated in Mozart I'd mention them too, but I've yet to find one. Tebaldi, Leontyne Price, Scwarzkopf, Freni, Te Kanawa, and Tebaldi also rate about as highly.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Flagstad and Nilsson rate as highly for me, mainly because they specialized in Wagner and Strauss, which Callas and Sutherland rarely touched. If there was a soprano that dominated in Mozart I'd mention them too, but I've yet to find one. Tebaldi, Leontyne Price, Scwarzkopf, Freni, Te Kanawa, and Tebaldi also rate about as highly.


and Edita Gruberova.


----------



## Prat (Jun 15, 2018)

Did either of them ride Horses?


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Fritz Kobus said:


> But is this it? Are Callas and Sutherland the pinnacle of soprano operatic performers? I know that is not the point of this thread, but I am curious if there are other sopranos that rate as highly?


personally, I love Verrett and Flagstad far more than Callas (who is a great singer, but maybe....10th or so on my list)



Eva Yojimbo said:


> Flagstad and Nilsson rate as highly for me, mainly because they specialized in Wagner and Strauss, which Callas and Sutherland rarely touched. If there was a soprano that dominated in Mozart I'd mention them too, but I've yet to find one. Tebaldi, Leontyne Price, Scwarzkopf, Freni, Te Kanawa, and Tebaldi also rate about as highly.


none of these singers are rated the same as Callas by the vast majority of people.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Well not to throw it off track, which I guess I did, but then the thread has had a lot of mileage already.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> none of these singers are rated the same as Callas by the vast majority of people.


That's why I said "to me." 

Really, wouldn't it depend on what repertoire one is a fan of? I dare say that most Wagnerites who don't care much for bel canto would rate Flagstad or Nilsson higher than Callas or Sutherland. One could argue that Callas and Sutherland rate so highly "by the vast majority of people" because they sang repertoire that was, in itself, more popular among those people.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

It's interesting how singers of the same voice type can be paired just because they were singing at the same time:

Callas - Tebaldi
Sutherland - Caballe
Kozlovsky - Lemeshev
Pavarotti - Domingo
Cappuccilli - Milnes

I've never understood the Tebaldi - Callas debate as they had such different voices, despite having performed a few of the same roles (Tosca/Traviata/Aida/Gioconda/Trovatore) they mostly had different repertoire. I think Magda Olivero is a much better comparison with Tebaldi.

Whereas Sutherland and Caballe sang a lot of the same bel canto operas. Sutherland was the more reliable of the two, whereas Caballe could be variable, however, if you got her on a good night Caballe knocked the socks off a role. Where are the sopranos of their like today?

N.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

The Conte said:


> I've never understood the Tebaldi - Callas debate as they had such different voices, despite having performed a few of the same roles (Tosca/Traviata/Aida/Gioconda/Trovatore) they mostly had different repertoire. I think Magda Olivero is a much better comparison with Tebaldi.


Actually Tebaldi never sang the *Trovatore* Leonora on stage, probably because the tessitura was a bit high for her (she did, after all, make a downward transposition in _Sempre libera_).

As you say, though, there wasn't that much overlap in their repertoires. Tebaldi was most at home in late Verdi (Aida and Desdemona) and _verismo_, whilst Callas was more at home in early to mid Verdi and _bel canto_.


----------



## davidglasgow (Aug 19, 2017)

The Conte said:


> It's interesting how singers of the same voice type can be paired just because they were singing at the same time:
> 
> Callas - Tebaldi
> Sutherland - Caballe
> ...


Re: Callas and Tebaldi, I'd hazard that their records have played a really big part in fuelling the idea they were 'rivals' rather than simply coevals.

Callas recorded Boheme and Manon Lescaut - parts not in her own stage repertory but which loomed large in Tebaldi's career with nearly 150 performances between them. Callas also recorded arias/extracts from other operas she did not sing and which Tebaldi actually essayed in the theatre: La Wally, Adriana Lecouvreur, Nozze Di Figaro, Don Giovanni, Faust, Guglielmo Tell and Otello .

This was not a one-way street. Tebaldi recorded Trovatore, Ballo in Maschera, Cavalleria Rusticana and Don Carlo which figured in Callas' stage rep but which Tebaldi only performed in the studio. In extracts we hear Tebaldi's take on such parts as Norma, Elvira in I Puritani, Turandot (title role), Suor Angelica, Isolde and Alceste: at various stages all part of Callas' active stage career.

If we add to this the roles they both only tried to varying degrees only in the studio - Liu, Lauretta, Manon, Carmen, Dalila, Musetta - it's no wonder that listeners think there are more similarities than differences.

The recorded legacy tells us something about the artists but it sometimes needs contextualised. Yes, Tebaldi sang 'Casta Diva' but Callas sang the complete role over 90 times and it was a jewel in her career. Ditto for Callas' Desdemona scenes compared to Tebaldi's 100+ performances in the part on stage.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

davidglasgow said:


> Re: Callas and Tebaldi, I'd hazard that their records have played a really big part in fuelling the idea they were 'rivals' rather than simply coevals.
> 
> Callas recorded Boheme and Manon Lescaut - parts not in her own stage repertory but which loomed large in Tebaldi's career with nearly 150 performances between them. Callas also recorded arias/extracts from other operas she did not sing and which Tebaldi actually essayed in the theatre: La Wally, Adriana Lecouvreur, Nozze Di Figaro, Don Giovanni, Faust, Guglielmo Tell and Otello .
> 
> ...


There's a lot of truth to this. Tebaldi did at least get to record much of the repertoire for which she was famous, whereas the musically conservative Walter Legge refused to record Callas in much of her stage repertoire. He wouldn't even agree to *Medea*, one of her signature roles, and she only managed to record the role (for Ricordi) by exercising a get out in her contract. How we now regret the missed opportunities, and what we wouldn't now give for a studio *Macbeth*, *Anna Bolena*, *Armida*, *Alceste* and *Il Pirata*.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

GregMitchell said:


> *Actually Tebaldi never sang the Trovatore Leonora on stage*, probably because the tessitura was a bit high for her (she did, after all, make a downward transposition in _Sempre libera_).
> 
> As you say, though, there wasn't that much overlap in their repertoires. Tebaldi was most at home in late Verdi (Aida and Desdemona) and _verismo_, whilst Callas was more at home in early to mid Verdi and _bel canto_.


I wasn't sure whether she had sung the role on stage or not, but found a photo online and the caption said it was her in the role. You know what they say, there's lies, there's damn lies and then there's things you find on the internet.

N.


----------



## davidglasgow (Aug 19, 2017)

GregMitchell said:


> There's a lot of truth to this. Tebaldi did at least get to record much of the repertoire for which she was famous, whereas the musically conservative Walter Legge refused to record Callas in much of her stage repertoire. He wouldn't even agree to *Medea*, one of her signature roles, and she only managed to record the role (for Ricordi) by exercising a get out in her contract. How we now regret the missed opportunities, and what we wouldn't now give for a studio *Macbeth*, *Anna Bolena*, *Armida*, *Alceste* and *Il Pirata*.


That is true - Tebaldi's records are arguably more representative of what she was about than Callas' sets.

With Callas, it can sometimes be a surprise how few times she actually sang some of the parts on stage- such as Abigaille or Lady Macbeth or Madama Butterfly. Tebaldi sang about as many Countess Almavivas, Margherites and Evas when it comes to it but they hardly define her posthumous reputation to the same extent.

Thinking back to the original topic, it's just as well Joan Sutherland went to Decca, she would have been surplus to requirements at EMI because of Callas and later Caballe. A company which was first to sign Joan Sutherland and Luciano Pavarotti only to lose them was beyond careless.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

GregMitchell said:


> There's a lot of truth to this. Tebaldi did at least get to record much of the repertoire for which she was famous, whereas the musically conservative Walter Legge refused to record Callas in much of her stage repertoire. He wouldn't even agree to *Medea*, one of her signature roles, and she only managed to record the role (for Ricordi) by exercising a get out in her contract. How we now regret the missed opportunities, and what we wouldn't now give for a studio *Macbeth*, *Anna Bolena*, *Armida*, *Alceste* and *Il Pirata*.


Can you imagine an Armida recording in studio from the early 50's!!!!!!!!!!! I still listen, but it is work at times. I wonder why Sutherland never tackled Armida. The 5 tenors? Most would come to her waist. She never even recorded the big famous aria with 3 variations and chorus.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

The Conte said:


> It's interesting how singers of the same voice type can be paired just because they were singing at the same time:
> 
> Callas - Tebaldi
> *Sutherland - Caballe*
> ...


eh.....Sutherland was a bright, flexible voice which could hang out above the staff for hours. Caballe had enough agility to be respectable in certain bel canto roles, but the core of the voice that of a spinto. not necessarily bigger than Sutherland (those overtones carried as loooong way), but certainly heavier, darker and not quite as high.

similarly, Pav was a lot like a male Joan Sutherland ("dramatic coloratura tenor" is not a fach, but he shares most of the qualities listed about Sutherland). meanwhile, Domingo is a robust, comparatively dark tenor voice with trouble up top and spends half the time trying to convince people that he is a baritone (even a very dramatic tenor is still going to be brighter than 90% of baritones unless you're talking about some freak voice like Ramon Vinay who could switch between the two), while Pav's upper range stayed with him up until his death when he was in his 70. Domingo would sing A Mes Amis like Kirsten Flagstad would sing The Bell Song or Joyce Didonato would sing Stride La Vampa.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The Conte said:


> It's interesting how singers of the same voice type can be paired just because they were singing at the same time:
> 
> Callas - Tebaldi
> Sutherland - Caballe
> ...


I can understand a debate which is interesting. I can understand preferences which is natural. But what I can't understand is the idiotic polarisation by the bovine herd that we must take one side or the other. They were both great artists in very different ways. Why not just appreciate them both?


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> I can understand a debate which is interesting. I can understand preferences which is natural. But what I can't understand is the idiotic polarisation by the bovine herd that we must take one side or the other. They were both great artists in very different ways. Why not just appreciate them both?


It was the fans that caused the rivalry.

As Callas herself once pointed out, it was ridiculous to compare them as their repertoires were so different. She said it was like comparing champagne to cognac. It was some fan in the audience who shouted out, "No! Coca-Cola" and the press misappropriated the remark to Callas, and it unfortunately dogs her to this day.

Both Sutherland and Caballé sang more of Callas's repertoire, but even here they weren't clear rivals. Both singers conceded a debt of gratitude to Callas for opening up the repertoire to them. When Sutherland became a star, with those glittering performances of *Lucia di Lammermoor* at Covent Garden, Callas was nearing the end of her career, and she would only sing on stage (and then only sporadically) for five more years. Callas admired them both, though she had a closer bond with Caballé, who idolised her, and to whom she gave some of the jewellery she had once worn as Norma.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> That's why I said "to me."
> 
> Really, wouldn't it depend on what repertoire one is a fan of? I dare say that most Wagnerites who don't care much for bel canto would rate Flagstad or Nilsson higher than Callas or Sutherland. One could argue that Callas and Sutherland rate so highly "by the vast majority of people" because they sang repertoire that was, in itself, more popular among those people.


I can't speak for anyone else who shares my tastes in repertoire, but I'm quite the opposite of your imaginary person. I'm a Wagnerite with minimal interest in Rossini, Bellini, Donizetti and early Verdi except when singers can bring to them a musical interest I think they either lack or have only as a potentiality awaiting realization by the performer. We can judge singers by a variety of criteria, and for their remarkable vocal endowments Flagstad and Nilsson are justly celebrated in suitable repertoire (which in Nilsson's case at least I think is quite limited). But Callas inhabits another dimension of musical and dramatic insight and technical achievement altogether; I would pay to hear her sing the stock report, even if I lost money. Sutherland? She interests me only in her first recordings, before "Casta Diva" began sounding like "Cwstw Dwvw."


----------



## davidglasgow (Aug 19, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> I can't speak for anyone else who shares my tastes in repertoire, but I'm quite the opposite of your imaginary person. I'm a Wagnerite with minimal interest in Rossini, Bellini, Donizetti and early Verdi except when singers can bring to them a musical interest I think they either lack or have only as a potentiality awaiting realization by the performer. We can judge singers by a variety of criteria, and for their remarkable vocal endowments Flagstad and Nilsson are justly celebrated in suitable repertoire (which in Nilsson's case at least I think is quite limited). But Callas *inhabits* another dimension of musical and dramatic insight and technical achievement altogether; I would pay to hear her sing the stock report, even if I lost money. Sutherland? She interests me *only in her first recordings*, before "Casta Diva" began sounding like "Cwstw Dwvw."


I like the triptych you suggest for judging *musical* & *dramatic* insight, and *technical* achievement.

However, I'm wary of the way you allocate these achievements to Callas in perpetuity - i.e. "Callas inhabits" - but to Sutherland as context-dependent and time-bound attributes, atrophying sometime around 1961 

It would be sad to miss out on the times in Sutherland's career when great musical, dramatic and technical accomplishments *are* most evident in her work e.g. the aria from Attila, her recordings of Turandot and Esclarmonde, the live records of Lucia and Ugonotti, and much else besides, because of a technical limitation - her diction - which was more or less evident depending on the circumstances.

We also know that the aforementioned trio of accomplishments did not run constant in Callas' career: she was too volatile an artist for that to be the case. Conceding the tame or even wayward nights - Barbiere, some of the choices in Mexico, a lot of technical problems in her later work - helps contextualise nights like Lucia in Berlin, Norma at La Scala, Medea in Dallas for what they are: not only stand outs compared to other singers, but in Callas' own career/discography.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

davidglasgow said:


> I like the triptych you suggest for judging *musical* & *dramatic* insight, and *technical* achievement.
> 
> However, *I'm wary of the way you allocate these achievements to Callas in perpetuity* - i.e. "Callas inhabits" - but to Sutherland as context-dependent and time-bound attributes, atrophying sometime around 1961
> 
> ...


But my dear Mr. Glasgow! I said nothing about perpetuity! :tiphat:

Still and all, I find all but the most feeble final efforts of Mme. Callas (some of which, out of respect, I have refused even to listen to) more interesting than anything the estimable Mme. Sutherland ever did, even when the former's high notes grate like fingernails on chalkboard. Which is not to say that the best things the great Aussie nightingale did are not most impressive and enjoyable as what they are.


----------



## davidglasgow (Aug 19, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> But my dear Mr. Glasgow! I said nothing about perpetuity! :tiphat:
> 
> Still and all, I find all but the most feeble final efforts of Mme. Callas (some of which, out of respect, I have refused even to listen to) more interesting than anything the estimable Mme. Sutherland ever did, even when the former's high notes grate like fingernails on chalkboard. Which is not say that the best things the great Aussie nightingale did are not most impressive and enjoyable as what they are.


Well I'm glad we cleared that up Mr. Duck  :tiphat: we'll make a convert out of you yet :lol:


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

As I have aged my take on Callas has changed. I still only for the most part like early Callas before the mid 1950's.. No one "sings" the way she does. Her heart and mind are in everything she does. Her coloratura is not only astonishing but often surprising. What keeps me from listening to her more or becoming a dyed in the wool fan is that after short listening spells I tire of her voice because it is not really all that beautiful. She can make her voice beautiful, but the basic sound is rather odd to me. I listen to Sutherland more because of the beauty as well as the skill of her voice.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Seattleoperafan said:


> As I have aged my take on Callas has changed. I still only for the most part like early Callas before the mid 1950's.. No one "sings" the way she does. Her heart and mind are in everything she does. Her coloratura is not only astonishing but often surprising. What keeps me from listening to her more or becoming a dyed in the wool fan is that after short listening spells I tire of her voice because it is not really all that beautiful. She can make her voice beautiful, but the basic sound is rather odd to me. I listen to Sutherland more because of the beauty as well as the skill of her voice.


Callas' voice to me sounds as if she is singing with a wad of chaw in her cheek. Sorry Callas fans, but that is the image that comes to mind when I listen to her. Similar for Lucia Aliberti who superficially sounds like Callas.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Seattleoperafan said:


> As I have aged my take on Callas has changed. I still only for the most part like early Callas before the mid 1950's.. No one "sings" the way she does. Her heart and mind are in everything she does. Her coloratura is not only astonishing but often surprising. What keeps me from listening to her more or becoming a dyed in the wool fan is that after short listening spells I tire of her voice because it is not really all that beautiful. She can make her voice beautiful, but the basic sound is rather odd to me. I listen to Sutherland more because of the beauty as well as the skill of her voice.


Funny how we all have different reactions. What first attracted me to Callas was the sound of the voice itself and the way it emotionally connected to me. It was later that I started to appreciate her fantastic musicality and superior musicianship. I don't really think about whether t's beautiful or not, as long as it's beautifully _expressed_.

On the other hand, I hardly ever listen to Sutherland, because, for all the beauty of the voice and the technical skill, she never really "speaks" to me, and I quickly tire of just listening to beautiful sounds. Even in those very early records, when her diction was a great deal better, there is never a moment when a phrase, or even a word within a phrase, will light up in a way it constantly does with Callas.

Callas can do this even when singing an uncharacteristic role or an aria she only learned for the gramophone. One example that always stands out for me is the way she sings the single word _Dorme?_in Act III of *La Bohème*, with its gentle upward portamento, so full of love and concern for Rodolfo. It never fails to bring a lump to my throat, though it usually goes unnoticed when sung by other singers.


----------



## CJC (Aug 17, 2017)

In my own case, mood and context are factors that come into play in appreciating Callas and Sutherland.

Where Callas is concerned, Abigaille in Nabucco (1949), Lady Macbeth (1952), Armida (1952), Medea (Florence, Scala 1953, Dallas 1958), Norma (Scala 1955) and Anna Bolena (Scala 1957) are amazing and dramatically and musically deeply satisfying (aural) experiences. The 1958 CG Traviata, despite flu and by-then pronounced perilous top and thinner tone, is truly heartbreaking and moving. But to be honest, these are not stuff that I would listen to everyday or all the time, in fact only on occasions when I am in the mood and context to experience the fuller to the fullest emotional impact opera can bring.

Coming to Sutherland, very often, such as in the morning, when one just wishes to bathe in the sheer gorgeous, heroic ring of her sound in pieces such as "Let the bright Seraphim" from Handel's _Samson_, or Odabella's aria from _Attila_, to have oneself brightened up and energised, she is the one to listen to. Sutherland may not have Callas' inimitable ability to light up a key word, phrase or moment and leave a deep imprint on one's mind, but it's the overall impact of her voice that impresses, especially when one's mood or context desire to hear and enjoy _that_ sound.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

CJC said:


> Where Callas is concerned, Abigaille in Nabucco (1949), Lady Macbeth (1952), Armida (1952), Medea (Florence, Scala 1953, Dallas 1958), Norma (Scala 1955) and Anna Bolena (Scala 1957) are amazing and dramatically and musically deeply satisfying (aural) experiences. The 1958 CG Traviata, despite *flu and by-then pronounced perilous top and thinner tone*, is truly heartbreaking and moving. But to be honest, these are not stuff that I would listen to everyday or all the time, in fact only on occasions when I am in the mood and context to experience the fuller to the fullest emotional impact opera can bring.


But having the flu and a perilous top and thinner tone bring a level of realism to this tragedy, making her sound just like the consumptive character she is trying to portray. But I guess it is not aesthetically pleasing as a full bodied and full lunged voice.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Fritz Kobus said:


> Callas' voice to me sounds as if she is singing with a wad of chaw in her cheek. Sorry Callas fans, but that is the image that comes to mind when I listen to her. Similar for Lucia Aliberti who superficially sounds like Callas.


Someone is going to ban you from this forum;-) OMG


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Seattleoperafan said:


> Someone is going to ban you from this forum;-) OMG


What I know Fritz Kobus like Callas.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Seattleoperafan said:


> Someone is going to ban you from this forum;-) OMG


.......................


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Sloe said:


> What I know Fritz Kobus like Callas.


I went nuts on Callas, bought about 30 CD sets in a month's time, played nothing but, and burned out. I acknowledge that she is among the greatest and regret that some of her best voice (pre weight loss particularly) is on poor recording quality because of the time frame.

But it is not that I am anti-Callas. I burn out on most any soprano that I start buying up fistfuls of aria CDs for. My best bet is leave the aria sets alone and focus on complete operas.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

There are singers for relaxed, easy listening and singers for a more intense, concentrated experience. I do find that Sutherland and Callas occupy the extreme ends of that spectrum. 

With Sutherland, I always know what to expect and can just sit back or putter around while enjoying the sound and technical brilliance. This can be either delightful or boring, depending on her performance and my mood. With Callas, I never seem quite prepared for what she puts forth even if I've heard the recording before. She keeps me on edge in two ways, one desirable and one not: the musical specificity and dramatic creativity make me listen, fascinated, to every nuance, while the sometimes wiry, wavery high notes make me tense (as a former singer I have an unfortunately strong sympathetic response to vocal tension in others). 

When I try to think of singers who are musically and dramatically arresting but who also have a consistent, easy-to-listen-to vocal quality, Elisabeth Schwarzkopf, Christa Ludwig, Lotte Lehmann and Claudia Muzio come immediately to mind.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

How many roles did Callas and Sutherland record in common? If I want to listen to Gioconda I would choose one of the two Callas versions, if I'm in the mood for Lakme then it's the Sutherland recording I go for. It's only where the two both recorded an opera where side picking applies.


Even where they both recorded a role often the Sutherland recording is more complete. Therefore if I want to listen to a performance of the role of Lucia in Lucia di Lammermoor I will go with one of the Callas versions. If I want to listen to the opera Lucia without cuts as Donizetti wrote it then I might put on the second Sutherland recording.

N.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> There are singers for relaxed, easy listening and singers for a more intense, concentrated experience. I do find that Sutherland and Callas occupy the extreme ends of that spectrum.
> 
> With Sutherland, I always know what to expect and can just sit back or putter around while enjoying the sound and technical brilliance. This can be either delightful or boring, depending on her performance and my mood. With Callas, I never seem quite prepared for what she puts forth even if I've heard the recording before. She keeps me on edge in two ways, one desirable and one not: the musical specificity and dramatic creativity make me listen, fascinated, to every nuance, while the sometimes wiry, wavery high notes make me tense (as a former singer I have an unfortunately strong sympathetic response to vocal tension in others).
> 
> When I try to think of singers who are musically and dramatically arresting but who also have a consistent, easy-to-listen-to vocal quality, Elisabeth Schwarzkopf, Christa Ludwig, Lotte Lehmann and Claudia Muzio come immediately to mind.


Yes, Callas is never the singer to put on whilst you get on with the washing up or the dusting. She demands attention, where Sutherland settles more comfortably into her frame. She can thrill of course, though in a different way, and I have a few Sutherland arias I pull down from the shelves (Handel's Let the Bright Seraphim, Rossini's Bel Raggio) when I want to be thrilled by sheer exuberance and virtuosity, but when it comes to sitting a listening with full attention and involvement, it is always Callas I will turn to.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

GregMitchell said:


> Yes, Callas is never the singer to put on whilst you get on with the washing up or the dusting. She demands attention, where Sutherland settles more comfortably into her frame. She can thrill of course, though in a different way, and I have a few Sutherland arias I pull down from the shelves (Handel's Let the Bright Seraphim, Rossini's Bel Raggio) when I want to be thrilled by sheer exuberance and virtuosity, but when it comes to sitting a listening with full attention and involvement, it is always Callas I will turn to.


They both recorded the Bell Song as well as the Mad Scene from Hamlet and both are absolutely stellar. I would say that these arias also exemplifies the differing strengths of each in telling ways. Check them out. Your insights were marvelous. Sutherland did the Mad Scene from Hamlet on video and she was very impressive in emoting the feelings on camera. She was also young and lovely. On Youtube.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

I have grown because of this forum to become a huge fan of Callas's recordings from 55 and learned not to dismiss her post weight loss singing outright but one thing I never have learned: I discussed Joan on a Maria thread on Youtube and felt like I was advocating Trump in very liberal Seattle. Never again LOL I cannot express my gratitude enough to this forum for alerting me to Callas's golden year, 1955!!!!! Her performances were astonishing then!!!!


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Seattleoperafan said:


> I have grown because of this forum to become a huge fan of Callas's recordings from 55 and learned not to dismiss her post weight loss singing outright but one thing I never have learned: I discussed Joan on a Maria thread on Youtube and felt like I was advocating Trump in very liberal Seattle. Never again LOL I cannot express my gratitude enough to this forum for alerting me to Callas's golden year, 1955!!!!! Her performances were astonishing then!!!!


Well you can't expect reasoned debate on youtube. If you're in the right frame of mind and don't take them too seriously, the comments sectons can provide endless entertainment, though I'm not sure that is the intention of most commentators. :lol:


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

Tsaraslondon said:


> Well you can't expect reasoned debate on youtube. If you're in the right frame of mind and don't take them too seriously, the comments sectons can provide endless entertainment, though I'm not sure that is the intention of most commentators. :lol:


I agree! You can find lots of humorous ridiculousness in YouTube comments. I wouldn't bother arguing with them.

There is definitely lots of singer worship in the comments. No matter what singer, selection/aria, or quality of singing, there are almost always people in the comments saying things like "He/she is the best ever in this role!"

Speaking of Callas and Sutherland, it amazes me how many people compare Sutherland's studio Turandot to the likes of Nilsson saying Sutherland was better. There was a clip of Callas in one video, and she was singing with a very obvious wobble. Someone in the comments pointed it out as good vibrato.

It seems that people see the big names and assume every note they ever sang was perfect. Sometimes I wonder if these people are naive or just trolling, but yes it can be funny if you don't take them too seriously.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

adriesba said:


> I agree! You can find lots of humorous ridiculousness in YouTube comments. I wouldn't bother arguing with them.
> 
> There is definitely lots of singer worship in the comments. No matter what singer, selection/aria, or quality of singing, there are almost always people in the comments saying things like "He/she is the best ever in this role!"
> 
> ...


Good insights. Sutherland, along with possibly Alessandra Marc, had likely the most beautiful Turandot, but I don't think live she would be able to compete with the power and terror of Nilsson or Dimitrova, which is what you want from the Ice Princess.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

adriesba said:


> I agree! You can find lots of humorous ridiculousness in YouTube comments. I wouldn't bother arguing with them.
> 
> *There is definitely lots of singer worship in the comments.* No matter what singer, selection/aria, or quality of singing, there are almost always people in the comments saying things like "He/she is the best ever in this role!"
> 
> .


I always feel these people are somewhat sad as many of these singers were great artists but fell down badly as people. I can't see the point of debating Callas / Sutherland - just appreciate both for what they were.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

DavidA said:


> I always feel these people are somewhat sad as many of these singers were great artists but fell down badly as people. I can't see the point of debating Callas / Sutherland - just appreciate both for what they were.


Much like composers. Is there a point to debating Wagner / Mozart? Just appreciate both for what they were.

N.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

Who exhumed this thread? *Callas* vs. *Sutherland*?

No contest. It's *Callas* all the way. I'm one of those that asserts that *Callas's* singing of any role spoils it for that of any other singer. Even Rudolf Bing (intendant of the Metropolitan Opera from 1950 - 1972) said it as well.

I've been privileged to see Mme. *Sutherland* many times at the San Francisco Opera in several roles, including her debut in *Esclarmonde*) and Mme. *Callas* only once, in 1974. No contest there, *Sutherland* was in better shape in all of her performances.

Going strictly on recordings, *Sutherland's* have the best sound, *Callas's * the best portrayals of the characters, even those she hadn't performed on stage (neither had *Sutherland*). I like the latter's *Turandot* better because of the sound recording, and the cast is all around a stellar one. I own *all* of *Callas's* recordings and three of *Sutherland's*, the first two recitals, and *Turandot*. So who do you think I like better?

The patrician conductor *Carlo Maria Giulini* once said of *Callas*; that he couldn't think of her as a voice separately from what she expressed with it, they were one and the same. I don't always like what I hear when listening to some of *Callas's* recordings, but I find it difficult to listen to operas she sang sung by anyone else. I love her that much.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

MAS said:


> Who exhumed this thread? *Callas* vs. *Sutherland*?
> 
> No contest. It's *Callas* all the way. I'm one of those that asserts that *Callas's* singing of any role spoils it for that of any other singer. Even Rudolf Bing (intendant of the Metropolitan Opera from 1950 - 1972) said it as well.
> 
> ...


I started it and revived it and there is life still in ie.. There are so many Callas only threads on here I started this hoping to find people who are fans of both and there are some. I think the Callas only faction of which you mostly belong are the majority. i could never be partner of one person and I love many divas, but there is a group of goddesses at the highest of opera heavens. One reason I favor Sutherland is I like videos and in all but the early Tosca, Callas is in awful voice for the rest of her videos, whereas Sutherland has many with good sound and she sounds splendid.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

I love Callas (you might have noticed), but I also like Sutherland and there are a few recordings of hers that I enjoy even if I prefer Callas' take on the role (much Bellini and Donizetti). I have to admit that I also prefer Caballe over Sutherland and therefore the Sutherland recording of most bel canto operas isn't normally my favourite unless Callas and Caballe didn't record it. However, there are a few recordings of single arias where I prefer the Sutherland over Callas. The Lakme bell song, Bel raggio from Semiramide and the arias from Fille and Elisir (which Callas recorded well past her best).

I have plenty of Sutherland recordings as I love the pairing of her and Pavarotti and most of her bel canto recordings are the best versions that are complete as well in modern sound. The ones I don't have are the Massenet operas (I don't like the pieces themselves), the Handel ones, Anna Bolena, Ernani, Traviata and Trovatore and the earlier versions where she recorded operas more than once. I don't have many of the live recordings except for her Semiramide with Simionato (and I don't have the studio recording of that either). I do have the complete box set of studio recital albums, as a lot of the material isn't easy to find as separate albums, even though there are too many fluffy 'pop' recitals in there which Sutherland wasn't suited to IMO.

I think I like her more than a lot of people here and whilst I can understand the criticisms some have (diction and lack of expression) she was more than just a voice, when caught at her best she was a great artist too.

N.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

MAS said:


> Who exhumed this thread? *Callas* vs. *Sutherland*?
> 
> No contest. It's *Callas* all the way. I'm one of those that asserts that *Callas's* singing of any role spoils it for that of any other singer. Even Rudolf Bing (intendant of the Metropolitan Opera from 1950 - 1972) said it as well.
> 
> ...


Oops! I forgot, I also have *Semiramide* with *Sutherland* and *Horne*. Astonishing!


----------

