# Sutherland vs Callas



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Let us tackle the age-old question: whom do you prefer?


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

I recognize that Callas is the better artist, I really love her before her voice went downhill and find her singing in the early Armida, Norma Traviata and Gioconda impossible to beat, but I listen to Sutherland more because I prefer the sound of her voice, even more so after the early stuff everyone else here only listens to. I love high notes and Sutherland's were more beautiful than Callas's and were almost eternally reliable throughout her career. Callas was for certain a great diva but I had a real connection with Sutherland from my teens almost like she was a member of my royal family as it were ( QE II for Brits). She really was so grand to me. I think I have played Callas' big theme and variations aria from Armida more than any other piece, but as an overall artist I listen to Sutherland much much more. I am almost alone in this on this board I feel. I love coloratura and at that I think they were very evenly matched. In a league better than others because of their combination of size and agility. Callas was far better at the drama but beauty is more important to me and Sutherland has the edge here even though Callas did some awfully beautiful singing. I wouldn't want to be without either and am a huge fan of both.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Sutherland hardly exists for me until I come onto TC. While I'm here I try to be nice. How'm I doin'?


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Aren't there some old threads devoted to this very topic. I seem to remember that they became a bit nasty too. We seem to be a mostly more civilised group these days and I hope that doesn't happen this time.

Most people here will know my preferences, so there's not much point repeating them here. I'm a Callas devotee. I enjoy some of Sutherland's earlier work, but when the diction got mushy and the delivery droopy I lost interest. I appreciate that she was an important artist and that the voice was obviously an exceptional instrument, but as an artist, she just doesn't "speak" to me and there are very few roles she recorded that I don't prefer sung by someone else. I have _The Art of the Prima Donna, _the first recital, her Donna Anna for Giulini, _La Fille du Régiment _and _Les contes d'Hoffmann _(where I only really like her Olympie) and that's about it, I think.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Tsaraslondon said:


> . I have _The Art of the Prima Donna, _the first recital, her Donna Anna for Giulini, _La Fille du Régiment _and _Les contes d'Hoffmann _(where I only really like her Olympie) and that's about it, I think.


...and given that Olympia is a mechanical doll


----------



## ALT (Mar 1, 2021)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> Let us tackle the age-old question: whom do you prefer?


Neither. The topic is *wirklich langweilig*. Let sleeping dogs lie.


----------



## Mr Belpit (Oct 1, 2015)

Sutherland was a phenomenal singer. Callas was a great artist.


----------



## Shaughnessy (Dec 31, 2020)

Tsaraslondon said:


> * We seem to be a mostly more civilised group these days...*


Unless I'm greatly mistaken, this change for the better coincided with the appearance of that Irish guy, Shaughnessy...


----------



## OffPitchNeb (Jun 6, 2016)

Well, knowing TC, you could have known the results even before making the poll.

A more interesting topic would be, is there a role in which Sutherland is better than Callas?


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

I was lucky to hear Sutherland live many times and her nights at the San Francisco Opera were legendary and very well attended by the _bel canto _devotees - wall to wall standees.

I enjoyed her in the theater, her voice is astonishing, but I don’t enjoy what she recorded after 1959/60 (i.e. with Ricky) except I bought *Turandot *for its cast and sound and, face it, that LP cover!

But Callas! Say what you want about her voice. It has thrilled me plenty and disappointed me here and there. But if sometimes I don’t like how she sounds, _*how she sings* _is transcendental. Everything has been said and written about her, no use repeating any of it.

All I can say is no one, no one will ever replace her in my affection.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

When I first discovered this great art, Sutherland, Callas and Tebaldi were "the" top of the line singers. I was immediately taken with Sutherland big time with her exquisite high notes and her "Art of the Prima Donna" album which I adored. I remember the time I was stopped at a red light, windows down on a lovely spring day, and Sutherland's voice rang out from my cd player with a high note that could knock your socks off. The guy in the next car gave me a big smile and a quick thumbs up sign.
I liked Tebaldi but was not enthralled as I was with La Stupenda.
As for Maria Callas, I could not understand her attraction to so many. I thought she sounded like she was singing with bread in her throat. 
But as a rank newbie what did I really know then? Like John, I thought a beautiful voice was the living end and topped everything else. 

Suddenly I had an epiphany that changed me totally. And I grew up overnight.
I think it began when Sutherland changed her original voice with the aid of her husband and I began to notice the mushy middle which turned me off. (KInd of like the same feeling I got when Kaufmann changed the entire sound of his voice.)
Being trained as a theater person, I was also disappointed in her lack of acting ability. Something was missing. 
Of course back then it was not as important for an opera singer as it is today, but to me it stood out like a sore thumb, even then. 

And then I saw the famous 2nd act of Tosca with Callas/Gobbi and it became my eye-opener. It was theater to me and I was hooked. From then on I began to realize that the voices that had most attracted me in the first place -- the Corellis, Tuckers,Frenis, etc .-- took second place to the ones whose voices were less beautiful in tone but made up for it with a talent for a natural theatrically inspired touch like Vickers' Canio, for example. Wow, just WOW!
And that is how I became a Callas lover. I recognized her complete dedication to her roles by just watching her face. 
And then I realized that I actually didn't even really have to see her face to hear the emotion that poured through the CD as well.
This is not to say that I no longer recognize Sutherland as a great singer, because I do, and I still appreciate her -- especially her early days.
Let's just say they both brought something extra special to the opera world and we are the grateful recipients.


----------



## Dogville (Dec 28, 2021)

Callas by eons. Despite common perception that her voice was ugly, I actually find it quite beautiful in all three registers, especially in her prime. More than that, I also find it perhaps the most interesting instrument caught on record. The vantablack echo of the chest voice, the throbbing quality of the middle, the way the top soars like a dramatic coloratura. Each register was phenomenally adept and developed, resulting in a full-bodied sound from top to bottom. It was certainly a flawed, uneven voice, but it was also one that was like a kaleidoscope of colors. It could take on hues and characteristics across the entire female fach spectrum (contralto, mezzo, soprano. I suppose all those stupid sub categories too) It was also a voice of opposites in the sense that it was dark and voluminous both in terms of breadth and depth and yet she had the virtuosity of a Tetrazzini or a Hallstein. That leads me to the the issue of versatility. Callas could sing the heaviest rep like Brunnhilde, Isolde, Gioconda, Kundry, Abigaille, Lady Macbeth, and Medea and then pull out all the stops and sing Armida (!), Konstanze, Gilda, Leonora, Elvira, Amina, and so much more. ALL of these roles are sung perfectly (!) and they all feel like separate, fleshed-put, distinct characters (!), so I never get bored of hearing her sing and only ever get enjoyment (pre-1960 anyways). Have we ever had a singer who was able to sing like this in history? I think not. She may have paid the price in terms of career and vocal longevity, but she did more in 1949-1953 than others did in their entire careers, and I am eternally grateful for the risks she took. There's nothing I can say about Callas' dramatic intensity and the complete and total identification with the characters she portrayed that has not been said better by someone else, so I will not even bother. The greatest interpreter of all times I fear.

on the opposite side, Sutherland is, TO ME, inferior in almost every way. While the silvery, bell-like color of her voice in the earlier years is a pleasure to listen to, it has be said that Sutherland tonally is very one note and monochromatic, and she could never create the wide variety of vocal colors that is necessary in some of the roles she took on. It gets very monotonous listening to her after a while. Sutherland's alleged great technique allowed her to sing Elvira, Amina, Lucia, Handel and that's about it. To be fair, she was vocally sublime in those roles. There's also no attempt at vocal characterization so much of what she sang all sounds like the same person. Again, it's all very monotonous to listen to. Coloratura, trills, and high notes just are not enough for me. I actually think Callas had the better coloratura technique (gasp!) and the more malleable upper register and trill (volume control on trills, famous diminuendos on Eb6, fil di voce on Eb6 and Db6). Her top was steadier and more consistent than Callas', however. I never understood why Sutheland is hailed as this great technician when she had far more technical flaws than MC ever did. She never had much of a chest voice, her middle was never more than decent- she got a wobble in that area in the mid-70s off of singing light coloratura roles (hilarious when you consider how much her fans slander Callas for hers). She did have a great top though, and apparently that is enough to compensate for the other 2/3s of the voice and the almost complete lack of artistry for her fans.


----------



## Montarsolo (5 mo ago)

I once made the mistake of watching video footage of a Sutherland singing. That hurts. Those lips she pulls over her teeth etc. A singing Callas, on the other hand, is an experience to watch.


----------



## Shaughnessy (Dec 31, 2020)

I voted for Callas... although still in university here in the US, I worked often enough as an actor - even though every character that I played had a Galway Irish accent - that I had to join Actor's Equity. I intuitively understood "acting" - that there were two components to dialogue - melody and rhythm - Many of my directors felt that I was overlooking the third component - "actually knowing your lines" but my improvisational skills lead me to believe that this third component was more "optional" than "mandatory".

One Saturday afternoon, I was listening to the local classical music station wfmt.com - Not really by choice - I had broken the dial on the car radio when my then-girlfriend insisted on singing along to every song that came on the radio despite not being able to actually sing, not actually knowing the lyrics, and worst of all, under the impression that the lyrics that she was making up were even better than the originals - and so it was the only station that I could actually tune in.

Whatever I was listening to came to an end and the host made an announcement about the upcoming program which featured "historical vocalists"... I continued listening because I thought that he had said "hysterical vocalists" and thought "now this... this sounds interesting".

And it was... I heard Ponselle and Galli-Curci and Muzio - and I heard Gigli and Martinelli and Lauri-Volpi... and I loved everything that I had heard... It was revelatory... Singing in Italian was the musical equivalent of speaking English with an Irish accent - Words assumed a significance - a profoundness - a third word that I can't remember right now but I kind of think that it starts with a "d" or maybe an "h"...

Singing means everything to the Irish - everything - A lot of that may have to do with realizing that what we "say" rarely, if ever, makes any sense - but you can "sing" something with a straight face that would make you laugh out loud were you to "say" it - And one of the great blessings - amongst many - of being Irish is that you'll be born with a beautiful tenor voice... even if you're a woman.

And so, Callas comes on... I had never heard of her - I kind of had this vague notion that she was married to the American comedian Charlie Callas but that was the sole extent of my knowledge.

I didn't know anything about the technical aspects of her voice - I loved what I heard - It wasn't until years later that someone told me that she had an "ugly" voice and by then it was too late. I understood Callas - without needing to be told - and I learned what "phrasing" meant - I learned more about phrasing from Callas than I ever did from Frank Sinatra and I liked Callas more - I respected her more - because I knew - I just knew - that however angry - however inflamed - however infuriated she may have become, unlike Sinatra, she was as tough as nails even when she didn't have a bodyguard on each side of her - and that she would never throw a sucker-punch when you weren't looking - She would just haul off and smack the face right off of your head - She had honor - She had integrity - she had something else that begins with either an "s" or maybe a "w"...I can't remember what that third word was supposed to be - fill in the blank yourself - I did the heavy lifting.

But as an actor, I knew as soon as I heard her, that her greatest gift was to intuitively understand that lyrics were more than just words attached to musical notes - they had meaning - they were meant to be heard and to be understood - they were dialogue - and dialogue has melody and rhythm.

I didn't know what she was singing about - I wasn't even entirely certain what language she was singing in - but somehow, someway, I understood the emotion that she was trying to convey. I once tried to follow along with a libretto and quite frankly, that was probably one time too many. I've listened to dozens upon dozens of operas and despite reading their plots with careful study, I still think that every opera ever written is about a gypsy with tuberculosis who falls in love with a naval officer.

Callas can act...

Sutherland has a beautiful voice, or so I've been told... But if her "acting" was any more wooden, her nose would grow every time she told a lie.

And so the vote for "Definitely Callas"...


----------



## ColdGenius (9 mo ago)

I wrote myself to pieces of toast. The art is beautiful in all its diversity. 
Sometimes we listen to Callas, sometimes to Sutherland, sometimes a totally unknown girl in a local theater can make your evening unforgettable. 
After years of Callas adoration I read, with a great surprise, that her voice wasn't beautiful. So what? Those who write it may think what they wish. It doesn't prevent me from tears when she answers "Nulla!" to "Che fai?"


----------



## ColdGenius (9 mo ago)

As for acting skills, I remember an interview with Christa Ludwig. She spoke modestly about her own acting and suddenly mentioned Sutherland. (There was such one, Sutherland, she said 😊). She was impressed by a gesture that Sutherland took off hair in Lucia mad scene and said that she hadn't anything like that.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Shaughnessy said:


> I voted for Callas... although still in university here in the US, I worked often enough as an actor - even though every character that I played had a Galway Irish accent - that I had to join Actor's Equity. I intuitively understood "acting" - that there were two components to dialogue - melody and rhythm - Many of my directors felt that I was overlooking the third component - "actually knowing your lines" but my improvisational skills lead me to believe that this third component was more "optional" than "mandatory".
> 
> One Saturday afternoon, I was listening to the local classical music station wfmt.com - Not really by choice - I had broken the dial on the car radio when my then-girlfriend insisted on singing along to every song that came on the radio despite not being able to actually sing, not actually knowing the lyrics, and worst of all, under the impression that the lyrics that she was making up were even better than the originals - and so it was the only station that I could actually tune in.
> 
> ...


Ahhhhh me darlin' Irish chap, I am in awe of your wonderful post. You speak with such down-to-earth rationality and warmth and most of all for me....fun! I even actually began to read your post to my mate with a slightly Irish brogue.
Of course your taste knows no bounds as your ear found Callas early. Even though I made up for it, I wish mine had back then as well.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

I forgot to add that I also love the Sutherland/Horne *Semiramide*. One heckuva lot of wonderful singing by those two - they fit like a glove. And they also are the substance of my favorite operatic photo:


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

MAS said:


> I forgot to add that I also love the Sutherland/Horne *Semiramide*. One heckuva lot of wonderful singing by those two - they fit like a glove. And they also are the substance of my favorite operatic photo:
> View attachment 172984


I was blown away with both the singing and the beauty of the whole score listening to the lps. That photo is GREAT.


----------



## Francasacchi (7 mo ago)

I am an indecisive piece of toast. I wonder if one should frame it as a both/and rather than an either/or.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

I voted for Callas and those who have read my many past posts here will understand why. That doesn't mean that I avoid Sutherland, because I like a lot of what she did as well. I don't have the allergy to later Sutherland that others here have. I love the bright, bravura sparkle of her early recordings (including the first live Lucia, Puritani and Sonnambula), but the I also adore her second studio Norma where she is far more invovled in the drama than in some of her other recordings. We are lucky she recorded so much and dragged her friend 'Big Lucy' along for the ride! 

There are few roles where she would be my first choice for that part (I prefer Callas and Caballe in most bel canto), but her Marguerite in Hugenots and Marie in Fille du Regiment are hard to beat. She's also my favourite Beatrice in the Bellini opera. That said, she was a close runner up to Callas and Caballe who shared much of her rep and you have to admire someone who gets the silver medal next to both Nilsson's Turandot and Mesple's Lakme!

This topic made me sad because I can enjoy two very different singers with very different characters and gifts and I don't really want to choose. Whilst it can be fun to pick favourites nobody really wants to be on a desert island with only eight discs.

N.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

The Conte said:


> I voted for Callas and those who have read my many past posts here will understand why. That doesn't mean that I avoid Sutherland, because I like a lot of what she did as well. I don't have the allergy to later Sutherland that others here have. I love the bright, bravura sparkle of her early recordings (including the first live Lucia, Puritani and Sonnambula), but the I also adore her second studio Norma where she is far more invovled in the drama than in some of her other recordings. We are lucky she recorded so much and dragged her friend 'Big Lucy' along for the ride!
> 
> There are few roles where she would be my first choice for that part (I prefer Callas and Caballe in most bel canto), but her Marguerite in Hugenots and Marie in Fille du Regiment are hard to beat. She's also my favourite Beatrice in the Bellini opera. That said, she was a close runner up to Callas and Caballe who shared much of her rep and you have to admire someone who gets the silver medal next to both Nilsson's Turandot and Mesple's Lakme!
> 
> ...


I LOVE what you say, especially your last paragraph. They are two of my favorite singers! I was looking forward to your take.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Seattleoperafan said:


> I LOVE what you say, especially your last paragraph. They are two of my favorite singers! I was looking forward to your take.


Thank you. If you haven't heard her live Semiramide with Simionato and live Hugenots (in Italian as Gli Ugonotti) with Corelli and Simionato you must seek them out!

N.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

The Conte said:


> Thank you. If you haven't heard her live Semiramide with Simionato and live Hugenots (in Italian as Gli Ugonotti) with Corelli and Simionato you must seek them out!
> 
> N.


Big Lucy LOL LOL. No comment. Will get in trouble.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Seattleoperafan said:


> Big Lucy LOL LOL. No comment. Will get in trouble.


It's a fairly well known nick name for Pavarotti, I didn't invent it!

N.


----------



## 89Koechel (Nov 25, 2017)

Yes, Sutherland had an excellent voice, very good range. As for interpretations/characterizations though, I think the choice is rather obvious. There were great voices in the past, as well - Galli-Curci, Ponselle, Flastad, Lehmann, Tebaldi, etc. ... but hardly anyone has approached the heartfelt sincerity of Maria C. Opinions only, of course.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

89Koechel said:


> Yes, Sutherland had an excellent voice, very good range. As for interpretations/characterizations though, I think the choice is rather obvious. There were great voices in the past, as well - Galli-Curci, Ponselle, Flastad, Lehmann, Tebaldi, etc. ... but hardly anyone has approached the heartfelt sincerity of Maria C. Opinions only, of course.


I wouldn't say that other great singers have necessarily had less sincerity than Callas, but rather less imagination. It's her insinctive insight into the meaning behind the notes, and how to translate that insight into sound, that sets her apart. Other singers have achieved sporadically - at best, or if at all - what she did naturally and routinely. She is one of the few artists whose every effort can teach us something about music and drama, if we're able to hear and grasp it.


----------



## 89Koechel (Nov 25, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> I wouldn't say that other great singers have neccessarily had less sincerity than Callas, but rather less imagination. It's her insinctive insight into the meaning behind the notes, and how to translate that insight into sound, that sets her apart. Other singers have achieved sporadically - at best, if at all - what she did routinely. She is one of the few artists whose every effort can each us something about music and drama, if we're able to hear and grasp it.


Woodduck - Surely! ... and I didn't mean to imply that the other greats were LESS, in their sincerity or passion ... merely that Callas could combine the dramatic with the profound ... and the insights, that you mentioned ... into a cohesive WHOLE. Maybe even some of those faltering very-top notes ADDED her characterizations, in a way, reminding us that NO voice (or the soul/spirit, behind it) is entirely perfect - eh?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

89Koechel said:


> Woodduck - Surely! ... and I didn't mean to imply that the other greats were LESS, in their sincerity or passion ... merely that Callas could combine the dramatic with the profound ... and the insights, that you mentioned ... into a cohesive WHOLE. Maybe even some of those faltering very-top notes ADDED her characterizations, in a way, reminding us that NO voice (or the soul/spirit, behind it) is entirely perfect - eh?


I've always felt that her voice's peculiarities helped her achieve a wide variety of expressive effects. I could do without the wobble, however. That isn't a reminder of anything I need to be reminded of.


----------



## 89Koechel (Nov 25, 2017)

Yeah, that WOBBLE ... we all forgive her for THAT, I think, by now. If only she could've had the vocal cords (chords?) of Lehmann, Helen Traubel, or Tebaldi. God gave her GREAT abilities, with only one fault - eh?


----------



## 89Koechel (Nov 25, 2017)

89Koechel said:


> Woodduck - Surely! ... and I didn't mean to imply that the other greats were LESS, in their sincerity or passion ... merely that Callas could combine the dramatic with the profound ... and the insights, that you mentioned ... into a cohesive WHOLE. Maybe even some of those faltering very-top notes ADDED her characterizations, in a way, reminding us that NO voice (or the soul/spirit, behind it) is entirely perfect - eh?





Woodduck said:


> I've always felt that her voice's peculiarities helped her achieve a wide variety of expressive effects. I could do without the wobble, however. That isn't a reminder of anything I need to be reminded of.


BTW, I'd rather compare Beverly Sills (than Sutherland) to Callas. Yeah, "Bubbles" didn't have a very-lengthy career, but she accomplished MUCH ... in her time.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Absolutely. Arguably Sills was only modestly endowed vocally, but greatly endowed with intelligence and soul, and she acquired a technique that enabled her to push herself even beyond her natural capacities and become one of the most potent operatic artists of her time. She joked that she was born with the mind of Birgit Nilsson and the voice of Beverly Sills. Had she had the rich and powerful instrument she would have wanted and been able to fill out the big dramatic roles without compromise, she would no doubt have lasted longer and, perhaps, dominated opera much as Callas did before her. She was a more complete artist than Sutherland could ever dream of being.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

89Koechel said:


> Yeah, that WOBBLE ... we all forgive her for THAT, I think, by now. If only she could've had the *vocal cords (chords?)* of Lehmann, Helen Traubel, or Tebaldi. God gave her GREAT abilities, with only one fault - eh?


Cords. No one has figured out how to sing chords, although here are people in Tibet, I believe, who can produce two notes at once (one of them an overtone).


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Absolutely. Arguably Sills was only modestly endowed vocally, but greatly endowed with intelligence and soul, and she acquired a technique that enabled her to push herself even beyond her natural capacities and become one of the most potent operatic artists of her time. She joked that she was born with the mind of Birgit Nilsson and the voice of Beverly Sills. Had she had the rich and powerful instrument she would have wanted and been able to fill out the big dramatic roles without compromise, she would no doubt have lasted longer and, perhaps, dominated opera much as Callas did before her. She was a more complete artist than Sutherland could ever dream of being.


I really don’t think Sutherland ever had the ambition that Sills had. The ambition belonged to Ricky, who pushed her into the _bel canto _repertoire because of his interest in that music, and tricked her into singing higher and higher so she could realize the music he wanted her to sing.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

MAS said:


> I really don’t think Sutherland ever had the ambition that Sills had. The ambition belonged to Ricky, who pushed her into the _bel canto _repertoire because of his interest in that music, and tricked her into singing higher and higher so she could realize the music he wanted her to sing.


Yes. Suthertland and Bonynge was totally a team effort. Sills was very very ambitious. Not for the money as she was already filthy rich. She was very smart, driven and savvy. How many opera stars could stand in for Carson like she did???


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

89Koechel said:


> Yes, Sutherland had an excellent voice, very good range. As for interpretations/characterizations though, I think the choice is rather obvious. There were great voices in the past, as well - Galli-Curci, Ponselle, Flastad, Lehmann, Tebaldi, etc. ... but hardly anyone has approached the heartfelt sincerity of Maria C. Opinions only, of course.


I'm glad you said "hardly" because Muzio IMO was right up there with her in sincerity, pathos and had a beautiful voice as well.[


----------



## 89Koechel (Nov 25, 2017)

nina foresti said:


> I'm glad you said "hardly" because Muzio IMO was right up there with her in sincerity, pathos and had a beautiful voice as well.[


Certainly!! ... I should've mentioned Elisabeth Schumann, as well. The Quintet in Die Meistersinger (with Melchior, et. al.) is but one example.


----------



## marlow (11 mo ago)

Woodduck said:


> Cords. No one has figured out how to sing chords, although here are people in Tibet, I believe, who can produce two notes at once (one of them an overtone).


Tibettan monks can do this. Seen (and heard) it on film.


----------



## marlow (11 mo ago)

I can never quite see the point of these discussions as the answer appears obvious. For sheer voice it is Sutherland. For character and drama Callas.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

marlow said:


> I can never quite see the point of these discussions as the answer appears obvious. For sheer voice it is Sutherland. For character and drama Callas.


"The point" is for people to express their thoughts, and "the answer" is a bit more varied and nuanced than the one you give. I, for example, like Callas's voice more than Sutherland's. It's more "human" and intrinsically expressive, even without the remarkable ways she uses it, much as a violin's sound is more expressive than a flute's.


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

marlow said:


> Tibettan monks can do this. Seen (and heard) it on film.


If you sing through the vowel spectrum really quickly by changing your mouth shape you can catch on overtones quite easily. I don't really know how to explain it properly but give it a try it's sort of fun. Doing it straight off the bat is something very different however.


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

marlow said:


> I can never quite see the point of these discussions as the answer appears obvious. For sheer voice it is Sutherland. For character and drama Callas.


I disagree, Callas in her prime had a wonderful voice, certainly a leaner instrument, but extremely powerful, beautiful, especially in soft music, exceptionally flexible, with a huge range, a far better developed lower register and much more naturally placed vowel sounds. I think people sometimes forget what an exceptional instrument she had. Not the enveloping beauty of Ponselle or Tebaldi but nevertheless a great voice.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Op.123 said:


> I disagree, Callas in her prime had a wonderful voice, certainly a leaner instrument, but extremely powerful, beautiful, especially in soft music, exceptionally flexible, with a huge range, a far better developed lower register and much more naturally placed vowel sounds. I think people sometimes forget what an exceptional instrument she had. Not the enveloping beauty of Ponselle or Tebaldi but nevertheless a great voice.


Well said.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

I find them so similar in terms of range, flexibility and repertoire, but so different in nearly everything else.

some of the best high notes in the world, but weak chest voice vs some of the best low notes in the world, but insecure head voice
Callas's voice was great because of how deeply human it was. Sutherland's voice was great because of how ethereal and _not _human it was.
dark, earthy timbre vs bright, silvery timbre

The reason I voted Sutherland by a slim margin is that, while Callas knew how to be dramatic (quite possibly more than any other singer in human history), she was never convincingly heroic, and a voice that can perform truly heroic, mythical-sounding singing makes my spine tingle in a way no other type of music can. 

To be honest, I _want _to say I prefer Callas, as I've become a bit of a chest voice Nazi over the past few years, but in spite of having objectively worse technique, her silvery tonal beauty and heroic vocal line make me have to pick Sutherland.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> The reason I voted Sutherland by a slim margin is that, while Callas knew how to be dramatic (quite possibly more than any other singer in human history), she was never convincingly heroic, and a voice that can perform *truly heroic, mythical-sounding singing* makes my spine tingle in a way no other type of music can.
> 
> To be honest, I _want _to say I prefer Callas, as I've become a bit of a chest voice Nazi over the past few years, but in spite of having objectively worse technique, her *silvery tonal beauty and heroic vocal line make me have to pick Sutherland.*


Interesting, what qualities define a singer for us. Given your reduction of the complex and multidimensional musical artist who is Callas to a sort of drama queen with a booming chest register, your preference here seems based entirely on a preference for a certain portion of Sutherland's voice and her facility in whipping it around. I don't dismiss timbre as an important aspect of a voice's appeal, but even timbre is something we don't all hear in the same way. I hear "silvery tonal beauty" only in the upper range of Sutherland's voice; the lower range sounds dull to me - more pewter than silver - and incapable of expressing much of anything. Were it not for those gleaming high notes, in what repertoire would she have stood out? Would she have had a major career? As for "heroic," the word wouldn't occur to me in connection with Sutherland, except perhaps where that's a quality of the music itself. There are some bravura arias in Handel in which her brilliant high voice is exciting, and flinging out high notes forte, as she does in _Turandot_, could be viewed as heroic in a simple, one-dimensional way, but most music in Sutherland's repertoire needs other qualities, including some she manifestly lacks.

In which roles shared by both sopranos would you rather listen to (never mind watch, if only we could) Sutherland? And would that preference be based on anything besides dazzling coloratura in a brilliant upper octave? I really can't see where else her appeal resides, but maybe I just can't help thinking like a musician.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

I would have NEVER started this thread in this group as the result would be a foregone conclusion from my experience and it has been born out spectacularly. From the many people I've known into opera ( most are dead) the opinions in this matter are more balanced between Sutherland and Callas but this has never been the case in this group, even though there were many more Sutherland lovers 12 years ago than now in our forum. It is interesting that in an opera group I was active in before this one there were many Callas HATERS who were very vocal, but I have never encountered anyone in that camp here. I also remember some big Sutherland fans in that group and have not run into any in this group. I've managed to love and admire both my mother and my father even though they were very very different and I feel that carries over for me here.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> In which roles shared by both sopranos would you rather listen to (never mind watch, if only we could) Sutherland? And would that preference be based on anything besides dazzling coloratura in a brilliant upper octave?


I know this question wasn't directed at me, but it's an interesting one never the less. It depends firstly on what lies within its scope. Are we only to include the complete roles that they both sang and recorded or can we include single arias? Of their complete roles, no, in none of the complete roles they had in common would I prefer to listen to Sutherland in general. However, I might occasionally prefer to listen to Sutherland's live Sonnambula under Serafin than any of the Callas versions. Sutherland's brighter sound really suits that part in a way that Callas' natural voice didn't. Callas, of course, adapts her voice and makes it fit, which is a work of genius in itself, but sometimes I prefer the real thing. Sutherland was at the top of her game in 1960, her voice is as bright and clear as her vowels at that stage and Serafin's influence can be felt in a positive way on her musicality and taste.

I'm not sure what BB means by 'heroic' and I've found Callas voice could be suitably heroic when required ("Ocean, thou mighty monster!" anyone?) I wonder if it's something along the lines of having a brighter rather than darker sound and I can understand why some would prefer Sutherland's classic soprano sound in the more girlish, bel canto roles, Lucia, Elvira etc. especially in those early recordings from 1959-61.

If we are also going to include arias then there are probably a few where I prefer Sutherland. Her first studio Bel raggio and possibly the arias from Elisir and Fille.

N.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The Conte said:


> I know this question wasn't directed at me, but it's an interesting one never the less. It depends firstly on what lies within its scope. Are we only to include the complete roles that they both sang and recorded or can we include single arias? Of their complete roles, no, in none of the complete roles they had in common would I prefer to listen to Sutherland in general. However, I might occasionally prefer to listen to Sutherland's live Sonnambula under Serafin than any of the Callas versions. Sutherland's brighter sound really suits that part in a way that Callas' natural voice didn't. Callas, of course, adapts her voice and makes it fit, which is a work of genius in itself, but sometimes I prefer the real thing. Sutherland was at the top of her game in 1960, her voice is as bright and clear as her vowels at that stage and Serafin's influence can be felt in a positive way on her musicality and taste.
> 
> I'm not sure what BB means by 'heroic' and I've found Callas voice could be suitably heroic when required ("Ocean, thou mighty monster!" anyone?) I wonder if it's something along the lines of having a brighter rather than darker sound and I can understand why some would prefer Sutherland's classic soprano sound in the more girlish, bel canto roles, Lucia, Elvira etc. especially in those early recordings from 1959-61.
> 
> ...


All reasonable points. There are individual arias that call for Sutherland's best qualities and don't expose her shortcomings. There are things Callas didn't do as well, qualities that aren't in her voice. No one is perfect.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

“Let The Bright Seraphim,” “The Soldier Tired,” are unbeatable.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Seattleoperafan said:


> I would have NEVER started this thread in this group as the result would be a foregone conclusion from my experience and it has been born out spectacularly. From the many people I've known into opera ( most are dead) the opinions in this matter are more balanced between Sutherland and Callas but this has never been the case in this group, even though there were many more Sutherland lovers 12 years ago than now in our forum. It is interesting that in an opera group I was active in before this one there were many Callas HATERS who were very vocal, but I have never encountered anyone in that camp here. I also remember some big Sutherland fans in that group and have not run into any in this group. I've managed to love and admire both my mother and my father even though they were very very different and I feel that carries over for me here.


I don't really remember the Callas/Tebaldi feuds that went on, but there were definitely Callas/Sutherland ones when I was getting into opera and people tended to fall into one camp or the other, though you'd occasionally come across someone with a foot in both camps. I feel, though I have no facts to bear this out, that Sutherland was more popular when she was still active, but that her popularity has waned in recent years, where Callas's seems to keep growing. 

There were more Sutherland lovers when I first joined this forum, and quite a few Callas haters, who would often come up with all sorts of rubbish. I remember one of the first posts I ever read was from a contributor stating "Callas couldn't sing." When I challenged him by saying that was quite a ridiculous thing to say, regardless of whether you liked her or not, I got qute an attack in reply. Callas lovers had to have a hard skin in those days.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

I once played _Casta Diva _for a friend, one by Sutherland (her first, in G) and one by Callas. His verdict was that to him Sutherland sounded like a goddess, Callas very human! He took nothing else into consideration.
Our friendship survived.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

MAS said:


> I once played _Casta Diva _for a friend, one by Sutherland (her first, in G) and one by Callas. His verdict was that to him Sutherland sounded like a goddess, Callas very human! He took nothing else into consideration.
> Our friendship survived.


I can see his point. Sutherland to me sounded inhumanly beautiful and powerful like an archangel in that version. Callas', though beautiful, was replete with human emotions. Very different takes on a great aria. Being who you are we know why you were drawn to Callas version Personally I love both of them for different reasons and I think as a priestly aria both interpretations have merit.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Tsaraslondon said:


> I don't really remember the Callas/Tebaldi feuds that went on, but there were definitely Callas/Sutherland ones when I was getting into opera and people tended to fall into one camp or the other, though you'd occasionally come across someone with a foot in both camps. I feel, though I have no facts to bear this out, that Sutherland was more popular when she was still active, but that her popularity has waned in recent years, where Callas's seems to keep growing.
> 
> There were more Sutherland lovers when I first joined this forum, and quite a few Callas haters, who would often come up with all sorts of rubbish. I remember one of the first posts I ever read was from a contributor stating "Callas couldn't sing." When I challenged him by saying that was quite a ridiculous thing to say, regardless of whether you liked her or not, I got qute an attack in reply. Callas lovers had to have a hard skin in those days.


You joined the forum only four months before I did. Evidently I missed the Callas haters by a hairsbreadth, or else I just don't remember them. I think I was less focused on opera then and more involved in long, excruciating debates with lovers of atonality, indeterminacy, minimalism, maximalism, the new romanticism, the new complexity and the new simplicity.

I no longer know what's new. Old age has its perks.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

ahh the wonderful days of complexly indeterminate new romantic simplicity.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Becca said:


> ahh the wonderful days of complexly indeterminate new romantic simplicity.


Sounds like Tristan and Isolde making out in the castle garden.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

The Conte said:


> I'm not sure what BB means by 'heroic' and I've found Callas voice could be suitably heroic when required ("Ocean, thou mighty monster!" anyone?) I wonder if it's something along the lines of having a brighter rather than darker sound and I can understand why some would prefer Sutherland's classic soprano sound in the more girlish, bel canto roles, Lucia, Elvira etc. especially in those early recordings from 1959-61.


That's...actually a perfect example to support my point. Oberon is the King of the Elves (it should actually be King of the Fairies, but that's what the score says). Even if the character singing the aria is mortal, the target audience of this kind of work is the same as the target audience that would watch Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones. 






more heroic Sutherland


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Woodduck, to answer your previous question

prefer Sutherland

Elvira
Lucia
Violetta
Gilda

prefer Callas

Norma
Leonora
Aida
Anna Bolena
Tosca

There are also several roles Callas performed which Sutherland would not have been able to touch, so we much consider that as well. Keep in mind I did say I consider Callas the better singer, but, at the end of the day, I like Sutherland's voice more.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> Woodduck, to answer your previous question
> 
> prefer Sutherland
> 
> ...


I prefer Callas in Traviata even though Sutherland is very good as Violetta, but despite Callas being so great in Anna Bolena, I prefer Sutherland because of the spectacular high notes she peppers throughout. She has a number of videos of both in concert and from the opera and at around 60 her high D's were absolutely unbelievable, better even than when she was 30. The audience, not made up of our Forum members, went insane!!!! The orchestra members were looking at each other like WTF! The size and beauty of her high notes were incomprehensible. Callas was her only competition above the staff and that was mostly a generation before this time. Callas doesn't take any above the staff notes that I am aware of in her recording. That disappointed me. I am a shallow person at times. Unfortunately her studio recording of Bolena was made too late in her career for her to sound good. She went downhill after 61, which was a long haul.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Seattleoperafan said:


> I prefer Callas in Traviata even though Sutherland is very good as Violetta, but despite Callas being so great in Anna Bolena, I prefer Sutherland because of the spectacular high notes she peppers throughout. She has a number of videos of both in concert and from the opera and at around 60 her high D's were absolutely unbelievable, better even than when she was 30. The audience, not made up of our Forum members, went insane!!!! The orchestra members were looking at each other like WTF! The size and beauty of her high notes were incomprehensible. Callas was her only competition above the staff and that was mostly a generation before this time. Callas doesn't take any above the staff notes that I am aware of in her recording. That disappointed me. I am a shallow person at times. Unfortunately her studio recording of Bolena was made too late in her career for her to sound good. She went downhill after 61, which was a long haul.


A little correction about *Anna Bolena*. True,Callas did not pepper the score with unwritten high notes (though she sings a stupendous high D at the end of the big Act I finale), but actually the rest of the role otherwise lies quite low and suits her 1957 voice very well. It was written for Giuditta Pasta, the same singer who created Norma. What you are ejoying could be viewed as more Bonynge than Donizetti. He did much the same with *Semiramide*, which, as written, is more of a mezzo role. (Indeed it has recently been sung by Joyce DiDonato).

There is only one recording of Callas singing the complete opera, and it is live from La Scala in 1957. This is the performance that could be said to have spearheaded the whole of the _bel canto_ revival, as the opera, like all of Donizetti’s tragic operas other than *Lucia di Lamermoor,* was virtually unknown at the time. It was one of her and Visconti’s biggest successes and was covered by the international press at the time. The score is cut quite a bit of course, but it is one of her very finest live recordings and she and Simionato are in fabulous form. According to Richard Fairman in _Opera on Record III_, who compares her performance to those of the likes of Souliotis, Sutherland, Sills and Gencer, “she alone, of latter-day artists, has the power to grasp the emotional crux of every line and put it across.” I've written a fairly extensive review of the recording on my blog, if you're interested, and, like Violetta, I think it one of Callas's very greatest roles.

She recorded only the Mad Scene in the studio in 1958 and it is one of her finest performances. Dramatically, emotionally and musically I doubt anyone has ever done it better.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Tsaraslondon said:


> A little correction about *Anna Bolena*. True,Callas did not pepper the score with unwritten high notes (though she sings a stupendous high D at the end of the big Act I finale), but actually the rest of the role otherwise lies quite low and suits her 1957 voice very well. It was written for Giuditta Pasta, the same singer who created Norma. What you are ejoying could be viewed as more Bonynge than Donizetti. He did much the same with *Semiramide*, which, as written, is more of a mezzo role. (Indeed it has recently been sung by Joyce DiDonato).
> 
> There is only one recording of Callas singing the complete opera, and it is live from La Scala in 1957. This is the performance that could be said to have spearheaded the whole of the _bel canto_ revival, as the opera, like all of Donizetti’s tragic operas other than *Lucia di Lamermoor,* was virtually unknown at the time. It was one of her and Visconti’s biggest successes and was covered by the international press at the time. The score is cut quite a bit of course, but it is one of her very finest live recordings and she and Simionato are in fabulous form. According to Richard Fairman in _Opera on Record III_, who compares her performance to those of the likes of Souliotis, Sutherland, Sills and Gencer, “she alone, of latter-day artists, has the power to grasp the emotional crux of every line and put it across.” I've written a fairly extensive review of the recording on my blog, if you're interested, and, like Violetta, I think it one of Callas's very greatest roles.
> 
> She recorded only the Mad Scene in the studio in 1958 and it is one of her finest performances. Dramatically, emotionally and musically I doubt anyone has ever done it better.


Thanks. I have only heard the Mad Scene that you featured and, yes, it is an amazing performance. You are a fount of knowledge


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

I am Sutherland and Callased to death.
Just as a breather, are there any other singers around to compare like, say, Ponselle vs. Muzio?


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Seattleoperafan said:


> Thanks. I have only heard the Mad Scene that you featured and, yes, it is an amazing performance. You are a fount of knowledge


Talking of *Anna Bolena*, the 1958 revival of the Visconti production is another of those Callas legends that have gone down in history. It was the first time she was appearing at La Scala after the "scandal" of the Rome walk out. For various reasons, not least of which was her refusal to sing an extra uncontracted performance of *La Sonnambula *in Edinburgh, relations between her and Ghiringhelli had cooled enormously and apparently he refused to even greet her when she arrived back at the theatre for rehearsals. The press she recieved after the Rome affair had been vicious and bad feeling against her was so great that La Scala had planted plain clothes police in the theatre in case of any incident. Visconti had re-positioned the chorus in her opening scenes so that any audience member attempting to throw missiles at her wouldn't get a clear view of their target. As it is, there was no such incident, but the audience just ignored her, loudly applauding her colleagues and greeting all her solos with stoney silence. By the end of the first act, Callas had had just about enough. At the point when Henry accuses of her of adultery and tells her that the judges would decide on her innocence, she pushed the guards out of the way and strode to the front of the stage, spitting the lines out directly to the audience. "Giudice! ad Anna! Giudice ad Anna!" Suddenly this was Callas fighting for _her _honour, not Anna's. She then launched into the cabaletta with tremendous, corruscating brilliance and, by the end of the act the audience were going wild. At the end of the performance she had completely won them over, apparently singing one of her most eloquent and moving Mad Scenes ever. When she left the theatre, police had formed a cordon to protect her from people outside the theatre, but news of her success had already reached those waiting outside and instead of boos, she was besiegeed by cheers and floral tributes.

Unfortunately, the Meneghinis returned to their villa to find it daubed with excrement spelling out insulting slogans. And then we wonder why her career was so soon curtailed. It's no wonder the lure of high society and the high life suddenly became more attractive. I think it's entirely credible that she thought she'd had enough of performing.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

nina foresti said:


> I am Sutherland and Callased to death.
> Just as a breather, are there any other singers around to compare like, say, Ponselle vs. Muzio?


Of course one solution would just be to ignore this particular thread altogether. There are plenty of threads I don't find particularly interesting, but don't begrudge the people who do. I just don't bother with them.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Tsaraslondon said:


> Of course one solution would just be to ignore this particular thread altogether. There are plenty of threads I don't find particularly interesting, but don't begrudge the people who do. I just don't bother with them.


Ouch! That slap hurt.
I meant no harm and I apologize for even mentioning it. I never dreamed my remark would be taken in a negative way. I certainly do not begrudge anyone who is enjoying the on-going thread.
No worries. Carry on!


----------



## Shaafee Shameem (Aug 4, 2021)

nina foresti said:


> I am Sutherland and Callased to death.
> Just as a breather, are there any other singers around to compare like, say, Ponselle vs. Muzio?


While I can never have enough of Callas, I too think it would be more fun to compare other singers, particularly ones who are not considered rivals, like Ponselle and Muzio. Another interesting pair, for me at least, would be Tebaldi and Milanov or Cerquetti.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Shaafee Shameem said:


> While I can never have enough of Callas, I too think it would be more fun to compare other singers, particularly ones who are not considered rivals, like Ponselle and Muzio. Another interesting pair, for me at least, would be Tebaldi and Milanov or Cerquetti.


Now I'd have a problem choosing between Ponselle and Muzio, as I like the both equally for different reasons. On the other had, I far prefer Tebaldi to Milanov and probably to Cerquetti, though I know less of her work.

Sutherland, Caballé, Sills and Gencer might also make an interesting comparison, as they shared so much of the same repertoire. All of them benefited from the bel canto revival and sang a lot of the same roles.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Tsaraslondon said:


> Now I'd have a problem choosing between Ponselle and Muzio, as I like the both equally for different reasons. On the other had, I far prefer Tebaldi to Milanov and probably to Cerquetti, though I know less of her work.
> 
> Sutherland, Caballé, Sills and Gencer might also make an interesting comparison, as they shared so much of the same repertoire. All of them benefited from the bel canto revival and sang a lot of the same roles.


That is why Bonetan started the contests.


----------



## Shaafee Shameem (Aug 4, 2021)

Tsaraslondon said:


> Sutherland, Caballé, Sills and Gencer might also make an interesting comparison, as they shared so much of the same repertoire. All of them benefited from the bel canto revival and sang a lot of the same roles.


Indeed, and despite them being grouped together with Callas as the bel canto specialists of the 2nd half of the century, they are extremely different voices with different approaches to the same music. Callas aside, it would be fun to argue which of the four was best suited to bel canto. Each of them have their virtues and weaknesses, though I would personally place Caballe next to Callas, like she herself did.


----------



## Shaafee Shameem (Aug 4, 2021)

Tsaraslondon said:


> Now I'd have a problem choosing between Ponselle and Muzio, as I like the both equally for different reasons. On the other had, I far prefer Tebaldi to Milanov and probably to Cerquetti, though I know less of her work.


I’d choose Muzio over Ponselle in Verismo and Traviata, and Ponselle over Muzio in other Verdi roles. It’s interesting however that Ponselle deemed Muzio better than her as Aida, though didn’t mention her Violetta, which many consider Muzio’s greatest role.
I too prefer Tebaldi to Milanov, I prefer Cerquetti to Milanov as well. Milanov often sounds very clumsy to me, and in my opinion, she doesn’t seem just right in any music, not elegant enough for Bellini or Verdi, not Italianate enough for Puccini or Verismo. She had an easier upper register than both Cerquetti and Tebaldi and was very proficient with piano singing. In all the rest, Tebaldi was superior. Haven’t you heard Cerquetti’s Norma or Amelia? She isn’t as precise as Callas, but she is a fine Norma, in my opinion, the best after Callas and Caballe out of the completely recorded Normas, and an excellent Amelia, the best after Callas.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Shaafee Shameem said:


> I’d choose Muzio over Ponselle in Verismo and Traviata, and Ponselle over Muzio in other Verdi roles. It’s interesting however that Ponselle deemed Muzio better than her as Aida, though didn’t mention her Violetta, which many consider Muzio’s greatest role.
> I too prefer Tebaldi to Milanov, I prefer Cerquetti to Milanov as well. Milanov often sounds very clumsy to me, and in my opinion, she doesn’t seem just right in any music, not elegant enough for Bellini or Verdi, not Italianate enough for Puccini or Verismo. She had an easier upper register than both Cerquetti and Tebaldi and was very proficient with piano singing. In all the rest, Tebaldi was superior. Haven’t you heard Cerquetti’s Norma or Amelia? She isn’t as precise as Callas, but she is a fine Norma, in my opinion, the best after Callas and Caballe out of the completely recorded Normas, and an excellent Amelia, the best after Callas.


I have heard Cerquetti's Norma, but it was a long time ago, and everyone I heard in the role was a disappointent after Callas, even Caballé. I've since seen (and bought) the Orange performance, and she really was on fire that night. It's actually the only non-Callas Norma I enjoy. I haven't heard Cerquetti's Amelia.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

MAS said:


> I once played _Casta Diva _for a friend, one by Sutherland (her first, in G) and one by Callas. His verdict was that to him Sutherland sounded like a goddess, Callas very human! He took nothing else into consideration.
> Our friendship survived.


This is actually why I prefer Callas in that role. Norma isn't supposed to sound like a goddess. She's deeply human with more flaws, more raw vulnerability, Sutherland's Norma comes off a bit too much like Athena when she is supposed to be more like Dido or Medea.
side note: That wasn't her first. There is a recording for the 50s where she sings it in F.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Here are some examples of what I mean by "Callas is dramatic but not heroic" (this is not a criticism. I've enjoyed each of these clips for years, and they demonstrate some very good singing).

The voice here displays venom, contempt, opportunism. A bit like Cersei Lannister as an opera singer. 





naked ambition, biting, grandiose (and this fits the opera. Abigaille is often sung as if she were a more heroic figure, when really her personality is more "yeah, I know I'm a b___")





anguish, betrayal, revenge, unrestrained rage 





swagger, sass, lust, forbidden temptation, vivacity





When I say "heroic", what I really mean is more in the sense of a Homeric epic. Callas's singing was always natural and authentic, but it was rarely _effortless. _Meanwhile, I appreciate *Seattleoperafan's *comparison of Sutherland's voice to an archangel. Callas's voice _did _powerful. Sutherland's voice _was _powerful, and that effortlessness, while sometimes a hindrance to good acting, gave some of her more dramatic work an heir of authority about it. Less womanly cries of torment, more angelic gleam and supernatural beauty.


----------



## ColdGenius (9 mo ago)

Shaafee Shameem said:


> I’d choose Muzio over Ponselle in Verismo and Traviata, and Ponselle over Muzio in other Verdi roles. It’s interesting however that Ponselle deemed Muzio better than her as Aida, though didn’t mention her Violetta, which many consider Muzio’s greatest role.
> I too prefer Tebaldi to Milanov, I prefer Cerquetti to Milanov as well. Milanov often sounds very clumsy to me, and in my opinion, she doesn’t seem just right in any music, not elegant enough for Bellini or Verdi, not Italianate enough for Puccini or Verismo. She had an easier upper register than both Cerquetti and Tebaldi and was very proficient with piano singing. In all the rest, Tebaldi was superior. Haven’t you heard Cerquetti’s Norma or Amelia? She isn’t as precise as Callas, but she is a fine Norma, in my opinion, the best after Callas and Caballe out of the completely recorded Normas, and an excellent Amelia, the best after Callas.


There are also Cerquetti's Gioconda and Elisabetta Valois in the net.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> Here are some examples of what I mean by "Callas is dramatic but not heroic" (this is not a criticism. I've enjoyed each of these clips for years, and they demonstrate some very good singing).
> 
> The voice here displays venom, contempt, opportunism. A bit like Cersei Lannister as an opera singer.
> 
> ...


Either intentionally or not, you've more or less described one of the things that makes Callas great, which is her emotional range. Most voices, especially those which might be described as more conventionally beautiful, don't have such a wide palette of colours at their disposal, but here we have Callas expressing, in your words, venom, contempt, opportunism, naked ambition, grandiosity, anguish, betrayal, unrestrained rage, swagger, sass, lust, forbidden temptation and vivacity, and the voice had the capacity to express even more than those.

Even in sweeter, lighter roles like Gilda, Amina, Mimi and Rosina, though she might use the same brighter, more forward placement, she creates four quite distinct characters and we can hear how happiness for Amina, for instance, is quite a different thing from what it is for Rosina. The librettist for *La Sonnambula*, Felice Romani, once said of Amina,

_"The role of Amina, even though at first glance it may seem very easy to interpret, is perhaps more difficult than many others which are deemed more important. It requires an actress who is playful, ingenuous and innocent, and at the same time passionate, sensitive and amorous; who has a cry for joy and also a cry for sorrow, an accent for reproach and another for entreaty… This was the role created by Bellini’s intellect."_

Only Callas, in my experience, really has that cry for joy and that cry for sorrow. Her singing may not always be classically beautiful, but it is always beautifully expressed and the often cardboard character of Amina becomes a living, breathing human being.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Tsaraslondon said:


> *Either intentionally or not, you've more or less described one of the things that makes Callas great, which is her emotional range.* Most voices, especially those which might be described as more conventionally beautiful, don't have such a wide palette of colours at their disposal, but here we have Callas expressing, in your words, venom, contempt, opportunism, naked ambition, grandiosity, anguish, betrayal, unrestrained rage, swagger, sass, lust, forbidden temptation and vivacity, and the voice had the capacity to express even more than those.


It was 100% the intention, as well as a partial response to *Woodduck's *comment regarding"reduction of the complex and multidimensional musical artist who is Callas"


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> It was 100% the intention, as well as a partial response to *Woodduck's *comment regarding"reduction of the complex and multidimensional musical artist who is Callas"


Thanks. I'm reassured.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Perhaps part of my reason for giving Sutherland the slight edge is that she is just easier to listen to. Maria Callas is...a whole experience, something you listen to when you want to be fully immersed, but with the expectation that you will be tired at the end of it.


----------

