# Singers who ruined (/set the bar too high for) opera for you



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

one singer who comes to mind immediately for me is _Samuel Ramey_ who, the more I think about it, is a freak of nature as far as male voices are concerned, possessing a bizarre combination of
- the deep, resonant timbre and lower extension of a basso profundo
- high notes which puts most spinto tenors to shame
- agility which puts most coloraturas to shame
- the elegance of a bel canto soprano

it's hard enough finding basses who possess even _one_ of these characteristics, but in combination (especially when combined with a charismatic stage presence).....wow. I have yet to find a bass who comes even close. there are basses I can objectively recognize as great singers (Ciepi, Hines, Ghiaurov, etc), but not of them really thrill me the way Ramey does. frankly, with a handful of exceptions, he's almost ruined the entire fach for me.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

*Riccardo Stracciari (1875-1955)*, the Italian baritone who came nearest to having everything: brilliance, depth, power, range, agility, legato, style, emotion, vocal longevity. Rosa Ponselle said his voice was like "a shower of diamonds."

"Il balen": 




"Eri tu": 




"Largo al factotum": 




Ponselle again: "Now _that's_ a baritone!"


----------



## graziesignore (Mar 13, 2015)

Thanks for the tip on Stracciari! Me likey.

I'm very partial to Giorgio Zancanaro, who has "ruined" many a baritone for me. I cannot name names, only that they tend to be post-1980s and I occasionally leap up in the middle of their arias and exclaim "No. Just...no." 

(By the way, on listening to the Il Balen you posted, I noticed that Stracciari seemed to aspirate vowels a bit and was wondering if that's an "Italianate" habit because Bastianini and Zancanaro did it too...)

I love Ramey as well, although he seems not to have ruined other basses for me.

I am still in search of my soprano ruin.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Stracciari and Ponselle singing together:






Personally, I haven't had that feeling so far. I mean, no matter how much I admire a particular singer, or a particular performance, I'm still able to enjoy others without any issue.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

graziesignore said:


> (By the way, on listening to the Il Balen you posted, I noticed that Stracciari seemed to aspirate vowels a bit and was wondering if that's an "Italianate" habit because Bastianini and Zancanaro did it too...)


That's a decadent verismo habit that I've always found very annoying. I suppose it started with the Italians, and they seem to be the most egregious offenders. You don't hear older baritones like Kaschmann or Battistini doing it, as far as I know. The only records Stracciari ruins for me are his own! :devil: (OK, he made some good ones as well.)


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Figleaf said:


> That's a decadent verismo habit that I've always found very annoying. I suppose it started with the Italians, and they seem to be the most egregious offenders. You don't hear older baritones like Kaschmann or Battistini doing it, as far as I know. The only records Stracciari ruins for me are his own! :devil: (OK, he made some good ones as well.)


Aspiration of vowels, whether or not we approve of it, didn't begin with verismo, though I suspect the more vehement style of verismo increased its prevalence. We do in fact hear it in Battistini's singing:






Notice that it occurs mainly on quick notes; in slower-moving passages he always maintains a smooth legato connection. But if you'll listen again to Stracciari's "Il balen" (assuming you listened to it before, given that you think he "ruined" his own records) you will hear that the aspirates occur, like Battistini's, on quick notes, and that his legato cantilena is impeccable - superior to most baritones we've heard since, certainly. The aspirate, if not used too much or in inappropriate places, could be felt to be a device of expressive articulation; I'm sure singers of the level of accomplishment of Battistini and Stracciari were not unconscious of using it, and it certainly doesn't represent a technical flaw or an inability to make a legato connection.

Stracciari, for me, is similar to Caruso in that he bestrides two eras and styles; he has the faultless technique and stylistic flair that show his bel canto origins, allied with the visceral excitement and power which musical styles of the late 19th and 20th centuries required. The result is the kind of singer which we've come to call the "Verdi baritone," of which I have never heard a finer representative than Stracciari.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> one singer who comes to mind immediately for me is _Samuel Ramey_ who, the more I think about it, is a freak of nature as far as male voices are concerned, possessing a bizarre combination of
> - the deep, resonant timbre and lower extension of a basso profundo
> - high notes which puts most spinto tenors to shame
> - agility which puts most coloraturas to shame
> ...


I love Nicolai Ghiaurov but agree with you about Ramey, at least when it comes to Rossini.

For me it's more a case of certain singers "ruining" certain arias. For instance, I cannot imagine anyone singing "The Soldier Tired" by Thomas Arne better than, or even as good as, Joan Sutherland.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> *Riccardo Stracciari (1875-1955)*, the Italian baritone who came nearest to having everything: brilliance, depth, power, range, agility, legato, style, emotion, vocal longevity. Rosa Ponselle said his voice was like "a shower of diamonds."
> 
> "Il balen":
> 
> ...


Sorry but when I hear clips like this I just wonder what all the fuss is about. It may be the ancient recording but this guy doesn't compare - let alone surpass - some of the modern singers. He may have been considered great in his day but when I hear him I just ask, "But why?"


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Sorry but when I hear clips like this I just wonder what all the fuss is about. It may be the ancient recording but this guy doesn't compare - let alone surpass - some of the modern singers. He may have been considered great in his day but when I hear him I just ask, "But why?"


I'm in a library so I can't listen to the clips, but speaking generally this is what I think: while I do believe you have to allow for both limitations in recorded sound and "the style of the times," as well as the possibility that some of these singers weren't totally comfortable in front of a microphone, I _have_ sometimes had the same experience as you, DavidA -- with, for example, Aureliano Pertile. No matter how many times I listen I cannot hear why he was/is considered so great. So while I do love certain singers from about the same time (Ponselle, De Luca), and I can easily hear their greatness on recordings, in general I just prefer more modern artists.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

graziesignore said:


> I am still in search of my soprano ruin.


that will be the subject of my next post. to be honest, I'm kind of glad I'm not a soprano, because listening to certain sopranos is the equivalent for female singers of those teenage girls who awe over air brushed models/actresses who they can never realistically expect to look like.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Samuel Ramey with his fabulous bass sound was just perfect and a great entertainer till Mother Nature intervened too early on and delivered an unwanted wobble to his otherwise wonderful sound.

Rolando Villazon -- an exciting, refreshing talent that misused his voice to the detriment of the opera world. A sad story.

Jose Carerras and Giuseppe diStefano both stepped over the line later on with dire consequences.


----------



## Wood (Feb 21, 2013)

Bellinilover said:


> I'm in a library so I can't listen to the clips, but speaking generally this is what I think: *while I do believe you have to allow for both limitations in recorded sound and "the style of the times," as well as the possibility that some of these singers weren't totally comfortable in front of a microphone*, I _have_ sometimes had the same experience as you, DavidA -- with, for example, Aureliano Pertile. No matter how many times I listen I cannot hear why he was/is considered so great. So while I do love certain singers from about the same time (Ponselle, De Luca), and I can easily hear their greatness on recordings, in general I just prefer more modern artists.


I don't make any allowances Bellinilover. I just listen to what is on the record. I am an ignoramus on opera, and blown away by the knowledge of vocal technique displayed by Figleaf , Wooduck and others. I don't spend enough time on it to be an expert listener to opera, so I'm not sure if my opinion counts. Nevertheless, I have found that the early recordings, and more specifically acoustic recordings, have an immediacy, naturalism and poignancy that I don't get from the modern artists that dominate my collection.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Sorry but when I hear clips like this I just wonder what all the fuss is about. It may be the ancient recording but this guy doesn't compare - let alone surpass - some of the modern singers. He may have been considered great in his day but when I hear him I just ask, "But why?"


In brief, there are specific things to listen for in evaluating a singer's vocal accomplishment. Whether one can hear those things is another matter. It's useful to have sung oneself, or to have worked with singers. Here are the things I look for:

1. Ease of vocal emission. Does the sound seem to spin out freely, or is there a sense of forcing or unnecessary effort?
2. Consistency of vocal emission. Does the sound seem to be produced with similar ease and quality at all times, or do changes in pitch, volume, and velocity cause distortions in these aspects?
3. Evenness of scale. Is there consistency in the timbre and production of the voice throughout its range, or are there distinct differences in quality or abrupt shifts in sound as the voice moves up and down its range?
4. Freedom and consistency of vibrato. Does the vibrato have a quick, even pulsation, fairly consistent despite changes in pitch and volume, or is it irregular, slow, quavery, or excessively wide (obscuring the pitch of the sung note)? Anomalies in the vibrato are due to muscular interference, wear, or fatigue.
5. Control of dynamics (volume). Can the voice move freely among dynamic levels, swelling and diminishing the tone at will without compromising evenness of production? This is a hallmark and test of a fine technique, and a requisite of expressive singing.
6. Flexibility or agility. Can the voice move quickly and freely from note to note? Voices vary naturally in this respect; a lack of agility may or may not indicate poor technique, but it is certainly a disadvantage.

These are the basic elements of vocal technique, all of them quite perceptible. They are objectively present in voices and are not, for the most part, matters of personal taste. The only partial exception is the vibrato; vibratos naturally vary considerably from singer to singer, and a vibrato which strikes a particular listener as unattractively wide or prominent may or may not indicate a technical deficiency. Wide vibratos have never been prized, however, for the reason that they tend to obscure pitch, if for no other.

Beyond technical considerations are musical and stylistic ones - but that's an immense subject.

Bringing this back to Stracciari in particular, he was a great singer in that he was virtually flawless by all the above technical criteria. I would submit that he was also a fine musician with excellent style in the repertoire he sang. If you would care to compare him directly with other baritones, I'll refer you to my post of 3/4/15 under the thread "Which singer best represents each fach?", where I compare nine other baritones of various generations from Battistini to Milnes, using the aria "Eri tu" from _Un Ballo in Maschera_ as a test piece.

http://www.talkclassical.com/36837-singer-best-represents-each.html?highlight=stracciari

That was an exercise I found enjoyable and enlightening.

(As a postscript, I want to say that I do see the OP as asking for our personal tastes and not necessarily objective proofs of anything. Stracciari is a favorite of mine who I think is as fine a baritone as I've ever heard, but there have been others; among Italian baritones I also love Battistini, a great representative of the bel canto school of the 19th century, and Pasquale Amato, who unfortunately burned out too soon, apparently trying to compete with the powerhouse Titta Ruffo.)


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

nina foresti said:


> Samuel Ramey with his fabulous bass sound was just perfect and a great entertainer till Mother Nature intervened too early on and delivered an unwanted wobble to his otherwise wonderful sound.
> 
> Rolando Villazon -- an exciting, refreshing talent that misused his voice to the detriment of the opera world. A sad story.
> 
> Jose Carerras and Giuseppe diStefano both stepped over the line later on with dire consequences.


I don't think it was a case of 'stepping over the line' with Carreras; I think it was because he was ill.

Carreras' recorded speech to the European Union in 2009.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> In brief, there are specific things to listen for in evaluating a singer's vocal accomplishment. Whether one can hear those things is another matter. It's useful to have sung oneself, or to have worked with singers. Here are the things I look for:
> 
> 1. Ease of vocal emission. Does the sound seem to spin out freely, or is there a sense of forcing or unnecessary effort?
> 2. Consistency of vocal emission. Does the sound seem to be produced with similar ease and quality at all times, or do changes in pitch, volume, and velocity cause distortions in these aspects?
> ...


the only thing is that as a paying customer for opera I don't ask these sort of technical questions. The main question I ask is do I like his voice? Would I want to sit and listen to it all evening? Now it may be the aged technology but would I want to hear Stracciari's Figaro more than (say) Bruscantini's and the answer is 'No'. As I say it's difficult to judge with ancient recordings but I've always found myself very puzzled when people come up with the view these people were incomparable. I've no doubt they were great in their day in the same way (say) Emil Zatopek was a great runner in his day. But Zatopek's times have been surpassed.


----------



## Diminuendo (May 5, 2015)

Callas and Gobbi for me. Whenever I'm listening to another baritone or soprano I feel something is missing. With tenors I don't have problems, even though I Di Stefano is my absolute favorite.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> the only thing is that as a paying customer for opera I don't ask these sort of technical questions. The main question I ask is do I like his voice? Would I want to sit and listen to it all evening? Now it may be the aged technology but would I want to hear Stracciari's Figaro more than (say) Bruscantini's and the answer is 'No'. As I say it's difficult to judge with ancient recordings but I've always found myself very puzzled when people come up with the view these people were incomparable. I've no doubt they were great in their day in the same way (say) Emil Zatopek was a great runner in his day. But Zatopek's times have been surpassed.


I don't think it gets us anywhere to throw generalizations about. I haven't talked about "these people." I've talked about a particular singer I think is superb, and I've said why, in some detail now.

I don't generally "ask technical questions" either when I hear singers. I merely hear their technical skill, of which I consider myself a pretty good judge. You asked, listening to Stracciari, "but why?" I did my darnedest to tell you why. If you don't hear the things I hear, you might keep listening - or, if you don't want to hear or learn, not listen. That's your prerogative. Enjoy whatever you want to enjoy. I don't care. But I'm not interested in arguments which are not arguments for or about anything except your inability to see what I'm talking about.

I could take you, bar by bar, through a Stracciari performance of "Largo al factotum" (he made several recordings) such as this one: 



 and show you the points of vocal superiority to this one by Bruscantini: 



 It would still be perfectly legitimate for you to prefer Bruscantini (a fine singer, certainly) on grounds of timbre preference or interpretation. Obviously the recorded sound is superior, if that is an issue for you.

As for your comparison of singers with athletes breaking the records of their predecessors, music is not athletics. It should be obvious that not everything improves with time. You might as well say that Mozart was a great composer in his time, but that Mozart's times have been surpassed. I'll remind you of that next time you put down Wagner.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> I don't think it gets us anywhere to throw generalizations about. I haven't talked about "these people." I've talked about a particular singer I think is superb, and I've said why, in some detail now.
> 
> I don't generally "ask technical questions" either when I hear singers. I merely hear their technical skill, of which I consider myself a pretty good judge. You asked, listening to Stracciari, "but why?" *I did my darnedest to tell you why. If you don't hear the things I hear, you might keep listening - or, if you don't want to hear or learn, not listen.* That's your prerogative. *Enjoy whatever you want to enjoy. I don't care. But I'm not interested in arguments which are not arguments for or about anything except your inability to see what I'm talking about. *
> 
> ...


The comparison with Zatopek was, of course, not dealing with a creative artist. Singers are not creative artists. I would certainly not used the comparison in dealing with composers as it does not apply. In any case it is an incomplete analogy not to be pushed to its limit. 
It's not that I don't know what you are talking about, as I thought I'd made clear that is not the issue. I've had musical training and I understand (most of) the technical stuff. I also have a wife who has taught singing! But what I am talking about is preferences of the listener. Our problems seem the same, friend. You don't appear to get what I am talking about! Our priorities are different! But let's agree to differ on that!  Happy listening!


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

I have found the opposite effect. Nobody has set the bar so high that the others have been ruined.....actually the bar seems to get set so high by other opera fans for Callas, Tebaldi, and the other greats (and great they truly are) that I expect to get blown away but that doesn't always happen.

On the flip side, I almost never hear people rave about Beverly Sills. I borrowed a CD of hers from the library on a whim....and I was thrilled by her singing. Her beautiful diction, wonderful coloratura. She is a delight to listen to and I cannot wait to hear her on Barber of Seville. This doesn't mean I like her better than other opera singers I enjoy, I actually don't know who I enjoy the most. I have only just started exploring individual singers, as my previous discoveries were more focused on opera reportoire and specific composers. I really look forward to journeying along more really getting a feel for the different unique facets of the singers. And while I fully intend to indulge in the big names, I look forward to going off the beaten path from time to time due to pleasant surprises like this.


----------



## graziesignore (Mar 13, 2015)

I have found it very interesting (or at least amusing/endearing) how some singers who fulfill so many qualities of basic good singing (and I think Woodduck has made a nice rundown of points) can have this or that single glaring bad habit that -- while not affecting your overall enjoyment -- makes you want to take them out to the woodshed on occasion.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> I don't think it gets us anywhere to throw generalizations about. I haven't talked about "these people." I've talked about a particular singer I think is superb, and I've said why, in some detail now.
> 
> I don't generally "ask technical questions" either when I hear singers. I merely hear their technical skill, of which I consider myself a pretty good judge. You asked, listening to Stracciari, "but why?" I did my darnedest to tell you why. If you don't hear the things I hear, you might keep listening - or, if you don't want to hear or learn, not listen. That's your prerogative. Enjoy whatever you want to enjoy. I don't care. But I'm not interested in arguments which are not arguments for or about anything except your inability to see what I'm talking about.
> 
> ...


I fully agree.

Stracciari's baritone voice was as beautiful as they get, rounder and fuller than the voice of his contemporaries Ruffo, Molinari, de Luca or Amato, and with stronger low notes than a Battistini. His capacity to sing legato was legendary. Let me quote Rodolfo Celletti: "The voice was velvety and delicate, uniform in all registers, with brilliant top notes, and strong low notes. Wonderful technique: impeccable emission, perfect diction, elegant phrasing, flawless musicality".

On the other hand, he was sometimes considered by the critics as too cold, too restrained on stage, centered in a quest for vocal perfection. In my view, however, he sang his roles, and especially Verdi's roles, just with the right balance between the traditional Belcanto technique, and the dramatic expressiveness favored in the early 20th century.

I listen frequently to Stracciari's arias, and sometimes also to his complete recordings of "Rigoletto" and "Barbiere". But perhaps my favorite piece from him is this one:


----------



## graziesignore (Mar 13, 2015)

I gotta say, Stracciari's devotion to a clean line of singing is exactly why I like Italian baritones in general, (and, for me, Zancanaro in particular). Why has this style of singing fallen out of fashion? Is there no joy in voices that ride the natural line of the music without artificial emoting? Why do we knee-jerk prefer HUGE voices to voices that are seamless in all registers? Why do we tolerate singers who (again, I won't name names) pause for huge ugly gasps of breath in the middle of what should be a flawlessly executed line? 

It is frustrating for me because I don't even understand how some singers today can get work, much less be acclaimed Met-worthy.

(shutting up now)


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

graziesignore said:


> I gotta say, Stracciari's devotion to a clean line of singing is exactly why I like Italian baritones in general, (and, for me, Zancanaro in particular). Why has this style of singing fallen out of fashion? Is there no joy in voices that ride the natural line of the music without artificial emoting? Why do we knee-jerk prefer HUGE voices to voices that are seamless in all registers? Why do we tolerate singers who (again, I won't name names) pause for huge ugly gasps of breath in the middle of what should be a flawlessly executed line?
> 
> *It is frustrating for me because I don't even understand how some singers today can get work, much less be acclaimed Met-worthy.*


I guess the answer is: if you want to perform the operas, somebody has to sing them.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Aspiration of vowels, whether or not we approve of it, didn't begin with verismo, though I suspect the more vehement style of verismo increased its prevalence. We do in fact hear it in Battistini's singing:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you, that's a good example of a Battistini record with aspirated vowels, so I stand corrected! I think that, not having listened to that record very attentively before, I'd been inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. I'm not sure about aspirates as an affective device: I'm sure singers often did it intentionally where they did it at all, but it smacks of either carelessness or poor taste. Regarding the modern 'Verdi baritone' as a kind of verismo singer with bel canto roots, I prefer those who are more bel canto oriented than verismo oriented. One could put Stracciari in that category, but I don't like his voice much and the aspirates (more blatant than Battistini's) really bother me. Here's a more recent Verdi baritone who sounds to me like a bel canto throwback, in a totally good way: he's Pavel Lisitsian, singing Eri tu, and I prefer his recording to Stracciari's mostly excellent one- largely because his timbre is so much pleasanter to my ear. He certainly 'ruins' most other baritones of the LP era for me!








Woodduck said:


> I could take you, bar by bar, through a Stracciari performance of "Largo al factotum" (he made several recordings) such as this one:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I still say Peter Dawson's is better! 



Bellinilover said:


> I'm in a library so I can't listen to the clips, but speaking generally this is what I think: while I do believe you have to allow for both limitations in recorded sound and "the style of the times," as well as the possibility that some of these singers weren't totally comfortable in front of a microphone, I _have_ sometimes had the same experience as you, DavidA -- with, for example, Aureliano Pertile. No matter how many times I listen I cannot hear why he was/is considered so great. So while I do love certain singers from about the same time (Ponselle, De Luca), and I can easily hear their greatness on recordings, in general I just prefer more modern artists.





Sonata said:


> I have found the opposite effect. Nobody has set the bar so high that the others have been ruined.....actually the bar seems to get set so high by other opera fans for Callas, Tebaldi, and the other greats (and great they truly are) that I expect to get blown away but that doesn't always happen.
> 
> On the flip side, I almost never hear people rave about Beverly Sills. I borrowed a CD of hers from the library on a whim....and I was thrilled by her singing. .... And while I fully intend to indulge in the big names, I look forward to going off the beaten path from time to time due to pleasant surprises like this.


Reputations get exaggerated. Before the internet, critics wielded a disproportionate amount of power, and their enthusiasms for certain singers of the past and their aversion to others seemed to become received opinion. Lack of reissues on vinyl or even CD made it especially hard to reevaluate the reputations of singers whose recordings were deprecated or overlooked by the mid to late 20th century's arbiters of taste. I have shared Bellinilover's experience of disappointment with Pertile, an excellent example of a singer elevated to near godlike status whose records were in many cases really bad. Yet very frequently, Youtube yields excellent examples of singing from the same era by artists who may well have enjoyed success in their own time but whose names are a great deal less familiar to us than those of singers like Pertile, whose reputation is so towering and whose recordings are often so disappointing.



DavidA said:


> . As I say it's difficult to judge with ancient recordings but I've always found myself very puzzled when people come up with the view these people were incomparable. I've no doubt they were great in their day in the same way (say) Emil Zatopek was a great runner in his day. But Zatopek's times have been surpassed.


Many singers' times have remained unsurpassed for a century or more. There were some _very_ rushed tempi necessary to get a whole aria on to a 10 inch record!


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

I wanted to open the thread with a less cliche example, but, frankly, Joan Sutherland blows most out of the water in the rep she sings and has definitely dulled my appreciation for the other soprano voices of the world. 
- a large, dramatic voice which can also be _delicate_ and _feminine_. when I hear other dramatic female voices, they often come off like drag queens, bellowing through what should be a sensual, amorous aria of romance and/or tragedy. 
- similarly, a dramatic voice with easy, spinning high notes, a bright, _heroic_ timbre and an elegant vocal line which puts all but the most seasoned bel canto specialists to shame
- among the handful of real dramatic coloratura sopranos to have made proper recordings (Edita Gruberova and Diana Damrau are not dramatic coloratura sopranos. that people call any coloratura soprano with even a reasonable amount of vocal power dramatic is an annoying trend). when I listen to other coloratura singers, it sounds like they are missing the bottom 2/3 of their voice, and when I listen to dramatic sopranos, they sound like they are missing the last top 1/3 (though admittedly, I still listen to Sutherland and wonder where the bottom 1/3 went )

while she has not completely ruined the soprano voice for me, Sutherland is probably the main reason why I prefer sopranos with powerful chest registers, because that sort of "fills in the gaps" of my vocal collection. additionally, she is probably the biggest reason why I prefer middle weight voices, because I need florid, elegant, graceful singing _and_ formidable power and authority. having either one or the other simply isn't enough to satisfy me.


----------



## Volve (Apr 14, 2013)

Christa Ludwig did it for me. I can never enjoy someone singing Ortrud again thanks to her.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Figleaf said:


> Thank you, that's a good example of a Battistini record with aspirated vowels, so I stand corrected! I think that, not having listened to that record very attentively before, I'd been inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. I'm not sure about aspirates as an affective device: I'm sure singers often did it intentionally where they did it at all, but it smacks of either carelessness or poor taste. Regarding the modern 'Verdi baritone' as a kind of verismo singer with bel canto roots, I prefer those who are more bel canto oriented than verismo oriented. One could put Stracciari in that category, but I don't like his voice much and the aspirates (more blatant than Battistini's) really bother me. Here's a more recent Verdi baritone who sounds to me like a bel canto throwback, in a totally good way: he's Pavel Lisitsian, singing Eri tu, and I prefer his recording to Stracciari's mostly excellent one- largely because his timbre is so much pleasanter to my ear. He certainly 'ruins' most other baritones of the LP era for me!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Lisitsian was a superb singer, no question. His singing and style will get no criticism here. I do find Russian a bit hard to swallow in such quintessentially Italian music; he sounds great, while his gulped vowels sound as absurd here as they sound fine in Mussorgsky. Best of the postwar baritones? Maybe so, technically, but not my favorite baritone sound.

Yeah, Dawson's utterly delightful. As a _voice,_ though? Come on now, be honest...

I agree that some singers have inflated reputations. It's inevitable. A few singers _I_ don't "get"? Martinelli, top of the list. I find him positively horrifying. He sings like an elephant in heat. Pertile? Tend to agree with others here. Varnay: a ponderous, crude voice, a long way from bel canto. But I see the forgottenness of many great singers as more unfortunate than the overestimation of a few.

Well, this isn't supposed to be about singers we dislike, so I'll stop before I get into any more trouble.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Lisitsian was a superb singer, no question. His singing and style will get no criticism here. I do find Russian a bit hard to swallow in such quintessentially Italian music; he sounds great, while his gulped vowels sound as absurd here as they sound fine in Mussorgsky. Best of the postwar baritones? Maybe so, technically, but not my favorite baritone sound.
> 
> Yeah, Dawson's utterly delightful. As a _voice,_ though? Come on now, be honest...
> 
> ...


Yes, the forgottenness of great singers is far worse than the overestimation of a few, no argument! I've been pondering the question of whether Peter Dawson had a great voice. I think he did, though it obviously wasn't quite as opulent a sound as those of the very greatest bass baritones of his time like van Rooy or Schorr (the latter a prolific 'ruiner' of other singers' records of Lieder). I love Dawson for his unassuming virtuosity and the unfailing tastefulness of his singing, and for a certain straightforward muscular Edwardian Britishness he had, more useful in the song repertoire associated with him than in operatic arias perhaps. I found this interesting recording of Iago's Credo on Youtube:






Perhaps he hasn't quite 'ruined' that one- a casualty of the English translation and not really sounding evil enough- but it's still good, and I can't help thinking his reputation would be greater if he had been Pietro D' Osonio and recorded arias in the original language, instead of being the British-based concert singer he was.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> The comparison with Zatopek was, of course, not dealing with a creative artist. Singers are not creative artists. I would certainly not used the comparison in dealing with composers as it does not apply. In any case it is an incomplete analogy not to be pushed to its limit.
> It's not that I don't know what you are talking about, as I thought I'd made clear that is not the issue. I've had musical training and I understand (most of) the technical stuff. I also have a wife who has taught singing! But what I am talking about is preferences of the listener. Our problems seem the same, friend. You don't appear to get what I am talking about! Our priorities are different! But let's agree to differ on that!  Happy listening!


Sorry, but I do not agree that "our problems are the same."

You began this conversation by saying you didn't know why I thought Stracciari was a great singer. You said _ "Sorry but when I hear clips like this I just wonder what all the fuss is about. It may be the ancient recording but this guy doesn't compare - let alone surpass - some of the modern singers. He may have been considered great in his day but when I hear him I just ask, "But why?" _

Thinking you might really want to know "why," I proceed to tell you what I think are the criteria of a great singer and why I think Stracciari meets them. You then say _"I don't ask these sorts of technical questions. The main question I ask is do I like his voice?...As I say it's difficult to judge with ancient recordings but I've always found myself very puzzled when people come up with the view these people were incomparable."_

I try to elaborate a bit on my previous explanation, still harboring some illusion that you actually want to understand why Stracciari is considered a great singer. But all you can say is _"what I am talking about is preferences of the listener."_

Well. I may be a little slow, but I think I'm getting it now. Obviously you don't really care why some singers are considered great, and your question wasn't a real question. So why did you ask it and put me to the trouble of answering it, when what you really wanted to say is that you're not impressed by Stracciari or other singers on those old recordings, and that all that matters to you is what you like, just because you like it - so take _that_, all you bloody connoisseurs of singing who think you know so much!

Then, having admitted that knowledge of singing is not your concern, you make a completely insupportable claim of - guess what? _knowledge of singing!_ - by posing an analogy purporting to show that modern singers must have surpassed their predecessors. _Why_ have they? Because athletes have!

And now you are saying that _"our problems seem the same"?_ No. They don't. I do not have the same problem as you, whatever the heck that is. _My_ problem is being asked to explain something to someone who doesn't give a fig for the explanation, but just wants to flaunt his personal tastes in the faces of people who actually have some ideas on the subject.

Next time, just say "personally, I prefer Bruscantini." I will try to remember not to ask you why.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Figleaf said:


> Yes, the forgottenness of great singers is far worse than the overestimation of a few, no argument! I've been pondering the question of whether Peter Dawson had a great voice. I think he did, though it obviously wasn't quite as opulent a sound as those of the very greatest bass baritones of his time like van Rooy or Schorr (the latter a prolific 'ruiner' of other singers' records of Lieder). I love Dawson for his unassuming virtuosity and the unfailing tastefulness of his singing, and for a certain straightforward muscular Edwardian Britishness he had, more useful in the song repertoire associated with him than in operatic arias perhaps. I found this interesting recording of Iago's Credo on Youtube:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm going to differ with you and say that Dawson was a great singer with something less than a great instrument. I really did enjoy this, but a bit more "opulence" of timbre is important to me. I know it's a subjective preference, but for Iago? Darkness and weight of tone really is needed. I can't believe Dawson is evil; just set him alongside, say, Gobbi. A difference of "Night and Day" (Dawson could sing that quite stylishly, don't you think? With a little Noel Coward attitude?). He has a veddy British sound, to my ears - sort of reedy. No offense, but I can't help visualizing G & S when I hear him.

"Batti, batti..." (I'm covering my head).


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

Having read the posts several times, I'm honestly puzzled as to what precisely the above conflict is all about. At any rate, I don't think I'll be participating in this thread anymore.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Bellinilover said:


> Having read the posts several times, I'm honestly puzzled as to what precisely the above conflict is all about. At any rate, I don't think I'll be participating in this thread anymore.


The above conflict is about someone asking me a question about singing, not really wanting an answer, and showing disrespect for my sincere and detailed efforts to provide an answer.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Sorry, but I do not agree that "our problems are the same."
> 
> You began this conversation by saying you didn't know why I thought Stracciari was a great singer. You said _ "Sorry but when I hear clips like this I just wonder what all the fuss is about. It may be the ancient recording but this guy doesn't compare - let alone surpass - some of the modern singers. He may have been considered great in his day but when I hear him I just ask, "But why?" _
> 
> ...


I'm sorry you appear to consider someone disagreeing with you amounts to disrespect. It's not like that at all. Just I have my opinion. I said in the beginning that personally I prefer Bruscantini by what comes out of the speakers. You don't seem to have accepted that point and launched into why you thought Stracciari was wonderful. Fine! I've no problem with that. But when I say that these technical issues are not the chief thing I look for you appear to get offended and think it's disrespectful. Sorry! But we think differently! As I said before I just wanted to agree to differ but you can't seem to accept that. Sorry!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Diminuendo said:


> Callas and Gobbi for me. Whenever I'm listening to another baritone or soprano I feel something is missing. With tenors I don't have problems, even though I Di Stefano is my absolute favorite.


Callas and Gobbi were both Incomperably as vocal actors. However the actual sound of their voices have certainly been surpassed by others. Why no singer could ever 'ruin' things for me as everyone has something different to bring to the table. Mind you, Gobbi's credo takes some beating!


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Singers are not creative artists


If you really mean this, then I can only think you are listening to the wrong singers.

Great singers 'create' as do all *great* musicians - their interpretations are creative (and in both 'big C' and 'little c' terms of creativity) and the greatest singers have changed the repertoire, the critical reception of aspects of the repertoire, understanding of specific pieces etc etc etc


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> I'm going to differ with you and say that Dawson was a great singer with something less than a great instrument. I really did enjoy this, but a bit more "opulence" of timbre is important to me. I know it's a subjective preference, but for Iago? Darkness and weight of tone really is needed. I can't believe Dawson is evil; just set him alongside, say, Gobbi. A difference of "Night and Day" (Dawson could sing that quite stylishly, don't you think? With a little Noel Coward attitude?). He has a veddy British sound, to my ears - sort of reedy. No offense, but I can't help visualizing G & S when I hear him.
> 
> "Batti, batti..." (I'm covering my head).


Interesting that Dawson and Gobbi were both unusually versatile singers, yet each projected a certain persona that suited some kinds of music very well and seemed slightly out of place in others, even while they sang very well. I've heard Gobbi in lighter music such as Tosti's Ideale where his voice seems a little too dark to be suitable, as if a certain villainous/antihero quality which he uses to very good effect as Scarpia/ Iago/ Rigoletto is inherent in the timbre of the voice itself and can't be put aside just because it is unsuited to the material currently being sung. Dawson has a similar yet opposite problem in the Credo: the character is villainous but he sounds hearty and likeable, which is arguably appropriate for the Iago who is dissembling in the presence of the other characters but inappropriate for a soliloquy in which supposed to be revelling in undisguised villainy. Of course, I am not discounting the fact that Gobbi, while he could not change the basic timbre of his voice, was a distinguished operatic actor whereas Dawson (his turn as 'Hector Grant' aside) was content to be very much himself in everything he sang.

To the extent that I'm any kind of connoisseur of singing, two British (according to a broad definition of 'British'!) singers are responsible, and they are* Peter Dawson* and *John McCormack. *Both recorded popular material prolifically, and their records were the first records by great singers that I encountered (before I had heard any opera or 'classical' material), and together they set an incredibly high standard of baritone and tenor singing which the most celebrated continental and American singers should be held up to. To this day, I think that all baritones and basses chantantes should be subjected to the Peter Dawson test: can they sing the Largo al factotum, or Schubert's Erlkoenig, or Honour and Arms (or whatever) as cleanly, easily and elegantly as that great and underrated Australian bass baritone did? There is of course nothing wrong with associating him with his core repertoire of G&S, rousing patriotic songs etc, which were to him what Verdian and Puccinian villains were to Tito Gobbi. To get back on topic, sort of, Dawson has comprehensively 'ruined' the song repertoire associated with him for any other singers. I can't listen to anyone else singing 'The Fishermen of England' or 'The Road to Mandalay' (I hope Wood forgives me for secretly enjoying such obnoxiously rightwing, imperialistic songs as the latter, but it's an amazing Dawson performance nevertheless.)











PS If you find Dawson too reedy, you may enjoy *Robert Easton*. He came the closest to 'ruining' Gounod's Mephistopheles for me, in the English language recording conducted by Beecham in 1929-30. He has the elegance, the poise, the beauty of voice, but I was hoping for a little more thunder and rumbustiousness in 'Le veau d'or', where he is rather too well mannered (as was Plançon). Youtube has his 'Vecchia zimarra' from the complete Act IV of Boheme, which shows off his beautiful voice and tasteful singing, the latter always a relative rarity in Puccini:






Here he is in the Peter Dawson repertoire- a setting of the Kipling poem 'Boots', frustratingly lacking the last few bars.






And here is Dawson himself, so we can decide whether he has in fact quite 'ruined' the song for the more opulent voice of Robert Easton:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Figleaf said:


> To this day, I think that all baritones and basses chantantes should be subjected to the Peter Dawson test: can they sing the Largo al factotum, or Schubert's Erlkoenig, or Honour and Arms (or whatever) as cleanly, easily and elegantly as that great and underrated Australian bass baritone did? There is of course nothing wrong with associating him with his core repertoire of G&S, rousing patriotic songs etc, which were to him what Verdian and Puccinian villains were to Tito Gobbi. To get back on topic, sort of, Dawson has comprehensively 'ruined' the song repertoire associated with him for any other singers. I can't listen to anyone else singing 'The Fishermen of England' or 'The Road to Mandalay' (I hope Wood forgives me for secretly enjoying such obnoxiously rightwing, imperialistic songs as the latter, but it's an amazing Dawson performance nevertheless.)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Dawson is certainly fun to hear in his native metier. I fear I shall never find his timbre to my taste in Italian opera, or feel much identification with songs like "The Fishermen of Mandalay" (oops!) or "Boots", but I do enjoy the excursion across The Pond and the decades. So, thanks.

Easton has a clear, resonant voice indeed. That _Boheme_ is charming (I'm listening right now). The lightweight voices make Rodolfo and Mimi sound like kids, which is not inappropriate. They aren't going to replace the likes of Bjorling and Tebaldi, but that's all right.

"Boots" made me laugh, by the way. Is it supposed to?


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Dawson is certainly fun to hear in his native metier. I fear I shall never find his timbre to my taste in Italian opera, or feel much identification with songs like "The Fishermen of Mandalay" (oops!) or "Boots", but I do enjoy the excursion across The Pond and the decades. So, thanks.
> 
> Easton has a clear, resonant voice indeed. That _Boheme_ is charming (I'm listening right now). The lightweight voices make Rodolfo and Mimi sound like kids, which is not inappropriate. They aren't going to replace the likes of Bjorling and Tebaldi, but that's all right.
> 
> "Boots" made me laugh, by the way. Is it supposed to?


I assumed 'Boots' _was_ meant to be sort of funny: Boer war gallows humour. The way Easton sings the line 'Omigod keep me from going lunatic' did actually make me laugh out loud, and I also like how Dawson let his Aussie accent show nicely on the first syllable of '_go_ing' to convey the wry, earthy humour.

That Boheme recording is indeed a beauty, and has totally transformed how I think about that opera. I thought I had heard it years ago but I was obviously wrong as I remembered it being in English, which it isn't. I think Heddle Nash is a little reminiscent of Schipa in his elegance (and slightly strained top). I really wish they had recorded the whole opera!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Headphone Hermit said:


> If you really mean this, then I can only think you are listening to the wrong singers.
> 
> Great singers 'create' as do all *great* musicians - their interpretations are creative (and in both 'big C' and 'little c' terms of creativity) and the greatest singers have changed the repertoire, the critical reception of aspects of the repertoire, understanding of specific pieces etc etc etc


Yes I agree. The context I made the comparison was that of composers. but singers can be said to 'create' a part.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Headphone Hermit said:


> Great singers 'create' as do all *great* musicians - their interpretations are creative (and in both 'big C' and 'little c' terms of creativity) and the greatest singers have changed the repertoire, the critical reception of aspects of the repertoire, understanding of specific pieces etc etc etc


Absolutely. Every intelligent performing musician appreciates the extent to which the creation of a musical experience is in the hands of the interpreter of those pages of dots, dashes and squiggles known as "the score." Remarkably little of that experience can be represented in written form in much of the music we listen to, and in vocal music least of all. Creating a performance of an operatic role is a major creative achievement - or, rather, it can be, though it too often is not. Most singers, like most people in most of life's activities, are more or less content to do what they have learned how to do, and even their thrusts at individuality are pretty conventional and unmemorable. We are not even likely to imagine what's possible until a singer/actor with the spark of genius - a Hotter, a Vickers, a Ludwig, a Lehmann, a Schwarzkopf, a Callas, an Olivero - gets hold of a work we thought we knew and reveals dimensions in it we never suspected.

"Creating a role" is merely a conventional expression for being the first to sing it. Taking that role and creating a _character_ is a true act of co-creation with the composer.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> I'm sorry you appear to consider someone disagreeing with you amounts to disrespect. It's not like that at all. Just I have my opinion. I said in the beginning that personally I prefer Bruscantini by what comes out of the speakers. You don't seem to have accepted that point and launched into why you thought Stracciari was wonderful. Fine! I've no problem with that. But when I say that these technical issues are not the chief thing I look for you appear to get offended and think it's disrespectful. Sorry! But we think differently! As I said before I just wanted to agree to differ but you can't seem to accept that. Sorry!


The above post does not contain a single true statement. If I am not allowed to refute it here, it needs to be deleted by the moderators, as subsequent posts already have been.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

It's rare that I feel that a singer simply appropriates a role or an aria and ruins other people's performances for me. Another great voice and interpretation are always theoretically possible. But they may not presently be available.

The obvious choice for a singer who can obliterate other singers' efforts is Maria Callas. I would qualify this by saying that her interpretations often do that for me, while certain other singers have equalled and perhaps surpassed her vocally in many of her roles. But in a great performance the two must go hand in hand, so I don't want to parse this too much. With Callas, more than with any other singer, I tend to come away from a performance feeling that I will never hear the total meaning of the music and drama realized so powerfully, and that there's no point in hoping for it. And this is, for the most part, without seeing her, except in my mind's eye. Where I can see her - in the second act of _Tosca_ - the feeling is fully confirmed. I don't even care for _Tosca_, except in that film from Covent Garden. She and Gobbi, for me, just own the opera. Some other roles in which, for me, no one else seems likely to measure up? Medea, Lucia, Norma, Lady Macbeth, Butterfly, Carmen...

A few other sopranos who've spoiled me in certain parts are Elisabeth Schwarzkopf, who inherited the Marschallin from Lotte Lehmann, who more or less owned it before her. Lehmann also fully embodied Sieglinde, and that _Walkure_ Act One with Melchior will surely never be equalled. Lehmann, in fact, was a singer of such exalted expressiveness that practically everything she did, at least in German opera, set a standard. Elisabeth Grummer, another German soprano, was Weber's Agathe to the very life, with her natural, artless loveliness of spirit, wonderfully different from the sophisticated Schwarzkopf; and that same fresh naturalness made her the perfect Eva. And yet the greatest single recording of Eva's music is that of the quintet from _Meistersinger_ led by Elisabeth Schumann, a performance that breathes such an unearthly beauty that only Grummer's comes near it. That classic recording is almost enough to make you dread the next performance you'll hear.

I guess I'll leave it with the sopranos for now.


----------



## Cesare Impalatore (Apr 16, 2015)

Corelli and Lucilla Udovich _ruined_ Calaf and Turandot for me. The same goes for Kirsten Flagstad in Isolde. However, the most extreme case is the La forza del destino recording under Molinari-Pradelli with Del Monaco, Tebaldi, Bastianini and Siepi as cast. It doesn't just ruin one or two characters but the whole thing. No other forza shall be listened to ever again.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

Well, I just had to return to post this, because I should have posted it initially. I don't expect ever to experience a better performance of Figaro's last-act aria (_Le Nozze di Figaro_) than Bryn Terfel's here:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The late John Steane highlighted the debate between old and new. Some people are "genuinely at a loss to understand how anyone with standards, anyone who is aware (say) of Boninsegna and Battistini, Mizio and Lauri-Volpi, can tolerate, let along praise (say) Pavarotti and Caballi." Others are also at a loss: "when they hear distinguished modern singers they sound perfectly acceptable to them; when they listen to famous old 'us, they sound ghastly!"
Stein says of the debate "it Is probably as old as civilisation. It certainly goes back to Francesco Tosi who complained that, 'Italy hears no more exquisite voices as in times past.' That was in 1723!"


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

P


Woodduck said:


> The obvious choice for a singer who can obliterate other singers' efforts is Maria Callas. I would qualify this by saying that her interpretations often do that for me, while certain other singers have equalled and perhaps surpassed her vocally in many of her roles. But in a great performance the two must go hand in hand, so I don't want to parse this too much. With Callas, more than with any other singer, I tend to come away from a performance feeling that I will never hear the total meaning of the music and drama realized so powerfully, and that there's no point in hoping for it. And this is, for the most part, without seeing her, except in my mind's eye. Where I can see her - in the second act of _Tosca_ - the feeling is fully confirmed. I don't even care for _Tosca_, except in that film from Covent Garden. She and Gobbi, for me, just own the opera. Some other roles in which, for me, no one else seems likely to measure up? Medea, Lucia, Norma, Lady Macbeth, Butterfly, Carmen?...


I second this enthusiastically. Callas *really* spoils it for her successors in her roles. I used to go to the opera eagerly to see and hear whether other singers sang her roles as well as she. Of course, none approached her in those roles. I would rather forgo "her" operas than go and be disappointed yet again.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

MAS said:


> P
> 
> I second this enthusiastically. Callas *really* spoils it for her successors in her roles. I used to go to the opera eagerly to see and hear whether other singers sang her roles as well as she. Of course, none approached her in those roles. I would rather forgo "her" operas than go and be disappointed yet again.
> View attachment 71131


Sorry but I think this is a bit OTT. Yes I admire Callas as a great artist and have some of her recordings. But do they spoil other singers for me in those roles? The answer is an unequivocal No. Yes her Mimi and Butterfly are very interesting and her Aida dramatic. But does that mean I can't appreciate the likes of Freni, Tebaldi (who had more naturally beautiful voices) et al? It seems a shame to narrow one's field of appreciation down like this. Let's enjoy every great singer we are privileged to hear.
Yes I believe Callas' Tosca maybe reigns supreme. But does that prevent me from appreciating other great singers in that role? Of course not. Do I enjoy Callas' Rosina? Yes! Does it ruin listening to de los Angeles delightful performance for me? No! Why? Because no artist, however great, has it all. There are always new things to hear from different (great) singers.
Am I disappointed when I see live opera and it's not Callas? No I'm not. Because however great she was we can't bring her back on stage. Although I enjoy looking back I also enjoy living in the present.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

DavidA said:


> Sorry but I think this is a bit OTT. Yes I admire Callas as a great artist and have some of her recordings. But do they spoil other singers for me in those roles? The answer is an unequivocal No. Yes her Mimi and Butterfly are very interesting and her Aida dramatic. But does that mean I can't appreciate the likes of Freni, Tebaldi (who had more naturally beautiful voices) et al? It seems a shame to narrow one's field of appreciation down like this. Let's enjoy every great singer we are privileged to hear.
> Yes I believe Callas' Tosca maybe reigns supreme. But does that prevent me from appreciating other great singers in that role? Of course not. Do I enjoy Callas' Rosina? Yes! Does it ruin listening to de los Angeles delightful performance for me? No! Why? Because no artist, however great, has it all. There are always new things to hear from different (great) singers.
> Am I disappointed when I see live opera and it's not Callas? No I'm not. Because however great she was we can't bring her back on stage. Although I enjoy looking back I also enjoy living in the present.


Well, then, DavidA, you're fortunate.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

DavidA said:


> The late John Steane highlighted the debate between old and new. Some people are "*genuinely at a loss to understand how anyone with standards, anyone who is aware (say) of Boninsegna and Battistini, Muzio and Lauri-Volpi, can tolerate, let along praise (say) Pavarotti and Caballe." Others are also at a loss: "when they hear distinguished modern singers they sound perfectly acceptable to them; when they listen to famous old 'uns, they sound ghastly!"*
> Stein says of the debate "it Is probably as old as civilisation. It certainly goes back to Francesco Tosi who complained that, 'Italy hears no more exquisite voices as in times past.' That was in 1723!"


I think I'm in the first camp, although I wouldn't like to say with 100% conviction that late Lauri-Volpi is always absolutely better than early Pavarotti! With slightly better chosen examples (though Steane presumably meant not the octagenarian Lauri-Volpi, but that tenor in his 1920s prime) it's true for me that early 20th century singers pretty much 'ruined' the standard operatic repertoire.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

MAS said:


> Well, then, DavidA, you're fortunate.


I am. It's great!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Figleaf said:


> I think I'm in the first camp, although I wouldn't like to say with 100% conviction that late Lauri-Volpi is always absolutely better than early Pavarotti! With slightly better chosen examples (though Steane presumably meant not the octagenarian Lauri-Volpi, but that tenor in his 1920s prime) it's true for me that early 20th century singers pretty much 'ruined' the standard operatic repertoire.


Second camp me. Just cannot see the fascination in these elderly recordings and dated sng g style. For me the great era of recorded singing came with the advent of LP is the 50s onwards through to the 70s.


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> The obvious choice for a singer who can obliterate other singers' efforts is Maria Callas. I would qualify this by saying that her interpretations often do that for me, while certain other singers have equalled and perhaps surpassed her vocally in many of her roles. But in a great performance the two must go hand in hand, so I don't want to parse this too much. With Callas, more than with any other singer, I tend to come away from a performance feeling that I will never hear the total meaning of the music and drama realized so powerfully, and that there's no point in hoping for it. And this is, for the most part, without seeing her, except in my mind's eye. Where I can see her - in the second act of _Tosca_ - the feeling is fully confirmed. I don't even care for _Tosca_, except in that film from Covent Garden. She and Gobbi, for me, just own the opera. Some other roles in which, for me, no one else seems likely to measure up? Medea, Lucia, Norma, Lady Macbeth, Butterfly, Carmen...


Thank you for writing my post for me :lol::tiphat:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Tuoksu said:


> Thank you for writing my post for me :lol::tiphat:


Knowing what discriminating tastes you have, I look forward to your returning the favor. :tiphat:


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Carreras was a wonder before his illness. His life was saved here in Seattle at a facility I make deliveries to everyday.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Sutherland and early Callas ruined many coloratura operas for me as there have not been any singers really in their league since their heyday... and that has been quite a while. Some good singers... but none in their league


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

nina foresti said:


> Samuel Ramey with his fabulous bass sound was just perfect and a great entertainer till Mother Nature intervened too early on and delivered an unwanted wobble to his otherwise wonderful sound.
> 
> Rolando Villazon -- an exciting, refreshing talent that misused his voice to the detriment of the opera world. A sad story.
> 
> Jose Carerras and Giuseppe diStefano both stepped over the line later on with dire consequences.


In looking back at the question, I realize now that I misunderstood the intent of the question and took it to mean the ones who disappointed you the most with their vocal flaws.
Now I see that you meant just the opposite.
So I add my choice of Neil Shicoff. Why? Because no other tenor touches my heart the way he does. He's the entire package.
Never have I seen or heard a more consummate tenor who involves himself in a role more than Shicoff. 
Try this on for size:


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

Callas ruined Violetta, Norma, Medea, Tosca, Butterfly, Gilda, Amina, Turandot, Amelia, Macbeth and Lucia. I won't even go to see Traviata or Norma at the opera because nothing will ever come close to her 1958 Covent Garden Traviata and her 1955 Scala Norma. Gobbi ruined Scarpia, nobody sounds better or more menacing. Freni ruined La Boheme as another one.


----------



## russetvelvet (Oct 14, 2016)

Lisa Della Casa ruined Four Last Songs for me. Her Bei Schlafgehen is divine and delicate beyond my imagination until I listened to it.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

russetvelvet said:


> Lisa Della Casa ruined Four Last Songs for me. Her Bei Schlafgehen is divine and delicate beyond my imagination until I listened to it.


Really.....I am not sure many will agree with you.


----------



## russetvelvet (Oct 14, 2016)

Anyway I found myself off the topic...as Four Last Songs is not an opera (Better point it out myself before others do)


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Callas and Gobbi were both Incomperably as vocal actors. However the actual sound of their voices have certainly been surpassed by others. Why no singer could ever 'ruin' things for me as everyone has something different to bring to the table. Mind you, Gobbi's credo takes some beating!


This is an interesting point but just as a personal opinion I think the quality of Callas's voice was perfect. It had an almost tearful quality to it, it was incredibly expressive and could be used in an excitingly dramatic way too. It was also a very... Precise voice, you could clearly hear all of the notes. It was a truer voice.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Burroughs said:


> This is an interesting point but just as a personal opinion I think the quality of Callas's voice was perfect. It had an almost tearful quality to it, it was incredibly expressive and could be used in an excitingly dramatic way too. It was also a very... Precise voice, you could clearly hear all of the notes. It was a truer voice.


I don't find the Callas voice inherently one of the most sensually beautiful, and in certain music don't care for her basic sound at all. Not everyone could have used her instrument as she did. But it was a deeply human voice, multidimensional, bitter and sweet, dark and brilliant, soft and hard, full of odd colors and surprising timbral vibrations which she could alter and employ to express an incredible variety of emotions. This was nature taking with one hand and giving with the other - or, to use another image, you need a lemon to make lemonade. Fortunately she had the genius to play to the hilt the hand, or voice, she was dealt. A true voice - a true artist, honest all the way down, missing nothing, concealing nothing, sparing nothing.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

russetvelvet said:


> Anyway I found myself off the topic...as Four Last Songs is not an opera (Better point it out myself before others do)


It is about singers so no harm done.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Burroughs said:


> This is an interesting point but just as a personal opinion I think the quality of Callas's voice was perfect. It had an almost tearful quality to it, it was incredibly expressive and could be used in an excitingly dramatic way too. It was also a very... Precise voice, you could clearly hear all of the notes. It was a truer voice.


Callas's appeal comes precisely from the fact that her voice _wasn't_ perfect. the majority of the voice was somewhat muddy, husky, almost snarling, like a mezzo villainous singing in the soprano range.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> Callas's appeal comes precisely from the fact that her voice _wasn't_ perfect. the majority of the voice was somewhat muddy, husky, almost snarling, like a mezzo villainous singing in the soprano range.


Isn't it a little disparaging to say that vocal imperfection is what makes a singer appealing? Callas's appeal comes from a great many things more significant. Something to do with musicianship, maybe? And do keep in mind that the things - things musical, dramatic, and, yes, technical - she knew how to do with that imperfect voice are still waiting to be equaled in her repertoire. That's the precise source of her "appeal."


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Isn't it a little disparaging to say that vocal imperfection is what makes a singer appealing?


no, not in the slightest



> Callas's appeal comes from a great many things more significant. Something to do with musicianship, maybe? And do keep in mind that the things - things musical, dramatic, and, yes, technical - she knew how to do with that imperfect voice are still waiting to be equaled in her repertoire. That's the precise source of her "appeal."


fair points, though I tend to define "her repertoire" a little more narrowly than most (and rest assured, I practically worship her in half of it lol).


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> no, not in the slightest
> 
> fair points, though I tend to define "her repertoire" a little more narrowly than most (and rest assured, I practically worship her in half of it lol).


You're certainly entitled to find Callas's vocal "imperfections" appealing. But are the things you cited really imperfections, or just peculiarities? "Muddy," "husky," and "almost snarling" concern her timbre(s) and are rather subjective descriptors, aren't they? I'm not just being argumentative. Actual imperfections have to do with faults in the way a voice works. Callas developed real imperfections as her career proceeded, and I rather doubt that you find the strain and wobble of her later years appealing.


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> I don't find the Callas voice inherently one of the most sensually beautiful, and in certain music don't care for her basic sound at all. Not everyone could have used her instrument as she did. But it was a deeply human voice, multidimensional, bitter and sweet, dark and brilliant, soft and hard, full of odd colors and surprising timbral vibrations which she could alter and employ to express an incredible variety of emotions. This was nature taking with one hand and giving with the other - or, to use another image, you need a lemon to make lemonade. Fortunately she had the genius to play to the hilt the hand, or voice, she was dealt. A true voice - a true artist, honest all the way down, missing nothing, concealing nothing, sparing nothing.


To me, Callas especially after around 1965 or so is like if Sviatoslav Richter were forced to only play on some dusty church basement Baldwin upright. A great artist with staggering musicianship and technique but stuck with an unfortunate instrument. I've no doubt thought that Richter on that basement piano would still be a fantastic listen, but it'd always be a little distracting that his instrument is a limiting one.

And then for me, Callas's repertoire choices would be like if Richter on the Baldwin spent most of his time playing, like, Scarlatti and Clementi or something, some repertoire I find as uninteresting as I find bel canto.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

howlingfantods said:


> To me, Callas especially after around 1965 or so is like if Sviatoslav Richter were forced to only play on some dusty church basement Baldwin upright. A great artist with staggering musicianship and technique but stuck with an unfortunate instrument. I've no doubt thought that Richter on that basement piano would still be a fantastic listen, but it'd always be a little distracting that his instrument is a limiting one.
> 
> And then for me, Callas's repertoire choices would be like if Richter on the Baldwin spent most of his time playing, like, Scarlatti and Clementi or something, some repertoire I find as uninteresting as I find bel canto.


I feel similarly about Callas's core repertoire. "Bel canto" opera is, for me, almost entirely a singer's art. Those composers knew how to exploit the voice operating at its highest capacity for intrinsically vocal expressiveness. Callas in her prime was uniquely suited to realize the possibilities of such music. Without her, I hardly ever want to listen to those operas (and not often with her) - which is not to say that I think they're poor. They just require a rare sort of artist, a supremely accomplished vocalist who understands the music's rhetoric and can turn a sad little songbird (Lucia di Lammermoor, e.g.) into a woman of real passion and pathos.


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> Callas's appeal comes precisely from the fact that her voice _wasn't_ perfect. the majority of the voice was somewhat muddy, husky, almost snarling, like a mezzo villainous singing in the soprano range.


I get what you're trying to say. I too find that her appeal stems mostly from a conventionally-ugly (only conventionally though) sound. In her best repertoire, the roles call for a hard-edged voice that can slice through the biggest orchestras like Valyrian Steel. Add a sinister witch-like quality to it and it becomes the perfect instrument for Norma, Medea, Armida, etc not to mention it is what Verdi himself wanted for Lady Macbeth.
Most large voices lack at least one of these two qualities. Or maybe they weren't brave enough to sacrifice conventionally beautiful velvety sounds for dramatic effect.

With that in mind, whether you find Callas' voice *in her prime* (that is before 1953) beautiful is very subjective. The timbre was black according to Maria herself. She said it made her think of thick molasses. So those who found her timbre ugly simply weren't into black. It means you're a Mimi kind of person and would rather listen to La Boheme than Medea. It's a matter of pure personal taste. Because at her prime, the voice was pretty much flawless. It was ample, dark, steely and "poured out of her the way Flagstad's did" according to Mr Bonynge. The top was free of wobble and huge, the middle was gargantuan, the bottom cavernous, the coloratura immaculate. There was an evenness among all her registers at that point and there was almost nothing technical one could complain about. Her early live recordings of Aida, Trovatore, Vespri, Nabucco, Norma and Lucia readily prove that. Callas after 1954 though is another story. That's when it's totally legitimate to complain about some imperfections that in my opinion didn't take from her performances and absolutely nothing bothered me about it.

The kind of timbre Callas had is considered ugly only because of conventions. People sought after voluptuous and creamy sounds. But I do not think that you can sing with such technical prowess and be considered an ugly voice unless it's simply not what the listener is looking for.

Now that only explains why she appeals to me. Why she is so popular is absolutely not due to her vocal peculiarity. It's actually what made her so controversial i.e she could have been twice as popular had she sounded like Tebaldi. Callas was worshipped for being a musical genius. She was more of a cunning musician than a singer with a god-given talent.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Tuoksu said:


> I get what you're trying to say. I too find that her appeal stems mostly from a conventionally-ugly (only conventionally though) sound. In her best repertoire, the roles call for a hard-edged voice that can slice through the biggest orchestras like Valyrian Steel. Add a sinister witch-like quality to it and it becomes the perfect instrument for Norma, Medea, Armida, etc not to mention it is what Verdi himself wanted for Lady Macbeth.
> Most large voices lack at least one of these two qualities. Or maybe they weren't brave enough to sacrifice conventionally beautiful velvety sounds for dramatic effect.
> 
> With that in mind, whether you find Callas' voice *in her prime* (that is before 1953) beautiful is very subjective. The timbre was black according to Maria herself. She said it made her think of thick molasses. So those who found her timbre ugly simply weren't into black. It means you're a Mimi kind of person and would rather listen to La Boheme than Medea. It's a matter of pure personal taste. Because at her prime, the voice was pretty much flawless. It was ample, dark, steely and "poured out of her the way Flagstad's did" according to Mr Bonynge. The top was free of wobble and huge, the middle was gargantuan, the bottom cavernous, the coloratura immaculate. There was an evenness among all her registers at that point and there was almost nothing technical one could complain about. Her early live recordings of Aida, Trovatore, Vespri, Nabucco, Norma and Lucia readily prove that. Callas after 1954 though is another story. That's when it's totally legitimate to complain about some imperfections that in my opinion didn't take from her performances and absolutely nothing bothered me about it.
> ...


The first objective post on that matter on this site. Bravo!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I often wonder with Callas if she hadn't have climbed and become the beautiful woman she was whether she would be the object of such adulation and worship with pictures constantly posted; or whether she would just be admired as a truly great opera singer.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> You're certainly entitled to find Callas's vocal "imperfections" appealing. But are the things you cited really imperfections, or just peculiarities? "Muddy," "husky," and "almost snarling" concern her timbre(s) and are rather subjective descriptors, aren't they? I'm not just being argumentative. Actual imperfections have to do with faults in the way a voice works.


indeed, I was mostly speaking as a matter of personal tastes rather than a more "objective" imperfection such as one related to poor vocal technique or a physiological impediment.



> Callas developed real imperfections as her career proceeded, and I rather doubt that you find the strain and wobble of her later years appealing.


this I can agree with, especially her high notes. her


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> I don't find the Callas voice inherently one of the most sensually beautiful, and in certain music don't care for her basic sound at all. Not everyone could have used her instrument as she did. But it was a deeply human voice, multidimensional, bitter and sweet, dark and brilliant, soft and hard, full of odd colors and surprising timbral vibrations which she could alter and employ to express an incredible variety of emotions. This was nature taking with one hand and giving with the other - or, to use another image, you need a lemon to make lemonade. Fortunately she had the genius to play to the hilt the hand, or voice, she was dealt. A true voice - a true artist, honest all the way down, missing nothing, concealing nothing, sparing nothing.


Totally the most brilliantly expressed version of Maria Callas I have ever read from anyone. Bravo!


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

DavidA said:


> I often wonder with Callas if she hadn't have climbed and become the beautiful woman she was whether she would be the object of such adulation and worship with pictures constantly posted; or whether she would just be admired as a truly great opera singer.


It is not often that I happen to agree with your posts but I must say that I too have wondered about it from time to time and have made my own judgment that likely her persona would not have been as popular had she been fat and homely looking. Sad to say but true in my eyes.
Callas was a complete package, including her not-so-beautiful-sounding voice. A rare animal with a striking presence and charisma who had the ability to turn heads. She also had a rare combination of a demanding diva mixed with an appealing girlish quality about her.
She will forever have her followers and her detractors. A true icon.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> I often wonder with Callas if she hadn't have climbed and become the beautiful woman she was whether she would be the object of such adulation and worship with pictures constantly posted; or whether she would just be admired as a truly great opera singer.


Of course there will always be people excited by physical beauty, glamor, controversy, scandal, and other relatively superficial matters. A lot of the Callas "image" - but mostly the negative aspects of that image - concerned such things. The "image" did not create her celebrity, which was well under way before her Audrey Hepburn transformation, and they are not of much importance to her legacy, which is fundamentally artistic and acknowledged as such. Outside the usual coteries of "fans," what we have is a recorded legacy that stands triumphantly on its own merits. When I want to hear a great singer give me an astonishingly original and powerful Medea or Lucia or lady Macbeth or Norma or Tosca or Carmen, what she weighed at the time of the performance and who she had an affair with are the farthest things from my mind. I dare say this is true for most of us. I can't imagine why the fact that she was also stunning to look at should be a problem for anyone. Leave the groupies alone. They're really harmless, you know.


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Of course there will always be people excited by physical beauty, glamor, controversy, scandal, and other relatively superficial matters. A lot of the Callas "image" - but mostly the negative aspects of that image - concerned such things. The "image" did not create her celebrity, which was well under way before her Audrey Hepburn transformation, and they are not of much importance to her legacy, which is fundamentally artistic and acknowledged as such. Outside the usual coteries of "fans," what we have is a recorded legacy that stands triumphantly on its own merits. When I want to hear a great singer give me an astonishingly original and powerful Medea or Lucia or lady Macbeth or Norma or Tosca or Carmen, what she weighed at the time of the performance and who she had an affair with are the farthest things from my mind. I dare say this is true for most of us. I can't imagine why the fact that she was also stunning to look at should be a problem for anyone. Leave the groupies alone. They're really harmless, you know.


You wrote my post for me again :tiphat:


----------



## RES (Oct 30, 2014)

These are all the same arguments about Callas that have been repeated continuously since the 1950s. Do we not realize that she is the *only* singer who is still a living presence, the subject of such debate nearly 40 years after her death, 52 years after she left the operatic stage, and 57 years since she had anything resembling a usable voice?! It says, first of all, that opera never recovered from her loss. Secondly, it says that she wasn't a 'singer' or 'singing actress' at all--truly damning with faint praise. She transcended her repertoire and her medium, not to mention her fans' and detractors' misdirected ideas about what she should be. She was, as she said herself, a *musician*--and perhaps the greatest one in the 20th century. When she talked about colleagues, she never referred to singers, always to other great musicians like Heifetz and Furtwangler. She used her voice the way Heifetz used his Guarnerius. Every nuance in the music was amplified and improved (given that much opera is a compromised form). 'Opera is something that has been dead a long time, so if we really don't [work hard to make it believable], it's not taken in with pleasure.' She said this three years after she stopped singing. The same year (1968), she gave a brilliant, ice-cold analysis of her Lady Macbeth on a radio program for John Ardoin, detailing how, where, and why every nuance was selected. Could or would any other 'singer' do that, except in the most general terms? Doubtful. Her voice (1): the argument, as Zeffirelli put it in a 1978 documentary 'was as old as opera itself: beauty of vocal tone vs expressive use of the voice.' Indeed, we first see this satirized by Benedetto Marcello in the 1720 'Teatro alla moda': he comes down heavily in favor of expression. Her voice (2): perfect until August 1953, capable of nuances and color undreamed by opera composers, easy execution of the most fiendish passaggi, astounding top, middle, and low registers, endless expressivity. With the use of rhetorical time never heard with any other singer in quite this purposeful way, and the use of every expressive device open to musicians, the music came to vibrant life in an unheard-of manner, making anyone else look like... just a singer. Her voice changed drastically over time, but the musicianship did not. What listeners need to decide is whether they like the music; it is presented in its ultimate form by Callas. The rest is secondary. Carping about her vocal decay is tiresome. A dramatic weight loss, 1953-4 made the first mess: she'd learned how to sing in a different body, and the new one couldn't quite do the same things. Think of what would happen if someone thinned the plates of Heifetz's Guarneri. She continued to lose weight even after that, looking like a Holocaust survivor when shaking hands with ex-President Truman in 1959. Being thought of as homely for much of her life caused her to chase beauty and glamour, ruining her real gift. By 1960, the voice was damaged beyond repair, because the 1953-4 diet and stresses with which her slimmer, less muscular body could not cope after that, set in motion premature menopause which hit in late 1957 and pretty well finished her; having matured early--at age eleven, she might have been thus affected even without the weight loss, but the strain must surely have worsened the effect on her voice. Everyone likes to blame Onassis for ruining her musical career. He was a pig, but looking at it logically, she knew her voice was really departing by mid-1959, and she used him to conceal the fact from the public. Sadly, he hated music so the ruse was finite. With no reasonable voice, she had no choice: she did some more recordings and performances in the '60s. By then, it was almost impossible to listen to the art through the vocal damage. But the art was there, and some things, even from that period, leave one gasping and in tears (like descriptions of great performers' effects on listeners in the 1700s or similarly ruined singers of the 1800s like Giuditta Pasta): e.g., 'Willow Song/Ave Maria' in the second Verdi album.

Callas set the bar at a preposterously high level forever. The only reason to listen to other 'singers' in the same rep is to hear music cut in Callas' performances, as she still was taught with the provincialism of that mindset. She can't really spoil us for music she didn't sing, except that we--and the singers themselves--hear in our/their minds what she might have done. Callas, until 1959, always leaves me with the same question (except for performance practice glitches and bad editions): 'How else would one do it?'


----------



## RES (Oct 30, 2014)

People on another chat group are busy posting about how beautiful Callas became and how 'fashionably' dressed. I expected better from these particular people: surely they know that as Callas became a glamour icon, her originally great voice declined further and further; one can hear it, practically month by month; and one gradually has to defend her solely on her great musical merits--which, for some, are too arcane. The latest photo to appear there is a little-known bejeweled one from the 1965 period. Sure, she was beautiful, but just contrast the picture with the utterly destroyed voice of that period that would accompany it--a voice not even her brilliant, innate musicality could save by that point--and it's infinitely depressing. I am shocked and saddened by the shallowness of the posters. Great art being replaced by a fashion show is nothing to celebrate.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

RES said:


> People on another chat group are busy posting about how beautiful Callas became and how 'fashionably' dressed. I expected better from these particular people: surely they know that as Callas became a glamour icon, her originally great voice declined further and further; one can hear it, practically month by month; and one gradually has to defend her solely on her great musical merits--which, for some, are too arcane. The latest photo to appear there is a little-known bejeweled one from the 1965 period. Sure, she was beautiful, but just contrast the picture with the utterly destroyed voice of that period that would accompany it--a voice not even her brilliant, innate musicality could save by that point--and it's infinitely depressing. I am shocked and saddened by the shallowness of the posters. Great art being replaced by a fashion show is nothing to celebrate.


Agreed. And the tragedy deepens for us when we know how insecure Callas was, how driven to compensate for the sense of never being good enough - or, to this particular point, beautiful enough. "What ifs" are always speculative, but had she grown up feeling loved for herself, and not needing to earn love by constantly topping and torturing herself, she might have seen and felt herself to be the beautiful young singer that we, looking at her early photos, can see so plainly. The art that her emaciated "glamor" was intended to serve might ultimately have been better - or at least longer - served by a little more self-acceptance and a little more healthy meat on her bones.


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Agreed. And the tragedy deepens for us when we know how insecure Callas was, how driven to compensate for the sense of never being good enough - or, to this particular point, beautiful enough. "What ifs" are always speculative, but had she grown up feeling loved for herself, and not needing to earn love by constantly topping and torturing herself, she might have seen and felt herself to be the beautiful young singer that we, looking at her early photos, can see so plainly. The art that her emaciated "glamor" was intended to serve might ultimately have been better - or at least longer - served by a little more self-acceptance and a little more healthy meat on her bones.


I just pointed out on another thread that I preferred her with some more flesh too. But Callas didn't decide on losing so much weight out of insecurity. First, there was Serafin (and other colleagues) teasing her. He even made her step on a scale during a lunch out! It was then that she decided to lose the weight. She said it wasn't healthy, that she was perspiring too much and that it was getting out of hand. She also did it for dramatic reasons. She was about to do her Medea and thought the face was "too fat" to achieve to image she had in mind, among other things I can't recall right now.

Edit: it was Gobbi not Serafin who made her step on a scale.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Tuoksu said:


> I just pointed out on another thread that I preferred her with some more flesh too. But Callas didn't decide on losing so much weight out of insecurity. First, there was Serafin (and other colleagues) teasing her. He even made her step on a scale during a lunch out! It was then that she decided to lose the weight. She said it wasn't healthy, that she was perspiring too much and that it was getting out of hand. She also did it for dramatic reasons. She was about to do her Medea and thought the face was "too fat" to achieve to image she had in mind, among other things I can't recall right now.
> 
> Edit: it was Gobbi not Serafin who made her step on a scale.


Not to prolong this excessively (dwelling on her appearance begins to make me feel like a "fan" rather than an appreciative musician!), but Callas's weight varied quite a bit even before the drastic slimming. At her heaviest she was undoubtedly too fat, but that's not what we see in, say, the photos of _Tiefland._ She became very nearly anorexic in her desire to get slimmer and slimmer; it wasn't a few comments by Serafin or others that drove her - they merely piqued her innate insecurities - and the "it serves the drama" stuff was partly rationalization.


----------



## RES (Oct 30, 2014)

Tuoksu said:


> I just pointed out on another thread that I preferred her with some more flesh too. But Callas didn't decide on losing so much weight out of insecurity. First, there was Serafin (and other colleagues) teasing her. He even made her step on a scale during a lunch out! It was then that she decided to lose the weight. She said it wasn't healthy, that she was perspiring too much and that it was getting out of hand. She also did it for dramatic reasons. She was about to do her Medea and thought the face was "too fat" to achieve to image she had in mind, among other things I can't recall right now.
> 
> Edit: it was Gobbi not Serafin who made her step on a scale.


I think you were right the first time. Unless I am remembering wrong, it was Gobbi who relates the story, but Serafin who told her at lunch with the two of them, during the LUCIA recording: 'you eat too much.' She replied: 'When I eat well, I sing well' [doubtless thinking of privations in occupied Greece]. Then it was Serafin who suggested finding a scale. Incidentally, Tuoksu, where is that story? I remember it verbatim but can't remember where I read it.

There are other versions as well: according to John Ardoin, she went to see 'Roman Holiday' that was released in 1953, and decided that she wanted to be as as slim as Audrey Hepburn. Her husband says nothing about either story, merely discussing skin and ankle problems that her excessive weight was causing. He wrote that they discovered an intestinal parasite that seemed to be slowing down her metabolism; when that was expelled, she was able to lose weight in a normal manner. But being Callas, she went too far. She looked and sounded great in the December 1953 Bernstein MEDEA (about six months into the diet). If only she had left it at that... But Meneghini says he tried to get her to stop dieting but that always started an argument. I'm inclined to believe him in general because during the Sept. 1957 interview in Chicago with Norman Ross, when asked how she lost the weight, she says 'There was something wrong with me. I'm a little embarrassed to say what it was. But when I discovered it, I cured it and was able to lose the weight, with the help of a little dieting. I don't mean not eating, but eating the right foods.' However, Meneghini says that when he met her, she was obese--though he liked 'fleshy' women. But this is not confirmed by photos. In 1949, she looks like she was of healthy weight and proportions, but we can see that she added an unhealthy amount of weight from that point to early 1953.


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

RES said:


> I think you were right the first time. Unless I am remembering wrong, it was Gobbi who relates the story, but Serafin who told her at lunch with the two of them, during the LUCIA recording: 'you eat too much.' She replied: 'When I eat well, I sing well' [doubtless thinking of privations in occupied Greece]. Then it was Serafin who suggested finding a scale. Incidentally, Tuoksu, where is that story? I remember it verbatim but can't remember where I read it.
> 
> There are other versions as well: according to John Ardoin, she went to see 'Roman Holiday' that was released in 1953, and decided that she wanted to be as as slim as Audrey Hepburn. Her husband says nothing about either story, merely discussing skin and ankle problems that her excessive weight was causing. He wrote that they discovered an intestinal parasite that seemed to be slowing down her metabolism; when that was expelled, she was able to lose weight in a normal manner. But being Callas, she went too far. She looked and sounded great in the December 1953 Bernstein MEDEA (about six months into the diet). If only she had left it at that... But Meneghini says he tried to get her to stop dieting but that always started an argument. I'm inclined to believe him in general because during the Sept. 1957 interview in Chicago with Norman Ross, when asked how she lost the weight, she says 'There was something wrong with me. I'm a little embarrassed to say what it was. But when I discovered it, I cured it and was able to lose the weight, with the help of a little dieting. I don't mean not eating, but eating the right foods.' Also, remember that in 1949, she was not all that heavy, and Meneghini says he liked Rubensesque women. Between 1949 and 1953, he says she gained a tremendous amount and that really was not healthy.


I read it on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Callas

_In the early years of her career, Callas was a heavy woman; in her own words, "Heavy-one can say-yes I was; but I'm also a tall woman, 5' 8½" [174 centimeters], and I used to weigh no more than 200 pounds [91 kilograms]." Tito Gobbi relates that during a lunch break while recording Lucia in Florence, Serafin commented to Callas that she was eating too much and allowing her weight to become a problem. When she protested that she wasn't so heavy, Gobbi suggested she should "put the matter to test" by stepping on the weighing machine outside the restaurant. The result was "somewhat dismaying, and she became rather silent." In 1968, Callas told Edward Downes that during her initial performances in Cherubini's Medea in May 1953, she realized that she needed a leaner face and figure to do dramatic justice to this as well as the other roles she was undertaking. _​
All these stories are equally plausible. Like Duck said let's not dwell too much on this. There will always be a sort of mystery about Callas that we can't completely fathom, whether it's her weight loss, her disease, her vocal decline, her romantic affairs, her alleged pregnancy..etc


----------



## RES (Oct 30, 2014)

Tuoksu said:


> I read it on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Callas
> All these stories are equally plausible. Like Duck said let's not dwell too much on this. There will always be a sort of mystery about Callas that we can't completely fathom, whether it's her weight loss, her disease, her vocal decline, her romantic affairs, her alleged pregnancy..etc


 Right. It was in Gobbi's memoir where I read it. And I now remember Gobbi saying 'I don't know how I could have been so ungalant.' (And I loathe the sensationalistic Gage assertion; it is preposterous, as Callas underwent premature menopause in 1957--probably another reason for vocal decline). But indeed, this is not a topic on which to dwell--my original point. Callas' real voice, the one that reflected her transcendent art, is the pre-1954 voice where everything her musical sensibility could produce was easily available to her and us.


----------



## silentio (Nov 10, 2014)

The singers who set the bar too high for me are:

*Claudia Muzio* for verismo
*Maria Callas* for almost whatever she sung
*Maggie Teyte* for the French repertoire 
*Fritz Wunderlich *for the lyric repertoire
*Germaine Lubin* for Wagner
*Mattia Battistini* for Verdi baritone


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

> Fritz Wunderlich for the lyric repertoire


You must be joking, right?


----------



## silentio (Nov 10, 2014)

Pugg said:


> You must be joking, right?


Why? Did I miss something ? Some label just released his Siegfried or Tristan?


----------



## PaulFranz (May 7, 2019)

Figleaf said:


> To this day, I think that all baritones and basses chantantes should be subjected to the Peter Dawson test: can they sing the Largo al factotum, or Schubert's Erlkoenig, or Honour and Arms (or whatever) as cleanly, easily and elegantly as that great and underrated Australian bass baritone did?


Oscar Natzka sang much of the same British song repertory as Dawson, just with a profondo voice that was about three times his size. His Honour and Arms is a benchmark. I think he would satisfy the needs of those who want a darker and more opulent tone, while still not sacrificing agility and general technical freedom.

And when he opens up in his upper-middle register (which is C-D because he has a very low-set voice), the sound, size, and freedom is really something else. It's got the openness, beauty, and freedom of a McCormack. See his "so mean a triumph" high-ish note in Honour and Arms.

His style, even in his time, was really a throwback style to when even the lowest profondi sang with the same basic technique and attitude of leggero tenors. You know, the Nivettes, Payans, Sibiryakovs of the world.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

When I was young I was very devoted to some singers and couldn't enjoy Gwyneth Jones or Eva Marton because I was always comparing them to Nilsson, who I used to be fanatic about. I saw Jones live in Kundry at Bayreuth at 15 and was too young to know what I was experiencing!!! If only I could go back in time. I have many friends on here who are ruined by Callas for everyone else in everything she sang but I only feel that way about her singing on Armida, which I feel will always be unsurpassed.


----------

