What happened to Callas's voice in 1959?
jyrki kaarlola
Hi everybody!
I would like to speculate on the following question (although I know that at
this point, Callas being dead for over 20 years, this is trivial): What
happened to Callas's voice at the end of 1959? Her voice had been
deteriorating since 1953. For example, if we listen to the performances
which she gave in
Mexico City 1950-52 (or earlier), we can hear, among other things, that the
voice possesses a magnificent head resonance which she was quick to lose. Is
it not a strange coincidence that this deterioration of the voice began
around the time she commenced her famous diet in 1953 (mainly because she
thought that she was fat and ugly.)? However, when performing on stage, she
didn't seem to have had the appearance of a "fat" woman, in my opinion
(judging by the photographes). She was said to have possessed a magnificent
stage presence.But surely the loss of over thirty kilos would have some
effect on the voice. Her basic vocal type seems to have been that of a
dramatic soprano (with an agile high register).
At the Dallas rehearsal (November 1957; a tape has been published by Legato
131) she sang very well indeed and was even capable of launching a
tremendously high, prolonged E at the end of "Sempre
Libera" (La Traviata). Some years later, at the recording of Lucia
Lammermoor (1959) she managed almost all the music (although at this point
her voice had become very thin). Some modifications seem to have been made
together with some "patching up" by the engineers. The mad scene especially
seem to have needed a number of takes. Before this recording, she had sung
Medea (November 1958) and Il Pirata (January 1959). She recorded La
Gioconda (one of the roles known to be a voice wrecker) in September 1959
and Turandot in 1957. There were many strenuous concert tours as well
usually with a very ambitious repertoire including dramatic arias coupled
with coloratura parts.
Her liaison with Onassis began around the same time, or perhaps it was in
1957 (as far as I can
remember). There has been suggestions that " she just lost her nerve that
"nothing
happened to her voice", but I do not believe that. Listening closely to her
recordings year by year, it seems that the voice itself is constantly going
through some sort of changes. It is taking on a harsh, guttural quality, the
high
notes becoming more and more strident. The voice does not "ring out"
properly any
more. A few years later, the high register collapses altogether.
The Norma recording (EMI 1960) is not that bad, but when she appearead as
Paolina in Donizetti's Poliuto (La Scala December 1960 and later in Medea)
she was already in noticeable vocal difficulty. Soon afterwards, the divine
voice
was gone forever.
Why did she experience such a deep vocal collapse at the end of
the 50s? Was it because of the many heavy roles (Medea, La Gioconda (1959);
Turandot for EMI in 1957), of the numerous concerts she gave usually with
heavy
programmes (she liked to warmp up with dramatic arias and then move on to
coloratura parts;surely not a practice that you would recommend to any
student ), or did her vocal cords suffer some kind of "a last finishing
stroke" because of this heavy repertoire; A "stroke" from which she was
unable to recover anymore. At the EMI studios (in 1961 or 1962) , she
attempted a recording of Rossini's Armida (D'amor al dolce impero,
unpublished by EMI) as
if to prove to herself that she still could make it. Unfortunantely these
roles were far beyond her reach at this point. My own view is that Maria
Callas just overworked her voice.
She loved to sing in full voice, to give literallly everything, to really
portray the agonies of the various protagonists through her unique voice.
The other explantion is that there was something wrong with her basic
singing technique.
My next point is about the recent additions that EMI has made to the Callas
discrography. I feel a bit disappointed mainly because EMI has chosen to
recycle recordings already published for about ten years ago. In my opinion,
in stead of this recycling and cashing in, EMI should have acquired the
rights to the many live recordings, many of which are available only via
"unofficial" labels (which are often difficult to track down, depending upon
the country where you happen to live). "Iphigénie en Tauride" (published by
EMI in March, 1998) is not one of Callas's best efforts, although I have to
admit that it is better than publish nothing new at all.
I should so very much like to hear the live recording of Bellini's Norma (La
Scala, 7 December 1955) which is one of her best performances as Norma, a
truly inspired performance by any standards. Other candidates for a future
release could be Rossini's Armida (Florence 1952, exists on the Melodram
label but in poor sound), Verdi's Nabucco (Naples 1949 exists on Legendary
Recordings 1005 if you can find it), one of the Mexico City Aidas or Il
trovatores (Melodram), Wagner's Parsifal 1950 (published by Fonit Cetra in
an excellently remastered sound; to find it, try shopping, for instance, in
Barcelona,), Verdi's I Vespri Siciliani (Legendary Recordings 1008),
Donizetti's Lucia di Lammermoor Mexico City 1952 (Myto), Bellini's Norma in
Covent Garden 1952, Cherubini's Medea (La Scala 1953)... EMI has somehow
managed to miss them all !!!
Best wishes,
Jyrki Kaarlola
Finland
Michael E. Miller/Robert E. Seletsky
lot to do with it: all drastic losses of weight mean that one loses
muscle mass as well as fat. So less body support, more work to sing,
more pressure on the voice, wearing it out faster. Also, Callas' voice
needed constant looking after, and was subject to her good days and bad
days. That's why her sound is so uneven after '53. If she felt well and
happy, and relaxed, she could do anything. If not, there could be
problems. And most of all, she had to practise consistently. When she
met that pig Onassis, she stopped practising completely, AND no longer
had a support system for her singing. So addio voce, e per sempre.
Foolish woman: to give up the world for some sex with a boorish creep.
Bob Seletsky
Michael E. Miller/Robert E. Seletsky
Pleas don't wish that EMI would issue more of Callas' live performances
than they have already done. As you pointed out, EMI, on the verge of
complete insolvency, is just cashing in. The live ones they have issued
are usually in MUCH worse sound than versions issued by smaller
companies. The list of EMI horrors is getting long:
[1] '55 Berlin Lucia is harsh, and emphasizes overload distortion that
other pressings de-emphasize it: Verona, BJR, virtually anyone else.
[2] The EMI Anna Bolena is a disgrace; muffled and low in pitch: get
Verona's version, or Melodram.
[3] The newly issued EMI Ifigenia in Tauride is muffled and distorted:
the cheap old Replica LPs sound clear and accurate. There's no excuse
for EMI's monstrosity.
[4] EMI '55 Scala Traviata is shrill and distorted; Foyer or Hunt makes
it sweet and full.
[5] EMI Pirata is fair, but emphasizes the overload distortion, and has
a hard edge; Verona and Melodram sound sweet and natural, de-emphasizing
overload distortion.
[6] EMI '52 Macbeth omits at least one phrase of instrumental music;
worse, it substitutes *2 minutes* (the a cappella ensemble near the end
of Act I) from someone else's performance, when these minutes in the
source tape were deemed in not good enough condition to issue: GOP,
Nuova Era, BJR (LP) issued it complete, and equalized for the damaged
section to perfectly good effect. Also, EMI's Macbeth has pre- and
post-echo found on no other pressing.
Shall I go on? Do you still want EMI to get their hands on any other
live Callas???
Bob Seletsky
Virginia Page
cigarettes and drank too much shortly after her
breakup with Onassis. Whether this is true or not,
she hung out with a chain smokers -- Onassis even
lit up in his box at Covent Garden during one of
her performances. Perhaps her voice might have
been harmed by his (and who know who else's?)
second-hand smoke. Her husband may also have been
a smoker. (But then Sinatra smoked like a chimney
with apparently no ill effects.)
I don't think that her weight loss could have
harmed her voice all that much. She was normally
thin, judging from the photo of her singing Tosca
in 1943 in Athens. She had gained a lot of weight
after the war in reaction to having starved. She
said losing weight gave her a lot more energy. She
had bad health problems during much of her career,
and caught a lot of colds, flu, and, as we know
now, she had heart problems.
>Foolish woman: to give up the world for some sex
with a boorish creep.
Ah, but I've heard that Onassis was fun, dynamic,
witty and intelligent and not all that boorish nor
a creep. Since Maria had been working since
childhood she must have felt it was time to take a
break for a bit of fun. I suspect she and Onassis
fought a lot and the relationship did not turn out
to be relaxing, to say the least, but I can't
begrudge her enjoying the sex, money, yacht,
presents, et al.
I do begrudge him, and her, the cigs and, if true,
the booze.
Michael E. Miller/Robert E. Seletsky
>
> Franco Corelli told me in '67 that Maria smoked
> cigarettes and drank too much shortly after her
> breakup with Onassis. Whether this is true or not,
Indeed, on the CD-set "Callas in Her Own Words," there's a fairly
telling (and sad) moment in a private 1968 interview with John Ardoin,
where she says, "one more cigarette and then you'll take me home." Oh
God, did she do anything that *didn't* harm her great instrument?!
And in photos from the 50's she is occasionally shown *holding* a
cigarette--interestingly, in one with di Stefano from '55, her cigarette
is not lit. On the other hand, Caballe is a heavy smoker, and she's had
one of the longest careers, with no vocal deterioration. Still, with a
problem voice like Callas, she shouldn't have taken any chances.
> I don't think that her weight loss could have
> harmed her voice all that much. She was normally
> thin, judging from the photo of her singing Tosca
> in 1943 in Athens...
On the contrary, by her own admission, she was never thin: one part of
her "ugly ducking" complex. In Athens pictures she looks good, but
definitely not thin. According to her, her weight boomeranged around
through the late '40s and early '50s. And as for the big 1953 weight
loss not having any effect on her voice, how do you then explain the
dramatic and terrifying change from 1953 to 1954? Singers tell me that
dramatic weight loss terrible for the voice, because when muscle-mass is
lost, you have to strain more, putting undue pressure on the vocal
apparatus, and your voice still sounds less rich, and eventually it
starts to shred.
> >Foolish woman: to give up the world for some sex
> > with a boorish creep.
> Ah, but I've heard that Onassis was fun, dynamic,
> witty and intelligent and not all that boorish nor
> a creep. Since Maria had been working since
> childhood she must have felt it was time to take a
> break for a bit of fun...
Oh please! He made her walk behind him, insulted her constantly--he even
her voice, whose damage was partly his fault, as "a whistle in your
throat that no longer works"; he was an alcoholic, and possibly
physically abusive. That's not what I call fun. It's sick and
co-dependent, and Maria should have gotten out immediately. Love is
blind, and very, very stupid. Meneghini, the same age as Onassis, really
did love her, and without him, none of the greatness would have
happened. Ironically this very greatness is what made her ripe for
Onassis' victimization: his collecting of famous women.
> I can't
> begrudge her enjoying the sex, money, yacht,
> presents, et al. I do begrudge him, and her, the cigs and, if true.
Fun is one thing; putting yourself in physical and emotional danger is
another. And whose loss was it: Callas' and all of ours. Why couldn't
she find a nice, attractive, loving pianist, violinist, conductor, or
something, if Meneghini no longer did it for her?
Bob Seletsky
Michael Delos
newsgroup. An intelligent topic, discussed rationally by people with various
opinions and no hurling of insults!!
My take on her decline is that Callas took on roles that were unsuited to her
vocal mechanism. When she was young (and heavy) she got away with murder,
taking her chest voice up to dangerous heights for dramatic effect (witness the
incredible outburst in Act 3 of Medea "la uccida o Nume l'empio giubilo"). You
can only get away with that kind of mayhem on the vocal chords for a time and
then there is a price to pay, namely that the lower middle voice disappears and
you get a rush of unfocussed sound until about the middle A-flat before the head
voice kicks in. Rather than reverting to a period of re-study, she continued
to sing heavy roles alternating with light roles like Sonnambula and covering
the bare patch with a clever use of dynamics. But eventually the voice simply
unravelled. Unfortunately it happened at about the time she met Onassis, and
there was less incentive to re-train, and her muscle tone weakened, compounding
the issue. When she did try to get back to the career in 1960 it was a wreck of
a voice. As witnessed by how she pulled together for the 1962 concerts, she
hadn't damaged the voice per se but was never again able to sing with the
abandon of the early 50's. By 1963 it had all fallen apart again, as witness
the series of concerts culminating in the Paris appearance which was
heartbreaking, save for the "Schicci" aria. So, an artist of wide contrasts:
the ambition and vocal material to become the greatest singer of the 2nd half
of the century, but either a blind disregard for the damage she was inflicting
on her vocal chords(which is unlikely, given her strict bel canto training) or a
calculated effort to sing at 100 per cent in every role she performed,
regardless of the cost. I think it was the latter. I can just imagine what de
Hidalgo said to her in private about what she was doing to her throat. But
then, she wouldn't have been Callas, and we wouldn't be discussing her endlessly
20 years after her death!
Shahrdad
beloved Maria in this newsgroup. I've really loved reading all the
wonderful postings from people who love and admire this greatest of
geniuses.
The question of Callas' vocal decline has been in my mind since I first fell
in love with her when I was 16. I think it did indeed have a lot to do with
her weight loss, and also with her new self image. Callas natural voice was
very big, dark, and heavy. Such voices are by nature extremely violent, and
it takes a tremendously strong physique to keep the voice under control. In
addition, her voice was naturally "flawed" in that the registers were all
very different from each other. There were also areas in the voice in the
bridge between the middle and the upper register which always had a metallic
sound that never sounded quite right, especially when sung forte or louder.
All her life, Callas had been a very statuesque and extremely strong
physically. Though she did become quite obese in the early fifties, I'm
sure the fat did not make her sing any better. However, when she lost the
60 or 70 pounds of fat in one year, she also probably lost around 20 to 30
pounds of muscle along with the fat. Much of this muscle loss was surely in
her abdomen and muscle around the torso. The voice no longer had the same
incredible muscular support, and the sound and volume changed. Her Cav/Pag
set shows this very clearly, the Cav having been recorded when she was fat,
and the Pag when thin.
Today, I was listening to her sing D'amo sul ali from La Scala in 1953. The
sound is absolutely colossal, and it just pours out of her. The breath
seems endless. The top rings with an almost pipe-organ-like power, and the
whole voice is quite plush. Even the pianissimo's are huge. But what was
most amazing was the incredible support she was able to offer the tone. The
gigantic tone is supported on a granite-like solid column of air. Her 56
EMI recording or the 58 Paris have nothing of this support. She learned to
sing and developed her technique when she was very strong, and I don't think
her vocal technique ever really adapted to her diminished muscular
resources.
I think that as she lost the muscular support, she began to sustain the
voice more with her neck and jaw rather than her intercostal, abdominal, and
back muscles. The pictures of her singing when fat show her neck and jaw
quite relaxed, her posture perfectly straight, and her head and shoulders
back and without tension. Later photos and videos show shoulders that are
tilted forward, a stiff jaw, and visible muscular tension in the neck.
Pictures from 1959 show her collarbones sticking out dangerously from her
shoulders, and reportedly, she only weighed between 110 and 120 pounds by
that point, and that for a woman of 5'9".
As far as the psychological aspect goes, I think Callas felt that her big,
fat, plush tone just somehow didn't fit her new thin and glamorous body. To
a certain extent, I think she lightened her sound consciously, and tried to
make it a softer, a more feminine, a more "Audrey Hepburn-like" sound to fit
her new body. Perhaps not allowing her voice to sail and ring full like
before kept her from redeveloping those muscled in the abdomen and torso
which she lost along with the weight.
As far as the heavy versus light repertoire is concerned, I tend to digress
from most people's views. When I listen to the young Callas sing Aida,
Gioconda, Abigaile, Lady Macbeth, Norma, Leonora, Santuzza, Kundry, and
other heavy roles, I am always amazed at the ease of her singing. The voice
is full, extremely powerful and voluminous, and it sails over the orchestra
in this heavy music with the greatest of ease. She's like a fish in water.
But listening to her sing the lighter repertoire, even Lucia and Elvira, she
sounds like she's always holding the voice back. Her voice wants to open up
and ring out, but she holds it back, lightens the color, and in general uses
a brighter, higher head resonance and eliminates those plush lower overtones
which make her voice so luxurious. Even the piano singing is different. In
the heavy repertoire, she produced that full sound in the pianissimo singing
which was, paradoxically, softly gigantic. Later on, her pianissimi,
especially in the upper part of the voice, were much thinner and less full
bodied. In my mind, this is also confirmed by the full throated, generous
vocalism she provides in the 1959 Gioconda. I think her voice here sounds
much better than it had in several years, and perhaps that is because she's
singing a role to which her voice was suited, and singing it in a manner
suited to her basic vocal fiber.
We can go on guessing forever, and we'll never really know for sure. But
what I am sure of is that even with a mere thread of a voice, Callas could
still create more beautiful music and communicate more emotion that any one
I've ever heard. Just listen to her recording of the aria from Il Corsaro
recorded in 1969. The voice is barely there, but God, how she shapes and
molds that music, the seamless flow of the legato, the absolute perfect
timing of each note, the elasticity of the phrasing, the incredible beauty
of the singing if not of the voice!
I guess we'll just keep on asking what Ricciarelli once said: "How did she
do it?" I don't think she knew herself.
S.
Michael Delos wrote in message <35AD4206...@isomedia.com>...
Virginia Page
your perceptive, well-informed, very interesting
and loving comments about our Maria.
I'm still reluctant to attribute Maria's vocal
decline to her weight loss, perhaps because I lost
50 lbs in the first six months this year, and
sound much better to myself in the shower (thank
goodness nobody else has to listen). I also think
Maria did some wonderful singing after '53,
although you-all have more technical knowledge
about the voice. In any case you are doubtlessly
right: she probably lost muscle, while I just lost
fat--not to mention never having a voice to lose!
Maria gave me to believe that she felt physically
weak in '67, and she said that she was envious of
Birgit Nilsson's tremendous strength and energy.
"Oh, what I could do if I had such energy!" she
said. She mentioned breaking her shoulder when
falling in Mexico earlier that year, and I said,
"But Mme. Callas, you are immortal!"
She stared into space sadly and replied, "I wish I
were. I wish I were."
She added, almost defiantly, "The voice is still
there." I knew that was much more of a desperate
wish than a fact.
On a more cheerful note: When she appeared in the
audience at the Met the evening before, she got a
wild, standing ovation. The week or so before, she
was given a similarly riotous reception at the San
Francisco Opera House when she joined the
audience. She seemed surprised by the adulation,
and she glowed when she recalled how happy those
people made her. No matter how much tragedy beset
her, she was comforted by the love of her
audiences.
--Virginia
Shahrdad
with a very different voice form the one she produced when fat. Here's is a
perhaps stupid analogy. I own an E420 Mercedes, and my mother owns an
E320. Both cars weight exactly the same and are the same dimension. Mine
has a V8 engine with a great deal of horsepower and torque. Mom's has a 6
cylinder, which also has plenty of power, but not as much as a V8. Both
cars are fast and drive wonderfully. But mine always has that extra reserve
of power, especially at high speeds which give it a sense of stability and
security that the smaller engine can't offer. When Maria was fat, she had
that V8 engine powering the voice. There was always a wonderful sense of
power in reserve in her singing that the thinner Callas just didn't have.
This was especially true of the high register. When she was fat, she could
at times be a bit shrill up there, but there was almost never any wobble or
excess vibrato.
I have always thought of the singing sound as having layers. There is the
core of the tone, that bright, highly focused sound which resonates mostly
in the top of the head or the mask. On top of that, there is the padding on
the voice, which is the fuller, more lush sound which comes from resonance
deeper down in the mouth, and perhaps even in the chest. The core of the
voice can always be sustained with a moderate amount of support, but the
padding on the tone requires a whole lot more muscular power and sustained
breath support. Without an adequate amount of support, the fat tone has to
be sustained with the throat, and consequently, the voice becomes strident
and unsteady.
When Callas lost the weight, it seemed as if the padding was stripped from
her voice. The core was always there, but the fullness, especially on top
disappeared. It occasionally reappeared when she was very relaxed and felt
good, and also when she was totally enraged, as in the Dallas Medea.
Perhaps the adrenaline had something to do with it.
As you said, Callas herself said that she felt physically weak. I remember
reading her husband's book, wherein Meneghini described his young fat wife
as having "the strength of a young bull." I believe he was referring to the
time when Callas physically picked up a bellboy who had tried to touch her
breasts and tossed him a full 15 or 20 feet through the door into the
hallway. Meneghini seemed to have been absolutely awed by her sheer
physical strength. Clearly, Callas had not much of this strength left by
the time of her vocal crisis.
As for Callas' comment, "The voice is still there," I think she was
absolutely right. The basic vocal organ was always there, but the engine to
run it wasn't. I do have a recording of Callas singing "Ah Perfido" not
long before she died. The voice is nothing like the horrible one she
produced during the tour with di Stefano. The sound is big and full, with
the same luscious middle register, full low notes, and even the high notes
seem to be coming back.
It absolutely breaks my heart to think that perhaps the voice was never
gone, but was buried under a mountain of nerves. What a pity. What a
waste.
S.
GlennGr
wonder if maybe the emotion so "hearable" in her voice, her incredible
expressiveness might itself have placed a lot of strain on the instrument. Thus
making a relatively short career inevitable. Can one safely sing while
expressing such powerful and varying emotions, night after night and expect the
voice to hold up? (And if so, why don't more singers--? Oh, never mind)
Cheers,
St...@earthlink.net
(at a friend's right now)
Shahrdad
GlennGr wrote in message
<199807182209...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>I'm no expert in singing, just someone who loves every note Callas sang,
but I
>wonder if maybe the emotion so "hearable" in her voice, her incredible
>expressiveness might itself have placed a lot of strain on the instrument.
Thus
>making a relatively short career inevitable. Can one safely sing while
>expressing such powerful and varying emotions, night after night and expect
the
>voice to hold up? (And if so, why don't more singers--? Oh, never mind)
>
You might be right, but I think the emotion of Callas' voice came from the
coloration, the timing, and the shading of the voice. She didn't do that
much abusive singing, such as constant glottal stops and such. Someone had
mentioned the use of chest voice. Callas had a very natural full chest
register which she knew how to use perfectly. At times, she did switch into
chest higher than usual, but this was not THAT frequent, and she only did it
for occasional dramatic effect. And besides, many pop singers have been
singing in chest much much higher than Callas ever did, and still keep a
good high register.
Callas vocal problems stemmed mostly from physical weakness which led to a
decrease in support. This in turn led to a thinning of the sound, a
decrease in the general weight of the voice, a shrinkage in volume, and
stridency and unsteadiness in the upper range.. I have often fantasized
about what would have happened if someone would have gotten hold of her in
1953 and started her on a less drastic diet and an intense aerobic and
weight training exercise program. I wonder what would have happened if she
didn't sing in public for 8 or 9 months and only did her physical exercises
and also took several hours of voice lessons daily in order to re-adapt to
her new physique. Somehow I think the outcome may have been very different.
I suppose we should be thankful for all she gave us. It just breaks my
heart to think that perhaps she could have given even more. One thing is
certain though: we won't be seeing the likes of her in our lifetime.
S.
Michael E. Miller/Robert E. Seletsky
>
> Callas vocal problems stemmed mostly from physical weakness which led to a
> decrease in support. This in turn led to a thinning of the sound, a
> decrease in the general weight of the voice, a shrinkage in volume, and
> about what would have happened if someone would have gotten hold of her in
> 1953 and started her on a less drastic diet and an intense aerobic and
> weight training exercise program.
Hi Shahrdad,
Just as a point of record, aside from other things, Callas was
preposterously stubborn; of course, ironically it was her strong will
that made her great and also destroyed her. Meneghini wrote that at a
certain point, he wanted her to stop losing any more weight. But did she
listen? Are you kidding? As Meneghini put it, they had "a battle royal,"
which probably means she ranted for an hour and probably threw
something. How can you be logical with someone like that? Singers!!!!!
OF COURSE she should have stopped the weight loss at about the time of
the great TOSCA recording--mid '53. From the pictures, she looked great,
voluptuous rather than heavy--rather sexy in fact. And best of all, the
VOICE was intact, God knows. Even in December of 1953, during the live
Scala MEDEA with Bernstein, she looked and sounded perfect. But she
wouldn't stop herself. She was tragically stupid in not realizing that
with her large frame, losing all that muscle mass was killing her,
certainly vocally. And frankly, she looked weird; the super-thinness
made her nose, mouth, hands and feet look too big. Audrey Hepburn
indeed! And then the stooped posture set in: how can you make any
healthy vocal sound like that? As you so aptly point out, early
pictures--inclusing the December '53 MEDEA show her with great upright,
supported posture, singing with that rich sound of steel and velvet. O
memoria amaro.
Bob Seletsky
Shahrdad
Michael E. Miller/Robert E. Seletsky wrote in message
<35B21B...@sprintmail.com>...
>Just as a point of record, aside from other things, Callas was
>preposterously stubborn; of course, ironically it was her strong will
>that made her great and also destroyed her. Meneghini wrote that at a
>certain point, he wanted her to stop losing any more weight. But did she
>listen? Are you kidding? As Meneghini put it, they had "a battle royal,"
>which probably means she ranted for an hour and probably threw
>something. How can you be logical with someone like that? Singers!!!!!
>OF COURSE she should have stopped the weight loss at about the time of
>the great TOSCA recording--mid '53. From the pictures, she looked great,
>voluptuous rather than heavy--rather sexy in fact. And best of all, the
>VOICE was intact, God knows. Even in December of 1953, during the live
>Scala MEDEA with Bernstein, she looked and sounded perfect. But she
>wouldn't stop herself. She was tragically stupid in not realizing that
>with her large frame, losing all that muscle mass was killing her,
>certainly vocally. And frankly, she looked weird; the super-thinness
>made her nose, mouth, hands and feet look too big. Audrey Hepburn
>indeed! And then the stooped posture set in: how can you make any
>healthy vocal sound like that? As you so aptly point out, early
>pictures--inclusing the December '53 MEDEA show her with great upright,
>supported posture, singing with that rich sound of steel and velvet. O
>memoria amaro.
>
>Bob Seletsky
Well, I think she did gain something by the weight loss. She got a new self
confidence as a beautiful woman which gave a new tenderness and depth to a
lot of her interpretations. Feeling beautiful is important for everyone,
but especially to a woman. I think Callas finally saw that she could
compete with her beautiful thin sister and be physically desirable, so there
was no stopping her. A friend of mine played the bass fiddle in the St.
Louis Symphony when she came for her concert in 1959. He just could not get
over how absolutely BEAUTIFUL she was. Forty years later, he still kept
saying, "She was just so beautiful, so elegant. I've never seen anyone so
absolutely gorgeous." Her nose and ears did look big close up perhaps, but
they were perfect for the stage. All of her exaggerated features spoke
clearly from a distance and contributed to the impact of her acting. And
you just have to admit it: in a lot of the pictures from the mid fifties,
she does look absolutely gorgeous.
The pity is that the vocal decline could have been avoided. I don't think
back then people had as much understanding of the weight loss process and
its physical consequences. I still remember my mother bringing home one of
those machines with the vibrating belt which was supposed to make her hips
smaller. And this was the 1970's!!! Being fat certainly wasn't healthy for
Callas. But she did lose the weight by just dieting, not by strenuous,
muscle building exercise. Had she taken a different route, she probably
would have sung better than ever and still looked fabulous!
S.
Shahrdad
Michael E. Miller/Robert E. Seletsky
>
> Well, I think she did gain something by the weight loss. She got a new self
> confidence as a beautiful woman which gave a new tenderness and depth to a
> lot of her interpretations. Feeling beautiful is important for everyone,
> but especially to a woman. I think Callas finally saw that she could
> compete with her beautiful thin sister and be physically desirable, so there
> was no stopping her. A friend of mine played the bass fiddle in the St.
> Louis Symphony when she came for her concert in 1959. He just could not get
> over how absolutely BEAUTIFUL she was. Forty years later, he still kept
> saying, "She was just so beautiful, so elegant. I've never seen anyone so
> absolutely gorgeous."
Yeah, yeah. Just gorgeous. And we all know how godawful she sounded in
1959, while looking like a poster-child for eating disorders: St. Louis,
right--ever see the skeletal picture of her with Harry Truman, taken at
that show? All I can say about her going too far, too fast with the
weight loss is: stupid, stupid, stupid. Did she want to be a musician or
an anorexic fashion model? The voice of an Angel in the possession of a
consummate musical artist turned into shredded wheat in a few years
because its owner was sexually frustrated. Callas didn't need a diet,
she needed a therapist.
Bob S.
Michael Delos
>
>
>
>
> Yeah, yeah. Just gorgeous. And we all know how godawful she sounded in
> 1959, while looking like a poster-child for eating disorders: St. Louis,
> right--ever see the skeletal picture of her with Harry Truman, taken at
> that show? All I can say about her going too far, too fast with the
> weight loss is: stupid, stupid, stupid. Did she want to be a musician or
> an anorexic fashion model? The voice of an Angel in the possession of a
> consummate musical artist turned into shredded wheat in a few years
> because its owner was sexually frustrated. Callas didn't need a diet,
> she needed a therapist.
>
> Bob S.
>
I'm glad someone has finally raised the issue of anorexia vis-a-vis Callas,
because I truly think that was a major problem for her from about 1956 through
1962. Some of the photographs are appalling. I just saw the Ed Sullivan TOSCA
clip, and I swear to you, that woman had an 18 inch waist. To continue to sing
the heavy repertoire she did could only have one result, which is the wobble that
finally came consistantly from 1958 onward. And of course if it was anorexia, she
was totally in denial about it and couldn't retrain her voice to sing a different
repertoire because she still thought of herself as fat, and therefore in no need
of changing her repertoire. When Jon Vicker's complimented her after the
Epidaurus MEDEA, she snapped, "I'm nothing but a big, fat girl with an ugly
voice". Yikes!!!
Michael E. Miller/Robert E. Seletsky
>
> I'm glad someone has finally raised the issue of anorexia vis-a-vis Callas,
> because I truly think that was a major problem for her from about 1956 through
> 1962.... And of course if it was anorexia, she
> was totally in denial...When Jon Vicker's complimented her after the
> Epidaurus MEDEA, she snapped, "I'm nothing but a big, fat girl with an ugly
> voice". Yikes!!!
That is the most appalling, saddest quote I've yet heard--and I thought
I'd heard everything at this point in my (by choice) Callas-saturated
life. The years 1959-62: very interesting, the prime Onassis years, with
the Epidaurus MEDEA in 1961. We know he insulted and psychologically
abused her, and obviously knew which buttons to press, the sadistic
bastard! So once again, who killed Callas--which is to say, who killed
opera? The initials of the person always seem to come up A.O. Damn him.
Bob S.