Why was Tebaldi compared to Callas?
John Gavin
can't imagine how a rivalry started between them. They seem as
different as day and night. I won't comment on their voices, but as far
as acting ability and stage presence, I will say that comparing Tebaldi
to Callas is like comparing Rock Hudson to Laurence Olivier! ;)
DieZflote
Callas is my favorite singer. I was completely floored the first time I heard
her. Her dramatic presence is unequalled. Tebaldi, on the other hand, had the
voice of an angel. I love her as well.
I think the rivilary was purely started by their fans. In their day, it was
the age of the soprano, and they were operas biggest draws. So, there was
naturally a debate on who was better and the fans took it to new levels.
Tebaldi ruled Italy and when Callas performed there, the "hissing snakes" as
she would call them would be out in full force. Also she once said, and this
is a loose quote, "If the hissing snakes are not out, then I am not doing my
best!" The encouraged her to knock their socks off.
I think the rivilary got started in South America. Several opera singers were
doing a concert. They were to each do ONE number and bow out. Well Tebaldi
sang her number and then proceeded to do encores...Callas was not happy.
I did hear once that Callas said, "Comparing Tabaldi to me, is like comparing
coca-cola to champagne."
I don't know if that is true out not, but the two diva's made up after Callas
was dumped by Onasis. She say Tebaldi, grabbed her, hugged her, and cried on
her shoulder. Renata said, "I knew right then what had happened." Meaning,
she new Onasis had dumped Callas.
I have this four cd interview type thing on Callas. They compare her and
Tebaldi. Tebaldi said, "She really was something. She had this BIG voice."
I get hotheaded when people slam Callas, but I also get bothered when the slam
Tebaldi. They really were like apples and oranges and I love them both...Two
of operas greatest!
rge
"John Gavin" <jg...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:20622-38...@storefull-218.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
james jorden
performances at about the same time, and were (erroneously) though to share
many roles. Each was under contract to a major recording company, and
therefore had similar levels of publicity and name-recognition.
Other coincidences reinforced the contrast between the two artists: for
example, Tebaldi was well-known for being devoted to her mother, whereas Callas
and *her* mother were constantly feuding. Callas put herself through a
stringent visual makeover until she resembled a film star, whereas Tebaldi
(during the 1950s, anyway) remained rather matronly and unglamorous.
I think another aspect that is not always considered is that each of these
artists *represented* to the other something she could never be: to Callas,
Tebaldi symbolized a beautiful effortless voice and the warm love of the
public; to Tebaldi, Callas represented genius, a real artist's artist. And so
whatever annoyance each diva felt for the other was actually just a projection
of her own feelings of inadequacy.
BTW, look for rmo's very own David Shengold now ONLINE at http://www.lgny.com
-- part of his fascinating "Despo" series on second casts and debuts at the
Met.
james jorden
jjo...@ix.netcom.com
www.parterre.com
"Wit ought to be a glorious treat like caviar; never spread it about like
marmalade." - Noel Coward
Tyrrath
their differences - and people's preference of one modus /opera/ndi (hee) over
the other - was the reason people were so passionate about them. Not to mention
that Callas made a few snide remarks about Tebaldi (notably the Champagne vs.
Coca-cola comment).
They were also both gifted, beautiful young women who sang the same fach at the
same houses at the same time. How could there /not/ be a rivalry?
Ivrys88
head:
Tosca
Leonora (Forza)
Aida
Elisabetta di Valois
Violetta
Butterfly
Probably there are others as well.
Terrymelin
>(during the 1950s, anyway) remained rather matronly and unglamorous.
That's certainly not the Tebaldi I remember. Photos from the 1950s show her as
glamorous dripping in furs and jewelry and couture gowns. I've never once
thought of her as matronly. As for Callas, before her makeover she sort of
resembled Roseanne Barr.
Terry Ellsworth
andre35
voice at the same time.
Andre
JKauff001
dazzling smile. Wolf
GRNDPADAVE
>Date: Sat, 22 January 2000 03:10 PM EST
>Message-id: <20000122151055...@ng-fq1.aol.com>
Yes, indeed, if we consider recordings.
---
Manon Lescaut
La Boheme
Cavalleria Rusticana
La Gioconda
Un Ballo in Maschera
Il Trovatore
--
There are surprises, too.
Tebaldi recorded certain roles where I imagine Callas would have been terrific:
La Fanciulla del West
La Wally
Adriana Lecrouvreur
Andrea Chenier
There are Callas roles where I think Tebaldi would have sounded great:
Norma
Pagliacci
Medea
I don't recall Callas ever singing or recording Don Carlos.
Both artists have left us a superb legacy of recordings for which I think we
can all be grateful.
==G/P Dave
Mike Richter
which is another issue altogether and not related to the 'rivalry'. In
practical terms, Tosca and Aida are the only matches and Callas gave up
the latter after 1953.
Mike
Ivrys88 wrote:
>
> They _did_ share some roles. I can think of the following off the top of my
> head:
>
> Tosca
> Leonora (Forza)
> Aida
> Elisabetta di Valois
> Violetta
> Butterfly
>
> Probably there are others as well.
--
mric...@cpl.net
http://mrichter.simplenet.com
CD-R http://resource.simplenet.com
james jorden
>practical terms, Tosca and Aida are the only matches
They both did FORZA, BUTTERFLY and TRAVIATA as well, mostly in around the same
periods.
OmbraRecds
>glamorous dripping in furs and jewelry and couture gowns. I've never once
>thought of her as matronly. As for Callas, before her makeover she sort of
>resembled Roseanne Bar
Yes that's why there are sooo many expensive, beautiful photo books of Tebaldi.
Let's see, what was the last count of the Callas books? Hmmm.
Keybedder
>I don't recall Callas ever singing or recording Don Carlos.
She sang the role one season at La Scala (1954, I think). The fifth act aria
"Tu che le vanita" played a prominent role in her later repertory.
emma...@my-deja.com
I don't believe Tebaldi ever sang this role on stage, though she made a
recording of it. That's also true of Amelia in Ballo. I remember her
telling an interviewer she had turned Don Carlos down (and seen it
given to Callas?) because in the days of the 4 act version, usually
done with cuts, the soprano really only got the big aria and there was
a lot of standing around until then. I don't believe Tebaldi ever had
to learn a role just to get a job. Success came very early. Callas did
learn roles because they were the ones offered her -- true of all her
Wagner roles. I also don't think Tebaldi ever learned a role for a
recording she didn't plan to sing live (she hadn't sung Butterfly at
the time of her first recording). She never got around to actually
doing Santuzza but I think she wanted to. Callas however never sang or
as far as is known planned to sing Mimi, Manon Lescaut, Nedda, Carmen.
She sang Santuzza only a handful of times in Athens. Callas dropped
Aida as soon as she could, and apparently wasn't happy with the
recording. Tebaldi continued to sing it into the early 60's, though I
don't believe she had an easy time of it live after the mid-50's.
Ironically she was unhappy with her second recording and quite disliked
Von Karajan.
The comparison of the two makes little sense, except they were famous
at the same time. I have never been convinced Callas ever had a "huge"
voice, as a poster in this thread suggested. She certainly had an
arresting timbre which she could project well, but my impression was
the voice had not much more heft than Scotto and she screamed more. Her
way of taking the chest all the way up (there's a D flat from chest in
the Armida) makes the voice sound very big on mike. But I know about
twenty people who were in Mexico for those performances and found
Callas sounded small compared to Del Monaco, Dominquez and Taddei.
Though I don't want to trust my boy memory (now that I'm a girl) of
Callas the season of her Met debut, I certainly don't remember her
voice as large (whereas Warren who I heard about the same time had so
much volume I turned to look behind me the first time I heard him live,
sure the sound was coming from "back there". I don't have a clear sense
of him live, except for size.) I've been told that Callas did put out
somewhat more volume her second Met season as Tosca, but always by
people who thought her sound was modest by Met standards (of course a
big voice isn't everything and by then she had lost the weight but I
wonder if it was ever that large).
Emma Albani
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Tmoms or Pauline or Wofice
<<Having seen several videos of both Maria Callas and Renata Tebaldi, I can't
imagine how a rivalry started between them. They seem as different as day and
night. I won't comment on their voices, but as far as acting ability and stage
presence, I will say that comparing Tebaldi to Callas is like comparing Rock
Hudson to Laurence Olivier! ;)>>
I would say that comparing Tebaldi and Callas is like comparing Laurence
Olivier to Kenneth Brannaugh. Both are among the greatest sopranos of all
time! If you think Renata Tebaldi is "Rock Hudson" you are missing one of the
great joys of life". And what the heck is this mad fascination with Callas
that turns people into vicious wretches who go around attacking Renata Tebaldi,
Joan Sutherland, and other great singers? What? What!!!!
Tmoms
OmbraRecds
the Mexico 1951 Aida? The mike is in the same place for all the principles.
Mme. Callas drowns out the tenor, mezzo, chorus and orchestra in the finale of
the triumphal scene.The early Callas voice was not only as large as Mme
Tebaldi's, it had a top, flexibility, and a TRILL.
DieZflote
singing. Was it Sutherland or Schwartzkopf in Don Giovanni, was it Sutherland
or Caballe in Turandot or any of the other sops on those recordings. I
couldn't distinguish! Then when I bought my first Callas recording- there was
not question- I could hear every note this lady sung- even in the chorus'
Nobody can double Callas! She was the best- pure and simple!
I love Tebaldi too- but Callas had something no one had or will ever have.
OmbraRecds
the part. Tebaldi had a large voice that was very even in the registers and had
a lovely. warm stage presence. Her Mimi was unequalled. The idea of her doing
Maria's and Joan's repetoire is ridiculous.None of these sopranos had much in
common. I find it interesting that this supposed "fued" ever really existed.
>reat joys of life". And what the heck is this mad fascination with
Callas
>that turns people into vicious wretches who go around attacking Renata
>Tebaldi,
>Joan Sutherland, and other great singers?
P. Byrne
DieZflote
others. Do I think Callas had things no other soprano possessed- heck yeah! Do
I think other singers had things Callas didn't possess? heck yeah! Tebaldi
had the voice of an angel. Sutherland is good too. Caballe, Kanawa, Fleming,
Mathis, Moffo, Popp, Duetekom..there are many!
emma...@my-deja.com
tm...@aol.com (Tmoms or Pauline or Wofice) wrote:
> From: jg...@webtv.net (John Gavin) says:
>
> <<Having seen several videos of both Maria Callas and Renata Tebaldi,
I can't
> imagine how a rivalry started between them. They seem as different
as day and
> night. I won't comment on their voices, but as far as acting ability
and stage
> presence, I will say that comparing Tebaldi to Callas is like
comparing Rock
> Hudson to Laurence Olivier! ;)>>
>
> I would say that comparing Tebaldi and Callas is like comparing
Laurence
> Olivier to Kenneth Brannaugh. Both are among the greatest sopranos
of all
> time!<
Not only can't I agree more but I think the post above represents an
odd (though common) point of view. Had Callas had that kind of
magnetism and automatic electricity her vocal collapse would have had
no effect on her career. She would either have done
selected "personality" roles in tailored productions and damned the
notes, or she would have made a compelling transition to the spoken
stage (she was fluent after all in three languages) and made the
occaisional persuasive movie and TV appearance. Nureyev for example was
still exciting audiences (less critical audiences and less often than
was once the case) when he could barely move. Even he ran out of steam
in his last couple of tours, but for a time you could still get a
thrill watching him walk across a stage or strike an attitude. Callas
was not like that. I saw several of the last concerts, as well as many
of the Julliard master classes and also saw her a little (and at a
remove) in some other public circumstances. She did not have that
magnetism.
The ecomium quoted above dismisses what Callas did have: musical genius
that expressed itself in purely vocal terms. She needed music and she
needed her voice to work magic. The music could be somewhat dubious,
the voice could be shaky in this or that particular but so long as she
could make a sound in connection to a phrase she would do wonders. The
few moments when that happened in those late concerts were so different
from the pathos in motion that was usually going on they were
unforgettable. Though I have my doubts about the actual size of this
voice (certainly naturally -- she was a lusty screamer -- and that's
only an opinion so I don't need to have my ears examined)I think to
pretend that Callas did not care about her voice as much as any singer
ever, and work at it more fiercely than most (including Tebaldi) is to
do her a profound disservice.
As for other issues. I don't think there was much love lost between
Callas and Tebaldi. They had reason to dislike one another early on and
my impression was that they maintained a certain dislike after their
careers. Callas worked hard and I am reliably told, respected people
who worked as she did. She was not (I am reliably told) a friendly,
engaging, sweet natured or "nice" woman. Nor was she highly educated or
cultured. All that means is she had a fantastic talent and suffered a
good deal trying to protect it. Her weight loss probably hurt her in
three ways. One, she lost muscle as well as fat (a real risk of quick
weight loss schemes, and dangerous for many people, even today. Singing
is a draining athletic activity which requires a great deal of physical
strength and stamina). Two, it probably changed the physical make-up of
her vocal chords. There too is a balance of muscle and fat. Finally,
because (I am reliably told) she used amphetamine -- as did many people
who lost weight or felt tired a lot in the 50's -- she became dependant
on a number of drugs, which probably interferred with some of her late
career professional functioning.
Tebaldi was/is altogether a more ordinary person -- but she was
possessed of a vocal sumptuousness and enormity (which outlasted the
easy beauty)that puts her right up there with the great opera singers
of the century. Sutherland was the same, and in her own way a miracle
(the '59 Convent Garden Lucia was being given away in the excellent
Golden Melodram pressing last week at downtown Tower in New York -- or
it was my impression at least that it was free -- I might have been
mistaken. In any case, it is absolutely astonishing).
I am all for Callas worship but sometimes wonder at the turns it takes.
Emma
james jorden
>magnetism and automatic electricity her vocal collapse would have had
>no effect on her career. She would either have done
>selected "personality" roles in tailored productions and damned the
>notes, or she would have made a compelling transition to the spoken
>stage (she was fluent after all in three languages)
Would, could, should. Yeah, right. As it happens, I had a conversation with
John Ardoin just last month (for an interview in PARTERRE BOX) where he offered
a very reasonable explanation for the "magnetism" phenomenon. He said that the
"magnetism" was completely a function of the music, that as soon as the music
began, Callas "came to life" on stage, and as soon as the music stopped, it was
as if someone had thrown a switch. (I volunteered that something very similar
seemed to happen once in an interview I saw with Michael Jackson -- the
entertainer came off as nerdy and shy until he sang a few notes, and suddenly
he was vibrant and sexy, exuding star power.) So it's silly to suggest that
Callas lacked magnetism; one need only look at the surviving video of her
singing, or listen to the myriads of eyewitnesses who *don't* have a vested
interest in bashing her.
andre35
especially when they are
in this analytical vein.
Somewhere along the line, I can't recall where, I've read you were
about 11 or 12 years old or so in 1960, when you saw Callas live. Quite the
prodigy, to recognize talent at that youthful age. That's so in keeping
with your insights. Sincere congratulations.
andre35
"God will forgive me. C'est son metier." -HH-
emma...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <20000123192655...@ng-fz1.aol.com>,
> tyr...@aol.com (Tyrrath) wrote:
> > But know what? I would give my eye teeth, my firstborn, my life and
> my soul to
> > hear either of these ladies performing their greatest roles /live/
> today.<
>
> I did hear both, unlike a lot of people who posture with opinions about
> them. I did not hear Callas at her best, though I heard her before
> 1960. I agree with you when earlier in this post you said Callas
> sounded like she had a big "light" voice (I'm changing your words a
> little please correct me if I'm wrong). What struck me about that is
> that Ponselle and Eva Turner said the same thing. That she could make
> and in her early years sustain a big sound and even (by singing
> aggressively from the chest) make a "dark" sound, doesn't mean her
> voice was either very large or very dark, naturally. Moreover her
> middle voice was largely contrived by a chesty blend ("she has no
> middle," Eva Turner said).
>
> Tebaldi who I heard often, before, during and after crises, had
> naturally a massive creamy voice. It was just there -- whether all the
> notes were or they were in tune or she was freaking out -- her tone was
> immense and secure in its size (she screamed high notes fairly
> regularly from about 1957, and tended to miss them by a little at
> first, by a mile later) but she did not scream or pressure the rest of
> her voice. The middle was always there and allowing for some obvious
> wear, always beautiful.
>
> For all of Callas' endlessly described troubles, I never felt the voice
> was naturally of a great size, though it was naturally very distinctive
> in timbre (many people confuse the two). Nor did she have a secure,
> firm middle.
>
> Crespin, Stella and Rysanek also had huge voices naturally, even after
> problems and in later years. Callas had to work in my exprience of her
> to make a solid sound. I suspect the impression mikes make -- in fact
> the tapes I've heard made from the house support a sense of her voice
> being more modest in size than say Tebaldi's not to mention Flagstad or
> Sutherland from the same vantage point. It was interesting to observe
> Nilsson move as far away as possible from the mike at the Levine Gala.
> Sure, she wanted to show she still had volume. But she also knows, I
> suspect, that most of her recordings suggest a smaller, thinner sound
> than she had. Some voices are instantly "alive" on mike, some are not.
>
> I'll always remember the benighted Fanfare "reviewer" who complained
> about Crespin's "tiny" voice as Brunnhilde when in my experience over a
> good many years and different houses it was one of the biggest voices I
> ever heard, in the middle bigger than Nilsson's. And I heard her two
> Brunnhildes at the Met -- and that voice went bouncing around the
> theatre throughout the range and was enormous even at pianissimo.
>
> In terms of hearing C and T live -- it would be interesting to see what
> people made of C now that she has had so many imitators and would
> probably seem less unusual. I suspect T would astound people, as would
> Crespin or Sutherland. But just an opinion.
Tyrrath
>Olivier to Kenneth Brannaugh.
I think Olivier to Michael Redgrave or John Barrymore or even Jeremy Irons or
Anthony Hopkins might be a more apt comparison. Branaugh, while a fine actor
and director, isn't the genius that Olivier was by the longest of shots.
And I don't believe that Tebaldi was /beneath/ Callas in stature. We all go for
different things in listening to singers, and while I love Callas in bel canto
rep and /lighter/ Puccini (e.g., Mimi), I can't get past the later-years (even
as early as the early 60s!) high-note wobble and the fact that the voice just
seems to lack the necessary weight for the heavier roles she sang (I know, I
know, she had a /big/ voice - that doesn't mean it wasn't basically a /light/
voice as well.) Tebaldi, on the other hand, has a luscious beauty of tone that
thrills me.
I'm not a Callas /hater/, however. Her singing, when I can stand it (ie before
the really serious damage set in), is exquisite and touches me more deeply than
most sopranos can simply because her phrasing, her inflections - her complete
intrepretations of the roles were so sublime. I would haved loved to see /her/
live to retire and to direct or conduct.
I find Tebaldi's singing absorbing for other reasons, besides the basic
loveliness of the instrument. First, what I hear of her voice on recordings
shows a warmth and creaminess that I think is appropriate for the roles she
sang (with a few exceptions, of course). I also think her being a native
speaker of Italian gave her a closeness to the texts she sang that to some
extent (though not completely) makes up for her lack of Callas's total dramatic
involvement.
emma...@my-deja.com
my soul to
> hear either of these ladies performing their greatest roles /live/
today.<
I did hear both, unlike a lot of people who posture with opinions about
james jorden
>and in her early years sustain a big sound and even (by singing
>aggressively from the chest) make a "dark" sound, doesn't mean her
>voice was either very large or very dark, naturally. Moreover her
You may not have noticed this, but no one is arguing with you. Those who had
the chance to hear Callas's voice early on (pre-1953) and then later (about the
time you heard her, once, when she had a cold, when you were pre-pubescent and
mistook Kurt Baum for Mario del Monaco) generally state that Callas's voice was
much smaller in volume after that span of five years or so. That's a mark of
the damage done by oversinging and singing outside the natural "comfort zone"
of the voice. Tebaldi, Ponselle and Turner all had "natural" voices (like
Muzio, or, among today's singers, Millo) and as such cannot usefully be
compared to Callas, who essentially manufactured her sound. So the comparison
(entertaining as is *always* is when Albert recounts it) to Crespin or whomever
is pointless. Except, of course, if one's motivation is simply to boast "I was
there and you weren't."
can...@webtv.net
appear and make us argue again - all that anyone seems to argue about
lately is if the opera was given with all the cuts restored, sorry but i
think i'm zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz :)
G Riggs
interesting to see how various posters feel about their relative merits in
*different* roles. I realize there may well be some who simply prefer one
or the other across the board, but it would be the take(s) of those of us
who prefer one or the other in specific roles that might prove more
illuminating.
Personally, I consider myself lucky to have seen Tebaldi in a few quite
reassuring evenings toward the end of the '60s, when she wasn't always in
good control, but the basic opulence of the tone was still there. I
attended, among other things, a more than respectable Chenier ('66) and
Lecouvrer ('69) that both remain positive memories.
Nevertheless, even though I only saw Callas during her final '70s tour with
Di Stefano, when only a lucky stab at Santuzza's "Voi che sapete" at
Carnegie Hall could begin to compare with what I had heard personally from
Tebaldi, other live sets and videos have made me guardedly prefer Callas to
Tebaldi. I may have preferred Tebaldi to Callas when I actually saw them,
but the historical record, especially the "live' material, seems
incontrovertible. There is indeed a magnetism to C. -- tied inexorably to
her music-making only, yes -- but a magnetism all the same, because of that
sixth sense she had for even the simplest of phrases. She was incapable of
being inexpressive, and the voice itself seems innately rich and compelling
in her earliest years. When Bonynge, Scala choristers, Menotti, you name
it, all seem to personally confirm the impression left by her earliest
pirate recordings of a genuinely powerful instrument in the traditions of
the "standard" dramatic soprano, I'm not disposed to doubt them. IMO, hers
appears to have been, yes, a genuinely powerful, strong sound after all.
I'm wondering whether some observers like Celletti, for instance, may not be
unconsciously extrapolating what was heard from her at the beginning by
projecting her later vocal frailty (and smaller tone) on her earlier
documented achievements in Nabucco, Parsifal, Armida, the first Covent
Garden Norma, what-have-you.
With the caveat that both of them did not necessarily perform, record, etc.
each and every one of the roles enumerated below, here would be my
preferences, hypothetical and otherwise, for either Callas or Tebaldi:
GRNDPADAVE wrote in message
<20000122172806...@ng-fp1.aol.com>...
>>From: ivr...@aol.com (Ivrys88)
>>Date: Sat, 22 January 2000 03:10 PM EST
>>Message-id: <20000122151055...@ng-fq1.aol.com>
>>
>>They _did_ share some roles. I can think of the following off the top of
my
>>head:
>>
>>Tosca
Callas
>>Leonora (Forza)
Tebaldi
>>Aida
Toss-up
>>Elisabetta di Valois
Toss-up
>>Violetta
Callas
>>Butterfly
Toss-up
>>
>>Probably there are others as well.
>~~~~~~~
>Yes, indeed, if we consider recordings.
>---
>Manon Lescaut
Tebaldi
>La Boheme
Toss-up
>Cavalleria Rusticana
Callas
>La Gioconda
Toss-up
>Un Ballo in Maschera
Callas
>Il Trovatore
Callas
>--
>There are surprises, too.
>
>Tebaldi recorded certain roles where I imagine Callas would have been
terrific:
>La Fanciulla del West
I agree with G/D; Callas would have trumped Tebaldi here.
>La Wally
I wonder -- maybe Tebaldi here, just for the warmth; certainly, Callas's
"Ebben" is haunting, but I still wonder.
>Adriana Lecrouvreur
Here, I would probably demur more strongly; after all, Tebaldi's Lecouvrer
is really one of her finest achievements; I can't see Callas equalling it,
although she was full of surprises, of course.
>Andrea Chenier
Sorry, G/D: Callas did perform this opposite Del Monaco in '55<g>; I don't
find the pirate of this performance very persuasive; there are certainly
some grand moments from C., but it doesn't seem to cohere as a *role*, IMO.
I prefer Tebaldi here.
>There are Callas roles where I think Tebaldi would have sounded great:
>Norma
Serafin also wanted Tebaldi to try out Norma! On of his few lapses in
judgement, IMO. Tebaldi did not have the coloristic variety or the nth
degree of agility needed for the role. At first, Callas's Norma was
everything it was cracked up to be: one of the great landmarks in the world
of opera, no question. Tebaldi could not have equalled her.
>Pagliacci
Here, I emphatically agree with G/D. Maybe, Tebaldi would have slurred some
of the passagework in the Ballatella, but the spontaneity and simple passion
of the role would have worked wonderfully with Tebaldi's instrument. I
sometimes wish this role would be more often cast with a true spinto anyway,
and Tebaldi's genial "sun" of a voice would possibly have added up to a
finer Nedda than Callas's -- which I still find one of the finest Neddas on
disc!
>Medea
Sorry, Callas (and in some ways just as supreme in her altogether different
way, Farrell, from whom we only have unforgettable excerpts -- '58 San
Francisco Medea, anyone? Let's say Mr. Richter?<g>)
>
>I don't recall Callas ever singing or recording Don Carlos.
Actually, Callas did perform this in '54 at La Scala, not extant. Her "Tu
che la vanita" from an Amsterdam concert ('59) is one of her finest
late-'50s accomplishments. But I'm not sure that she had the full measure
of the role. I might agree with some of the critics in '54 who apparently
inquired, *I* *believe*, why not Eboli instead? That would have been a
stemwinder, and plenty of sopranos used to do Eboli in Italy anyway.
Granted, Tebaldi's recorded Elisabetta leaves something to be desired as
well. This is a trickier part than many realize.
<snip>
>==G/P Dave
Cordially,
Geoffrey Riggs
--
==============================================
The Collector's Guide to Opera Recordings and Videos
http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/7023
The Collector's Guide to Books on Opera
http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/7023/reading.htm
==============================================
HelenMynrd
>But know what? I would give my eye teeth, my firstborn, my life and my soul
>to
>hear either of these ladies performing their greatest roles /live/ today.
>
Good gravy!!! not your eye teeth!!!!!!! love and keep singing..HelenM...
Shahrdad
<emma...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:86gdkg$hs0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <20000123192655...@ng-fz1.aol.com>,
> > I did hear both, unlike a lot of people who posture with opinions
about
> them. I did not hear Callas at her best, though I heard her before
> 1960. I agree with you when earlier in this post you said Callas
> sounded like she had a big "light" voice (I'm changing your words a
> little please correct me if I'm wrong). What struck me about that is
> and in her early years sustain a big sound and even (by singing
> aggressively from the chest) make a "dark" sound, doesn't mean her
> voice was either very large or very dark, naturally. Moreover her
> middle," Eva Turner said).
Exactly where did Ponselle and Turner voice this opinion? What interview
was it? The only reference I could find about the Callas' middle voice was
by Elena Nicolai, who was Laura to Callas' first Gioconda. She then added
that though there seemed to be no middle, there was a fire in the voice, and
that soon after working with Serafin, the middle was fully restored. The
longest interview with Turner I've read was in "The Last Prima Donnas," and
there she does not speak about Callas. In her autobiography, Ponselle does
speak of Callas, but I don't recall reading anything about the lack of the
middle register, only her impression that Callas' voice had the sound of
sadness in it.
When I was in college, I asked my friend's father Cesare Siepi about Callas.
He sang with her from 1948, and he confirmed that it was an absolutely huge
voice at the time. He also added that from the time of her weight loss, the
voice continually shrank in volume and girth. Furthermore, many of the
colleagues also spoke about the sheer volume of the voice prior to the
weight loss. Bonynge and Sutherland described it as "colossal" and added
that it poured forth like Flagstad's voice. Rossi-Lemeni referred to her as
the girl with the "huge voice," and Tebaldi herself was amazed that Callas
"could sing the soprano coloratura with this BIG voice." Furthermore, in
his infinite wisdom, I doubt that Serafin would have pushed Callas into the
huge dramatic soprano roles if he felt that her instrument was unsuited to
the demands.
Recorded evidence also shows the voice to be enormous in size, and her live
Lady Macbeth, Abigaile, Aida, and early Normas show that she could handle
the incredible demands of these roles with amazing and unostentatious ease.
She certainly doesn't seem to suffer in vocal size and generosity when
singing with such huge voices as Del Monaco and Stignani, and she never
sounds as if she's pushing for volume. I don't really think she used a
chest mix in her middle voice, as one can always hear very clearly when she
does go into her alto-ish chest register, but during the fat years, she
certainly seemed to utilize a much lower resonance position for her middle
and high registers than she did after she lost her weight. I think this was
mainly due to the fact that with her reduced physical and muscular strength,
she no longer had the support to keep this position and had to switch to a
much more forward focus.
But as for why Callas and Tebaldi were compared, it was all along a
ludicrous comparison. Tebaldi was a lyrico-spinto with a luscious voice
which she used musically and dramatically and who was firmly rooted in the
verismo school. Callas was a dramatic coloratura who harked back to the
19th century tradition, and who just happened to be a musical and dramatic
genius to boot. I just wish the public had just enjoyed these two great
ladies for what and who they were, rather than wasting their time in useless
comparisons. I just don't think they knew how lucky they were to be able to
hear these two in their primes.
emma...@my-deja.com
"Shahrdad" <Shah...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> <emma...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:86gdkg$hs0
$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
interview
> was it?<
Ponselle talks about Callas in an opera news interview (hit the
archives) and also in the first Drake book, also spoke often about her
to people I know, One quote I remember and which is in print is the
somewhat gnomic: "[Callas} is a dramatic coloratura, I was the opposite
and there is a difference." I take that to mean that Ponselle made the
reasonable point that Callas could make a large sound, but the natural
disposition of her voice was high and bright. Dramatic sopranos often
build upwards from a naturally rich and large lower voice as did
Ponselle, Flagstad, not to mention people like Wildbrun, Fremstad and
Arangi-Lombardi who sang as mezzos professionally before they became
dramatic sopranos -- and Arangi's vocal size and quality on record as
Aida are immense really in ways Callas doesn't begin to match even in
Mexico. You might also compare Flagstad's first Liebestod recording (on
Victor with Hans Lange) as well as the 1935 Tristan Met b'cast
Liebestod as well as the later Liebestod live with MacArthur to hear in
all cases clear evidence of a tonal imensity Callas in her early and
later live Liebestods does not show. You might also compare Flagsatd in
act 2 of Gotterdaemmerung at La Scala when she lets loose and then put
on any of the live early Callas in music of similar weight -- there
again is no comparison. That's not to say that Callas sounds
insignificant. But that she contrives an arresting color rather than
seeming to have it naturally (all in my opinion).
Turner said that to several of her students and it was repeated to me a
number of times. A contributor to this NG also heard Turner say it but
I will leave to him if he wishes to engage in the usual rmo game. The
problems in the middle are clear throughout the career and careful
listening to the studio records shows how many ventrilocal tricks
Callas used to color the middle which is naturally rather thin and apt
to go out of focus and tune. You can start with vowel twisting, also a
clear use of an attack from under the note, a bouncing up from the
chest and there are other tricks. Nothing disgraceful about that. Only
what's curious is that when she is clearly in reduced form (as in the
second Gioconda) because she is forced to sing much more lightly and to
abandon many of those chesty tricks -- she has a more natural and
attractive sounding middle and her pitch is consistently better.
I voiced respectfully an opinion about Callas with all kinds of hedging
(obviously neither I nor this poster nor anybody this poster knew well
heard her in her prime; I did know a number of people who heard her
both in Mexico and in Italy before 1954 who thought talk of the size of
her voice greatly exaggerated. No one I know who heard her at the Met
was impressed with the sheer size of her voice, even when she sang
rather better in her second season. I pointed out that Crespin and
Tebaldi had all kinds of problems eventually but both could and did
make immense sounds even when everything else was going wrong. That was
not true of Callas, even when things were going relatively right after
1954 or so and I wonder -- honestly -- how large this voice could have
been to begin with). However I must be lying somehow to question
someone's unexamined and ignorant conclusions and myths.
Emma Albani
Michael E. Miller/Robert E. Seletsky
pursuit of knowledge. However, with regard to Callas, it misses the real
point altogether. I don't think anyone ever posited that Callas, even in
her glory days, had a monolithic voice. In fact, one of the things for
which she was respected was "daring to sing quietly." The point of great
music-making is not to hit the audience with a sonic sledge hammer, but to
do things that are so brilliant, telling, and unparalleled that people will
listen all the more intently even if you sing in a whisper. Tebaldi was a
good singer, but she could never do that; she just blustered. Milanov did
her pianissimo trick and that was about all. Flagstad had a huge voice (but
so what) and was a great singer as well as a decent musician, but her ideas
have dated, as have Ponselle's, Turner's, and everyone else's with the
possible exception of Muzio. Callas was an original: whether vocally big,
small, glorious, or shattered, she *made music*, not O-P-E-R-A. Like other
great musicians--Heifetz, Horowitz, etc., Her ideas are timeless. The very
fact that we're having the same discussions half a century later, and over
22 years after her death proves it. That's what people have to understand,
and why she is scarcely appropriate for discussion on this newsgroup. That
she injected her original genius into this particular form of music/theatre
is something of an accident, elevating the form beyond where it had ever
been, or probably will ever go. It makes not one whit of difference if her
voice was big, small, pretty, ugly, polka-dotted, or any other adjective
one cares to use.
Bob Seletsky
Shahrdad
<emma...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:86oll1$jli$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <86n16b$fep$1...@newsreader.wustl.edu>,
> "Shahrdad" <Shah...@msn.com> wrote:
> >
> > <emma...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:86gdkg$hs0
> $1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > Exactly where did Ponselle and Turner voice this opinion? What
> interview
> > was it?<
> Tebaldi had all kinds of problems eventually but both could and did
> make immense sounds even when everything else was going wrong. That was
> not true of Callas, even when things were going relatively right after
> 1954 or so and I wonder -- honestly -- how large this voice could have
> been to begin with). However I must be lying somehow to question
> someone's unexamined and ignorant conclusions and myths.
I don't think the opinions and impressions of people who heard her and sang
with her in her fat prime are either "unexamined" or "ignorant," as you
allege. I never heard Callas live, and you did not hear her in her absolute
vocal prime either. What Bonynge, Sutherland, Rossi-Lemeni, Tebaldi, and
Siepi have said about her young voice must have some truth in it. Whether
or not she did have a natural middle or not does not make much of a
difference, but during her fat years, I think she was capable of generating
much more volume than Tebaldi in her prime, and it was certainly a very
weighty voice. It may have been a manufactured voice, but it was a big
sound nonetheless. After 1954, you're talking about a totally different
voice altogether.
emma...@my-deja.com
"Shahrdad" <Shah...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> <emma...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:86oll1
Now wait a cotton pickin' minute! Opinions are opinions and I think we
can agree with mutual respect that we differ on what another poster in
his first post tonight pointed out is a fairly immaterial issue. What
lives of Callas is what is on record; which is not the same thing as
hearing her live, whether the records were made live or not. What can
be heard is, as that poster said, remarkable and important and has
nothing to do with vocal size. In my early days at delightful rmo I got
into a little cat fight with certain people about what constitutes
vocal size. It's been my experience that people will describe a well
projected voice with a distinctive timbre as big, when in fact it is
not. But again, that matters in the moment if you are engaging someone
to sing a heavy role in a house the size of the old or new Met. It's
not relevant to how important their records become in your life.
However, about Tebaldi there is a test. On the recent Hardy Lohengrin
the mike is out in the hall. She drowns out everybody in every ensemble
including that in the first act that includes Guelfi and Nicolai who
had immense voices. Moreover for all that size she can pull the sound
back into a ravishing sweetness and softness which is still very large
in scale.
I am not aware of any Callas live recording, including those from the
house, where the same attributes are in evidence. This was a thrusting,
interesting well projected sound, particularly toward the top and in
the chest. But making that sound required a lot of abnormal pressure
which is why she never could pull back into a firm, steady, well
projected pianissimo. And why the middle in the early years is
unreliably tuned (where Tebaldi tended to sound flat at top). That is
not to say there aren't marvels of vocalism on the early Callas live
recordings (the mezza-di-voce at the end of act one of Gioconda live is
one), the Armida is full of vocal effects that no doubt Tebaldi
couldn't have managed.
But for sheer enveloping size in the middle I honestly don't think
there is a comparison to be made.
james jorden
>But for sheer enveloping size in the middle
Ah, so first the voice was *not big.* Then it was not *as* big. And now, it's
a matter of "sheer enveloping size in the middle.* Hang around, folks, by this
time next week she'll be denying there was ever such a *person* as Callas.
emma...@my-deja.com
jjpar...@aol.com (james jorden) wrote:
> Emma hedged, as usual:
>
> >But for sheer enveloping size in the middle
>
> Ah, so first the voice was *not big.* Then it was not *as* big. And
now, it's
> a matter of "sheer enveloping size in the middle.* Hang around,
folks, by this
> time next week she'll be denying there was ever such a *person* as
Callas.
>
context. A real failing in a "journalist and opera critic". Though
being as well endowed as you are who can blame you for anything?
Shardahd was posting about Tebaldi vs. Callas and claiming that in his
opinion it sounds as though Callas could make a bigger sound in the
middle at a certain point. I posted a dissenting opinion citing a
performance you haven't heard as support for my opinion. At the same
time, I suggested as did that new poster, that volume is not material
to enjoying someone on record, and that Callas had a lot to offer which
did not rely on her knocking people's socks off with the sheer size of
her endowment. I realize that's a little hard for you to understand
given the size of your endowment particularly when it's hard.
I have some problems with the myth of Callas, not with her provable
uniqueness and remarkable ability. That I sometimes resist her
performances because I hear too much manipulation of the sound, too
much fudging with vowels is my right, surely, but also just my opinion.
All of us have people we'll forgive more serious problems than I'm
referring to. And all of us have people we don't spontaneously enjoy
even when we can recognize how much is going on in their performances.
But, Jimmy, I have to say, in general, compared to some you are
behaving with better humor than I would have thought and I congratulate
you.
james jorden
different things? If by this word you mean "powerful, piercing and exciting,"
then, yes, it appears you could apply that term to the voice of the young
Callas -- especially given that she was at times singing in a range and in
roles that at the time were generally associated with quite light voices.
If, on the other hand, you decide that "big" means "enveloping and
surrounding," well, no. That sense would better be applied to Tebaldi,
Crespin, Farrell or Stignani.
The sense of the size of a voice is extremely subjective. Trying to compare
one person's experience listening to a recording to another's in the theater 30
years ago -- well, that's pointless. And evoking quasi-apocryphal statements
by superannuated divas (who never seem to speak on the record on these matters)
is not only silly but dishonest as well. When did Dame Eva Turner hear Callas
in the theater? And surely Ponselle did not hear Callas until her US debu at
the earliest, at which time Callas's voice was already somewhat reduced in size
-- according to those who *have* gone on the record as having heard her
"before" and "after."
In the final analysis, let's just keep in mind that this subject is one of
Albert's idees fixes -- like bashing Karl Boehm and Richard Strauss, for
example. It's based almost exclusively on unreasoning emotion, so debating is
pointless. Ask the people on any of the several internet boards from which
Albert has been banned -- all of them but rmo, at last count. Ah, well, at
least it gives him something to do with his nights.
emma...@my-deja.com
jjpar...@aol.com (james jorden) wrote:
> Ask the people on any of the several internet boards from which
> Albert has been banned -- all of them but rmo, at last count. Ah,
well, at
> least it gives him something to do with his nights.
But Jimmy, you posted this delight about half hour AFTER my post -- I
have a reason according to many of you to spend my nights alone. But
with your endowment Jimmy why aren't you up at this hour on a Friday? I
mean in another sense then being awake.
A puzzled Emma
Customoper
Tebaldi became known before Callas did. She debuted in 1944 as Elena, and was
quite immediately singing roles all over Italy during the 40's. She sang many
performances of Faust (in Italian) Boheme, Tosca, Chenier, Aida (by at least
1950- I'm going from memory here, Traviata, Giovanna d'arco, L'amico Fritz, and
others.
I was told many times of her tremendous success in Faust in Verona in the
summer of 1947. The Tuckers were there, doing Gioconda with a certain Maria
Callas. All singers were staying at the same hotel- Tebaldi with her Mother,
the Tuckers, and Callas by herself. They often had dinner together- all of
them.
Richard and Sara Tucker were mesmerized by the Tebaldi voice. So gorgeous, and
so huge, and capable of the most delicate piano singing. Of Callas, they
thought she was very exciting, but vocally quite flawed, at least in 1947.
While Tebaldi had a huge triumph, Callas had a moderate triumph, though it was
a triumph.
And Tebaldi was chose by know other than Toscanini to sing in the Gala
reopening of La Scala in May of 1946. That certainly helped put her on the
map.
Callas really came into prominance by the early 50's, when, IMO, her voice was
at it's peak, flaws and all. And it was a very big voice. But not as big as
that of Tebaldi.
I saw Callas sing a Tosca at the Met in March of 1958. She was in fine form,
and I remember her voice sounding very large. But I saw Tebaldi shortly
thereafter in Manon Lescaut, and there was simply no comparison size wise.
When Callas returned in 1965, her voice was about half the size it had been in
1958. I remember being shocked at how small her voice sounded.
I would think even by 1958 her voice size had diminished somewhat from her
super human days of Nabucco in 1949.
Both great singers, in very different ways, but for size alone, it was Tebaldi
all the way.
Ed
For free catalog of live opera on CD, video, and audio cassettes, please e-mail
your name and mailing address.
David Shengold
Bearing in mind Mike Richter's observation on vocal size, I would be
interested to know if anyone on the ng heard live the 1949-54 "before weight
loss" Callas, the one who sang Bruennhilde, Isolde and Abigaille, in the
same theatre as Tebaldi. Certainly those who heard Callas only at the Met or
Dallas in the late '50's heard the "later" voice that all agreed was
considerably diminished in volume.
Anyway, Ed, you're lucky to have heard both sopranos live!
-David Shengold
----------
In article <20000129081021...@ng-ck1.aol.com>,
emma...@my-deja.com
subject.<
I'm with you, Ed. I'm sorry I was so conciliatory with the "journalist'
Jimmy Jorden, a filthy ignorant liar, like his posse.
Emma Albani
Timothy Sarr
> (the mezza-di-voce at the end of act one of Gioconda live is
> one)
I don't really care about all of this "size" stuff, but what I do care
about is this reference to a "live" Callas Gioconda. I'm only aware of
the two studio recordings.
What have you to say?
Take care.
Tim
james_...@smtplink.mssm.edu
> the mezza-di-voce
One assumes you mean "messa di voce," a smooth crescendo followed by
decrescendo. "Mezza voce" refers of course to "half-voice" or soft yet
supported singing. Or one might say that a messa di voce is a
successful transition from mezza voce to voce piena (full voice) and
back again.
Tell us, which "live" recording of LA GIOCONDA might this have been -- a
tape that only *you* have heard? One given you by Dame Eva Turner,
perhaps?
emma...@my-deja.com
What I have to say (and what a way to put it. Do I owe you something?)
is that the first Gioconda (initially released on Cetra) was a live
performance, as indeed were most if not all the Cetra complete
performances of that era. What have you to say? Not knowing that
suggests an inability to read, since it's clear on the boxes of most
transfers and clear to the ear too as the coughs suggest.
It was broadcast by RAI. As far as I know they were released warts and
all without the elaborate 'touching up' that is typical of 'live'
performances today. That's why Barbieri flats Callas out at the end of
the duet in act two -- she knew it wouldn't be corrected later. That's
also why some of Callas' vocal feats seem so impressive -- only Arangi-
Lombardi does as well and some might say better given it's a more
gorgeous voice (and yes, Jimmy Moron Parterre my ass, there is indeed
an Arangi performance, you should know it if you're a "critic". To know
it well, to have known it for years is not name dropping, you
preposterous phony, suck off of Kosovksy and general cretin and would
be handelgirl philistine).
Arangi is better in act 1V; Callas needed a close mike to contrive her
expressive effects as on her studio recording. Live she's over general
and has vocal trouble. Arangi in a sense comes into her own in that act.
And let's get Jimmy nine inches on the quiz; he'd fit right in with the
know nothings.
Emma Albani
dtritter
>
> > (the mezza-di-voce at the end of act one of Gioconda live is
> > one)
it's always nice to know that fat albert, that expert among experts, who
remembers intimately the live performers who were dead or retired before
he entered puberty, who grew up speaking fluent italian...
...doesn't know that the phrase is "messa di voce." [sic] that ain't no
typo, fat albert. either you know what you're talking about or you
don't, and your demonstration speaks for itself.
stand by for more scatology.
dft
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----
Daniel Kessler
Looking through my old Met programs, my first RenataTebaldi performance, was on
Saturday afternoon, April 6, 1957, as Violetta in LA TRAVIATA at the old Met, with
Guiseppe Compora as Alfredo and Leonard Warren as Giorgio Germont. I was 25 years
old and had been following the operatic scene for 5 years, attending performances
at the old Met and elsewhere as well as one who haunted voice studios where several
friends were aspiring opera singers. At the time, Tebaldi's voice seemed huge,
enveloping and enthralling and the force of it echoed around in your mind for hours
and days afterwards. I ran home and for some time afterwards, played and replayed
my London-Decca LP's of the recording in an attempt to recapture the thrill of it
all.
My performance of Callas's as TOSCA at the old Met was almost a year afterwards,
Friday night, February 28, 1958 with Tucker as Cavaradossi and Walter Cassel as
Baron Scarpia with Dimitri Mitropoulos in the pit. With Callas, there was that
ability to vocally enhance every word, every phrase, there was also that
supercharged element of theatricality. Callas was electric, riveting and
unforgettable. Callas's voice did not impress me at all as big as the Renata
Tebaldi I had heard a year earlier. Yes, Callas's voice had ‘thrust' in the top
and chest, which to some ears, might have made it seem even larger than it was.
james_...@smtplink.mssm.edu
has learned to spell them.
Let us keep in mind from now on that "live" does *not* mean a
performance on stage as recorded professionally for eventual release or
a radio aircheck, or even something pirated from the house -- but rather
a *recording session* with an invited audience. The fact that no one
else employs such a usage is neither here nor there; we are expected to
*guess* what Emma means. As, for example, when Emma says "del Monaco,"
we should understand that what she really means is "Baum."
One learns *so* much on these newsgroups.
Timothy Sarr
This is my first dealing with you, but it is certainly easy to see why
so many despise you so much.
The 1952 Gioconda is no more live than any studio recording can be
considered live. I'm assuming here that we are using the term "live" as
most sane people would use it....in a theatre, in front of a paying
audience. The Cetra box clearly says that it was recorded in Turin in
1952. Ardoin says that it was recorded in September. No Callas biography
that I own says that she performed Gioconda in Turin at all in 1952, let
alone in September.
I'm sure that you will try to come up with some mealy-mouthed way out of
this. Frankly, I couldn't care less. You really are a pig.
Tim
donpaolo
Timothy Sarr <timoth...@snet.net> wrote in article
<389329...@snet.net>...
> emma...@my-deja.com wrote:
> I don't really care about all of this "size" stuff, but what I do care
> about is this reference to a "live" Callas Gioconda. I'm only aware of
> the two studio recordings.
>
> What have you to say?
>
> Take care.
>
> Tim
Tim ~
For years there have been rumors to the effect that the Verona Gioconda
with Callas & Tucker had been taped & was in the private collection of
Tucker's wife, Sarah. However, Ed Rosen, a personal friend of the family,
and very reliable source of such information, as well as unassailable
expert on all matters operatic, has refuted the existence of such a tape.
Regards,
donP.
Michael E. Miller/Robert E. Seletsky
> What I have to say (and what a way to put it. Do I owe you something?)
> is that the first Gioconda (initially released on Cetra) was a live
> performance, as indeed were most if not all the Cetra complete
> performances of that era...
That is complete nonsense. Callas signed a contract with Cetra to do a
specific number of complete STUDIO recordings, of which the 1952 Gioconda
was the first. No radio recording sounds like that. And if you check the
list of performances, there isn't one with that cast and conductor from that
year. If there are coughs, etc., it is just the studio technology of the
period; not thinking it necessary to re-take because of was clearly
considered minor. My God, have you heard any of the early EMI studio
recordings: sighs, chairs squeaking, wrong notes. Just listen to Callas'
Puritani; the opening prelude is a storm of extraneous noises that cannot be
edited out. Cetra Gioconda live indeed!!!
Bob Seletsky
Michael E. Miller/Robert E. Seletsky
we're talking about, not a porn star!!!
Bob Seletsky
andre35
to drop in at
this late stage and scream "great artist?" I suppose timing isn't
everything in life, right?
As usual the inmates are making asylum policy.
What else is new?.
andre35
"God will forgive me. C'est son métier" -HH-
G Riggs
Incidentally, has anyone heard rumors of some tape ("Oh frabjous day"<g>) of
the Scala 52/53 season prod. with Di Stefano and Stignani? That looks on
paper like possibly the finest Gioconda of Callas's career. But I don't
know of its having been preserved :~(
(Both tenors on her two published Giocondas are, frankly, so lousy!)
eal...@my-deja.com
"G Riggs" <ehu...@concentric.net> wrote:
> donpaolo wrote in message <01bf6ab5$c6cfdf80$2b3caccf@default>...
> >
> >
> >Timothy Sarr <timoth...@snet.net> wrote in article
> ><389329...@snet.net>...
> >> emma...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >> I don't really care about all of this "size" stuff, but what I do
day"<g>) of
> the Scala 52/53 season prod. with Di Stefano and Stignani? That
looks on
> paper like possibly the finest Gioconda of Callas's career. But I
don't
> know of its having been preserved :~(
>
> (Both tenors on her two published Giocondas are, frankly, so lousy!)
I heard a rumor of at least parts of the Scala Gioconda being uncovered
by a record executive crawling on his hands and knees through the Scala
Archives. They are not complete (he was able to splice together a
complete performance of another Callas evening/ different opera from
about four sources, only one -- the least complete and good sound -- in
house). The executive in question suffered the usual fate of those in
today's record business -- he was "let go". I don't know if any of the
performances he worked on will be released -- but presumably where
tapes have been assembled they will get out sooner or later.
It's an ongoing surprise that no kinoscopes of Callas' Mexico telecasts
have been uncovered. It was said for years that several people had
portions of the Aida (with Del Monaco). But again, that's either
unfounded or the stars have never been right for those things to
circulate.
You are of course right about Ferraro and I guess Poggi -- but there
has been worse than the latter, IMO.
Emma Albani
Michael E. Miller/Robert E. Seletsky
fact that I didn't just "drop in"; I contributed a rather long and
well-reasoned post concerning Callas the musician several days ago, and how
vocal size was not an issue when art of that caliber is being discussed.
R Seletsky
---------------
andre35
As far as this thread is concerned the only posts of yours I show are on 1/30/00 @ 02:15 GMTand @ 02:17 GMT, same date.
Should there be other posts from you to rmo on this thread, bellsouth.net, in its infinite wisdom has chosen not to allow me to see them. Such is the way of cyber-communication.
I'm sure they were scholorly, well researched, and sane, that rare thing hereabouts.
On behalf of bellsouth.net, I beg pardon.
But, the inmates here are still making asylum policy, and timing is everything in life.
Andre
"God will forgive me. C'est son metier." -HH-
Michael E. Miller/Robert E. Seletsky
Excuse me, Mr. Seletsky,
As far as this thread is concerned the only posts of yours I show are on 1/30/00 @ 02:15 GMTand @ 02:17 GMT, same date.
Bob S.
icculus
In article <20000122112927...@ng-ck1.aol.com>,
diez...@aol.com (DieZflote) wrote:
>Good topic!
>
>Callas is my favorite singer. I was completely floored the
first time I heard
>her. Her dramatic presence is unequalled. Tebaldi, on the
other hand, had the
>voice of an angel. I love her as well.
>
>I think the rivilary was purely started by their fans. In
their day, it was
>the age of the soprano, and they were operas biggest draws.
So, there was
>naturally a debate on who was better and the fans took it to
new levels.
>Tebaldi ruled Italy and when Callas performed there, the
"hissing snakes" as
>she would call them would be out in full force. Also she once
said, and this
>is a loose quote, "If the hissing snakes are not out, then I am
not doing my
>best!" The encouraged her to knock their socks off.
>
>I think the rivilary got started in South America. Several
opera singers were
>doing a concert. They were to each do ONE number and bow out.
Well Tebaldi
>sang her number and then proceeded to do encores...Callas was
not happy.
>
>I did hear once that Callas said, "Comparing Tabaldi to me, is
like comparing
>coca-cola to champagne."
>
>I don't know if that is true out not, but the two diva's made
up after Callas
>was dumped by Onasis. She say Tebaldi, grabbed her, hugged
her, and cried on
>her shoulder. Renata said, "I knew right then what had
happened." Meaning,
>she new Onasis had dumped Callas.
>
>I have this four cd interview type thing on Callas. They
compare her and
>Tebaldi. Tebaldi said, "She really was something. She had
this BIG voice."
>
>I get hotheaded when people slam Callas, but I also get
bothered when the slam
>Tebaldi. They really were like apples and oranges and I love
them both...Two
>of operas greatest!
>
>
Wise words indeed! Callas was an actress, dramatic and perverse,
who had lived life; the sheltered Tebaldi was as a nun, innocent
but beautiful.
Callas lived for the triumph onstage, her acting often making
up for a flawed voice; the invariably sweet-voiced Tebaldi, with
her signature clutched-fist/open hand response, gave the
adulation
back to the audience. Regardless, both could tear your heart out.
Dave
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
OmbraRecds
>recordings (the mezza-di-voce at the end of act one of Gioconda live is
>one), the Armida is full of vocal effects that no doubt Tebaldi
Gioconda "live", Callas? I am willing to
liquidate all my assets immediately to purchase this recording!
Patrick Byrne
Michael E. Miller/Robert E. Seletsky
> Callas was an actress, dramatic and perverse,
> who had lived life; the sheltered Tebaldi was as a nun, innocent
> but beautiful.
>
> Callas lived for the triumph onstage, her acting often making
> up for a flawed voice; the invariably sweet-voiced Tebaldi, with
> her signature clutched-fist/open hand response, gave the
> adulation
> back to the audience. Regardless, both could tear your heart out.
Please don't fall into the "Callas with a flawed voice" cliche. Her voice was
amazing until 1954; she could do anything and perfectly. After the weight loss
the voice was different but still unmatched for three years. Then problems
started to creep in. The voice was not itself flawed. She injured herself by
quickly losing muscle mass and then probably putting the pressure she was used
to having her body cavity absorb into her vocal muscles, eventually shredding
them. As a pure musician, which she considered herself--NOT, NOT, NOT an
actress--she compared herself to instrumentalists. In interviews she made
analogies only with Heifetz and other pure musicians, not other singers.
"Singers are the first instruments of the orchestra" she said. "We have a
responsibility to the composers, the music, and to the history of music." As
such, no one ever nuanced music as she did. That's why she used little movement
on stage; the gestures were all in the sophistication and complexity of her
musical interpretive choices. One didn't need to see her; the records say it
all. That's why the weight-loss to gain in physical appearance is such a cruel
irony.
And as for being one who "lived life," that was only after her career--and she
didn't do a very good job, hooking up with a creep who dumped her and ending up
alone. During her career, she was married to an older man (Meneghini) who
supported her artistic goals and loved her deeply; she was free to practice and
study, and she did little else. Tebaldi, sweet though she was, probably had a
more fun life. And no comparisons are appropriate. Totally different musical
approaches. However, I think we should reflect that, while both were wonderful,
of the two, the one whose art has proved timeless is Callas. Her way of making
music transcends tastes and trends of her period, and remain artistic statements
of incomparable humanity, power, and universality.
R. Seletsky
icculus
believe it was. She and Rudolph Bing had kissed and made up
after
a long (about ten years) rift and she returned to New York in
triumph.
As a frequent standee at the old Met, usually in the rear of
the Family Circle (tickets for which cost $1.25) as opposed to
the
standing areas behind and on the side of the orchestra for which
one had to queue hours in advance, I eventually became known
among
the "regulars" who seemed to spend every evening there. Since I
was going to law school at night at the time, I was usually
dressed in suit and tie, which certainly set me apart. They were
a
very odd lot of people, but they knew their opera, and I sought
and respected their opinions -- which they were only too happy to
give.
One regular was a toothless crone who was the self-appointed
president of the Maria Callas Fan Club. She was ignored by the
other regular standees who apparently considered her a pest. I
always spoke to her and often chatted with her at intermisson.
She
carried with her at all times a large scrapbook containing Callas
memorabilia, letters, programs, reviews, etc., and one evening
she
offered to let me look at it. One entry that I found amusing was
a letter to her from Callas's lawyer demanding that she stop
following, calling, badgering, etc. Mme. Callas; it was displayed
as if it were a badge of honor.
My new friend later shared with me the glorious news that
Callas would be returning to the Met. She had just heard it from
a
trusted source. We checked the February schedule and decided
that
the diva, at this stage of her career, could sing only Tosca.
There were four performances to be presented that month. I went
to the box office and bought two $5 tickets in the balcony, on
the
side, slightly obstructed view, for each.
A few days later it was announced that indeed Mme. Callas
would sing two performances of Tosca. This was front-page news
in
the New York Times. Needless to say, tickets for those
performances became the hottest in New York and were wildly
scalped.
The night of her return my wife and I arrived early to enjoy
the palpable buzz of anticipation. *Everyone* was keyed up!
Callas sang the role well; her voice, objectively, was in pretty
bad shape, but still thrilling, and of course she was
electrifying
on stage. Her "Mario! Mario!" from offstage at the Church of
Sant' Andrea della Valle sent shivers down my spine, and
triggered
a wild ovation even before she entered the chapel.
Just how electrifying was she that night? During "Vissi
d'arte" an elderly member of the audience sitting in the front
orchestra collapsed into the aisle and died. The ushers quickly
carried him away on a stretcher, with his distraught wife
following behind. All this unfolded below me but few seemed to
notice, or regarded it as a momentary distraction, so transfixed
were they by Callas singing her big aria.