Is Callas Overrated?
Charlie
My recent post on "Overrated Singers' on Standing Room Forum has
resulted in many responses specifically directed at the "Callas Controversy,"
which we have discussed ad infinitum. Was this "legendary diva' one of the most
overrated artists in memory, or was she indeed the remarkable
genius,innovator,influence supreme upon the vocal art in the latter half of the
past century whom many of us revere?
I say the LATTER, because "I have done my Callas homework" since
first seeing her Met debut Norma in 1956. (It was terrible,by the way). Since
that disappointing evening,and especially through the magic of live tapes which
did not surface for another 10 years,I have grown to understand the reasons for
the "Callas magic" and have come to the realization that this lady was one of
the most remarkable artists in the entire classical world.
Allow me to quote from J.B.Steane's excellent "The Grand Tradition"
chapter on Callas.(P.378):
(In reference to the "Casta Diva" recording.)
"...She sings with what can best be called love;that is,with
care,understanding,and sudden personal insights,such as a way of dropping the
descending chromatic figures from their high note with a gentle and soothing
suggestion of "glissando" to make an effect like the shining path of moonlight
on water..."
Such is the brand of critique that a Callas word or phrase or
aria or role DEMANDS. Listen,for example, to her live Vespri Sicilaini Act One
aria,"In alto mare," where she builds the cabaletta from, "Coraggio,su
corragio" into a most riveting series of powerful attacks and intervals that
offer the listener all the necessary goosebumps;or take phrase "vassalo della
man" in the Adriana aria "Io son l'umile ancella," as she brings up the mixed
chest register on "della" and fades away the "man" into some sort of
trance-like state.
I did get to see a glorious Lucia and Traviata in 1958 at the old Met,
where I better understood that her 1956 Norma was an aberration,and that she
was going through a difficult period after the fabulous 1949-1955 era.
Unfortunately,1958 was probably the last really good year of her career, which
deteriorated into a most unfortunate vocal state, despite some occasional fine
singing in the early 60's. However, 10 years of Callas,as evidenced by all the
earlier live and commercial recordings, is worth 30 years of most anyone else.
So my friends, do your "Callas research," which cannot be a
superficial endeavor in which you play the wobbly Poliuto or the
"mashed-potato-in-the-mouth" Carmen. Return to the early EMI recordings, and
all the great Mexico City performances, and the earlier La Scala tapes, and
behold the truly sensational lady,who potentially could probably sing every
single role in the entire operatic repertory. (How many Gildas sang Isolde and
how many Brunnhildes sang Violetta?).
Perhaps some day you may hear the great beauty that the seemingly
"ugly" voice produces, and better understand the "Callas Paradox." It takes
time and effort,'tis true, but it is well worth the effort.. My best to you
all. Charlie
As ever Charlie,who invites you to check out my live opera website at:
Michael E. Miller/Robert E. Seletsky
*musician,*--and musician is the word she used to describe
herself--which is (sorry, folks) more important than "singer." Also, the
radiant beauty and power of her physical voice were not in question at
all until her stupidly fast weight loss during the second half of 1953.
For pure, timeless musical genius as well as great, passionate, noble
singing, I recommend anything before 1954, and generally the studio
efforts, since the sound on many live ones is tough to hear. This would
be the 1949 arias for Cetra from Norma, Puritani, Tristan; 1952 Cetra
Gioconda; 1953 EMI Lucia, Puritani, Cav, Tosca (there's a 1953 Cetra
Traviata, but the cast and conductor are so bad that they seriously
undercut Callas' contribution). Good-sounding live pre-1954 performances
include the 1950 Parsifal, 1951 Mexico Aida, 1952 Covent Garden Norma,
1952 Mexico Traviata. The Covent Garden Aida from June 1953 is also in
good sound. Though it's a bit muddy in sound, the 1952 Scala Macbeth is
indispensable (but for God's sake, not on EMI!!! Get Nuova Era or
G.O.P.).
Bob Seletsky
----------------------------
JKauff001
Tosca - unbelievable wolf
pizzapizza
>Unfortunately,1958 was probably the last really good year of her career, which
>deteriorated into a most unfortunate vocal state, despite some occasional fine
>singing in the early 60's.
What about the June 30th 1959 recording of Luigi Cherubini's Medea?
jerel
for example - listen to her Gilda in Rigoletto.....
what greatness....
Gobbi and Callas defined true greatness in vocal drama and art!!!!
jerel
Ivrys88
G Riggs
>
> <snip>I did get to see a glorious Lucia and Traviata in 1958 at the old
Met,
>where I better understood that her 1956 Norma was an aberration,and that
she
>was going through a difficult period after the fabulous 1949-1955 era.
Since I may be in a minority in believing that, riveting as many moments of
her various extant Traviatas are, there is no single Traviata document that
is as satisfactory as her Berlin Lucia for Lucia, her De Sabata Tosca for
Tosca, or her Dallas Medea for Medea, and so on, I have therefore always
been tantalized by this Met '58 Traviata, particularly one or two of the
repeat performances, once the occasionally flat, although strong-voiced,
Barioni had been replaced. (I believe that Bergonzi was one of the
"replacements"???) Since a rumor surfaced in this forum a while ago that a
tape did indeed exist from this '58 run, I wonder whether this '58 tape, if
it exists, could be the well-rounded Callas Traviata I've been waiting for.
Please, can anyone furnish any enlightenment on this? Thanks.
Cheers,
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
==============================================
Jon Davis
Jon Davis
Bacon & Eggs - Hens are involved but Pigs are committed.
Lars Henriksson
--
Lars Henriksson
la...@hotmail.com
HomePage:
http://operalaven.homestead.com
Charlie <plac...@aol.com> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:20000407130838...@ng-ch1.aol.com...
> I did get to see a glorious Lucia and Traviata in 1958 at the old
Met,
> where I better understood that her 1956 Norma was an aberration,and that
she
> was going through a difficult period after the fabulous 1949-1955 era.
> Unfortunately,1958 was probably the last really good year of her career,
which
> deteriorated into a most unfortunate vocal state, despite some occasional
fine
Lars Henriksson
(But still...)
--
Lars Henriksson
la...@hotmail.com
HomePage:
http://operalaven.homestead.com
Jon Davis <jdavi...@aol.com> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:20000407185255...@ng-cl1.aol.com...
GRNDPADAVE
an evasion of the real issue.
The real question is: "Do you like Callas?'
The attempt is to convert what is a matter of opinion into a disputation of a
fact.
Why do people make lists called "The Best 10 ..." rather than "My favorite
10.."? My guess is that they want to clothe their opinions in the borrowed
robes of objective scholarship.
I happen to enjoy Callas's recordings -- every one of them. Even when she
sings off pitch (as in AIDA) she always seems to me to offer a distinctive
characterization. Her Carmen gives me more of the variety of this character --
especially the essentially bravery and honesty that lurks beneath the
flirtatiousness.
Would anybody say that somebody they admired is overrated?
My answer is "Bah, humbug!"
==G/P Dave
Ivrys88
>"Is Callas overrated?" is a silly (I am tempted to write "stupid") question
and
>an evasion of the real issue.
>
>The real question is: "Do you like Callas?'
>
>The attempt is to convert what is a matter of opinion into a disputation of a
>fact.
Point well taken, and my answer to your modified question is: "Yes." :-)
pin...@my-deja.com
plac...@aol.com (Charlie) wrote:
> Was this "legendary diva' one of the most overrated artists in memory?
A short-breathed, poorly phrased, arhythmical, covered, wooly, wobbly,
screechy, shrieked, bruised, unmusical, and resounding YES. Her
recorded legacy is sounding worse and worse, in spite of the
archeological frenzy for what little is left of her remains and the
endless remastering and remastering using the latest state of the fart
technology. But I think some are finally leaving this ship of fools and
are beginning to listen through the hype and assess her current worth
and relevance by themselves. And what should be her relevance today?
Zilch.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
james jorden
Rather a curious rant, coming from a fan of a singer whose entire career
has taken place in a recording studio...
--
james jorden
jjo...@bellatlantic.net
http://www.parterre.com
"Gay people not only keep opera going,
they keep plays about opera going."
--- Bette Midler
jzydek
Ahhhhh, this is so short-sighted, narrow and just wrong.
June
<pin...@my-deja.com> wrote in message > A short-breathed, poorly phrased,
dtritter
nomination a singer who is all those named qualities that callas was [by
your description] not? maybe just a teentsy hint, please?
show of hands, anyone?
dft
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
JKauff001
through music to her audience. Hmmm Wolf
OmbraRecds
>screechy, shrieked, bruised, unmusical, and resounding YES.>
I am very curious to know which singer it is that James Jorden is referring to
as a favorite of the above author.
Patrick Byrne
HenryFogel
Now you've gone and done it, Patrick. We're about to get hit with a whole new
debate/thread about Cheryl Studer, all because you had to ask. :-)
Henry Fogel
Shahrdad
<pin...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8cnssv$tnu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> A short-breathed, poorly phrased, arhythmical, covered, wooly, wobbly,
> screechy, shrieked, bruised, unmusical, and resounding YES.
Excuse me?? Short Breathed? Arhythmical? Unmusical? If there was ever a
supreme musician in the twentieth century, it was Callas. Her voice could
be wooley, wobbly, and even ugly at times, but her sense of rhythm, her
supreme musicianship, and her thorouth understanding of what she was singing
has not been approached, never mind equalled, by any other singer. And as
for short breathed, just listen to the cavatina in the Bolena Mad Scene:
neither Sutherland, nor Caballe, nor Sills, nor Vaness, nor Gruberova, nor
Gheorgeiu has been able to even approach one miracle after another of
long-breathed phrasing which Callas achieves effortlessly in this scene
alone.
Again, it all boils down to whether or not one understands and likes her.
As she said herself, if you don't like her, don't bother listening to her.
But whatever our opinion of Callas might be, her historical significance and
her contribution to the art and history of opera and music cannot be denied.
Matthew B. Tepper
>
> >A short-breathed, poorly phrased, arhythmical, covered, wooly, wobbly,
> >screechy, shrieked, bruised, unmusical, and resounding YES.>
>
> I am very curious to know which singer it is that James Jorden is
> referring to as a favorite of the above author.
Carlotta di Chiesa.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
"Compassionate Conservatism?" * "Tight Slacks?" * "Jumbo Shrimp?"
Enzo62
>Now you've gone and done it, Patrick. We're about to get hit with a whole new
>debate/thread about Cheryl Studer
Who?
Jason McVicker
"What is best in music is not to be found in the notes."
Gustav Mahler
Oisk17
>supreme musician in the twentieth century, it was Callas. Her voice could
>be wooley, wobbly, and even ugly at times,
I do not like to listen to Callas's voice as much as I do most other great
sopranoes. That said, I need not disagree with those who praise her
musicianship, acting, presence, and historical importance. I regret never
having seen her perform in person; perhaps had I done so I would be of a
different opinion.
Regards,
Paul
Harpsichordist
said, I love her Carmen with Pretre - perfect vocal timbre.
<ducking and running>
Mark A. Slater
"Musica Pellit Curas"
pin...@my-deja.com
As late as two days ago when I purchased the Myto reissue of her Mexico
Aida from 1950. Even though she's better than in '53 (London), it's now
back in the store shelf. It is boundlessly amusing and exhilirating to
compare her London Aida with Studer's, also from Covent Garden. The
latter (as heard through an unofficial copy on CD of the radio
broadcast) is nothing but a revelation. But it's not for the
faint-hearted and certainly not designed for mothers' listening pleasure
. But more on this in a while.
> Rather a curious rant, coming from a fan of a singer whose entire
> career has taken place in a recording studio...
My ass! Her chronology of performances speaks for itself.
dtritter
apart from the rather nauseating thought of gaaaaaaby's nether parts,
let's simply take the gospel calendar [her fan club's] of miss studer's
year 2000 schedule, which recently totalled just 27 evenings, until a
late entry of ten zurich arabellas raised the total to a schedule
crowding 37.
it is just possible that dear gaaaaaaby may recognize one day that this
lady was very active, but in recent seasons has not exactly been in
great demand. but, as previously stated, i, for one anxiously await a
hearing of her new york marschallin late this year, hoping against hope
that rumors of her vocal decline are false, and wishing her every
success.
Matthew B. Tepper
>
> On Sat, 08 Apr 2000 16:44:06 -0700, "Matthew B. Tepper"
> <o...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Charlotta di Chiesa.
>
> She keeps fascinating you, doesn't she?
Yes, in the endless possibility of extolling her mediocrity!
vbo...@my-deja.com
is "rated." I assume she is rated the greatest soprano of this
century. IMO she is overrated as a singer because she didn't have a
beautiful voice, didn't have good technique, and had only a short
period when she was well-known and singing at her best. She was a
striking actor and made a striking figure on stage. She was an
excellent musician. She is most famous for being famous. I respect
her as a person (she was a REAL WOMAN) but can hardly tolerate hearing
her. I prefer to listen to Leontyne Price, Renata Tebaldi, Zinka
Milanov, Angela Gheorghiu, and a few other singers who have better
voices and better voice production skills than Maria.
Loca Telli
In article <20000407174658...@ng-fe1.aol.com>,
ivr...@aol.com (Ivrys88) wrote:
> No.
Shahrdad
<vbo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8d2n5u$dfn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> IMO she is overrated as a singer because she didn't have a
> beautiful voice, didn't have good technique, and had only a short
> period when she was well-known and singing at her best. She was a
> striking actor and made a striking figure on stage. She was an
> excellent musician. She is most famous for being famous.
Being endowed with a beautiful voice isn't what makes a singer great. As
someone once said, Callas had a voice which was better than beautiful; it
could assume a thousand colors and express every thought and feeling of the
character she was portraying, from the blackest hatred to all-comsuming
love, from the darkest despair to the most elated joy. Furthermore, she
had an amazing technique that allowed her to execute the composers' every
written wish with unostentatious ease (which is something none of the
singers you mention could even approach). As for vocal production, before
her weight loss, her voice was perfectly produced and was capable of
absolutely anything--just listen to the live Proch Variations. Who else
could you name who could earn rave reviews for Walkure and Puritani within
the same week? Admittedly, there were areas in the voice where the sound
wasn't very lovely, but she managed to use even these physiological
weaknesses to her music's advantage.
Hundreds of singers with far more beautiful voices than Callas have come and
gone without making much of a contribution to the history of opera or to
music in general. Long after her vocal prime, and almost a quarter century
after her death, Callas continues to contribute, to captivate, to teach, and
to fascinate. To me, that's what greatness is all about.
Happy listening,
S.
S.
Ivrys88
>IMO she is overrated as a singer because she didn't have a
>beautiful voice, didn't have good technique, and had only a short
>period when she was well-known and singing at her best.
That's an interesting question, whether one has to have a beautiful voice in
order to be considered a "great singer,"--but I think the answer is no. There
are singers in vocal history earlier than Callas who are undeniably great,
about whom it was generally agreed that their voices were not beautiful by the
contemporary standards of the day: Pasta, Viardot and Malibran for starters.
If by "not having a good technique" you mean she had flaws in her vocal
production that shortened her best singing years, this may be true.
Nevertheless when she _was_ singing her best, such a contention would have been
ludicrous--her range and agility were remarkable by any standards.
She is hardly the only great singer to have had a relatively short
prime--Ferrier, Wunderlich, Welitsch come to mind, though early death was the
reason in the first two cases.
>She was a striking actor and made a striking figure on stage. She was >an
excellent musician. She is most famous for being famous.
She is one opera star that became a household name in non-operatic circles,
true. Should we hold this against her? And to think she achieved her fame
without the modern media machine, without nearly as many performances as
today's superstars, crossover pop albums (could you imagine "Maria Callas Sings
Christmas Carols?" Unthinkable), or concerts in soccer stadiums...
Henson Keys
genius, not the "beauty" of her voice that changed opera forever.
Deke Martin
tackled were written to express great pain. The Bel Canto technique, which
she was taught, gives you the ability to harness primeval sounds and express
them into your singing - the cry of pain if you like. This is why so many of
us react as we do to her voice - on the most basic of all levels. But, you
only have to listen to her sing Butterfly or Mimi, for example, to hear the
sweetness that she chose to express for those roles. Some singers can only
do sweet, she could do any sound or colour she wanted, fully portraying the
deep thought behind the role. That is what made her great and that is why
her records still sell in their thousands.
Rachel.
Ivrys88 <ivr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000412222501...@ng-fq1.aol.com...
AValeo1752
one of the greatest nor beautiful voices. She had to work extremely hard to
accomplish what she did. A Tebaldi she was not.
Ancona21
Was last night's FRASIER rerun shown in your area? I believe the group has
discussed this before, but did anyone ever figure out who the soprano referred
to as *Matilda* was? The writers of the show had her singing Gilda (which
makes the comparison to Tebaldi rather odd).
Ancona21
Ancona21
Matthew B. Tepper
It was an in-joke of the writers; Mathilde DeCagny is the trainer of
Moose, the Jack Russell terrier which plays "Eddie."
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
Ancona21
Moose, the Jack Russell terrier which plays "Eddie." >>
Ah, so. And thanks. How on earth did you know this, I wonder.
Ancona21
Michael E. Miller/Robert E. Seletsky
>
> She cetainly was one of the greatest artists of our time but certainly also not
> one of the greatest nor beautiful voices. She had to work extremely hard to
Why would you want her to be a Tebaldi. Forced, flat top notes,
matronly sound, wrong syllables accented almost without fail? Sure,
enormously pure and beautiful voice; I've adored it since I was a kid,
just not a lot of sophisticated music-making going on. And for the
record, before she lost the weight, Callas was attributed with having a
voice just as beautiful.
Robert Seletsky
Matthew B. Tepper
Easy. When the episode first aired, I posted on the alt.tv.frasier
newsgroup and politely asked the question.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
OmbraRecds
the backseat" The Speedbyrd
Ah yes, Mme. Callas is in the backseat singing Santuzza, Tosca, Smaragda,
Marta, Leonore, Gioconda, Isolde, Turandot, Leonora, , Aida, Norma, Brunnhilde,
Elvira, Kundry, Abigaille, Violetta, Elena,Euridice, Constanze, Armida, Gilda,
Lady Macbeth, Lucia, Medea, Alceste, Elisabetta, Margherita, Fiorilla, Giulia,
Maddalena, Amina, Cio-Cio-San, Rosina, Fedora, Amelia, Iphigenie, Anna Bolena,
Imogene, Paolina, on stage, not to mention a large variety of roles commited to
disc. She holds the imagination of countless fans old and new alike as if she
were still with us. She is the backbone of the EMI operatic catalogue. She
ignited the bel canto revival. The Callas books outnumber almost every other
20th Century singer. All this with her "OK" voice. Remarkable.
Patrick Byrne
Michael E. Miller/Robert E. Seletsky
Yeah, what he said and then some. If Callas is in the back seat, then I
guess instrumentalists like Heifetz are also there with her.
Bob Seletsky
Harpsichordist
>Moose, the Jack Russell terrier which plays "Eddie." >>
>
>Ah, so. And thanks. How on earth did you know this, I wonder.
Kishkas. =:oD
Wotan99
>guess instrumentalists like Heifetz are also there with her.
>
>Bob Seletsky
>
I'm more than a fan-and I hope for the right reasons.
But I'm surprised that you brought Heifetz into it-you should know- Not only
did he have the ultimate technical mastery of his instrument-perfection-
(something that Callas did not have, and did not have an instrument of that
nature) but also IMO (and a point that has always been debated-those who saw
Heifetz as cold perfection) profound powers of expression and communication. I
also would have said that their depth of muscianship was a qualtiy they had in
common.
But maybe I was over reading your remark
Best,
W
Shahrdad
Speedbyrd <way...@umiami.org> wrote in message
news:co2kgs0hanntqg7um...@4ax.com...
> Her voice was 'ok', it was never great, IMHO. When you speak of the
> likes of Flagstad, Nillson, Price, then Callas takes the back seat.
This argument is not unlike saying that Maryl Streep should take a back seat
to Bo Derek as an actress, becuase Derek is just so much prettier.
Callas' voice was more than 'ok;' until 1954 and for several years
afterwards, it was an amazing instrument of great range, power, and
complexity. As pure sound, it may not have been as beautiful to hear as
other singers you mention, but it had the power, the range and the technique
to sing anything form Isolde to Lucia, from Abigaile to Elvira, from Lady
Macbeth to Amina. And what is even more remarkable, is that she sounded
correct in all these diverse roles. Who else can you name had has sung the
definitive Sonnambula as well as the definitive Lady Macbeth and Abigaile?
I'm not going to even bring up Norma, Bolena, Medea, Traviata, Tosca, or
Vespri. And furthermore, she sang these roles with a degree of expression,
vocal coloration, characterization, musicality, and dramatic acumen that was
out of the reach of any of the singers you mention, and likely out the reach
of any other singer of the past century.
As one of the great Italian critics once said, the lovely voices often tend
to wallow in their own beauty as in a bathtub, while the less pretty voices
can assume a thousand colors and expressions, and thus serve the music, the
drama, and the composers far better.
I think that's where greatness lies, not in prettiness of sound.
S.
james jorden
most important qualifications for an actress was that she should have a
beautiful (and, ideally, distinctive) speaking voice. Critics almost
inevitably wrote of the sheer beauty of tone of Bernhardt's "golden"
voice, for example -- though of course they also raved about how she
used her voice as an interpreter. Detratctors' gibes at her physical
appearance were dismissed as irrelevant or mean-spirited.
As recently as 1950, Joseph L. Mankiewicz's screenplay of ALL ABOUT EVE
includes a slanging match in which playwright Lloyd Richards scoffs at
Margo's talent by calling her "a body with a voice," rather in the same
way I sometimes dismiss, say, Renee Fleming as "a great voice but not a
great artist. Of course Margo is *not* that, at least if she is anything
like the actress who plays her, Bette Davis. Davis as a performer could
probably best be compared with, say, Scotto, combining a relatively
limited instrument with superb talent and enormous ambition. Both these
divas were by natural endowment (looks and voice) ingenues; both had the
brain and soul of a protean artists. Think of it, really: can you not
see Scotto as Judith Traherne, Leslie Crosbie, Julie Marsten, Charlotte
Vale, Mildred Rogers, Margo Channing, Jane Hudson ...?
--
james jorden
jjo...@bellatlantic.net
http://www.parterre.com
"I'm a great believer in vulgarity. All we need is a splash of bad
taste. NO taste is what I'm against."
--- Diana Vreeland
Shahrdad
james jorden <jjo...@mailbox.bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:390AF539...@mailbox.bellatlantic.net...
Think of it, really: can you not
> see Scotto as Judith Traherne, Leslie Crosbie, Julie Marsten, Charlotte
> Vale, Mildred Rogers, Margo Channing, Jane Hudson ...?
Scotto would be a wonderful Margo and Jane Hudson, but I think she could be
even better as Blanche or Eve. Both of these characters had a fake,
saccharin sweetness, but were really the bad guys in the drama. I think
Scotto would have been able to pull off the sweet villany of these
characters magnificently.
S.
james jorden
artist that she could be cast as either Eve (opposite Callas's Margo,
obviously!) or, later, as Margo (with perhaps Soviero or Villaroel as
Eve?)
--
pin...@my-deja.com
jjo...@bellatlantic.net wrote:
> Think of it, really: can you not see Scotto as Judith Traherne,
> Leslie Crosbie, Julie Marsten, Charlotte Vale, Mildred Rogers, Margo
> Channing, Jane Hudson ...?
You chose to omit the obvious, Miss Piggy, whom she most closely
resembles.
pin...@my-deja.com
> And furthermore, she sang these roles with a degree of expression,
You mean holes in the voice, no?
> characterization, musicality, and dramatic acumen
> that was out of the reach of any of the singers you mention, and
> likely out the reach of any other singer of the past century.
Horseshit, horseshit, and yet more horseshit. This is just more of the
idiotic and perverse BC/AC myth. It's gotten so stale, it's time to
dump it.
planet...@uswest.net
As if we all must or even could draw the same conclusion as to what
constitutes beauty or that the world would be a better, richer place if
we did.
I'm always happy to read Shardad's posts on Callas, knowing them to be
the most eloquent explanations of her art (as I hear it but could not
manage to word nearly so well) on rmo. Many thanks.
OmbraRecds
>idiotic and perverse BC/AC myth. It's gotten so stale, it's time to
What a well thought out and meaningful reply. The previous remark about Scotto
looking like "MIss Piggy" was another memorable display of intelligent operatic
discussion.
Patrick Byrne
Lars Henriksson
voice was *that* great either. It was loud, but not as beautiful as some
other soprano voices this century imho.
Of course her voice was prettier in the early and mid 50's that later. The
Bohéme duet with Jussi B. I like very much. She also (of course) was very
handsome on stage, although I've only seen videos.
Gedda stated that her voice was very insufficient (but maybe it's wrong to
translate Swed. "otillräcklig" as "insuffient"). Although Gedda very
accurately stated that she was a marvellous stage personality - and that was
maybe the main reason why she was so successful, according to Gedda.
--
Lars Henriksson
la...@hotmail.com
HomePage:
http://operalaven.homestead.com
AValeo1752 <avale...@aol.com> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:20000427232915...@ng-bk1.aol.com...
Oisk17
that Maryl Streep should take a back seat
>to Bo Derek as an actress, becuase Derek is just so much prettier.
>
>Callas' voice was more than 'ok;' until 1954 and for several years
>afterwards, it was an amazing instrument of great range, power, and
>complexity. As pure sound, it may not have been as beautiful to hear as
>other singers you mention
Actually, I think that Streep is as overrated as Callas is. But in the case of
Callas, since so much well informed opinion disagrees with mine, I conclude
that she is a great artist, whom I just happen not to like. (which is probably
the case with Streep as well)
Regards,
Paul
Barbara D.
tradition that had existed until that time!!!), but also a great performer
(the tradition wans't used to a singer/performer!): she played the roles of
women like it was part of her own. That is why she is one of the best!!!! At
least in my opinion.
Barbara
OmbraRecds
>voice was *that* great either. It was loud, but not as beautiful as some
>other soprano voices this century imho.
>
>Of course her voice was prettier in the early and mid 50's that later. The
>Bohéme duet with Jussi B. I like very much. She also (of course) was very
>handsome on stage, although I've only seen videos.
>
>Gedda stated that her voice was very insufficient (but maybe it's wrong to
>translate Swed. "otillräcklig" as "insuffient"). Although Gedda very
>accurately stated that she was a marvellous stage personality - and that was
And Gedda is the last word on other singers?
Patrick Byrne
Shahrdad
Lars Henriksson <la...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:xSlP4.15485$uJ1....@nntpserver.swip.net...
Tebaldi's instrument was a remarkable one, and her performances were always
committed and very musical. Unfortunately, I don't believe she had the
best technical schooling. Most of her training was done with Carmen Melis,
a well known Verismo exponent, and I don't think Melis' singing style had
any basis in the true bel canto schooling. Thus Tebaldi never mastered the
basics of bel canto including runs, scales, trills, and other
embellishments. A couple of generations before, she would not have been
allowed to set foot on stage until she had totally mastered these basics. I
also think that with better early training, her upper voice would have been
less problematic for her, and at least the upper end of it may have been
able to expand farther up.
However, in the repertoire suited to her voice, temperament, and technique
(late Verdi, Puccini, Giordano), she was and remains a force to reckon with.
But I still believe she had the potential for even greater things.
S.
freniac_...@my-deja.com
belcanto revival. One could even argue that is was precisely her -
technical- mastery was the reason she was able to go on as long as she
did. This is for me one of the fascinating questions about Callas,
whether she was a musician with a flawed voice whose technical security
allowed her to sing the things she sang, or that it was basically a
faulty technique which caused her early decline. I am personnaly a
great admirer of hers, and think that she had bot technical brilliance
(just listen to some of her early coloratura arias, with interpolated
high notes thrown in for good measure) and an almost heart-rending
beauty to it, even in later recordings. Of course she gets more wobbly,
screechy and has some booming chest notes (which I actually find rather
exciting) but she's still able to find a lot more truth in the music
and roles than many others. Even imperfect voices can be regarded as
highly beautiful...
Benjamin Rous
OOGIE2LEE
more so the longer she sang. She had three distinct vocal ranges. Transitions
could be dramatic and surprising -- particularly so in her first studio Norma.
Pasta seems to have had a similar voice and maybe a similar technique.
Certainly, their effect upon audiences was the same. Callas didn't hold back.
She attacked a note firmly and was commited to the composers' markings and
intentions. She gave more expression than anyone else. She was magnificent in
performance -- I've never seen better. The term "heart rending" was most
appropriate. The more I listen to her recordings the more I realize her
effects were accomplished by nuance and not exageration.
Bill
Lars Henriksson
every single one - from Tebaldi, Callas, Freni and Caballé to Domingo,
Christoff and Jussi Björling.
His opinions simply cannot be gainsaid. Each one of them consitutes a
perpetual and undeniable truth.
He was even the greatest expert in the world on his own voice.
--
Lars Henriksson
la...@hotmail.com
HomePage:
http://operalaven.homestead.com
OmbraRecds <ombra...@aol.com> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:20000501230651...@ng-ck1.aol.com...
> >This is probably an "heretical" opinion, but I don't think that Tebaldi's
> >voice was *that* great either. It was loud, but not as beautiful as some
> >other soprano voices this century imho.
> >
> >Of course her voice was prettier in the early and mid 50's that later.
The
> >Bohéme duet with Jussi B. I like very much. She also (of course) was very
> >handsome on stage, although I've only seen videos.
> >
> >Gedda stated that her voice was very insufficient (but maybe it's wrong
to
> >translate Swed. "otillräcklig" as "insuffient"). Although Gedda very
> >accurately stated that she was a marvellous stage personality - and that
was
> >maybe the main reason why she was so successful, according to Gedda.>
Ron D'Argenio
Lars Henriksson wrote:
> This is probably an "heretical" opinion, but I don't think that Tebaldi's
> voice was *that* great either. It was loud, but not as beautiful as some
> other soprano voices this century imho.
>
> Of course her voice was prettier in the early and mid 50's that later. The
> Bohéme duet with Jussi B. I like very much. She also (of course) was very
> handsome on stage, although I've only seen videos.
>
> Gedda stated that her voice was very insufficient (but maybe it's wrong to
> translate Swed. "otillräcklig" as "insuffient"). Although Gedda very
> accurately stated that she was a marvellous stage personality - and that was
> maybe the main reason why she was so successful, according to Gedda.
Lars, I respect Gedda highly, but if he believes Tebaldi's success stemmed
mainly from her stage personality, then his opinions deserve to be questioned.
It is evident that Tebaldi possessed a God-given beauty of tone, unmistakable so
that you have no doubt as to who is singing. Is it possible that "otillraklig"
can be translated as "short on top" ? I would agree that this would be an
accurate description of Tebaldi, in later years.
Ron D'Argenio
>
>
> --
> Lars Henriksson
> la...@hotmail.com
> HomePage:
> http://operalaven.homestead.com
>
David Shengold
> From: "Lars Henriksson" <la...@hotmail.com>
> Yes, of course- Gedda is *always* the last word on *every* other singer,
> every single one - from Tebaldi, Callas, Freni and Caballé to Domingo,
> Christoff and Jussi Björling.
>
> His opinions simply cannot be gainsaid. Each one of them consitutes a
> perpetual and undeniable truth.
What does he have to say about Ghiaurov???
- DLS
Lars Henriksson
<G>, I guess.
Well, no - I think you got it...
He mentioned Ghiaurov - but only because he was upset that he did not have
the same opinion on Solsjenitsyn as himself.
Gedda wrote that he would not be surprised if Domingo would be finished in a
few years. A good thing for us all (except the Gang of X) that that did not
happen.
--
Lars Henriksson
la...@hotmail.com
HomePage:
http://operalaven.homestead.com
David Shengold <shen...@pobox.upenn.edu> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:B5358DE5.8A61%shen...@pobox.upenn.edu...
Lars Henriksson
"insufficiens" - which means inadequacy. It has nothing to do with having a
short top. Gedda said "on a critical note, one can say that her voice was
very insufficient / inadequate (mycket otillräcklig) her success is very
much due to the fact that she was such a magnificent stage personality".
I indicated in an above post that Gedda's little Domingo-prophecy turned out
be wrong (at least IMO - you might have a different opinion. But I assume
you did not like him in the first place) - so obviously he can be
questioned.
Personally I have trouble appreciating Tebaldi's tone sometimes - I don't
think it's "evident" that she had a god-given beauty of tone. I wouldn't
expect you to agree if I said that it's evident that Domingo has a divine
voice.
Best,
--
Lars Henriksson
la...@hotmail.com
HomePage:
http://operalaven.homestead.com
Ron D'Argenio <rdar...@erols.com> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:39100AD6...@erols.com...
> > --
> > Lars Henriksson
> > la...@hotmail.com
> > HomePage:
> > http://operalaven.homestead.com
> >
Shahrdad
which some of the great authorities on Italian opera and singing tradition
participated. It was called "The Callas Debate." In short, their opinion
about Callas was that she started out with a voice which was not in essence
pretty, and that it also had certain quirks, such as the three different
registers and the metallic sound around the upper passage. But they also
concluded that her technique for playing this imperfect instrument was
perfect. Furthermore, they went on, had she been endowed with a beautiful,
seamless, obedient instrument, she probably would have never achieved the
great heights that she did. They were also of the opinion that in some of
her portrayals, she set a standard which will very likely remain
unobtainable by anyone else, and this has certainly proven true. Walter
Legge, a knitpicker if there ever was one, was also of the opinion that
Callas' technical mastery was phenomenal.
For me, these "flaws" only serve to make her more fascinating and her
portrayals more human. In addition, she was a musical and dramatic genius
to such a degree that she could put even these vocal quirks to the service
of the music and the drama. To quote Ethan Mordden, "She sang as if she had
the most beautiful voice in the world, and sang to beautifully that she may
as well have had such a voice."
I agree with you that imperfect voices are often beautiful. I find a
haunting beauty in the thin, raspy sounds of Billie Holliday. And visually,
I find imperfect beauties such as Sophia Loren (with her long nose and
crooked teeth) or Audrey Hepburn (with her big ears and feet, skinny neck,
and crooked teeth) much more interesting and fascinating than their more
perfect--and bland--counterparts.
S.
<freniac_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8emqal$4u0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Ron D'Argenio
Obviously beauty is in the ear of the listener. Tebaldi, to me, has a beautiful
voice, but beyond that, I'd say that most of her admirers would point to that
same quality as her greatest asset. Stage personality? I have no idea. I was
just surprised at Gedda's opinion.
By the way, I think Domingo has a warm, agreeable sound below F.
Best, Ron
Shahrdad
Ron D'Argenio <rdar...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:391322DA...@erols.com...
> Hiya Lars,
> Obviously beauty is in the ear of the listener. Tebaldi, to me, has a
beautiful
> voice, but beyond that, I'd say that most of her admirers would point to
that
> same quality as her greatest asset. Stage personality? I have no idea. I
was
> just surprised at Gedda's opinion.
It seems very ironic that for years people would speak of Tebaldi's great
and beautiful voice versus Callas' stage personality. And now, some are
saying that Tebaldi became famous and well loved for HER stage personality.
In my opinion, no matter how magnetic you are or how incredible an actress
you are, you are not going to make it big in opera the way these two women
did unless you have a voice more than capable to deal with the music you're
singing. Callas became a famous (they were referring to her as a legend as
early as the early fifties) by virtue or a remarkable voice, faultless
musicianship, a florid technique without peer, and on top of that, the
ability to act with the music and breath life into the roles in a way that
hadn't been done for many decades. Tebaldi became famous for her beautiful
vocalism, her good musicianship, and her commitment to her performances.
The fact that these women could keep the audience's eyes fascinated in
performance is of secondary importance. First and foremost, they were great
singers and musicians who could do justice to their music, not "stage
personalities."
S.
Lars Henriksson
--
Lars Henriksson
la...@hotmail.com
HomePage:
http://operalaven.homestead.com
Ron D'Argenio <rdar...@erols.com> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:391322DA...@erols.com...
> Hiya Lars,
> Obviously beauty is in the ear of the listener. Tebaldi, to me, has a
beautiful
> voice, but beyond that, I'd say that most of her admirers would point to
that
> same quality as her greatest asset. Stage personality? I have no idea. I
was
> just surprised at Gedda's opinion.
>
Ron D'Argenio
Edward Walter
gggg gggg
> Ron D'Argenio <rdar...@erols.com> wrote in message
> > Obviously beauty is in the ear of the listener. Tebaldi, to me, has a
> beautiful
> > voice, but beyond that, I'd say that most of her admirers would point to
> that
> > same quality as her greatest asset. Stage personality? I have no idea. I
> was
> > just surprised at Gedda's opinion.
> and beautiful voice versus Callas' stage personality. And now, some are
> saying that Tebaldi became famous and well loved for HER stage personality.
> In my opinion, no matter how magnetic you are or how incredible an actress
> you are, you are not going to make it big in opera the way these two women
> did unless you have a voice more than capable to deal with the music you're
> singing. Callas became a famous (they were referring to her as a legend as
> early as the early fifties) by virtue or a remarkable voice, faultless
> musicianship, a florid technique without peer, and on top of that, the
> ability to act with the music and breath life into the roles in a way that
> hadn't been done for many decades. Tebaldi became famous for her beautiful
> vocalism, her good musicianship, and her commitment to her performances.
> The fact that these women could keep the audience's eyes fascinated in
> performance is of secondary importance. First and foremost, they were great
> singers and musicians who could do justice to their music, not "stage
> personalities."
> S.