@MrSwifts31 Onassis was a smarmy parvenu who certainly used Callas to give him entrée to social circles in which he otherwise would never have been admitted (she inroducd him to the Kennedy family through Lee Radziwill)but I believe he truly loved her.He always went back to her:when his son died in the airplane accident, he went to Callas for consolation.Even at the end when he was dying, he had himsilf flown to Paris so he could be near Maria.However, he loved his ambition more.
There are many such groupies in all areas of the creative arts.They seem to take great pleasure in the collapse and downfall of a great artist(not only in opera)
I suppose really we should call them ghouls,because they take an abnormal delight in watching a talented human being fall aprt and (often) die.Then they make saints of them,often to knock them off of their pedestal at a later date.
Maria wasn't a saint OR a demon.Just a flawed genius.
It's the damaged life and sad fate that attracts them,regardless of the actual vocal and dramatic side of Callas life.I am not even sure whether they actually like opera,just the flawed scenario that was Callas life.
This is why Corelli,Nilsson and Flagstad never did.
I love Callas for her vocal and drmatic powers.I would like(very difficult) to ignore all the heartbreal and scandal.The "groupies" live on the latter not the other way around.
@MrSwifts31 It is indeed the better-than-operatic tragedy of her life and somewhat schizophrenic personality structure which so fascinates.So much so,that one can easily forget what a superb artist he was.Then there were the people like Sutherland,Milanov,Nilsson,Tucker,Merrill who came to the opera house 3 times a week,for over 30 years and did their jobs- splendidly, perfectly, professionally. No scandals,no headlines- just humble service to their art.No fun in that for a groupie.
@MrSwifts31 I agree with you up to a point but .. I too saw Callas but in the 50s earlier than you. Before all the scandals etc. Callas became an overnight sensation in Venice in 1949 when she sang Elvira in Puritani a week after she sang a series of Brunhildes! An astonishing feat which left every Italian critic (and Italian critics are very critical especially of foreign singers) with gaping jaws. It was an astounding feat for a soprano who until then had sang nothing but dramatic roles ...
@MrSwifts31 ... Her ability to handle both dramatic roles with belcanto coloratura roles was amazing. To sing a spectacular Armida in the same year that she sang Abigaille in Nabucco was amazing. This is what made her a household name in Continental Europe way before she became a world celebrity, while she was still fat, quite ungainly and not a particularly good actress either at that stage!! She learnt to act as she went along. Serafin and Visconti were her mentors and she learnt fast.
@MrSwifts31 Most of the people who talk about having heard her are like you. They saw the 1964 London Tosca or the 1965 Paris Norma. I never saw them. I didn't want to see her then. I never saw her after her 1959 Medea which was a hair raising experience. And to all those who say she had an ugly voice all I say is that had they heard the 1958 Traviata they would not say that. It was the most unforgettable Traviata I ever saw. And I have seen very many with every top soprano since then.
@MrSwifts31 My own view as someone who was a music student and very involved with music at that time is that she became world famous for being an amazing singer with an incredible range who took on very demanding roles and sang them amazingly. I saw her in Both Norma and Anna Bolena at La Scala in 56 and 57 There was no Onassis or scandals then. The first big world headline came in 1958 when she pulled out midway through a performance of Norma in Rome when the President was attending.
@MrSwifts31 In fact anyone wanting to check up on her famous cancellations etc her performance annals show that she very rarely cancelled performances. From very early on in her career she was known by all her colleagues to be incredibly hard working and concienscious as far as her work was concerned. Onassis pursed her relentlessly and I can't blame her for falling for him. She had done nothing but her work work work until then. Meneghini was most probably more of a father figure to her.
@MrSwifts31 Onassis was a very crude and uncouth man. he didn't understand her artistic needs or why she still wanted to sing. He was known to have said to her "Why do you bother to fly hear and there to sing?" I have lots of money you don't need to do that!! People would spend nights sleeping on the pavement to get a ticket ( how many other singers do they do that for?) And he would say to her don't bother I am rich and you don't need to work!! He never understood her artistic nature.
@MrSwifts31 Sorry if I am long winded but I feel that since I was there at the time and very involved in music, in my opinion a lot of the comments are hearsay by people who get these ideas from books on her life written by people who just wanted to cash in on her fame. Gossip columns were just as inaccurate then as they are now and wanted to write big headlines about famous people. And at that time Callas was very big news. I can't blame her for wanting love and romance but sadly chose badly.
Commenting on the singing, the artistry, that is something, but unwarranted slander is not. It is outside the discussion. If you hate Sutherland because old gay queens loved her, well, it seems most of those who are really into Callas are new gay queens. Anyone's sexual orientation is completely irrelevant to the discussion of their talent or their work. One Sutherland hater spews that on every comment she/he makes. Learn to talk about music, the rest is offensive and out of order.
Both are exceptional and must be appreciated for what they brought to music. I happen to love both of them (and a whole load of others as well). But why be nasty? Nastiness usually shows the person doubts their own choice. Running people down (even Sutherland's husband) with evil innuendo and slurs is childish and silly. It shows that the person has nothing really on which to base their opinions. All of that (and all the comments on gay queens) are outside the debate, and really offer nothing
To those who can't stand music beyond the written note, then you certainly don't understand bel canto opera at all. The written note was only a framework on which to hand ones interpretive skills, which required decorating in repeats, and adding to the printed note. Most composers accepted that, and actually wrote their music with that fact in mind. Rossini approved of it, as long as it wasn't overdone. Verdi hated it, and put a stop to it. Both singers are exceptional, and must be accepted for
He can hate Callas or love her, you can Hate Sutherland or love her, but that doesn't change what each did in their own right. Their approaches were simply very different. Having heard and see both live I can say that much of what is being said is the result of what people THINK, not what they actually experienced in performance. Most commentors here were not even born when Maria died, and they base everything on recordings and nothing else. She was far more subtle in recording than in life.
but it was Callas' nature to do so, as she so desperately needed LOVE in her life, which she never felt she had or was worthy of. Her own emotional instability actually colored her roles. Was she really living life through her singing? For all her accomplishments, she remained a very insecure woman. Personally, that gave her the intensity and vulnerability we see so often in her singing. Sutherland was no different from Callas in the sense she didn't work against herself. She sang what worked.
Callas did not sing her roles from a historically accurate point of view, but from a personal emotional interpretation. Callas often sang ugly dreadful sounds (I saw her live in Norma and in Tosca, so I know from actually hearing her, not just going nuts over her recordings), but even they took on some really deep meaning. She knew her voice, its strengths and its weaknesses. She is a perfect example of someone working with themselves rather than against. She did over-work her voice, but
Yes, Callas was right, Joan Sutherland did put her (Callas' work) back a hundred years, yes, back to what bel canto was. It was not verismo with coloratura, which in many ways is what Callas created. Its forme of drama is quite different, and achieved in quite a different way. And she proved that great singing for the sake of great singing can be just as impressive and enjoyable as singing with very subtle dramatic feeling. One singer, Callas, did not sing her roles from a historically accurate
Callas was also a creature of her time. She approved of stupid cuts that actually mutilated the scores, destroyed the impact of ensembles, etc. She says so herself in her Julliard masters classes. Very few of her operas were completely unknown, and many had been revived long before she came around. Most of her big roles never left the repertoire. And few of her "new discoveries" ever stayed in the repertoire or ever actually entered it. Of course, not fault of hers.
Singing teachers of that time period actually instructed all singers to alter the vowel to "AH" when singing any coloratura work no matter the word. Embellishments were almost to the excess. Yes, some were for dramatic purposes, but most were not (just got through the scores with the embellishments used by say Jenny Lind and many others). Vocal display was as much part of Opera and especially Bel Canto as anything. Callas in many ways actually stripped that from opera.
All this argument and viciousness regarding Sutherland and Callas. Yes, opera never existed until Callas. We all know that isn't true. Her coloratura was fine, but not exceptional. The operas she sang in were often cut heavily. But she brought to her work what was her. Sutherland was more what one would have seen during the age of bel canto (none of this super dramatic acting people think is part of it today). Singers didn't sing their words in long coloratura passages.
The two greatest sopranos of the 20th century singing on the same stage! Sutherland told Callas she'd love to sing bel canto roles like Callas some day. "Why not?" was Callas reply.
If only Callas had accepted the part of Valentine when Sutherland was singing Queen Marguerite in Les Hugenots at La Scala in 1962. Would have been amazing.
Sutherland had an amazing naturally beautiful voice, clear, crystalline and incredibly agile. She had an amazing technique and great facility but although her upper range was probably the best of the 20th century her middle and lower ranges were weaker which limited her in some roles. I must agree with Pavarotti who is quoted as having said "Callas is the greatest female singer of the 20th century and Sutherland had the greatest vocal instrument of the 20th century".
I cannot agree with those who call Callas's voice ugly. It is true it had a sharpness which she used when needed but in more lyrical passages pre 1955 it was just as beautiful as Sutherland's . That she used her voice tin a dramatic way to express the words sang was a fact. Which is why when one heard her live on stage she was so incredible believable. I was lucky enough to see her in Norma, Traviata, Anna Bolena, Lucia, and Medea and those performances are unforgettable.....
@vonFalkenstein77 I accept that some sounds are a matter of personal preference, but as a trained musician myself, I can't listen to music (vocal or instrumental) based only on virtuosity. I find distorting scores by either transposing to another key, or adding unnecessary fioriture to display virtuosity unacceptable. Opera is musical drama not a coloratura perfomance competition. The core of each performance is to bring it to life as close to the composers intentions as possible nothing more
@Ariadne7710 It's all so subjective, isn't it. What's ugly?or beautiful? Did Nilsson, or Björling have "beautiful" voices. I like distinctive artists, ones you always can recognize.Wake a musician at three in the morning, put on Callas,Corelli,Price or Oistrakh,Heifetz,Rostropovich,Rabin - you know instantly who it is. That's what is missing nowadays in the music world. They all sound the same.And as you imply in your comment, it's a completely different ball-game live.
@assindiastignani Up to a point yes it is all very subjective, but some things are too obvious to deny. First of all I never base my opinions on modern recordings nowadays because they make everybody sound wonderful but listen to the same singer in the theatre and it is another story. Despite all the various arguments and debates about what and how things should be sang, Opera like most other arts goes through phases and fashions and what is right now was wrong 50 years ago and vice versa.
@assindiastignani There are many comments justifying additional fioriture etc in belcanto operas and everyone will find a sentence or two in a book to validate his point of view. According to most history records I have read during my music studies in Italy Rossini allowed additional fioriture particularly in da capos but since most of them were for his wife Isabella Colbran he did the additions himself. Also there are many additional fioriture that are just plain bad and disrupt the .
@assindiastignani ..melodic line. According to historical records Bellini did not approve of additional embellishmements. He felt that he had already put in enough himself. Verdi was dead anti anything that he didn't put on the score sheet himself. Donizetti was a little more flexible but still wanted some control. I think we should respect their wishes. Not everyone who has a wonderful voice and can sing can compose as well!!! Which is why Callas used Bernstein or Serafin to do it for her.
@Ariadne7710 Above all,we must remember it was lively business 200 yrs.ago, and composers were often obliged - often against their will - by financial imperatives to allow singers musical liberties which they themselves possibly didn't want.Thus the fact that "Signora Chiunque" did this or "Masetro Chisiasi" did that is hardly validation for the nonsense which is now called tradition. Ultimately it's what Gottlob Turk once wrote: "Es sei dem Geschmack des aufführenden überlassen."
They're both great ladies of the operatic stage. I don't agree about Joan not attempting to act, that's nonsense. She was a competent stage actress - indeed, she did things in Lucia that Maria said she wouldn't have, couldn't have done. Joan also often spoke fondly of Maria and said there were things she tried desperately to do as well as her, but then of course, you must be your own person. It's a shame when people have to criitise great artists, usually with no knowledge of their own.
At some point one has to commit to preference, there is no point in argument - I studied voice - I appreciate the historic fact that Callas revived bel canto - that she made her "interpretation" excel - is also questionable - she was extremely affecting as an actress - melodramatic - Sutherland was pure voice - didn't attempt to act - nor did I wish to see her "act" - although she was hystercially funny in comedy (Fille du Regiment) - her mastery of embellishment was unsurpassed.
@predickament It incredible that you say you would not want her(Sutherland )to act. Surely opera is musical drama and the singer's job is to the bring the character to life, through his/her vocal skills by singing the emotions the character feels in the course of the action. Otherwise one is just singing notes. There is a story, a plot, and just as actors on the stage speak the words to make the character believable, so must opera singers through singing the part. Otherwise there is no point.
I'm sorry there are so many nay-sayers out there - Sutherland's voice and vocal technique was extraordinary - a legendary sound - not only in range but in size - Callas had an extraordinarily large but ugly voice - each had a mastery of bel canto - both worthy of legendary status - and while I would find it difficult to sit through an opera sung by Callas, I certainly can appreciate her value - give me Sutherland any day!
A beautiful voice only does not mean talent. Callas is SUPREME. I love both. Although Sutherland was not a born actress, she could be convincing sometimes due to her beautiful voice, but not her interpretation.
Even the ugliness of Callas's voice can not be imitated, for interpreation comes first.
@vonFalkenstein77 My point is that Callas' timbre changed a lot, both as time went by but also from role to role (and to some degree depending on whether she sang in French or Italian). That was why I asked :)
very hard to pull of the ornaments and make them mean something at the same time. That was Callas' gift to the revival - i.e. re-vival, a sort of new life. Sutherland's approach was very traditional with the exception of being supported by a large voice. Not stupid just not as interesting to me. All a matter of opinion in the end.
When and why did she say that about Sutherland? She is not stupid. I think like many before and after her, she had a very basic idea of bel canto and she fulfilled that as best she could. Problem is bel canto is not bella voce. Ornaments, fluid legato line etc. create a dramatic effect and I was not always sure that Sutherland knew or cared what that was. More emphasis was placed on sounding good rather than building real live characters through music.
@LohengrinT Absolutely. I read somewhere years ago that JS told another singer (i don't remember who now) when they were singing together in some production that she had to do what Bonynge wanted because if she didn't she was petrified he would leave her. She was too stupid to know that she had the power with her voice and he would never leave because of it. Without her he was nothing! How many times have you heard of him conducting in any of the big opera houses since she retired?
She was the lottary that happened to him - she was one of the greatest talents who ever faced the planet earth - he was almost a nobody and he convinced everyone he created her. In his early interviews in mid 60s, the inaccuracies that he says regarding the Voice and the legendary singers of the 19th century can only make you laugh.
@LohengrinT Yes very sad. What a waste of a great voice. It just goes to show that the voice alone is only the starting point. Training it properly and using it intelligently is far more important . Callas had Elvira de Hidalgo,Tullio Serafin and her own hard work and intelligence. Sutherland had the opportunist Bonynge and we have all seen the results. Enough said. Her performances in the eighties were pitiful. Transposing lower so that she could keep going and earning money for him
Callas during this particular performance said to Joan: Soon you will be singing these roles. Many years after though she expressed her opinion about the work of Sutherland: She took my work in bel canto back 100 years. And that was the truth about Sutherland, a phenomenal voice inside the body of an Idiot - that is why they called her Stupenda which resembles the word Stupida. Sutherland is the example of how wasted an Immense talent can get if it is not supported by IQ
@LohengrinT Callas for sure wasn't an idiot for having said that, but it's also absolutely true that her quotes aren't right and great just because she was a great artist and made so many right things. Something that is very wrong - even dangerous - is the infamous "argument of authority", which is: "If SHE said that, then it's right, because, you know, SHE said that". One's greatness doesn't make one's opinions valuable and correct in all situations. Nobody's opinions are entirely objective.
You're perfectly entitled to do that. As I said, I find it disappointing that one'd think something BECAUSE a talented person said the same thing, and not because one used his own mind to make up an opinion that happened to be the same a great artist had. The greats fail, have wrong opinions and, "surprising" as it seems, they sometimes have opinions that are just that - and not pieces of wisdom created by great thought. The opinion of the greats is valuable, but not an authority by themselves.
I had the exact same opinion with Callas about Joan long before I read she said that as I have been writing for years now that coloratura is stupid long before I heard my dearest Ewa Podles say that in her recent interview ;)
@LohengrinT I couldn't agree with you more. I often wonder how she would have developed if she had a mentor more like Serafin instead of that mediocrity Bonynge who made a career on her coat tails and whose only concern was to keep pushing her voice higher and higher with longer and longer trills and fioritura passages and vocal acrobatics instead of helping her develop colour, shading and beatifully rounded legato phrasing and to interpret what the composers wanted their music to convey.
In general her low IQ kept the high Circle of Artists away from her (conductors, stage directors etc). Bonynge was indeed her disaster. Not only the acrobatics and the incredibly stupid ornaments placed wherever inside the scores (some of them make you laugh in the most dramatic moments) but the repertoire she sang (they dag up all the nobodies who ever wrote one coloratura line). It was as if Bonynge was the Mind but he was untalented - how can such a talent be led by a nobody!
her "Circle" became the circle of Opera Queens (old ugly and untalented Gays whose money and position bought them high places in opera houses).
A talent cannot blossom inside such an environment, it needs other talents to co-operate. In their case the tenors usually were Bonynge's lovers lol their friends fat Queers from Decca - truly sad spectacle for a Voice that was truly and immensely unique. The Gays arent always talented and inspiring in Art
@LohengrinT In her book CALLAS,the great Italian journalist&author Camilla Cederna givse the complete context of that oft mis-quoted quote.It seems Callas lamenting the butchery through cuts,bad "traditions"in the music of Donizetti&Bellini in which she was forced to participate in the 50's,said Sutherland took that work back 100 years- meaning through the authenticity of her performance practice&elimination of veristic impulses she returned this music to it's true historical form.
wow.... two great great voices coming together! who would have thought our joanie would go on and keep the legacy of the belcanto tradition started my maria callas. thanks for this
@abracadabranque Je pense qu'il n'y a pas de comparaison à faire. Bien qu'ayant partagé nombre de rôles Callas et Sutherland sont deux personnalités différentes! En novembre 1952 Callas avait déjà plus de 10 ans de carrière bien fournie avec quasiment que des premiers rôles, alors que Sutherland en 5 ans n'en avait eu que très peu, et à sa décharge le rôle très secondaire de Clotilde ne permet guère de faire étalage de sa voix.
@ioSonoCallas Cher ami,habituellement, je n'ai guère besoin de plus d'une seconde pour juger de la qualité d'un timbre et trois me suffisent en général amplement pour me faire une idée très précise des compétences d'un chanteur;mais pour apprécier la beauté d'une voix,un quart de seconde est presque trop!Et je pense qu'il en est ainsi pour toute personne à l'oreille formée.Je ne fais aucune comparaison :Je constate avec une certaine stupéfaction le gouffre artistique qui sépare ces deux voix..!
@abracadabranque Ça va sans dire, évidement le timbre et la voix de Callas sont pour moi aussi bien supérieur! Mais dire qu'il y a un gouffre "artistique" entre ces deux voix laisse sous-entendre bien des choses méprisantes à propos de Sutherland! Chaque jour que dieu fait j'écoute la voix de Callas, il ne peut en être autrement pour moi, mais je peux apprécier aussi ce qu'a apporté Sutherland au bel canto. Dans les années 60 sa voix était plutôt brillante et sa virtuosité était sans égale!!!
@ioSonoCallas Je le confesse,j'ai toujours trouvé Sutherland rasante;ce son sirupeux et tubé, sans passion me fatigue.Bien sûr elle a une virtuosité et des aigus splendides.Seulement, dans cet extrait,je ne l'aurait pas reconnue.Le timbre enrobé habituellement est ici aigre et sec:Une voix de mauvaise choriste!.Pour l'écart artistique,je persiste; là est tout le leg de Callas:La phrase musicale expressive, la vocalité signifiante, la révélation de l'âme.Sutherland,même bien, ne fait que chanter!
@abracadabranque On peut sans doute apprendre, mais jusqu'à un certain point, non ??? Sutherland a un peu cette espèce de mollesse qu'on retrouve chez beaucoup d'anglo-saxons (en dehors de leurs autres qualités), cette absence de passion, et c'est sans doute ce qui la rend ennuyeuse. A bientôt cher voisin !!
@breton2 Ecoute Janet Baker dans le Spectre d'une rose,ce n'est pas froid et c'est très sensible.L'art nait de la saturation émotionnelle,c'est pour celà que l'imprégnation est prépondérante:Mieux vaut tôt que tard,mais parfois rien n'y fait pour les âmes imperméables! Kenavo!
@abracadabranque Non, c'est vrai, c'est un assez bon exemple. Maintenant, la mélodie n'est pas non plus un genre "passionné", et Baker, que j'ai entendue dans ces "nuits d'été" est, comme tu le dis, très sensible... Mais on ne sort pas d'une catégorie "bien élevée", je dirai ! Mais bon, l'art doit-il être associé à la passion ?? C'est un autre débat ! Ovechal !
Callas es Norma. La Norma de Gencer es pugnaz, enojada, la de Sutherland es abstracta, decorativa, la de Caballé, elegíaca. Las tres soberbias. Pero la de Callas,totalmente totalizadora: transmite todas las dudas temores esperanzas iras amor maternal celos en que se debate la protagonista.
discutir sobre si sutherland es o no mejor que callas simplemente es estupido.SUTHERLAND ESTA POR ENCIMA DE TODA CRITICA.es una voz increible por encima de todas.incluida la callas.es la cuspide de la piramide.el que este sordo que vaya al otorrino.
Its so easy to tell them apart in this video, because every time callas sings, its about 20 decibels higher than sutherland. she shouldn't have lost the weight; it damaged her diaphragm too much, and I think she was pretty the way she was!
@shirly961 - You have so much class and dignity. Your blog tells so much more about you than it does about Callas. If you had any intelligence, which I doubt, you'd remove it. It's offensive, disrespectful, and tells an awful lot about what kind of a person you must be. You should be ashamed of yourself.
@shirly961 Certainement encore un faux nez ,pour aller avec des oreilles tout aussi faussées,et sans doute uniquement décoratives!..Mais si ton plumage se rapporte à ton ramage...
no, sutherland's technicality is AMAZING, but callas's interpretation and feeling for the music is unserpassable. callas had a flexible voice too, though it was very dark. but just listen to callas's lucia di lammermoor with karajan or her i puritani. sutherland might have beautiful trills and breathing but her voice and diction was soo poor. (and when i first got into opera i HATED callas and ADORED sutherland. but when you really listen, really really listen, callas usually comes out on top.
callas was the one who actually brought back a lot of the bellini operas and bel canto that sutherland based her career on. sutherland's voice HAS NO FEELING AND HER TONE IS SOO DULL AND DREARY!!!!
JAJAJA Callas has to do with Sutherland's music career? joan became famous when she sang Lucia and then it rained a lot of contracts, callas had nothing to do, and I keep insisting the diction is second term, and the performances of Callas were placed in the fame, voice and interpretation are important in opera but sing and play are different, and Sutherland was a better singer than Callas, Callas was playing better, but always forward voice stherland
i wonder if we're gonna keep on arguing until we're eighty years old or something. yeah, i know sutherland is an amazing soprano but callas has so many things over her. i do not believe that sutherland was a better singer than callas; if you mean only by the technicality part and flexibility fine, but i think the term singer emcompasses much more than just that, including diction and interpretation!
as you say, Joan had a marketing plan implecable vocal, almost perfect, Maria Callas knew he could do drama and more conmver the public and their casta diva, unlike what she did not know Joan Sutherland interpres, is what I find unique to Callas sutherlnad above, the interpretation, sutjerland was a step forward in vocal technique
yes, i know!! my point is that callas was the better singer as a whole. sutherland was a step forward in the technique, but as a singer callas was the better considering not only voice but also interpretation and etc. i suppose your opinion may be based on your definition of singer- i believe a singer embodies not only technicality, vocal flexibility but also diction, interpretation and so on-, so for me callas will always be the better singer.
yeah, i know! if you're not going to sing the words properly why do people bother writing a libretto or even making a story? the problem with sutherland - she was a great vocalist- but at the end of her career, her CD's just starting sounding like long vocal exercises!!
mmmm ..... my favorite tenor?? all the tenors I've heard they do a good job, but that proved to have much potential is Juan Diego Flores, really he has a wonderful voice
yeah, i agree. his voice is really very clear. i would probably also include villazon, his voice really resembles domingo's but is a bit thicker at the top range. very good singing. oh, another soprano that's not very well known is mady mesple- you could try and get a cd of hers- beautiful voice, just like a bird. her technique is just about as good as sutherlands.
Callas IMO was a better Opera Singer. Sutherland was a better Singer because everybody likes a beautiful tone. I cannot ever say she was more agile than Callas as to this day I have not heard even a high lyric coloratura that sings legato passages as fleetly and as cleanly as she does. It's like a piano or a flute. Sutherland...not so much though she is very agile. I enjoy her more in single arias and often cannot take her seriously in entire operas (her Turandot is a big exception to this)
didn't mean to post that so soon. anyway, continuing- callas's voice was full of fire and passion and diction is the way to communicate to the audience and sutherland lost that, how can you say sutherland's voice was always a step ahead, if it wasn't for callas sutherland would never have become so famous!!! honestly, you have to admit that what callas did for opera bypassed anything that sutherland did!!!!
It took me several years to realize that Callas' Bel Canto technique is far superior to Sutherland's but that is a matter of writing a book not discussing in the youtube pages :p
that is the exact response that John Ardoin had when he was given as a gift Callas' 1952 studio Lucia. He gave the gift as a gift to another person. In the following 6 months the sound he had heard was haunting him and he went and bought! the vinyls he had given away :)
-Callas was fully aware of this first-contact-response: She used to say: "I know that my voice annoys people when they first hear it..."
@Nobody297SRS I know what you mean. The technique of "sfogato" is a kind of hurling of sound, that is not taught at tacky schools like Juilliard, I can assure you. You are born into this role like a king is through royal lineage. It's a special kind of singer and the technique is not to everyone's taste. Those who prefer Mozart and Strauss, for example, are not fond of a Gencer or Callas.
Callas' career is as 'red hot' NOW as it EVER was...'La Stupida'...err,sorry...'La Stupenda' (i think they were talking about her waistline,LoL!!) career is as cold as Maria's body is!!There aint enough firewood in the AMAZON to heat Joans career (all ten thousand years of it) to HALF the heat of Maria's...and that's the end of THAT me dears...FACT!!Callas was a 'trailblazer'...Sutherland was a FOLLOWER...mimicking almost everything Callas did...most often POORLY!!!!
There's no argument here. Sutherland keeps saying she always aspired singing like callas, especially in Traviata. They are both great with different approaches towards performing. I like both. Callas' voice was far from ugly. It had a metallic quality which is commonly mistaken for strident, but that only helped her pronunciation and acting. Sutherland in the other hand had a darker color and clearer scales, but her big voice troubled her pronounciation which got worse after her surgery.
Surely it doesn't matter how long a career lasts, but what the artist does during that career (and maybe the artist's legacy). However long Callas's career lasted, it was a great career and she was a great and thrilling artist.
Looool Callas jealous of anything? She had an incredible pride, never was afraid of any other singer. As for her length, she gave more to the world in 10 years than the other singers in 40 years ever since.
And not suprisingly the supossed Wagnerian voiced Sutherland never sang any major soprano role of Wagner.Callas made her debut at the age of 23 singing La Gioconda at Arena di Verona and was a highly acclaimed Wagnerian singer during the first stage of her career.
Joan's top was different. She has an elactic but penetrating top, not a metallic thick one. For Wagner you need a metallic thick one, for bel canto an elastic penetrating one.
Honeybutterfly2008 is right. In addition, Sutherland's bottom range was a little muddy, but she got around that by singing bel canto roles that had a higher tessitura. Callas had a more powerful lower range.
What a silly thing to say, quis178. I do recognize your usual lack of objectivity!!! In those excerpts, they don't have to express the same things at all. Norma is distraught, so of course she sings louder. The voice is not larger at all. If anything, Sutherland's wagnerian voice was bigger than Callas's.
Bonynge heard Callas performing and compared her voice size with Flagstad's Callas voice is more penetrating and squillante than Sutherland's.And learn to press ''reply'' you coward.
Really. Because I can barely tell the difference they sound so alike here. We have an early Callas paired with an early Sutherland. There voice seem equivalent.
Sutherland and Callas actually both sound like mezzos in some sections
The problem comes with the definition of "big".. it does not mean louder.. it means.. bigger.. ie.. more overtones.. not as compact. ... Sometimes it means louder.
Some of the loudest voices are small ones.. they have great carrying power and penetrance.. however, they are not the biggest voices.. Both Sutherlands and Callas voices got bigger as they got older.. and their vocal cords thickened to produce a b "bigger" sound. I guess the proper comparison, is that a cello makes a bigger sound than a violin..
Ohh, of course. I agree, Birgit Nilsson had huge voice. but what made it huge was her high notes. Which would drown tenors out and dominate an ochestra. Both Sutherland and Callas had huge E-flats.
@tklogan11809 not any more. now lets see how long it takes for her to be forgotten. Callas has been dead for 30 plus years and still is the number one opera star, Sutherland is few months dead and she is almost forgotten.
@NEBESHIKU Callas benefits from EMI massive marketing and the fact she died prematurely.If people saw more of her in her last desastrous tour with Di Stefano,they'd be much less interested.People that don't know anything about opera know about Callas.That should tell you that it's not about her voice or talent,it's because they know of the jet set life she had with Onassis and all that happened after that,ending with her death.Nothing to do with opera.We'll never forget the supreme Sutherland!
@sutherlandfan64 on the other hand no matter how much marketing Cetra does on Sutherland, La Stupida's work will be quickly forgotten. Yes, Sutherland is supreme in her stupidity wich is like a light that atracks to her even more stupid idiots! La stupida sang anything coloratura any no body wrotre and her performances were to laugh at with ornamantation every where, she was at her best in opera buffa where her disgusting face and big chin made her the clown everyone could laugh at!
@NEBESHIKU so much bitterness in you... how come you Callas fans are always so agressive and vicious and insulting in your comments. Can you not make a point without being so offensive? I really wouldn't want to be you. You must have such a miserable unfulfilled little life...
@sutherlandfan64 sorry bitch but don't project your short commings on us! You are the 1 that likes La Stupida: a poor clown that did what ever her husband wanted out of fear of him leaving her because she knew she wasn't woman enough to get an other man. Poor stupid Sutherland singing any coloratura any no body wrote and singing ridiculous ornamentation in the most dramatic points of an opera making you laugh; she was not intelligent and talented like Callas, who went with Serafin's advice.
@sutherlandfan64 that was before LA Stupida's stupidity took her away from the path and into her husband's claws. Poor Joan, she must be happy because some one is talking about her when every one else has forgotten her.
@sutherlandfan64 You need to know something: NEBESHIKU is the official Sutherland-Hater und uncrowned Principessa Assoluta e Induscussa of all Callas Queens. He stalks youtube and fills every Sutherland page with the most horrific, vitriolic and obscene comments abt. Dame Joan and her singing. Like all the other "vedovi Callas" for him it's a holy crusade against the operatic infidel to trash anyone else who dares to sing a single note of a Callas role. Lascialo perdere-non vale la pena.
@MrSwifts31 I'm not sure anything can or should be done.As sick as she/he is,I'm still against censorship. I'm sure Sutherland doesn't care and he does such a good job of completely discrediting himself with his rabid,pathological hatemail I can't imagine anyone takes him seriously.That is the downside of a free&open forum - even people like that are allowed to express opinions,no matter how uncivilized. Cheez, Freud would have paid him for the sessions.
@MrSwifts31 Hi. It's always a pleasure to find somebody who has culture and with whom one can exchange opinions.For me the problem is,I am an enormous Callas fan, always have been,but when I read people like our friend here,I cringe because this is exactly the kind of thing that brings the whole world of opera into ill-repute.Also,I can't help asking myself, why is it that Callas always attracted (and still attracts) these kinds of fans?Corelli,Nilsson,Flagstad et.al. never did
@MrSwifts31 Hi my friend.I too am over 60and,like you,have a slightly different view of Callas,because I heard all of her contemporaries live,and know what the real standard of the time was.These Callas groupies most assuredly never heard her live,and let's face it 90% of them are gay men for whom it's the tragedy of her private life as much as (or more than) her singing that is so attractive: horrible childhood,loved the wrong man,"misunderstood" "persecuted."All the wrong reasons.
I don´t like the voice of Callas at all. Yes she benifits from EMIs marketing and her affair with Onassis. I can´t unterstand how anyone can not love Dame Joan.
Sutherland features in this set hardly at all... Maria performs splendidly, as always. Joan must have learned a lot, listening to La Divina from the wings...
She lasted 30 years but she transposed everything after the mid 70's,she developed a huge wobble in the middle register and that terrible ''conductor'' rewrote everything she sang to fit her voice.And her diction was always a joke no wonder why she never dared to sing in front of Italian audiences after 1963 her phrasing was a mockery to the Italian language.
There is something that kind people would call: decency and respect. You want to be a critic, well be one but be decent and have respect for someone of her kind. There is a Spanish proverb: "Water must have something to be blessed". This applies to all those who have reached a top level because they must have had something: greatness.
In other words she had about fifteen good years, and the rest were going down hill and i agree with everything you say about Sutherland. and her idiot husband.
but this is exactly why they called her Stupenda Because the word resembles greatly the word Stupida Sutherland knew that and hated that nickname from the first time they gave it to her (in her Firenzie Alcina at 1957 that is )
yes the truth is that Sutherland had a somehow lower IQ, evident in several occasions nevertheless I truly believe that the "poisonous Italians" also meant honestly Marvelous -besides stupid- because that is exactly what she was back in 1957 while singing Handel (stupid but stupendous :p)
No Sutherland was/is not stupid. Stupenda in italian simply means 'amazing' - something that stupefies not something that is stupid. True, I wouldn't call her a musician but she was an outstanding singer and just about as smart as any other singer...
I wonder what was going through Maria Callas' mind when she heard Sutherland's Lucia and then her Norma. There must have been some rivalry even though no one will admit it. It's not every day that a prima donna is upstaged by someone who started off singing a very minor supporting role.
A genius seeking what we all( talented or not) seek,namely love.
Sadly the men she chose wanted her as an adornment(especially Onassis) more or less a piece of human jewellery.
When Maria found out it destroyed her,and having a wonderful natural instrument this gave up too
However,nothing(not even the stupid groupies) can take away my memory of her in Tosca.
I have always said I would forgo all music etc to keep that memory.
When I listen to Callas I know about her life,but the voice is all
MrSwifts31 2 months ago
@MrSwifts31 Onassis was a smarmy parvenu who certainly used Callas to give him entrée to social circles in which he otherwise would never have been admitted (she inroducd him to the Kennedy family through Lee Radziwill)but I believe he truly loved her.He always went back to her:when his son died in the airplane accident, he went to Callas for consolation.Even at the end when he was dying, he had himsilf flown to Paris so he could be near Maria.However, he loved his ambition more.
assindiastignani 2 months ago
Indeed what you say is (sadly)only too true.
There are many such groupies in all areas of the creative arts.They seem to take great pleasure in the collapse and downfall of a great artist(not only in opera)
I suppose really we should call them ghouls,because they take an abnormal delight in watching a talented human being fall aprt and (often) die.Then they make saints of them,often to knock them off of their pedestal at a later date.
Maria wasn't a saint OR a demon.Just a flawed genius.
MrSwifts31 2 months ago
It's the damaged life and sad fate that attracts them,regardless of the actual vocal and dramatic side of Callas life.I am not even sure whether they actually like opera,just the flawed scenario that was Callas life.
This is why Corelli,Nilsson and Flagstad never did.
I love Callas for her vocal and drmatic powers.I would like(very difficult) to ignore all the heartbreal and scandal.The "groupies" live on the latter not the other way around.
PS:~ I saw Callas as Tosca at Covent Garden 1963
MrSwifts31 2 months ago
@MrSwifts31 It is indeed the better-than-operatic tragedy of her life and somewhat schizophrenic personality structure which so fascinates.So much so,that one can easily forget what a superb artist he was.Then there were the people like Sutherland,Milanov,Nilsson,Tucker,Merrill who came to the opera house 3 times a week,for over 30 years and did their jobs- splendidly, perfectly, professionally. No scandals,no headlines- just humble service to their art.No fun in that for a groupie.
assindiastignani 2 months ago
@MrSwifts31 I agree with you up to a point but .. I too saw Callas but in the 50s earlier than you. Before all the scandals etc. Callas became an overnight sensation in Venice in 1949 when she sang Elvira in Puritani a week after she sang a series of Brunhildes! An astonishing feat which left every Italian critic (and Italian critics are very critical especially of foreign singers) with gaping jaws. It was an astounding feat for a soprano who until then had sang nothing but dramatic roles ...
Ariadne7710 2 months ago
@MrSwifts31 ... Her ability to handle both dramatic roles with belcanto coloratura roles was amazing. To sing a spectacular Armida in the same year that she sang Abigaille in Nabucco was amazing. This is what made her a household name in Continental Europe way before she became a world celebrity, while she was still fat, quite ungainly and not a particularly good actress either at that stage!! She learnt to act as she went along. Serafin and Visconti were her mentors and she learnt fast.
Ariadne7710 2 months ago
@MrSwifts31 Most of the people who talk about having heard her are like you. They saw the 1964 London Tosca or the 1965 Paris Norma. I never saw them. I didn't want to see her then. I never saw her after her 1959 Medea which was a hair raising experience. And to all those who say she had an ugly voice all I say is that had they heard the 1958 Traviata they would not say that. It was the most unforgettable Traviata I ever saw. And I have seen very many with every top soprano since then.
Ariadne7710 2 months ago
@MrSwifts31 My own view as someone who was a music student and very involved with music at that time is that she became world famous for being an amazing singer with an incredible range who took on very demanding roles and sang them amazingly. I saw her in Both Norma and Anna Bolena at La Scala in 56 and 57 There was no Onassis or scandals then. The first big world headline came in 1958 when she pulled out midway through a performance of Norma in Rome when the President was attending.
Ariadne7710 2 months ago
@MrSwifts31 In fact anyone wanting to check up on her famous cancellations etc her performance annals show that she very rarely cancelled performances. From very early on in her career she was known by all her colleagues to be incredibly hard working and concienscious as far as her work was concerned. Onassis pursed her relentlessly and I can't blame her for falling for him. She had done nothing but her work work work until then. Meneghini was most probably more of a father figure to her.
Ariadne7710 2 months ago
@MrSwifts31 Onassis was a very crude and uncouth man. he didn't understand her artistic needs or why she still wanted to sing. He was known to have said to her "Why do you bother to fly hear and there to sing?" I have lots of money you don't need to do that!! People would spend nights sleeping on the pavement to get a ticket ( how many other singers do they do that for?) And he would say to her don't bother I am rich and you don't need to work!! He never understood her artistic nature.
Ariadne7710 2 months ago
@MrSwifts31 Sorry if I am long winded but I feel that since I was there at the time and very involved in music, in my opinion a lot of the comments are hearsay by people who get these ideas from books on her life written by people who just wanted to cash in on her fame. Gossip columns were just as inaccurate then as they are now and wanted to write big headlines about famous people. And at that time Callas was very big news. I can't blame her for wanting love and romance but sadly chose badly.
Ariadne7710 2 months ago
Commenting on the singing, the artistry, that is something, but unwarranted slander is not. It is outside the discussion. If you hate Sutherland because old gay queens loved her, well, it seems most of those who are really into Callas are new gay queens. Anyone's sexual orientation is completely irrelevant to the discussion of their talent or their work. One Sutherland hater spews that on every comment she/he makes. Learn to talk about music, the rest is offensive and out of order.
BDSCalgary 6 months ago
Both are exceptional and must be appreciated for what they brought to music. I happen to love both of them (and a whole load of others as well). But why be nasty? Nastiness usually shows the person doubts their own choice. Running people down (even Sutherland's husband) with evil innuendo and slurs is childish and silly. It shows that the person has nothing really on which to base their opinions. All of that (and all the comments on gay queens) are outside the debate, and really offer nothing
BDSCalgary 6 months ago
To those who can't stand music beyond the written note, then you certainly don't understand bel canto opera at all. The written note was only a framework on which to hand ones interpretive skills, which required decorating in repeats, and adding to the printed note. Most composers accepted that, and actually wrote their music with that fact in mind. Rossini approved of it, as long as it wasn't overdone. Verdi hated it, and put a stop to it. Both singers are exceptional, and must be accepted for
BDSCalgary 6 months ago
He can hate Callas or love her, you can Hate Sutherland or love her, but that doesn't change what each did in their own right. Their approaches were simply very different. Having heard and see both live I can say that much of what is being said is the result of what people THINK, not what they actually experienced in performance. Most commentors here were not even born when Maria died, and they base everything on recordings and nothing else. She was far more subtle in recording than in life.
BDSCalgary 6 months ago
but it was Callas' nature to do so, as she so desperately needed LOVE in her life, which she never felt she had or was worthy of. Her own emotional instability actually colored her roles. Was she really living life through her singing? For all her accomplishments, she remained a very insecure woman. Personally, that gave her the intensity and vulnerability we see so often in her singing. Sutherland was no different from Callas in the sense she didn't work against herself. She sang what worked.
BDSCalgary 6 months ago
Callas did not sing her roles from a historically accurate point of view, but from a personal emotional interpretation. Callas often sang ugly dreadful sounds (I saw her live in Norma and in Tosca, so I know from actually hearing her, not just going nuts over her recordings), but even they took on some really deep meaning. She knew her voice, its strengths and its weaknesses. She is a perfect example of someone working with themselves rather than against. She did over-work her voice, but
BDSCalgary 6 months ago
Yes, Callas was right, Joan Sutherland did put her (Callas' work) back a hundred years, yes, back to what bel canto was. It was not verismo with coloratura, which in many ways is what Callas created. Its forme of drama is quite different, and achieved in quite a different way. And she proved that great singing for the sake of great singing can be just as impressive and enjoyable as singing with very subtle dramatic feeling. One singer, Callas, did not sing her roles from a historically accurate
BDSCalgary 6 months ago
Callas was also a creature of her time. She approved of stupid cuts that actually mutilated the scores, destroyed the impact of ensembles, etc. She says so herself in her Julliard masters classes. Very few of her operas were completely unknown, and many had been revived long before she came around. Most of her big roles never left the repertoire. And few of her "new discoveries" ever stayed in the repertoire or ever actually entered it. Of course, not fault of hers.
BDSCalgary 6 months ago
Singing teachers of that time period actually instructed all singers to alter the vowel to "AH" when singing any coloratura work no matter the word. Embellishments were almost to the excess. Yes, some were for dramatic purposes, but most were not (just got through the scores with the embellishments used by say Jenny Lind and many others). Vocal display was as much part of Opera and especially Bel Canto as anything. Callas in many ways actually stripped that from opera.
BDSCalgary 6 months ago
@BDSCalgary
Your posts especially about the history of Bel Canto are a marvel of historical knowledge and
literacy. Thank you-John
65attila 6 months ago
All this argument and viciousness regarding Sutherland and Callas. Yes, opera never existed until Callas. We all know that isn't true. Her coloratura was fine, but not exceptional. The operas she sang in were often cut heavily. But she brought to her work what was her. Sutherland was more what one would have seen during the age of bel canto (none of this super dramatic acting people think is part of it today). Singers didn't sing their words in long coloratura passages.
BDSCalgary 6 months ago
The two greatest sopranos of the 20th century singing on the same stage! Sutherland told Callas she'd love to sing bel canto roles like Callas some day. "Why not?" was Callas reply.
If only Callas had accepted the part of Valentine when Sutherland was singing Queen Marguerite in Les Hugenots at La Scala in 1962. Would have been amazing.
CaptFitzbattleaxe 7 months ago
Sutherland had an amazing naturally beautiful voice, clear, crystalline and incredibly agile. She had an amazing technique and great facility but although her upper range was probably the best of the 20th century her middle and lower ranges were weaker which limited her in some roles. I must agree with Pavarotti who is quoted as having said "Callas is the greatest female singer of the 20th century and Sutherland had the greatest vocal instrument of the 20th century".
Ariadne7710 8 months ago
I cannot agree with those who call Callas's voice ugly. It is true it had a sharpness which she used when needed but in more lyrical passages pre 1955 it was just as beautiful as Sutherland's . That she used her voice tin a dramatic way to express the words sang was a fact. Which is why when one heard her live on stage she was so incredible believable. I was lucky enough to see her in Norma, Traviata, Anna Bolena, Lucia, and Medea and those performances are unforgettable.....
Ariadne7710 8 months ago
@Ariadne7710
I can´t help it but I just don´t like the sound of Callas´voice but I love the sound of Sutherland´s voice.
vonFalkenstein77 7 months ago
@vonFalkenstein77 I accept that some sounds are a matter of personal preference, but as a trained musician myself, I can't listen to music (vocal or instrumental) based only on virtuosity. I find distorting scores by either transposing to another key, or adding unnecessary fioriture to display virtuosity unacceptable. Opera is musical drama not a coloratura perfomance competition. The core of each performance is to bring it to life as close to the composers intentions as possible nothing more
Ariadne7710 7 months ago
@Ariadne7710 It's all so subjective, isn't it. What's ugly?or beautiful? Did Nilsson, or Björling have "beautiful" voices. I like distinctive artists, ones you always can recognize.Wake a musician at three in the morning, put on Callas,Corelli,Price or Oistrakh,Heifetz,Rostropovich,Rabin - you know instantly who it is. That's what is missing nowadays in the music world. They all sound the same.And as you imply in your comment, it's a completely different ball-game live.
assindiastignani 2 months ago
@assindiastignani Up to a point yes it is all very subjective, but some things are too obvious to deny. First of all I never base my opinions on modern recordings nowadays because they make everybody sound wonderful but listen to the same singer in the theatre and it is another story. Despite all the various arguments and debates about what and how things should be sang, Opera like most other arts goes through phases and fashions and what is right now was wrong 50 years ago and vice versa.
Ariadne7710 2 months ago
@assindiastignani There are many comments justifying additional fioriture etc in belcanto operas and everyone will find a sentence or two in a book to validate his point of view. According to most history records I have read during my music studies in Italy Rossini allowed additional fioriture particularly in da capos but since most of them were for his wife Isabella Colbran he did the additions himself. Also there are many additional fioriture that are just plain bad and disrupt the .
Ariadne7710 2 months ago
@assindiastignani ..melodic line. According to historical records Bellini did not approve of additional embellishmements. He felt that he had already put in enough himself. Verdi was dead anti anything that he didn't put on the score sheet himself. Donizetti was a little more flexible but still wanted some control. I think we should respect their wishes. Not everyone who has a wonderful voice and can sing can compose as well!!! Which is why Callas used Bernstein or Serafin to do it for her.
Ariadne7710 2 months ago
@Ariadne7710 Above all,we must remember it was lively business 200 yrs.ago, and composers were often obliged - often against their will - by financial imperatives to allow singers musical liberties which they themselves possibly didn't want.Thus the fact that "Signora Chiunque" did this or "Masetro Chisiasi" did that is hardly validation for the nonsense which is now called tradition. Ultimately it's what Gottlob Turk once wrote: "Es sei dem Geschmack des aufführenden überlassen."
assindiastignani 2 months ago
Pay attentioin to how she calls Clotilde! Amazing interpretation!
Alce2008 8 months ago
They're both great ladies of the operatic stage. I don't agree about Joan not attempting to act, that's nonsense. She was a competent stage actress - indeed, she did things in Lucia that Maria said she wouldn't have, couldn't have done. Joan also often spoke fondly of Maria and said there were things she tried desperately to do as well as her, but then of course, you must be your own person. It's a shame when people have to criitise great artists, usually with no knowledge of their own.
Iandaoperaman 8 months ago
At some point one has to commit to preference, there is no point in argument - I studied voice - I appreciate the historic fact that Callas revived bel canto - that she made her "interpretation" excel - is also questionable - she was extremely affecting as an actress - melodramatic - Sutherland was pure voice - didn't attempt to act - nor did I wish to see her "act" - although she was hystercially funny in comedy (Fille du Regiment) - her mastery of embellishment was unsurpassed.
predickament 8 months ago
@predickament It incredible that you say you would not want her(Sutherland )to act. Surely opera is musical drama and the singer's job is to the bring the character to life, through his/her vocal skills by singing the emotions the character feels in the course of the action. Otherwise one is just singing notes. There is a story, a plot, and just as actors on the stage speak the words to make the character believable, so must opera singers through singing the part. Otherwise there is no point.
Ariadne7710 8 months ago
I'm sorry there are so many nay-sayers out there - Sutherland's voice and vocal technique was extraordinary - a legendary sound - not only in range but in size - Callas had an extraordinarily large but ugly voice - each had a mastery of bel canto - both worthy of legendary status - and while I would find it difficult to sit through an opera sung by Callas, I certainly can appreciate her value - give me Sutherland any day!
predickament 9 months ago
@predickament
A beautiful voice only does not mean talent. Callas is SUPREME. I love both. Although Sutherland was not a born actress, she could be convincing sometimes due to her beautiful voice, but not her interpretation.
Even the ugliness of Callas's voice can not be imitated, for interpreation comes first.
Alce2008 9 months ago
@predickament
I also think she had an ugly voice, I have just one record of Callas but all the recordings of Dame Joan.
vonFalkenstein77 8 months ago
@vonFalkenstein77 Do you think you can judge Callas' voice from only one record?
MadonnaImperia 7 months ago
@MadonnaImperia
I don´t judge her at all but I don´t like the voice and the sound/ timbre of Callas´. Nevertheless she was a nice and charming person, I think.
vonFalkenstein77 7 months ago
@vonFalkenstein77 My point is that Callas' timbre changed a lot, both as time went by but also from role to role (and to some degree depending on whether she sang in French or Italian). That was why I asked :)
MadonnaImperia 7 months ago
very hard to pull of the ornaments and make them mean something at the same time. That was Callas' gift to the revival - i.e. re-vival, a sort of new life. Sutherland's approach was very traditional with the exception of being supported by a large voice. Not stupid just not as interesting to me. All a matter of opinion in the end.
babydrane 10 months ago
When and why did she say that about Sutherland? She is not stupid. I think like many before and after her, she had a very basic idea of bel canto and she fulfilled that as best she could. Problem is bel canto is not bella voce. Ornaments, fluid legato line etc. create a dramatic effect and I was not always sure that Sutherland knew or cared what that was. More emphasis was placed on sounding good rather than building real live characters through music.
babydrane 10 months ago
I wonder what maria would have been thinking while singing with someone who is an upcoming star of belcanto.
ApparoDei 1 year ago
Comment removed
LohengrinT 1 year ago
@LohengrinT Absolutely. I read somewhere years ago that JS told another singer (i don't remember who now) when they were singing together in some production that she had to do what Bonynge wanted because if she didn't she was petrified he would leave her. She was too stupid to know that she had the power with her voice and he would never leave because of it. Without her he was nothing! How many times have you heard of him conducting in any of the big opera houses since she retired?
Ariadne7710 11 months ago
@Ariadne7710
She was the lottary that happened to him - she was one of the greatest talents who ever faced the planet earth - he was almost a nobody and he convinced everyone he created her. In his early interviews in mid 60s, the inaccuracies that he says regarding the Voice and the legendary singers of the 19th century can only make you laugh.
LohengrinT 11 months ago
@LohengrinT Yes very sad. What a waste of a great voice. It just goes to show that the voice alone is only the starting point. Training it properly and using it intelligently is far more important . Callas had Elvira de Hidalgo,Tullio Serafin and her own hard work and intelligence. Sutherland had the opportunist Bonynge and we have all seen the results. Enough said. Her performances in the eighties were pitiful. Transposing lower so that she could keep going and earning money for him
Ariadne7710 11 months ago
@ApparoDei
Callas during this particular performance said to Joan: Soon you will be singing these roles. Many years after though she expressed her opinion about the work of Sutherland: She took my work in bel canto back 100 years. And that was the truth about Sutherland, a phenomenal voice inside the body of an Idiot - that is why they called her Stupenda which resembles the word Stupida. Sutherland is the example of how wasted an Immense talent can get if it is not supported by IQ
LohengrinT 1 year ago
@LohengrinT
You're a phenomenal voice in the body of an idiot... a phenomenally foolish voice!
thesadie111 1 year ago
@thesadie111
then perhaps Callas was an idiot too because I am only quoting her
But then what that makes you? :)))))))))
LohengrinT 1 year ago
@LohengrinT Callas for sure wasn't an idiot for having said that, but it's also absolutely true that her quotes aren't right and great just because she was a great artist and made so many right things. Something that is very wrong - even dangerous - is the infamous "argument of authority", which is: "If SHE said that, then it's right, because, you know, SHE said that". One's greatness doesn't make one's opinions valuable and correct in all situations. Nobody's opinions are entirely objective.
Homoclassicus 11 months ago
@Homoclassicus
well Id rather be in agreement with great artists rathen than be in agreement with internet nobodies ;)
LohengrinT 11 months ago
You're perfectly entitled to do that. As I said, I find it disappointing that one'd think something BECAUSE a talented person said the same thing, and not because one used his own mind to make up an opinion that happened to be the same a great artist had. The greats fail, have wrong opinions and, "surprising" as it seems, they sometimes have opinions that are just that - and not pieces of wisdom created by great thought. The opinion of the greats is valuable, but not an authority by themselves.
Homoclassicus 11 months ago
@Homoclassicus
I had the exact same opinion with Callas about Joan long before I read she said that as I have been writing for years now that coloratura is stupid long before I heard my dearest Ewa Podles say that in her recent interview ;)
Not my fault that great minds think alike :)
LohengrinT 11 months ago
@LohengrinT I couldn't agree with you more. I often wonder how she would have developed if she had a mentor more like Serafin instead of that mediocrity Bonynge who made a career on her coat tails and whose only concern was to keep pushing her voice higher and higher with longer and longer trills and fioritura passages and vocal acrobatics instead of helping her develop colour, shading and beatifully rounded legato phrasing and to interpret what the composers wanted their music to convey.
Ariadne7710 11 months ago
@Ariadne7710
In general her low IQ kept the high Circle of Artists away from her (conductors, stage directors etc). Bonynge was indeed her disaster. Not only the acrobatics and the incredibly stupid ornaments placed wherever inside the scores (some of them make you laugh in the most dramatic moments) but the repertoire she sang (they dag up all the nobodies who ever wrote one coloratura line). It was as if Bonynge was the Mind but he was untalented - how can such a talent be led by a nobody!
LohengrinT 11 months ago
@Ariadne7710
her "Circle" became the circle of Opera Queens (old ugly and untalented Gays whose money and position bought them high places in opera houses).
A talent cannot blossom inside such an environment, it needs other talents to co-operate. In their case the tenors usually were Bonynge's lovers lol their friends fat Queers from Decca - truly sad spectacle for a Voice that was truly and immensely unique. The Gays arent always talented and inspiring in Art
LohengrinT 11 months ago
@LohengrinT In her book CALLAS,the great Italian journalist&author Camilla Cederna givse the complete context of that oft mis-quoted quote.It seems Callas lamenting the butchery through cuts,bad "traditions"in the music of Donizetti&Bellini in which she was forced to participate in the 50's,said Sutherland took that work back 100 years- meaning through the authenticity of her performance practice&elimination of veristic impulses she returned this music to it's true historical form.
assindiastignani 2 months ago
wow.... two great great voices coming together! who would have thought our joanie would go on and keep the legacy of the belcanto tradition started my maria callas. thanks for this
belcunto 1 year ago
I LOVE YOU MARIA! ALWAYS ! YOUR THE INSPIRATION AND YOU BOUGHT OPERA FROM THE WILDERNESS INTO THE LIGHT! RESPECT TO YOU! DIVA!
CyprusHot 1 year ago
La voix de Sutherland est plate et laide à côté de Callas.Sans comparaison aucune!
abracadabranque 1 year ago
@abracadabranque Je pense qu'il n'y a pas de comparaison à faire. Bien qu'ayant partagé nombre de rôles Callas et Sutherland sont deux personnalités différentes! En novembre 1952 Callas avait déjà plus de 10 ans de carrière bien fournie avec quasiment que des premiers rôles, alors que Sutherland en 5 ans n'en avait eu que très peu, et à sa décharge le rôle très secondaire de Clotilde ne permet guère de faire étalage de sa voix.
ioSonoCallas 1 year ago
@ioSonoCallas Cher ami,habituellement, je n'ai guère besoin de plus d'une seconde pour juger de la qualité d'un timbre et trois me suffisent en général amplement pour me faire une idée très précise des compétences d'un chanteur;mais pour apprécier la beauté d'une voix,un quart de seconde est presque trop!Et je pense qu'il en est ainsi pour toute personne à l'oreille formée.Je ne fais aucune comparaison :Je constate avec une certaine stupéfaction le gouffre artistique qui sépare ces deux voix..!
abracadabranque 1 year ago
@abracadabranque Ça va sans dire, évidement le timbre et la voix de Callas sont pour moi aussi bien supérieur! Mais dire qu'il y a un gouffre "artistique" entre ces deux voix laisse sous-entendre bien des choses méprisantes à propos de Sutherland! Chaque jour que dieu fait j'écoute la voix de Callas, il ne peut en être autrement pour moi, mais je peux apprécier aussi ce qu'a apporté Sutherland au bel canto. Dans les années 60 sa voix était plutôt brillante et sa virtuosité était sans égale!!!
ioSonoCallas 1 year ago
@ioSonoCallas Je le confesse,j'ai toujours trouvé Sutherland rasante;ce son sirupeux et tubé, sans passion me fatigue.Bien sûr elle a une virtuosité et des aigus splendides.Seulement, dans cet extrait,je ne l'aurait pas reconnue.Le timbre enrobé habituellement est ici aigre et sec:Une voix de mauvaise choriste!.Pour l'écart artistique,je persiste; là est tout le leg de Callas:La phrase musicale expressive, la vocalité signifiante, la révélation de l'âme.Sutherland,même bien, ne fait que chanter!
abracadabranque 1 year ago 2
@abracadabranque Je suis tout à fait d'accord... Une voix sans aucune expression, en fait, tout virtuose qu'elle soit...
breton2 1 year ago
@breton2 Comme quoi l'on peut tout apprendre,hormis le tempérament ou la sensibilité.D'ailleurs,peut-on apprendre à être artiste?
Grande question,vaste sujet..!
Salut, très cher voisin!
Mitia.
abracadabranque 1 year ago
@abracadabranque On peut sans doute apprendre, mais jusqu'à un certain point, non ??? Sutherland a un peu cette espèce de mollesse qu'on retrouve chez beaucoup d'anglo-saxons (en dehors de leurs autres qualités), cette absence de passion, et c'est sans doute ce qui la rend ennuyeuse. A bientôt cher voisin !!
breton2 1 year ago
@breton2 Ecoute Janet Baker dans le Spectre d'une rose,ce n'est pas froid et c'est très sensible.L'art nait de la saturation émotionnelle,c'est pour celà que l'imprégnation est prépondérante:Mieux vaut tôt que tard,mais parfois rien n'y fait pour les âmes imperméables! Kenavo!
abracadabranque 1 year ago
@abracadabranque Non, c'est vrai, c'est un assez bon exemple. Maintenant, la mélodie n'est pas non plus un genre "passionné", et Baker, que j'ai entendue dans ces "nuits d'été" est, comme tu le dis, très sensible... Mais on ne sort pas d'une catégorie "bien élevée", je dirai ! Mais bon, l'art doit-il être associé à la passion ?? C'est un autre débat ! Ovechal !
breton2 1 year ago
Callas es Norma. La Norma de Gencer es pugnaz, enojada, la de Sutherland es abstracta, decorativa, la de Caballé, elegíaca. Las tres soberbias. Pero la de Callas,totalmente totalizadora: transmite todas las dudas temores esperanzas iras amor maternal celos en que se debate la protagonista.
lydiaguarro 1 year ago
ironically, Joan actually sounds older here. she sounds much younger in the 60s and early 70s when her canary bird high notes are at their peak
raigekimaru 1 year ago
@raigekimaru Absolutely right!
abracadabranque 1 year ago
discutir sobre si sutherland es o no mejor que callas simplemente es estupido.SUTHERLAND ESTA POR ENCIMA DE TODA CRITICA.es una voz increible por encima de todas.incluida la callas.es la cuspide de la piramide.el que este sordo que vaya al otorrino.
bellini7verdi 1 year ago
Its so easy to tell them apart in this video, because every time callas sings, its about 20 decibels higher than sutherland. she shouldn't have lost the weight; it damaged her diaphragm too much, and I think she was pretty the way she was!
flicfan416 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
fuck this callas bitch, she has no talent and her voice sounds like a donkey.
shirly961 2 years ago
@shirly961 what an elegant manner you have... I am sure your opinion is highly respected where you must live...
MariaCaIIas 1 year ago
@shirly961 - You have so much class and dignity. Your blog tells so much more about you than it does about Callas. If you had any intelligence, which I doubt, you'd remove it. It's offensive, disrespectful, and tells an awful lot about what kind of a person you must be. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Zva26 1 year ago
Comment removed
abracadabranque 1 year ago
@shirly961 Certainement encore un faux nez ,pour aller avec des oreilles tout aussi faussées,et sans doute uniquement décoratives!..Mais si ton plumage se rapporte à ton ramage...
abracadabranque 1 year ago
Were do you get your oh so definitive information LohengrinT.Did you ask Sutherland about wether she hated being called La Stupenda yourself?
And the Alcina was in Venice Feb 1960 so the rest of your musing sound dubious based on your poor knowledge of her career.
finners62 2 years ago
I once believed that was the best soprano callas, when you hear Joan Sutherland sing changed my mind.
manonscate69 2 years ago
no, sutherland's technicality is AMAZING, but callas's interpretation and feeling for the music is unserpassable. callas had a flexible voice too, though it was very dark. but just listen to callas's lucia di lammermoor with karajan or her i puritani. sutherland might have beautiful trills and breathing but her voice and diction was soo poor. (and when i first got into opera i HATED callas and ADORED sutherland. but when you really listen, really really listen, callas usually comes out on top.
Nobody297SRS 2 years ago
Can you say that the voice of poor SUTHERLAND? if more repertoire sutherland Callas sang the voice of Joan and lasted longer.
"Callas's voice was very flexible" if Callas's voice was flexible, Sutherland's voice was on top of what is flexible,
the diction is as absurd to consider it important, issue is separate, but Sutherland voice was always a step ahead
manonscate69 2 years ago
callas was the one who actually brought back a lot of the bellini operas and bel canto that sutherland based her career on. sutherland's voice HAS NO FEELING AND HER TONE IS SOO DULL AND DREARY!!!!
Nobody297SRS 2 years ago
JAJAJA Callas has to do with Sutherland's music career? joan became famous when she sang Lucia and then it rained a lot of contracts, callas had nothing to do, and I keep insisting the diction is second term, and the performances of Callas were placed in the fame, voice and interpretation are important in opera but sing and play are different, and Sutherland was a better singer than Callas, Callas was playing better, but always forward voice stherland
manonscate69 2 years ago
i wonder if we're gonna keep on arguing until we're eighty years old or something. yeah, i know sutherland is an amazing soprano but callas has so many things over her. i do not believe that sutherland was a better singer than callas; if you mean only by the technicality part and flexibility fine, but i think the term singer emcompasses much more than just that, including diction and interpretation!
Nobody297SRS 2 years ago
as you say, Joan had a marketing plan implecable vocal, almost perfect, Maria Callas knew he could do drama and more conmver the public and their casta diva, unlike what she did not know Joan Sutherland interpres, is what I find unique to Callas sutherlnad above, the interpretation, sutjerland was a step forward in vocal technique
manonscate69 2 years ago
yes, i know!! my point is that callas was the better singer as a whole. sutherland was a step forward in the technique, but as a singer callas was the better considering not only voice but also interpretation and etc. i suppose your opinion may be based on your definition of singer- i believe a singer embodies not only technicality, vocal flexibility but also diction, interpretation and so on-, so for me callas will always be the better singer.
Nobody297SRS 2 years ago
She is... Callas!
NEBESHIKU 2 years ago
to say diction is un important, then why have a libretto. that is just so stupid!
NEBESHIKU 2 years ago
yeah, i know! if you're not going to sing the words properly why do people bother writing a libretto or even making a story? the problem with sutherland - she was a great vocalist- but at the end of her career, her CD's just starting sounding like long vocal exercises!!
Nobody297SRS 2 years ago
I could not agree with you more... Her singing sounded like one long voice lesson..
kgarmaker123 2 years ago
who's your favorite tenor?
Nobody297SRS 2 years ago
mmmm ..... my favorite tenor?? all the tenors I've heard they do a good job, but that proved to have much potential is Juan Diego Flores, really he has a wonderful voice
manonscate69 2 years ago
yeah, i agree. his voice is really very clear. i would probably also include villazon, his voice really resembles domingo's but is a bit thicker at the top range. very good singing. oh, another soprano that's not very well known is mady mesple- you could try and get a cd of hers- beautiful voice, just like a bird. her technique is just about as good as sutherlands.
Nobody297SRS 2 years ago
Callas IMO was a better Opera Singer. Sutherland was a better Singer because everybody likes a beautiful tone. I cannot ever say she was more agile than Callas as to this day I have not heard even a high lyric coloratura that sings legato passages as fleetly and as cleanly as she does. It's like a piano or a flute. Sutherland...not so much though she is very agile. I enjoy her more in single arias and often cannot take her seriously in entire operas (her Turandot is a big exception to this)
babydrane 2 years ago 2
didn't mean to post that so soon. anyway, continuing- callas's voice was full of fire and passion and diction is the way to communicate to the audience and sutherland lost that, how can you say sutherland's voice was always a step ahead, if it wasn't for callas sutherland would never have become so famous!!! honestly, you have to admit that what callas did for opera bypassed anything that sutherland did!!!!
Nobody297SRS 2 years ago
It took me several years to realize that Callas' Bel Canto technique is far superior to Sutherland's but that is a matter of writing a book not discussing in the youtube pages :p
LohengrinT 2 years ago
yes, i used to hate callas and thought that her voice was terrible but after a while i was like... wait... she's pretty good...:)
Nobody297SRS 2 years ago
that is the exact response that John Ardoin had when he was given as a gift Callas' 1952 studio Lucia. He gave the gift as a gift to another person. In the following 6 months the sound he had heard was haunting him and he went and bought! the vinyls he had given away :)
-Callas was fully aware of this first-contact-response: She used to say: "I know that my voice annoys people when they first hear it..."
LohengrinT 2 years ago
ahah, that's funny. yeah, it's hard to get used to her voice, but it's definitely worthwhile.
Nobody297SRS 2 years ago
@Nobody297SRS I know what you mean. The technique of "sfogato" is a kind of hurling of sound, that is not taught at tacky schools like Juilliard, I can assure you. You are born into this role like a king is through royal lineage. It's a special kind of singer and the technique is not to everyone's taste. Those who prefer Mozart and Strauss, for example, are not fond of a Gencer or Callas.
sillyboydeux 2 years ago
Callas' career is as 'red hot' NOW as it EVER was...'La Stupida'...err,sorry...'La Stupenda' (i think they were talking about her waistline,LoL!!) career is as cold as Maria's body is!!There aint enough firewood in the AMAZON to heat Joans career (all ten thousand years of it) to HALF the heat of Maria's...and that's the end of THAT me dears...FACT!!Callas was a 'trailblazer'...Sutherland was a FOLLOWER...mimicking almost everything Callas did...most often POORLY!!!!
TheMrMaz 2 years ago
and the reply to this should be: LOL
TheJayBee1988 2 years ago
This is AWESOME!!!!!! I didn't realize any recording existed! BRAVA LA STUPENDA! BRAVA LA DIVINA!
artdanks 2 years ago 2
There's no argument here. Sutherland keeps saying she always aspired singing like callas, especially in Traviata. They are both great with different approaches towards performing. I like both. Callas' voice was far from ugly. It had a metallic quality which is commonly mistaken for strident, but that only helped her pronunciation and acting. Sutherland in the other hand had a darker color and clearer scales, but her big voice troubled her pronounciation which got worse after her surgery.
tneprescintr 2 years ago
Surely it doesn't matter how long a career lasts, but what the artist does during that career (and maybe the artist's legacy). However long Callas's career lasted, it was a great career and she was a great and thrilling artist.
judyanddavid 2 years ago
I'm always inclined to think people fake these recordings, its actually not that hard to do...
Is it really a good sound recording from 1952 of one of the biggest little events of operatic history? I hope so
BGSourgas 2 years ago
Looool Callas jealous of anything? She had an incredible pride, never was afraid of any other singer. As for her length, she gave more to the world in 10 years than the other singers in 40 years ever since.
luvxl 2 years ago
And not suprisingly the supossed Wagnerian voiced Sutherland never sang any major soprano role of Wagner.Callas made her debut at the age of 23 singing La Gioconda at Arena di Verona and was a highly acclaimed Wagnerian singer during the first stage of her career.
quis178 3 years ago
Joan's top was different. She has an elactic but penetrating top, not a metallic thick one. For Wagner you need a metallic thick one, for bel canto an elastic penetrating one.
honeybutterfly2008 3 years ago 2
Honeybutterfly2008 is right. In addition, Sutherland's bottom range was a little muddy, but she got around that by singing bel canto roles that had a higher tessitura. Callas had a more powerful lower range.
dougbalt 3 years ago 2
What a silly thing to say, quis178. I do recognize your usual lack of objectivity!!! In those excerpts, they don't have to express the same things at all. Norma is distraught, so of course she sings louder. The voice is not larger at all. If anything, Sutherland's wagnerian voice was bigger than Callas's.
64marc64 3 years ago
Bonynge heard Callas performing and compared her voice size with Flagstad's Callas voice is more penetrating and squillante than Sutherland's.And learn to press ''reply'' you coward.
quis178 3 years ago
Both voices were more strident and uglier than Sutherland's, you mean.
tklogan11809 2 years ago
Callas's voice is much bigger than Sutherland's.
quis178 3 years ago
Really. Because I can barely tell the difference they sound so alike here. We have an early Callas paired with an early Sutherland. There voice seem equivalent.
Sutherland and Callas actually both sound like mezzos in some sections
operagodess78 3 years ago
The problem comes with the definition of "big".. it does not mean louder.. it means.. bigger.. ie.. more overtones.. not as compact. ... Sometimes it means louder.
kgarmaker123 2 years ago
What?
operagodess78 2 years ago
Some of the loudest voices are small ones.. they have great carrying power and penetrance.. however, they are not the biggest voices.. Both Sutherlands and Callas voices got bigger as they got older.. and their vocal cords thickened to produce a b "bigger" sound. I guess the proper comparison, is that a cello makes a bigger sound than a violin..
kgarmaker123 2 years ago
Ohh, of course. I agree, Birgit Nilsson had huge voice. but what made it huge was her high notes. Which would drown tenors out and dominate an ochestra. Both Sutherland and Callas had huge E-flats.
operagodess78 2 years ago
Wagnerian voices are almost a wall of sound. and I loved Nilsson. She was quite a singer in her day. And strong huge high register..
kgarmaker123 2 years ago
I love Nilsson too. I love her "Turandot", she always blows the tenor away.
operagodess78 2 years ago
Have you noticed that we like the same singers? LOL?..
kgarmaker123 2 years ago
Yes. LOL
operagodess78 2 years ago
Maybee because the microfon was clother to Callas.. :-) anyhow..great performance
tobobba 3 years ago
Callas could scream louder you mean. Sutherland never screamed, she sang.
tklogan11809 2 years ago
shut up, callas is warm and sutherland is cold, that's all.
doremicde 2 years ago
lol you got it wrong, Callas is cold in her grave, Sutherland's warm and well in her home in Sydney.
tklogan11809 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tklogan11809 not any more. now lets see how long it takes for her to be forgotten. Callas has been dead for 30 plus years and still is the number one opera star, Sutherland is few months dead and she is almost forgotten.
NEBESHIKU 10 months ago
@NEBESHIKU Callas benefits from EMI massive marketing and the fact she died prematurely.If people saw more of her in her last desastrous tour with Di Stefano,they'd be much less interested.People that don't know anything about opera know about Callas.That should tell you that it's not about her voice or talent,it's because they know of the jet set life she had with Onassis and all that happened after that,ending with her death.Nothing to do with opera.We'll never forget the supreme Sutherland!
sutherlandfan64 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sutherlandfan64 on the other hand no matter how much marketing Cetra does on Sutherland, La Stupida's work will be quickly forgotten. Yes, Sutherland is supreme in her stupidity wich is like a light that atracks to her even more stupid idiots! La stupida sang anything coloratura any no body wrotre and her performances were to laugh at with ornamantation every where, she was at her best in opera buffa where her disgusting face and big chin made her the clown everyone could laugh at!
NEBESHIKU 8 months ago
@NEBESHIKU so much bitterness in you... how come you Callas fans are always so agressive and vicious and insulting in your comments. Can you not make a point without being so offensive? I really wouldn't want to be you. You must have such a miserable unfulfilled little life...
sutherlandfan64 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sutherlandfan64 sorry bitch but don't project your short commings on us! You are the 1 that likes La Stupida: a poor clown that did what ever her husband wanted out of fear of him leaving her because she knew she wasn't woman enough to get an other man. Poor stupid Sutherland singing any coloratura any no body wrote and singing ridiculous ornamentation in the most dramatic points of an opera making you laugh; she was not intelligent and talented like Callas, who went with Serafin's advice.
NEBESHIKU 8 months ago
@NEBESHIKU The very same Serafin who said Sutherland was a genius...
sutherlandfan64 8 months ago
@sutherlandfan64 that was before LA Stupida's stupidity took her away from the path and into her husband's claws. Poor Joan, she must be happy because some one is talking about her when every one else has forgotten her.
NEBESHIKU 8 months ago
@sutherlandfan64 You need to know something: NEBESHIKU is the official Sutherland-Hater und uncrowned Principessa Assoluta e Induscussa of all Callas Queens. He stalks youtube and fills every Sutherland page with the most horrific, vitriolic and obscene comments abt. Dame Joan and her singing. Like all the other "vedovi Callas" for him it's a holy crusade against the operatic infidel to trash anyone else who dares to sing a single note of a Callas role. Lascialo perdere-non vale la pena.
assindiastignani 6 months ago 2
@assindiastignani
Is there no way of reporting NEBESHIKU ro YouTube asmin?
MrSwifts31 2 months ago
@MrSwifts31 I'm not sure anything can or should be done.As sick as she/he is,I'm still against censorship. I'm sure Sutherland doesn't care and he does such a good job of completely discrediting himself with his rabid,pathological hatemail I can't imagine anyone takes him seriously.That is the downside of a free&open forum - even people like that are allowed to express opinions,no matter how uncivilized. Cheez, Freud would have paid him for the sessions.
assindiastignani 2 months ago
@assindiastignani
Hello there,and thanks dor your speedy reply.
I too dislike censorship,so I suppose we shall have to let this child "play" on YouTube!
I tend to read their comments for a laugh,meaning that someone who is so bitter and twisted must be laughed at and not taken (we hope) seriously?
MrSwifts31 2 months ago
@MrSwifts31 Hi. It's always a pleasure to find somebody who has culture and with whom one can exchange opinions.For me the problem is,I am an enormous Callas fan, always have been,but when I read people like our friend here,I cringe because this is exactly the kind of thing that brings the whole world of opera into ill-repute.Also,I can't help asking myself, why is it that Callas always attracted (and still attracts) these kinds of fans?Corelli,Nilsson,Flagstad et.al. never did
assindiastignani 2 months ago
@assindiastignani
Hello there.
Being 64 oerhaps I have a longer perspective of Callas career than some who are mere "groupies"
I can only assume they are (much?) younger and view Callas career much as some others view the career of Judy Garland?
I mean that Callas career was so dramatic that even a Hollywood scriptwriter would possibly not beleive it,or use it for a film.
I think these "groupies" probably follow Judy and Maria,and maybe other (what they see as)Drama Queens~Cont
MrSwifts31 2 months ago
@MrSwifts31 Hi my friend.I too am over 60and,like you,have a slightly different view of Callas,because I heard all of her contemporaries live,and know what the real standard of the time was.These Callas groupies most assuredly never heard her live,and let's face it 90% of them are gay men for whom it's the tragedy of her private life as much as (or more than) her singing that is so attractive: horrible childhood,loved the wrong man,"misunderstood" "persecuted."All the wrong reasons.
assindiastignani 2 months ago
@sutherlandfan64
I don´t like the voice of Callas at all. Yes she benifits from EMIs marketing and her affair with Onassis. I can´t unterstand how anyone can not love Dame Joan.
vonFalkenstein77 8 months ago
Sutherland features in this set hardly at all... Maria performs splendidly, as always. Joan must have learned a lot, listening to La Divina from the wings...
jjcbss 3 years ago 2
Joan did learn a lot from Callas, specially how NOT to sing. No wonder her career lasted 30 years and Callas' only 10.
tklogan11809 2 years ago
She lasted 30 years but she transposed everything after the mid 70's,she developed a huge wobble in the middle register and that terrible ''conductor'' rewrote everything she sang to fit her voice.And her diction was always a joke no wonder why she never dared to sing in front of Italian audiences after 1963 her phrasing was a mockery to the Italian language.
quis178 2 years ago
Please, stop lying. If her Italian diction were bad the Italians would not have called her LA STUPENDA, fool. And your underwear stinks.
tklogan11809 2 years ago
hahaha!!... tklogan, i DID get a good laugh from the last line of your comment!
belcunto 2 years ago
well maybe the italians were referencing to her voice range or whatever, not neccesarily her diction.
Nobody297SRS 2 years ago
There is something that kind people would call: decency and respect. You want to be a critic, well be one but be decent and have respect for someone of her kind. There is a Spanish proverb: "Water must have something to be blessed". This applies to all those who have reached a top level because they must have had something: greatness.
carclamcc 2 years ago
In other words she had about fifteen good years, and the rest were going down hill and i agree with everything you say about Sutherland. and her idiot husband.
kgarmaker123 2 years ago
but this is exactly why they called her Stupenda Because the word resembles greatly the word Stupida Sutherland knew that and hated that nickname from the first time they gave it to her (in her Firenzie Alcina at 1957 that is )
LohengrinT 2 years ago
the first time i heard her being called La Stupenda I thought it was an insult cuz I thought it meant stupid...
Nobody297SRS 2 years ago
yes the truth is that Sutherland had a somehow lower IQ, evident in several occasions nevertheless I truly believe that the "poisonous Italians" also meant honestly Marvelous -besides stupid- because that is exactly what she was back in 1957 while singing Handel (stupid but stupendous :p)
LohengrinT 2 years ago
No Sutherland was/is not stupid. Stupenda in italian simply means 'amazing' - something that stupefies not something that is stupid. True, I wouldn't call her a musician but she was an outstanding singer and just about as smart as any other singer...
babydrane 2 years ago
@babydrane hahaha.. who said joan was stupid because she was called la stupenda??
tripleaxell 1 year ago
I wonder what was going through Maria Callas' mind when she heard Sutherland's Lucia and then her Norma. There must have been some rivalry even though no one will admit it. It's not every day that a prima donna is upstaged by someone who started off singing a very minor supporting role.
zacharybr 3 years ago 2