La canzon del salice, sung by Maria Callas (1963, Studio)

[janejones11]

This is the most haunting and tragic interpretation I've ever heard. In an ideal world it would have been nice if has recorded this in her prime, but the artistry is so great that I don't care.

[yanmar360]

como se llama la musica que sale en la pelicula salvando al soldado ryan de Maria Callas

[hammer55292]

As I was just logging-on, I saw a TV commercial for UBS securities, showcasing the great geniuses, and talents of all time. Who is the main actor, Maria Callas singing Oh Mio Babbino Caro!!! All the movies ( Philadelphia ) , commercials, everybody uses Callas as the basis of their advertisements or themes. She is so fucking great, words can't describe it. All the professionals know she is the Goddess of World Opera, for eternity. Unreachable, then, now, and forever, La Divina of all Divinas!!

[hammer55292]

@Neanderthalgirl SPAM!!!! You're gonna die a spam death!!!

[hammer55292]

To all who criticize Callas, I suggest you shut up with your bullshit! Unless you are willing to go public with your name, and your 40 years experience, and Doctorate in Music, shut your ass-mouth. Unless you are prepared to challenge the 2007 Panel of the BBC, declaring Callas the Greatest Soprano Of All Time, I suggest you shut your asses.

[SuperLmer]

Callas was destined to be Lady Callas. She was very unique and as I always hear her sing or see her acting/singing there is something powerful about her that makes you stare inspite of her voice. She was a perfectionist and in her opera heydays people didn't like her because they judged her by her looks and not by her talent and uniqueness. Something like Barbra Streisand. She looked different but when she opened her mouthto sing everyone stopped and listen.

[Aetion]

Terrific singing!

Thank you.

[YaelBerman]

This is sheer beauty, and one of the arias where the timbre of her voice is most beautiful, I think. Thank you very much for sharing :)!

[YaelBerman]

This is sheer beauty, and one of the arias where the timbre of her voice is most beautiful, I think. Thank you very much for sharing :)!

[angelovocci]

Callas was always what is defined as rare the assoluta agile dramatic soprano with a spinto weight to the voice. Combined with excellent Bel Canto training, this special voice could do any role of ANY TIMBRE of the female voice. Her "tone" wasn't pretty, it was and is BEAUTIFUL! There's blood and tears and truth and love in beauty. She is the greatest soprano of all time. Her detractors will never accomplish what she did. She is the consumate musician, interpretor, and belcantanista. A GIANT.

[eutuve]

Last Century , Opera had a name : Maria Callas !!

[31071946]

@eutuve You are so right!

[deepplots]

@eutuve wow, very well stated.

[angelovocci]

The timbre IS BEAUTIFUL. So much warmth, and yet so focused. She made beauty--there is BLOOD in beauty, She did not make "pretty". I adore the color of her voice, and even in her so called decline she's better than any soprano in their prime.

[Magisapoulina]

No singer all over the world, no in past, no yet, has this perfect italian pathos like Callas, no one. The metal in her voice, the power and the pathos makes her the primadonna, until today the no1. No needed to be perfect, other Singers like Anneliese Rothenberger or Elisabeth Schwarzkopf sung perfect, today Natalie Dessay, but nobody ever had the metal, pathos and power.

[SweetFiness]

Agreed. Even today I'm listening to other singers hoping someone will have that kind of "metal" but it doesnt exist anymore :-(

Yes other singers have beautiful sounds like Dessay, but sing bad Italian diction, have no power, and NO PATHOS. I'm convinced no one will understand and produce opera the way Maria did.

[angelovocci]

Natalie DOES NOT sing perfect. She has no bel canto technique. She has a French technique. All head/mask resonance and not enough support on her high notes that sound like falsettis, not a soprano's strong high notes. Dessay is mediocrity posed as perfection.

[DIVOTENOR]

True fact that the diva is past her prime, but no one can deliver like her!! Her interpretaion makes you look past vocal flaws ( if what we hear is flawed) I think that we as listeners/singers often require everything to sound so perfect..how we forget ..no one is perfect.

[pollione86]

...There is a video of "Oh Don fatale" ..1962, even there she has some vocal problems, but the interpretation is fantastic, even in the moments in which she doesn't sing...and the sound......wow,..,.i love Callas....but in the last years of her carrier....she wasn't perfect....who want to say this is wrong....i'm sorry :)

[schwarzkavalier]

hey student!! tell me,have you ever heard Maria Callas in Tosca with Giuseppe Di Stefano,Tito Gobbi directed by Victor De Sabata?NO?Try to listen to Maria's voice and her interpretation of Tosca please!If you repeat the same words about her,I think you will pass your last days of your life inside a madhouse really!!!!

[pollione86]

I heard that Tosca,it is GREAT, her voice was so clean and powerfull,but this Tosca was rec in 1953,in 1963 her voice was really different, this is normal, all that i've said is that here she has not the great voice of the past.,but she give to me such a great emotion

[MargueriteGautier]

There are singers with a more beautiful voice, that's true. But here, you can hear a human soul.

Bravo, Maria!

[woytynowska]

I agree. Her timbre is not the sweetest and most beautiful, but her interpretation is superb, and she is La Divina. no doubt.

[gaugin1903]

The sweetnes you are looking for you could find it may be in a bordel, but not here. Here you have the highest artistic, musical and human expression which has nothing to do with a kind material sweetness you can hear so often by any untrue musician, be he or she a singer or an instrumental musician.

[MAPIAKALLAS]

what a beauty of woman yes it was by the end of her career but she still great all the emotion and power still there brava Divina

[pollione86]

the voice is not like in the past...she has difficulties in hight notes...too much vibtration, and the sound is not so clean in the high part....it is empty....but it always gives me such a great emotion....Callas is Callas there are no doubts.....with or whitout voice....but nobody can say that she is singing well in this recording this is sure...and even the most "fanatic fans" have to hear this!

[Federicopera]

Who are you to say anything????

[pollione86]

a student of vocal technique!!!

[Federicopera]

go on studying...maybe one day you ll be able to utter a sound

[pollione86]

hahahaha....ok boy...i'll do it!!!Unfortunately if you think that this is a good singing...i'm so sad for you...but never mind...the world needs also people like you!!!

[gomongio]

you moron!

until the last words you said it was just a different opinion than mine and it was ok, but you have no right to judge people's opinion about her ART.

[vincitor]

pollione86...if the "86" has anything to do with what year you born in, come back in 10 years when you've studied a bit more, and I'll be shocked if you say this isn't good singing...

[papageno1983]

pollione 86,,,, r u a tenor? right? cause that explains your lack of intelligence...

[pollione86]

....no, in spite of my nick, i'm a basso buffo....but why had you written " my lack of intelligence?"....what i wrote is just what i think....you can be not agree with me...but i won't think you are a stupid......for your comment probably!

[jordan1980]

haha!

[atpa5021]

that recording (in 1963) was made after she left the stage and the opera for 4 years. Hearing her in 1963, 1964, 1965 is like other singers at their beginning!!

[Alexpasini93]

GOOD,EXCELLENT,PERFECT!

but I prefere Renata Tebaldi

[cornucopia2]

Ma vorrai scherzare, spero...!

[Elisabetta611]

HAUNTING!!! Only Callas can make this rather one-dimensional character come alive!

[anaminalwafdi]

Yes dear Elisabetta11! Every other singer makes this character dead and half-dimensional. Just see her nice face. Turn of the voice! :-))))Better.

[sugarmezzo]

I'm sorry, but I don't know what you people are talking about. I think this is absolutely beautiful.

If you were going to find anything to pick at, ok, there are a few notes where she very obviously goes sharp.

But her "tone" is GORGEOUS.

Her line is unmatched.

Her dramatic expression and use of the language in this piece is the best I have ever heard.

There is a reason people call her La Divina. Show some respect.

[VivaMariaCallas]

Um, sorry, she was always a soprano. She never 'decided' to become a soprano midway through her career.

[skitzo429]

"Callas was a natural mezzo-soprano whose range was extended through training and willpower, resulting in a voice which "lacked the homogeneous color and evenness of scale once so prized in singing. There were unruly sections of their voices never fully under control."

"Callas herself appears to have been in agreement not only with Ardoin's assertions that she started as a natural mezzo-soprano, but also saw the similarities between herself and Pasta and Malibran."

[DanBarthy]

Perfect*

[deanella]

you are so wrong and you should just stop. I have an ideal when you yourself have a thought just let it go!

[diuscorvus]

From the same article: "Maestro Tullio Serafin said, 'This woman can sing anything written for the female voice'."

"The timbre of Callas's voice, considered purely as sound, was essentially ugly... yet [...] for all its natural lack of varnish, velvet and richness, this voice could acquire such distinctive colours and timbres as to be unforgettable."

You need to pull that stick out of your ass.

[VivaMariaCallas]

Excuse me, but your words are, "She was an alright Mezzo, then she lost a bunch of weight and decided she was going to be a soprano". First of, that's implying that Mezzo's are not as worthy as sopranos are (?), and second, Callas's high range was actually more consistent and easier pre-weight loss, so I don't know what you are talking about when you say that she suddenly decided to 'become' a soprano.

Thanks for the Wikipedia quotes too... I had read those some time ago.

[wambui37]

@VivaMariaCallas I am so glad to meet a so young Fan of Maria Callas here on You tube.

Don´t listen to that nonsense of some critics here. Callas was the best and she was always a soprano

[Aetion]

@skitzo429 "i really just dont understand why she had a career" That's your problem. Millions of other people do and that’s enough.

BTW Callas was a soprano sfogato.

[skitzo429]

@Aetion Callas was always extremely controversial, millions of people may have loved her, but just as many thought her voice was hideous. your opinion isnt any more important than mine.

[deepplots]

@skitzo429 i am concerned that someone would think this voice hideous. I agree that it isn't the sweet mellow soft tones of some of her colleagues, yes, this is true and so noted by many professional critics but I have never read a professional review of her that stated her voice as hideous. Professional musicians all agree about the enormous contributions she made for opera, her superior talent and unique voice became her legacy as well as her ability to act. She was true to the score.

[skitzo429]

@deepplots your opinions do not constitute fact, thats what it boils down to. I have never liked the sound of her voice, and there are a lot of other people who feel the same way, she was extremely controversial for her entire career. Yes, she was a great actress, but not a good singer, and many modern singers have said that (i just watched a dessay interview where she said callas was a lackluster singer). she made contributions, of course, but "unique" of voice does mean she was a ood singer

[VivaMariaCallas]

@skitzo429 I think when judging Callas's merits on sheerly vocal terms, one cannot make broad conclusions, for her voice changed quite a bit. For example, after 1960, was her voice usually not good? Indeed. But, before then, it's difficult to say that she had no voice, especially before her weight loss. One might not like her timbre (even) before 1954, but I think it's pretty clear that she knew a thing or two about singing then. 

[skitzo429]

@VivaMariaCallas ive heard a number of recordings of her, before and after weight loss, and at various points in her career. yes, she was better when she was younger, it was much more in control, but i dont think she was ever really a "good singer." her career was crucially dependent on her stage craft and physical beauty, which is fine, she did a lot for the revolutioniing the way opera is acted and performed, but if she would have been say, a recording artist, the voice would not cut it

[VivaMariaCallas]

@skitzo429 I think you (like many others, of course) simply don't like her vocal timbre. Which is fair, I understand. But still, as I said in the post above or below, I think that when judging whether a singer is good or not, one must take everything into account. For example, I think if we simply judged her by vocal timbre, Magda Olivero would potentially be rated a terrible singer (despite her good technique). But she had such style & pathos, one doesn't dare say that she was not great.

[skitzo429]

@VivaMariaCallas when people call maria callas "great" theyre calling her a great artist, which she was, singing was part of her artistry, among many other things, but i dont think just as singer she was necessarily "great." i think its odd the way people downplay the timbre of her voice as if its not a significant feature of a singer or something, thats like if a super model had her face burned off or something and people said "oh shes a great model, except for her face," it cant be separated

[VivaMariaCallas]

@skitzo429 I understand where you're coming from, but timbre, like all other elements of singing, is a qualitative matter. Certainly, certain voices are unforgivable (ie. Baum's). But, Callas's is a unique case. It is not beautiful in the 'classical' sense. Yet, for many like me, it is a different kind of beauty. If I may paraphrase Christa Ludwig: her voice was beautiful in that it embodied the spirit of human suffering. That's how I see it. (Plus, her style & musicality was most exquisite.)

[DanyelHawkes]

@VivaMariaCallas I think that it takes an educated ear to perceive the beauty in callas' tone. It lacks superficial beauty, vocal 'vanity', which in the end is not beautiful and displeasing to the ear, but it has a deep running beauty. One so overwhelming to those who are use to hearing two-dimensional voices that it may drive some (most) to call it a 'big' and 'ugly' voice. In the end, her voice is a creature of graceful, expressive and elegant production.

[tomgeydan]

@skitzo429 You mean that she had pathos!

[deepplots]

@skitzo429 it is a great thing for us the royal philharmonic did not agree with you when they recorded with her.

[VivaMariaCallas]

@VivaMariaCallas We must also remember that technique or 'pleasantness' of timbre are not the only judges of how good a singer is. Style, expression/acting, & musicality are just as important. One might have the most beautiful & technically sound voice, but if he/she has no clue about what to do interpretively/musically, he/she is not a great singer, let alone a good singer.

[diuscorvus]

@skitzo429 You're conflating not liking the sound of Callas's voice with her not being a good singer. Up until 1958, Callas was an amazing singer. I wonder what your criteria are for being a good singer. Callas had tremendous breath control, clear enunciation, the ability to engage in a huge dynamic range, and coloratura prowess. These are objective qualities that determine whether one is singer is good or bad. Vocal timber is subjective, as is the need for seamless register breaks.

[skitzo429]

@diuscorvus Callas was never a great coloratura, she never came close to Sutherland or Dessay. Its ridiculous to compare the decline of Callas' voice with the changes dessay's has gone through, there is absolutely NO professional in the present whose voice has degraded as badly as Callas did who is still performing. if youre calling dessay's high notes "raw," it needs to be qualified that later in her career Callas's were wobbly, harsh, undersupported and hideous.

[diuscorvus]

@skitzo429 It's true that Callas's later voice was wobbly and harsh, and it's true that Callas's vocal decline was precipitous. But, Callas was certainly a skilled coloratura. Even after her vocal decline, her abilities in the middle and lower registers remained intact. Sutherland had trouble with chromatic scales, Dessay's trills in the lower register are weak. C had more to begin with, and more to lose.

[skitzo429]

@diuscorvus Im sorry, but Dessay and Sutherland had lightning fast coloratura (especially when they were younger) that Callas just never had, I dont think thats really debatable. voices the size of Callas's just dont move as fast as smaller voices like Dessay, thats just how it works. The fact that sutherland had coloratura like she did with the size of her voice was a freak anomoly, it nearly never happens. ive heard recordings where Callas' vibrato is slower than the fast notes shes singing

[diuscorvus]

@skitzo429 Dessay and Sutherland did/do have fast coloratura, and after 1957, C did develop a bad wobble -- but, C's voice was as much a freak anomaly as Sutherland's in terms of size + agility. The speed and accuracy of her descending scales at the end of her 1949 puritani cabaletta, for instance, or the 1951 proch variations, or 1952 macbeth & armida all attest to that. C also had a better lower reg than S, although S's tone elsewhere was, by most standards, lovelier.

[skitzo429]

@diuscorvus Sutherland's low reigister was not a strength of hers, no, however sutherland (and dessay) are both fundamentally more agile than callas, no matter how anomolous her co-occurance of size and relative agility were. what many callas fans fail to recognize is that the "sutherlands voice may have been lovlier" clause is really important to a lot of people. Callas was a great artist, and a great actress, but just the voice alone leaves for many something to be desired.

[diuscorvus]

@skitzo429 fundamentally more agile? sure, maybe -- C's agility comes from rigorous bel canto schooling. what many callas naysayers fail to realize is that C was a great singer despite a controversial timber and later decline, and because of dynamic abilities, impressive coloratura, etc. C was no longer a great singer in certain repertoire after late1950s. but before that she was a great singer in a vast rep. that she be recognize as such in that period is important to a lot of people.

[skitzo429]

@diuscorvus and what many callas fanatics fail to realize is that there is a difference between being an artist and being a singer. she WAS a great artist, but in many peoples books, an ugly sound makes one not a great singer. she was controversial during her career, just as she is now, and your opinion of her greatness is not any more well founded than mine that her voice was ugly and her stage craft and artistry were what solidified her career.

[dougbalt]

@skitzo429 Sutherland had tempo and pitch problems with her coloratura runs. Recordings of her off pitch just haven't been released. You can easily find tempo problems on recordings. Sutherland's middle also has much less punch than Callas', and her lower register is quite muddy. While Dessay does have lightning fast coloratura, her head voice has a very wide wobble. There's an audible seam between her chest and head voice. She also admits her timbre is not suited for bel canto.

[diuscorvus]

@skitzo429 also, which dessay interview did you watch? I know of one on youtube wherein Dessay unfavorably compares C's singing to Sutherland at the interviewer's prompting. C didn't have as brilliant a coloratura as S but better enunciation and dynamic range -- not to mention musicality. D isn't so great anymore -- even in the past, she had limited dynamic range, and her coloratura was surprisingly cautious. Now her tone is raw (like C post 1960), can't take pressure, and squally.

[skitzo429]

@deepplots also, "true to the score" is not necessarily desirably, she specialized int eh colroatura repertory of the 19th century, which is typified for NOT stciking to the score, embellishments are part of the style, there are stories of conductors havign to ask her to sing traditionally interpolated high notes, etc.

[deepplots]

@Aetion amen, and thank you

[skitzo429]

@deepplots what you call "perfection" is an opinion, Callas was always controversial, many loved her, and jsut as many thought her voice was harsh and hideous. Ive never thought her voice had any pleasing quality to it at all, and she was a pathetic excuse for a coloratura singer, in most of her recordings the runs in the aria are faster than her huge wobbly vibrato you could drive a truck though. She was a great actress, yes, but i dont think that really justifies her being a mediocre singer

[CONTESTAR]

I think she was a genious and proved it by her choise of what she did NOT do on stage. It is not a coincidence that she didnt do women who are too much abandoned to their fate. Mimi was one of them and Desdemona another. She realized that notwithstanding her ingenious histrionics, she wouldnt be able to "sell" those girls; her eyes were to big and awake to pass for someone who doesnt figure out Iago!!

[VivaMariaCallas]

That's an interesting observation....

[MacTsar54]

Whoever writes of Callas's ingenious histrionics never saw her onstage. She was a minimalist - her art was restrained to the point that a tiny movement, a flash of the eyes, was riveting to the entire audience. For some, it takes a lifetime to learn that restraint; some never do. Those who rant here about Callas's flaws simply haven't come yet to understand her art. For some, it is an acquired taste, but when acquired, it is an addiction: I simply cannot imagine some music without Callas.

[kgarmaker123]

So true, and she was so far superior musically, it is still no wonder she is a "legend".. studied by many, equaled by none. Fabulous singing for about 10 years, and musicality for her whole life. Some of these people who dont like her voice should talk to musicians..that play in orchestras... they absolutely adore Callas. Why? She is a muscian and through that, and her ability to understand composers.. she was light years ahead of others in interpretation.

[deepplots]

@CONTESTAR hmmm, i never considered these ideas you have brought to the table.

[janejones11]

She is past her vocal prime, but the interpretation remains absolutely extraordinary. The phrasing and vocal coloration expresses the deepest sense of tragedy possible. I wish she had sung, or atleast recorded Desdemona.

[saverioorlando]

remarkable dramatic rendition

[jessyquedens]

What, are you deaf or something?

[Yasmund]

And some people have no ears - take it easy ;)

[zizeus]

i guess you deaf!!

[linhcba]

So much passion and drama in Maria Callas' voice with every image capturing her skills in musical expression and interpretation. Excellent video, VivaMariaCallas!

[maldoror26]

nice work, thanks!

[csmjr91090]

Brava!!! Great singing by Maria considering this was 1963. It is a shame Maria never took on the role on stage nor studio. Also VivaMariaCallas, great job on the video on the whole, it was great! The pictures moved with the aria and the translations were great too. Thanks so much!!

[VivaMariaCallas]

Thanks, I appreciate your comment on my picture's matching the music. That was my main goal: to have the pictures work in conjunction with the music to create a certain atmosphere.

[csmjr91090]

You are welcome!

[mariaperrucha]

Callas was unable to sing Desdemona.She had no voice for it, she had to choose unknown soprano leggero parts (turco in Italia, etc) for she could not be compared with anybody.

[csmjr91090]

You need to get a life.

[DanBarthy]

"she could not be compared with anybody."

You are right! MARIA CALLAS IS BETTER!!!!

Because you are here in all videos her.

You can`t live whithout Callas`s voice.

Brava Callas!!!