I love that you are doing all these reviews about Callas! Every Norma by hers has its different pros and cons, but whenever I feel like listening Norma, I keep going back to the live 55 version with Del Monaco and Simionato at La Scala.
Thank you David for this fine review of this balanced and excellent studio recording of the Bellini masterpiece featuring the legendary Maria Callas. The "problem" is that there is a live recording from 1955 with Callas in titanic voice, with the magnificent Simionato and Del Monaco - the electricity generated in unsurpassed: its a spoiler, once heard, it is irresistible! The libretto is superb and even logical if taken seriously. {Of course hiding 2 little boys in a cave for 7 years stretches credulity!]- thanks again.
Le live de La Scala de 1955 est Le meilleur témoignage de Callas dans ce rôle ,c'est une représentation fabuleuse .La tension dans la salle est extrême et le public hostile par moment . Mais c'est génial ,Callas est en grande voix et se bat comme une lionne .Le contre ré bemol de la fin du premier ,est vraiment quelque chose d'extraordinaire.
Callas set the gold standard for Norma which likely will never be surpassed. Granted the voice was not what it was like in 1954 but I will take her 1960 vocal limitations over an singer today.
I love this recording a good deal. Ludwig is wonderful and Franco Corelli is such a fabulously virile Pollione. That said, I could not be happy without the 1955 Votto live with the peerless Giulietta Simionato and stentorian Mario del Monaco. I often think del Monaco is a more controversial singer than Callas. His big beefy sound was not captured well in studio recordings. Live Otello (1958 MET broadcast with a glorious Tebaldi as Desdemona) he is terrific. 1953 Forza under baton of Mitropolous (again Tebaldi magnificent in her debut as Leonora). Back to Callas, she is my favorite among many worthy Normas. To my ears, the depth of her interpretation is heart wrenching. Thanks for your review, gah, do I need to check out the latest remastering? Of course I do!
I suspect most folks agree that by 1960 the voice was more fragile and wayward, less under control than 6 years earlier even though the artistry and the emotional expressivity were greater (that last scene from "In mia man" onwards, with its string of heart-wrenching arias, has never been more movingly uttered, in my opinion). But for me, if you really want a Norma with the Callas voice at its supreme peak, it has to be the Covent Garden performance from 1952. Here's a voice that can do absolutely anything she demands of it, and she demands it all. Technically stunning throughout the range and with a real beauty of sound that requires no concessions. Stignani is far better than 2 years later in the studio, powerful, youthful sounding (not at all maternal-sounding as later)--a tremendously characterful Adalgisa. Mirto Picchi far out-classes Filippeschi's Pollione from '54, and though he obviously doesn't have Corelli's heroic golden tone, it actually comes across as the more bel canto voice, vibrant like many old-school voices, and capable of wonderful inflections and well-judged mezza voce effects. All this plus the young Sutherland's Clothilde. But for Callas in her full glory, I think this 1952 recording is even more impressive than the 1955 Rome set. Of course they all make the case for Callas as brilliant vocal artist--full of insight, musical intelligence, stylistic taste--but this early outing, for sheer vocal dynamite, is hard to beat.
Agreed, the voice was a block of marble in 1952. Hence, her1952 is a more heroic Norma, while the 1955 is a more human-scaled Norma. But a lot of folks here are SOUND quality freaks: they can’t even handle studio mono, let alone the sound quality of the live 1952 London Norma! 🤣🤣
Agree wholeheartedly.. The voice may have been in better shape earlier, but the recorded sound on the stereo set makes the voice sound warmer, rounder, and more beautiful.
Hands down agreed as far as studio recordings go. But if you want the best bang for your buck, Pristine Audio has a fabulous remaster of the December 1955 live performance with Del Monaco and Simionato under Votto. If you can excuse the sonics it’s probably the best performance of the opera ever recorded
The more I listen to you the more I love you! ;-) I often laugh out loud at your funny comments. And sometimes, just sometimes, I strongly disagree with you.
Dave, it’s a quite good idea to pick out and review now what you consider highlights from Callas’ studio and live recorded legacy. This year is Callas’ birthday centenary (2 Dec 2023) and Warner is set to release in September a 135-CD box, “La Divina: Maria Callas in All Her Recorded Roles” to commemorate the occasion. When the time comes for the release of the box, it won’t be necessary to cover everything in the box and just an overview of her musical and historical significance would do.
I was thinking about that. The problem is that I have little interest in the live stuff because I'm not a voice nut, so it would be a more limited survey.
Yes, this stereo set is so superior! I was not able to listen to the prior mono studio recording all the way through, because the supporting cast was so non-supportive. That Guy was not for Norma to die for, nor for Norma and her friend to fight over. Norma needs a real Guy, with the charisma to collect a whole bevy of Gallic maidens, and Corelli is the Man!
She was a last minute replacement. She said in an interview that she confessed that bel canto was not her domain, and Callas effectively said, ‘That’s alright, just copy me/follow my lead.’ She also said that Callas was a real professional, and that Corelli was the prima donna.
@@francoisjoubert6867 I don’t unfortunately. An educated guess would be Fiorenza Cossotto, as she was on the Angel roster and had recorded Gioconda with Callas the year before. But that’s just a guess! Rita Gorr might also be a possibility.
Many years ago, a friend in the classical record business in Europe told me that the first choice was the very young Teresa Berganza. He didn't know why that fell through. Years later I heard about Gorr and someone else I don't remember now. Gorr would have been quite a fearsome Adalgisa I imagine!
I love Maria Callas, and this recording particularly. However, I am probably a bit of an 'opera heathen' as I don't really care about libretti! (I can't understand even English singing!) For me, as long as I love what I'm hearing, that is what counts. Besides which, operas are usually completely nuts, which is great!
Absolute Callas fan here. When it came to acting with her voice no one could beat her. Here voice was really unique, not pretty in the sense of a Caballe or Sutherland, but able to convey the meaning of words even in aria excerpts from operas she never sang in total. As a testament to her longevity even after having departed this earth she is still reaping enormous monetary benefits for what was EMI and now Warner records. Other great singers such as the two aforementioned and Tebaldi have faded into the opera archives. The one exception is Leontyne Price who could sing Verdi and Puccini in a peerless manner.
@@paxpaxart4740 I didn't say her reputation had faded, merely that not even Decca has spent the resources that Warner has in promoting her recordings and a company only does that when there is a market demand. She was and remains a quite wonderful singer. While I don't have any of her complete recordings I do have her doing aria excerpts. I especially enjoy her singing on the RCA Victor Vocal Series recording that features Jussi Bjoerling, Zinka Milanov and Licia Albanese. I do disagree that Callas was someone you had to see. Callas was a more dramatic soprano. If you read the libretto of Norma, Medea, Sonnambula or Lucia di Lammemoor and listen to her you know she understands the meaning of the words and she was not afraid to make ugly sounds if it fit the narrative. I have heard her recording of La Boheme and while Tebaldi is very good I didn't think she captured Mimi's fragility the way Callas or Freni did. So in short we all have our favorite singers and I have taken note of the fact that some opera fans take umbrage when they perceive their favorite is being dissed; a friend of mine feels that way about Caballe.
@@paxpaxart4740 Strangely and unaccountably, Decca let Tebaldi’s birthday centenary in 2022 passed unnoticed and failed to do anything to commemorate the anniversary. They could have at least seek out more of Tebaldi’s live recordings or previously unreleased studio takes like what Warner and EMI have done for Callas. Instead, we have Pristine assiduously remastering and reissuing Tebaldi’s Decca studio opera sets (alongside those of Callas’ EMI ones) over the past few years til now.
As a hypothetical, I wonder if experiencing her live would’ve made any difference for you. People often have similar issues with Callas as they do with Scotto and Gwyneth Jones.
Prefer the earlier mono version for Callas; her voice had deteriorated too much for (my) comfort by the time of the stereo remake. The later version does indeed have a better cast, but I’ll stick with the earlier one. Agree about boring cover art, but I don’t think ‘cover art’ was even a thing back then.
I've never even thought of it as cover art. It's a "just the facts, ma'am" approach, which strikes me as rather dignified. I think the idea was to look like a poster you'd see outside La Scala. During this same period, Columbia, after their brief going steady period with the Met, put out very few opera recordings. The ones they did had no cover art, no information at all. The boxes were covered in what looked like chintzy wallpaper and the only way to find out what it was you were holding was to look at the spine. Yet the booklets inside the box with the records were very good.
I love that you are doing all these reviews about Callas! Every Norma by hers has its different pros and cons, but whenever I feel like listening Norma, I keep going back to the live 55 version with Del Monaco and Simionato at La Scala.
That’s the one to hear. Everyone was in great voice and really inspired and the sound is fine
Thank you David for this fine review of this balanced and excellent studio recording of the Bellini masterpiece featuring the legendary Maria Callas. The "problem" is that there is a live recording from 1955 with Callas in titanic voice, with the magnificent Simionato and Del Monaco - the electricity generated in unsurpassed: its a spoiler, once heard, it is irresistible! The libretto is superb and even logical if taken seriously. {Of course hiding 2 little boys in a cave for 7 years stretches credulity!]- thanks again.
Absolutely
Le live de La Scala de 1955 est Le meilleur témoignage de Callas dans ce rôle ,c'est une représentation fabuleuse .La tension dans la salle est extrême et le public hostile par moment .
Mais c'est génial ,Callas est en grande voix et se bat comme une lionne .Le contre ré bemol de la fin du premier ,est vraiment quelque chose d'extraordinaire.
Callas set the gold standard for Norma which likely will never be surpassed. Granted the voice was not what it was like in 1954 but I will take her 1960 vocal limitations over an singer today.
I love this recording a good deal. Ludwig is wonderful and Franco Corelli is such a fabulously virile Pollione. That said, I could not be happy without the 1955 Votto live with the peerless Giulietta Simionato and stentorian Mario del Monaco. I often think del Monaco is a more controversial singer than Callas. His big beefy sound was not captured well in studio recordings. Live Otello (1958 MET broadcast with a glorious Tebaldi as Desdemona) he is terrific. 1953 Forza under baton of Mitropolous (again Tebaldi magnificent in her debut as Leonora). Back to Callas, she is my favorite among many worthy Normas. To my ears, the depth of her interpretation is heart wrenching. Thanks for your review, gah, do I need to check out the latest remastering? Of course I do!
I suspect most folks agree that by 1960 the voice was more fragile and wayward, less under control than 6 years earlier even though the artistry and the emotional expressivity were greater (that last scene from "In mia man" onwards, with its string of heart-wrenching arias, has never been more movingly uttered, in my opinion). But for me, if you really want a Norma with the Callas voice at its supreme peak, it has to be the Covent Garden performance from 1952. Here's a voice that can do absolutely anything she demands of it, and she demands it all. Technically stunning throughout the range and with a real beauty of sound that requires no concessions. Stignani is far better than 2 years later in the studio, powerful, youthful sounding (not at all maternal-sounding as later)--a tremendously characterful Adalgisa. Mirto Picchi far out-classes Filippeschi's Pollione from '54, and though he obviously doesn't have Corelli's heroic golden tone, it actually comes across as the more bel canto voice, vibrant like many old-school voices, and capable of wonderful inflections and well-judged mezza voce effects. All this plus the young Sutherland's Clothilde. But for Callas in her full glory, I think this 1952 recording is even more impressive than the 1955 Rome set. Of course they all make the case for Callas as brilliant vocal artist--full of insight, musical intelligence, stylistic taste--but this early outing, for sheer vocal dynamite, is hard to beat.
Agreed, the voice was a block of marble in 1952. Hence, her1952 is a more heroic Norma, while the 1955 is a more human-scaled Norma. But a lot of folks here are SOUND quality freaks: they can’t even handle studio mono, let alone the sound quality of the live 1952 London Norma! 🤣🤣
Agree wholeheartedly.. The voice may have been in better shape earlier, but the recorded sound on the stereo set makes the voice sound warmer, rounder, and more beautiful.
Hands down agreed as far as studio recordings go. But if you want the best bang for your buck, Pristine Audio has a fabulous remaster of the December 1955 live performance with Del Monaco and Simionato under Votto. If you can excuse the sonics it’s probably the best performance of the opera ever recorded
Personally, I don't give a damn about the sonics...this is unsurpassed
Absolutely 100% correct!
Absolutely
@@monte-verdianopapasyriopou9201 Totally agree 100%.
I can't excuse the sonics.
The more I listen to you the more I love you! ;-) I often laugh out loud at your funny comments. And sometimes, just sometimes, I strongly disagree with you.
Thank you so much for the Callas videos. I want to thank you belatedly for introducing me to the early trios of Mendelssohn as well!
My pleasure.
Dave, it’s a quite good idea to pick out and review now what you consider highlights from Callas’ studio and live recorded legacy. This year is Callas’ birthday centenary (2 Dec 2023) and Warner is set to release in September a 135-CD box, “La Divina: Maria Callas in All Her Recorded Roles” to commemorate the occasion. When the time comes for the release of the box, it won’t be necessary to cover everything in the box and just an overview of her musical and historical significance would do.
I was thinking about that. The problem is that I have little interest in the live stuff because I'm not a voice nut, so it would be a more limited survey.
Yes, this stereo set is so superior! I was not able to listen to the prior mono studio recording all the way through, because the supporting cast was so non-supportive. That Guy was not for Norma to die for, nor for Norma and her friend to fight over. Norma needs a real Guy, with the charisma to collect a whole bevy of Gallic maidens, and Corelli is the Man!
Hi Dave - I understand that Ludwig was not the first choice for Adalgisa. Do you perhaps know the “story”, if there of course is one?
She was a last minute replacement. She said in an interview that she confessed that bel canto was not her domain, and Callas effectively said, ‘That’s alright, just copy me/follow my lead.’ She also said that Callas was a real professional, and that Corelli was the prima donna.
@@ER1CwC - do you know who she replaced?
@@francoisjoubert6867 I don’t unfortunately. An educated guess would be Fiorenza Cossotto, as she was on the Angel roster and had recorded Gioconda with Callas the year before. But that’s just a guess! Rita Gorr might also be a possibility.
Many years ago, a friend in the classical record business in Europe told me that the first choice was the very young Teresa Berganza. He didn't know why that fell through. Years later I heard about Gorr and someone else I don't remember now. Gorr would have been quite a fearsome Adalgisa I imagine!
@@vincentspinelli9995 - ah, that makes sense. Berganza told some great Callas stories in interview.
Analgesa...Dave you're such a tummler! You take after Norm Crosbie!
I love Maria Callas, and this recording particularly. However, I am probably a bit of an 'opera heathen' as I don't really care about libretti! (I can't understand even English singing!) For me, as long as I love what I'm hearing, that is what counts. Besides which, operas are usually completely nuts, which is great!
Absolute Callas fan here. When it came to acting with her voice no one could beat her. Here voice was really unique, not pretty in the sense of a Caballe or Sutherland, but able to convey the meaning of words even in aria excerpts from operas she never sang in total. As a testament to her longevity even after having departed this earth she is still reaping enormous monetary benefits for what was EMI and now Warner records. Other great singers such as the two aforementioned and Tebaldi have faded into the opera archives. The one exception is Leontyne Price who could sing Verdi and Puccini in a peerless manner.
@@paxpaxart4740 I didn't say her reputation had faded, merely that not even Decca has spent the resources that Warner has in promoting her recordings and a company only does that when there is a market demand. She was and remains a quite wonderful singer. While I don't have any of her complete recordings I do have her doing aria excerpts. I especially enjoy her singing on the RCA Victor Vocal Series recording that features Jussi Bjoerling, Zinka Milanov and Licia Albanese. I do disagree that Callas was someone you had to see. Callas was a more dramatic soprano. If you read the libretto of Norma, Medea, Sonnambula or Lucia di Lammemoor and listen to her you know she understands the meaning of the words and she was not afraid to make ugly sounds if it fit the narrative. I have heard her recording of La Boheme and while Tebaldi is very good I didn't think she captured Mimi's fragility the way Callas or Freni did. So in short we all have our favorite singers and I have taken note of the fact that some opera fans take umbrage when they perceive their favorite is being dissed; a friend of mine feels that way about Caballe.
@@paxpaxart4740 Strangely and unaccountably, Decca let Tebaldi’s birthday centenary in 2022 passed unnoticed and failed to do anything to commemorate the anniversary. They could have at least seek out more of Tebaldi’s live recordings or previously unreleased studio takes like what Warner and EMI have done for Callas. Instead, we have Pristine assiduously remastering and reissuing Tebaldi’s Decca studio opera sets (alongside those of Callas’ EMI ones) over the past few years til now.
Insightful review, but I seriously can’t bear Callas. I guess I’m Neanderthal, but I’ll take Sutherland anytime.
As a hypothetical, I wonder if experiencing her live would’ve made any difference for you. People often have similar issues with Callas as they do with Scotto and Gwyneth Jones.
The star here is not even Callas. To be fair and honest its Ludwig and Corelli...
And perhaps yes the stereo sound
Prefer the earlier mono version for Callas; her voice had deteriorated too much for (my) comfort by the time of the stereo remake. The later version does indeed have a better cast, but I’ll stick with the earlier one. Agree about boring cover art, but I don’t think ‘cover art’ was even a thing back then.
Agreed. And I would say Serafin's conducting was more energetic before, and the sonics - though mono - were more impactful.
I've never even thought of it as cover art. It's a "just the facts, ma'am" approach, which strikes me as rather dignified. I think the idea was to look like a poster you'd see outside La Scala.
During this same period, Columbia, after their brief going steady period with the Met, put out very few opera recordings. The ones they did had no cover art, no information at all. The boxes were covered in what looked like chintzy wallpaper and the only way to find out what it was you were holding was to look at the spine. Yet the booklets inside the box with the records were very good.