"Maria, you are a monster. You are not an artist nor a woman nor a human being....but a monster!" ~ Victor de Sabata, regarding Callas' timing and precision.
This is a testament -- undisputedly -- to great art, delivered by a great Artist. Many hv great voices, but are not great artists. She was perfection. This is just amazing artistic singing. RIP Maria
I read that Callas said, years later after she retired from the stage, that "I lost my audacity." IMO, it takes a kind of audacity to sing something like this. Who else has done something like this in modern times? Some vocalists sing difficult music with intricate coloratura passages, but virtually always "a bunch of fast notes" to paraphrase Shahrdad. Also, I love the way she holds the final high note seemingly forever, does the portamento, and takes a breath before the final note. I've never heard anyone else show that kind of "audacity."
Truth to tell she lost more than audacity. Her throat doctor during her decline wrote that he had never seen such battered and bowed cords. You can only be superhuman for so long. This recording is beyond spectacular.
@@ransomcoates546 I have never heard or read anything about a doctor saying that about Callas' cords. However, she herself (a year before her death) said in an interview that she lost her diaphragmatic support, and I agree.
@@ransomcoates546 Quite to the contrary, doctors said her vocal cords were fine. What happened to Callas was the progressive loss of breath support after she became thin. Phyllis Curtin first mentioned this, pointing to videos of Callas that shows her chest sinking and her shoulders coming forward. Renee Fleming also pointed to the same thing, saying that Callas probably was one of those singers whose weight was an integral part of her breath support. Had she been a soubrette, it probably wouldn't have mattered, but she sang the heaviest and most demanding music. Sutherland said that Callas's body became too frail to support the sound she had been used to making. Callas herself described it as, "I never lost my voice, but I lost strength in my diaphragm. ... Because of those organic complaints, I lost my courage and boldness. My vocal cords were and still are in excellent condition, but my 'sound boxes' have not been working well even though I have been to all the doctors. The result was that I overstrained my voice, and that caused it to wobble." You can hear a change in the voice between '53 and '54, as she became thinner and thinner.
@@Shahrdad Joan Sutherland also stated that anyone who heard Callas after 1955 never had really heard the "Callas sound" with her husband, Richard Bonyng adding that on those early years Callas' voice just poured out the way Flagstad's did (Kirsten Flagstad, the wagnerian soprano)... so it was really a Huge sound! I imagine that it took some time, some few years between the weight loss and the straining in her voice, or at least is what I can listen... Until 1957 Callas delivery was untouched, just listen to her Sonnambula's from that year... its all done with extreme ease... However, in 1958 it start to sense more tension and wobble as you said, but not before 1958. Anyways, its a miracle how she endured so much singing like that, singing full voice up to the highest notes, endless legato lines, all the fireworks and power combined in the most demanding roles a soprano can take: From Isolde, Brünnhilde, Abigaile or Armida... to Violeta, Lucia, Amina or Norma... among so many others, who else could do that? What a Miracle!
Magnificent. What an inspiring revelation she is. I have probably listened to this more than 250 times in my life so far. It is always astonishing, beautiful, and a lesson in what total dedication to the art form can produce - provided the artist has 'tout' - everything required to achieve the optimal result. It's better to listen to Callas again AND again and again, than to most other musicians. She seems to have more to say on every listening. And this was a live performance!
A vocal MASTERPIECE.....period! There will never be another to equal her musical genius and passion. How blessed we are to even have these recordings. Thank you to the person who shares these.
Absolute mastery of the musical demands combined with perfect diction and superb emotional grasp of this aria which can become just a technical demonstration. Callas never allowed the technical aspects of the music to overwhelm the deeper meaning of the work. This was her great talent.
She wanted to insert Armida and Proch in the Coloratura arias disc of September 54, but Serafin was afraid to look too ridiculous . So she sang in Sanremo''s Concert Armida , and Dinorah, to prove the bad rumors that her " echo of a mezzavoce " was real, and not an effect of the recording studio
@@kbhprinsesse Serafin did not always guide Callas in the best direction--despite her deep respect for the maestro. In so many cases her performances with other conductors are superior to those with Serafin whose tempi are often unbearably slow--death for bel canto. Compare the "Normas" of 1955 first with Serafin and then with Votto. The second is far more dramatic.
@@jamesnickoloff6692 I agree that the La Scala 1955 "Norma" is more dramatic than the RAI 1955, but I think it's unfair to compare dramatic intensity in a radio recording and a live performance.
@@kbhprinsesse The 1955 RAI "Norma" with Serafin was, as far as I know, a concert performance in front of a live audience--not done in a studio. You can hear the public applaud in the recording. The great music critic John Ardoin, who for the most part had a high estimation of Serafin and his influence on Callas, criticizes the conductor a number of times in his study "The Callas Legacy." In the fourth edition of 1995, see pp. 80, 89, 96, 121, 127 207. All of these comments have to do with tempo.
@@jamesnickoloff6692 I didn't say there was nothing to criticise, merely that there is a difference between a concert performance and a live performance. Even though it may have been done in front of an audience, there are still no sets and costumes, not props and live action. I wholeheartedly agree that the La Scala performance is superior to the one from RAI, but the La Scala performance is IMO outstanding compared to ANY "Norma", by Callas and other sopranos.
I use to quote Callas in my music class...and imitate her...my teacher would say....there is only one Callas...long before I could recite Macbeth in English class..I could sing Verdi's Lady Macbeth..the way Callas did...I was never popular for boasting this talent..but Maria had been my inspiration
That is so true! I became addicted to Callas' voice long ago. If someone were to ask, I'm not sure how to explain it. Regardless of the opera, when Callas makes her first vocal entrance I'm hooked. I read reference once to Callas' "four voices." Regardless, I will be the first to admit that there are times when her voice is, to be frank, ugly, and that is usually during music that is not supposed to be pretty, such as the "Suicidio" perhaps. On the other hand, there are times when her voice, both the voice itself and her phrasing, are the most hauntingly beautiful sound imagineable.
There some excellent Rossini singers around nowadays, but there is not a single one who can sing this music with this precision, with such clean coloratura, sing it legato without resorting hahahaha aspirations. What I hear nowadays is a forced agility, not a natural ease of the voice through a maze of difficult passages. Callas makes this sound like music rather than a bunch of notes.
I agree completely with what you have to say. In addition, I would add that Callas has that "added dimension" that is so difficult to define (and so difficult to find in singers or any other artists). Yes, Callas makes "music" out of these bel canto arias, which unfortunately usually sound like just a lot of fast notes (with the "ha ha ha" effect as you say). Callas' genius, IMO, was her implicit understanding of the music and ability to make it beautiful.
@@alexbeascoechea7510 Caballe never had the complete florid technique of Callas. She often fudged and never could trill. And a lot of her coloratura was aspirated, with Hs dropped everywhere. She did have a beautiful voice, however.
The version of 1952 Armida with Callas and Serafin at Divina Records is fantastic. It was the first time I could listen once the whole performance. They put also the missing parts even if there are radio interference with a man voice. As a whole I warmly recommend to those interested to listen this CD's. They have also the best Norma 1955 because they put in missing place the voice of Nicola Zaccaria at the first druid scene, and uvertura is from the same 1965 Norma at La Scala conducted by Gavazzeni, a refined conductor that admire al lot Maria. I remember he said about Maria that - a lot of good singers have different "voices" for Verdi, Belini, Donizeti, but Maria voice is different for Violeta, Amelia, Leonora - bothe of them - La Forza and Il Trovatore. They intend to do together a Lucia di Lammermoor at San Carlo Napoli in the original cadenza of Donizeti - a dream that did't become reality. There Anna Bolena was not surpassed till today. Few singer could come not so far and away (like Suterland and Netrebko) those are - Elena Souliotis and Katia Ricciareli
so sad maybe some day Melodram could remaster the whole opera I think this Callas' ARMIDA is historic... beautiful colorature, high notes,she should've recorded the studio version the same year in 1952...
I've tried using the same sound technique on the complete 1952 recording of Armida (this being from the 1954 concert, which is in much better sound), but the results aren't very impressive - the excess noise from the master tapes interferes. I'll post a sample and if i get a positive response i'll do the whole thing :)
Hi, i have that BJR compilation and i think this, from a Timaclub LP has a richer sound. The BJR version sounds a little tiny, where this one is a bit more full and warm.
This is amazing, the legato is perfect here. This was originally written for Rossini's Wife Isabella Colbran, who I believe had a some what similar voice to Callas's. It is one of the most demanding roles in 19th century bel canto roles. IT IS THE KILLER ROSSINI! But I have a question, This was 1954. Did she already lose weight, or did she lose some? Cuz the differences between the Fat and the Thin Callas is audible.
Mar R By 1954 she'd already lost a great deal of weight. Colbran's voice had a three-octave span which enabled to sing both soprano and mezzo roles. This is the tessitura of the roles written for her veers between both registers.
I think that every Callas' fan would be happy if you do the same with the whole opera hahaha please do it!! I have an terrible version! even though with the externalisation it gets a better quality.... but it is not better than your version!! please improve the whole opera!!! =(
Si cabe, la del 52 en el Comunale, todavía es mejor, y su forma de interpretar el último cuarto es diferente y para mí más sorprendente, con ese Re sobreagudo atronadoramente divino.
Of course it is fabulous, BUT the version from the live recording of the opera from 2 years before is even more fabulous with more than one ascent to D6, the last being much more spectacular than the briefly hit note here. 80 pounds made a difference.
The '52 version is markedly better. What is sadly startling about Callas is how much she lost vocally in such a short time, literally in some parts going from triumph in one year to near disaster the next. The wobble is definitely present here, and I cannot hear a hint of it in ‘52. In fact the purity of the tone is one of the many extraordinary things about the ‘52 performance.
Wobble? I think you're imagining things. Think about the strain on her vocal cords after so many years of virtuoso singing from 1939 to 1954 and beyond (in part because of selfish mentors and in part because of her own desire to scale the heights).
@@misanthropelife I see your point, but I still don't hear a "wobble" in 1954--or any real fault. But then I myself don't really hear what I would call a "wobble" at any point in Callas' career. Yes, I hear shrill notes, what could be called "screeching," unpleasantly metallic sounds, etc. But not really an oscillation, moving back and forth, on and off a pitch. Perhaps I don't know what a wobble is.
Nice clean sound but contains to much treble very brassy the process seems to have omitted a lot of the natural fullness,wormth and depth of sound which is very important.
"Maria, you are a monster. You are not an artist nor a woman nor a human being....but a monster!"
~ Victor de Sabata, regarding Callas' timing and precision.
nobody can sing so flexible and clean as SHE!!!
ni aussi puissamment !
Ni aussi SUBLIME !!!! JE PAVOISE !!!!
Sutherland could
Listen to that legato during the coloratura, and the cleanliness and SUPPORT throughout the entire range.
It's free from tension and she was able to do what she wants. Genius at work.
This is a testament -- undisputedly -- to great art, delivered by a great Artist. Many hv great voices, but are not great artists. She was perfection. This is just amazing artistic singing. RIP Maria
I totally agree
I read that Callas said, years later after she retired from the stage, that "I lost my audacity." IMO, it takes a kind of audacity to sing something like this. Who else has done something like this in modern times? Some vocalists sing difficult music with intricate coloratura passages, but virtually always "a bunch of fast notes" to paraphrase Shahrdad. Also, I love the way she holds the final high note seemingly forever, does the portamento, and takes a breath before the final note. I've never heard anyone else show that kind of "audacity."
Truth to tell she lost more than audacity. Her throat doctor during her decline wrote that he had never seen such battered and bowed cords. You can only be superhuman for so long. This recording is beyond spectacular.
@@ransomcoates546 I have never heard or read anything about a doctor saying that about Callas' cords. However, she herself (a year before her death) said in an interview that she lost her diaphragmatic support, and I agree.
@@ransomcoates546 Quite to the contrary, doctors said her vocal cords were fine. What happened to Callas was the progressive loss of breath support after she became thin. Phyllis Curtin first mentioned this, pointing to videos of Callas that shows her chest sinking and her shoulders coming forward. Renee Fleming also pointed to the same thing, saying that Callas probably was one of those singers whose weight was an integral part of her breath support. Had she been a soubrette, it probably wouldn't have mattered, but she sang the heaviest and most demanding music. Sutherland said that Callas's body became too frail to support the sound she had been used to making. Callas herself described it as, "I never lost my voice, but I lost strength in my diaphragm. ... Because of those organic complaints, I lost my courage and boldness. My vocal cords were and still are in excellent condition, but my 'sound boxes' have not been working well even though I have been to all the doctors. The result was that I overstrained my voice, and that caused it to wobble." You can hear a change in the voice between '53 and '54, as she became thinner and thinner.
@@Shahrdad Joan Sutherland also stated that anyone who heard Callas after 1955 never had really heard the "Callas sound" with her husband, Richard Bonyng adding that on those early years Callas' voice just poured out the way Flagstad's did (Kirsten Flagstad, the wagnerian soprano)... so it was really a Huge sound!
I imagine that it took some time, some few years between the weight loss and the straining in her voice, or at least is what I can listen... Until 1957 Callas delivery was untouched, just listen to her Sonnambula's from that year... its all done with extreme ease... However, in 1958 it start to sense more tension and wobble as you said, but not before 1958. Anyways, its a miracle how she endured so much singing like that, singing full voice up to the highest notes, endless legato lines, all the fireworks and power combined in the most demanding roles a soprano can take: From Isolde, Brünnhilde, Abigaile or Armida... to Violeta, Lucia, Amina or Norma... among so many others, who else could do that?
What a Miracle!
this voice is liquid molten gold
Magnificent. What an inspiring revelation she is. I have probably listened to this more than 250 times in my life so far. It is always astonishing, beautiful, and a lesson in what total dedication to the art form can produce - provided the artist has 'tout' - everything required to achieve the optimal result. It's better to listen to Callas again AND again and again, than to most other musicians. She seems to have more to say on every listening. And this was a live performance!
A vocal MASTERPIECE.....period! There will never be another to equal her musical genius and passion. How blessed we are to even have these recordings. Thank you to the person who shares these.
Absolute mastery of the musical demands combined with perfect diction and superb emotional grasp of this aria which can become just a technical demonstration. Callas never allowed the technical aspects of the music to overwhelm the deeper meaning of the work. This was her great talent.
And the rapidity and fluency of those ascending scales are sickeningly good.
la sonorità della sua voce è ineguagliabile
No one sings this like Maria Callas. It's electrifying!
Perfection absolue !
My goodness! Such perfection!
Que gran regalo nos dejó María Callas, no hay ni habrá quien se asemeje ni siquiera medianamente a su perfecta tecnica
She wanted to insert Armida and Proch in the Coloratura arias disc of September 54, but Serafin was afraid to look too ridiculous . So she sang in Sanremo''s Concert Armida , and Dinorah, to prove the bad rumors that her " echo of a mezzavoce " was real, and not an effect of the recording studio
They also discussed including "Divinités du Styx" on the record. Imagine having the Alceste aria in bearable sound!
@@kbhprinsesse Serafin did not always guide Callas in the best direction--despite her deep respect for the maestro. In so many cases her performances with other conductors are superior to those with Serafin whose tempi are often unbearably slow--death for bel canto. Compare the "Normas" of 1955 first with Serafin and then with Votto. The second is far more dramatic.
@@jamesnickoloff6692 I agree that the La Scala 1955 "Norma" is more dramatic than the RAI 1955, but I think it's unfair to compare dramatic intensity in a radio recording and a live performance.
@@kbhprinsesse The 1955 RAI "Norma" with Serafin was, as far as I know, a concert performance in front of a live audience--not done in a studio. You can hear the public applaud in the recording.
The great music critic John Ardoin, who for the most part had a high estimation of Serafin and his influence on Callas, criticizes the conductor a number of times in his study "The Callas Legacy." In the fourth edition of 1995, see pp. 80, 89, 96, 121, 127 207. All of these comments have to do with tempo.
@@jamesnickoloff6692 I didn't say there was nothing to criticise, merely that there is a difference between a concert performance and a live performance. Even though it may have been done in front of an audience, there are still no sets and costumes, not props and live action. I wholeheartedly agree that the La Scala performance is superior to the one from RAI, but the La Scala performance is IMO outstanding compared to ANY "Norma", by Callas and other sopranos.
I use to quote Callas in my music class...and imitate her...my teacher would say....there is only one Callas...long before I could recite Macbeth in English class..I could sing Verdi's Lady Macbeth..the way Callas did...I was never popular for boasting this talent..but Maria had been my inspiration
Her high notes are very metallic, sharp and rough but very addictive and fascinating. What an Assoluta
Very well said !!! addictive shall we say !!
That is so true! I became addicted to Callas' voice long ago. If someone were to ask, I'm not sure how to explain it. Regardless of the opera, when Callas makes her first vocal entrance I'm hooked. I read reference once to Callas' "four voices." Regardless, I will be the first to admit that there are times when her voice is, to be frank, ugly, and that is usually during music that is not supposed to be pretty, such as the "Suicidio" perhaps. On the other hand, there are times when her voice, both the voice itself and her phrasing, are the most hauntingly beautiful sound imagineable.
Callas high notes are strident and clear , light in color, she sings sharp because Callas forced the voice
@@ginopietracupa4305 yes, especially after loosing all that weight. But...who cares! She is magnificent anyway.
and which singers don't force their voice according to you?@@ginopietracupa4305
There some excellent Rossini singers around nowadays, but there is not a single one who can sing this music with this precision, with such clean coloratura, sing it legato without resorting hahahaha aspirations. What I hear nowadays is a forced agility, not a natural ease of the voice through a maze of difficult passages. Callas makes this sound like music rather than a bunch of notes.
I agree completely with what you have to say. In addition, I would add that Callas has that "added dimension" that is so difficult to define (and so difficult to find in singers or any other artists). Yes, Callas makes "music" out of these bel canto arias, which unfortunately usually sound like just a lot of fast notes (with the "ha ha ha" effect as you say). Callas' genius, IMO, was her implicit understanding of the music and ability to make it beautiful.
I can listen to it endlessly.
AlePiznik
*Cough* Cecilia Bartoli, Marilyn Horne *Cough*
You do not even have to go to "Rossini singers"....Caballe already sings it better (not to mention having a much more beautiful voice).... .
@@alexbeascoechea7510 Caballe never had the complete florid technique of Callas. She often fudged and never could trill. And a lot of her coloratura was aspirated, with Hs dropped everywhere. She did have a beautiful voice, however.
Stunning musicianship from La Callas!
Αρχαια Ελληνιδα Θεα μουσικης!!! Αθανατη Μαρια Καλλας!!!
DIVINAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
è VEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
This is just heavenly!
This is the best quality ever!
oh la la oh la la. admiration éperdue pour Maria
Wow, this lady knew that she was doing!
and I lke her high notes!
Thanks, thanks!
Che bravura!
Thank you so much sharing this video! Amazing
unica y maravillosa
The version of 1952 Armida with Callas and Serafin at Divina Records is fantastic.
It was the first time I could listen once the whole performance. They put also the missing parts even if there are radio interference with a man voice. As a whole I warmly recommend to those interested to listen this CD's. They have also the best Norma 1955 because they put in missing place the voice of Nicola Zaccaria at the first druid scene, and uvertura is from the same 1965 Norma at La Scala conducted by Gavazzeni, a refined conductor that admire al lot Maria. I remember he said about Maria that - a lot of good singers have different "voices" for Verdi, Belini, Donizeti, but Maria voice is different for Violeta, Amelia, Leonora - bothe of them - La Forza and Il Trovatore. They intend to do together a Lucia di Lammermoor at San Carlo Napoli in the original cadenza of Donizeti - a dream that did't become reality.
There Anna Bolena was not surpassed till today. Few singer could come not so far and away (like Suterland and Netrebko) those are - Elena Souliotis and Katia Ricciareli
GRAZIEEEE! PERFETTA MARIA!
SONO D'ACCORDO CON Té
Superhuman Callas !!!
La plus grande définitivement.
DIVINA
Yes, this recording sounds better than any other sources. Thank you so much for this posting.
Heavens... simply splendid
Otra diosa, fenomenal. Que fuerza. Creo que es la mejor Azucena.
Fantistico!!
Astounding!
Che bravura
Thank you tunipoverlord....
so sad maybe some day Melodram could remaster the whole opera I think this Callas' ARMIDA is historic... beautiful colorature, high notes,she should've recorded the studio version the same year in 1952...
L'opéra en feu ! les braises sous la glace...
ESTUPENDA , INIGUALABLE EN ESTA ARIA ES ÚNICA. TÉCNICA MAGISTRAL, INTERPRETACIÓN EXCELENTE. Armando Cerutti
INOLVIDABLE
I play this if Im getting groggy in a long car trip. My neurotransmitters go nuts! 😆
Simpiemente Maria Callas
I've tried using the same sound technique on the complete 1952 recording of Armida (this being from the 1954 concert, which is in much better sound), but the results aren't very impressive - the excess noise from the master tapes interferes. I'll post a sample and if i get a positive response i'll do the whole thing :)
Actually it is very difficult to sing it like Callas did - if you cut all the lows or all the highs it is not that difficult :p
Una delicia
La voce stessa della Callas è musica!
Vita.
Hi, i have that BJR compilation and i think this, from a Timaclub LP has a richer sound. The BJR version sounds a little tiny, where this one is a bit more full and warm.
does impero mean emperor or empire?
Empire
This is amazing, the legato is perfect here. This was originally written for Rossini's Wife Isabella Colbran, who I believe had a some what similar voice to Callas's. It is one of the most demanding roles in 19th century bel canto roles. IT IS THE KILLER ROSSINI!
But I have a question, This was 1954. Did she already lose weight, or did she lose some? Cuz the differences between the Fat and the Thin Callas is audible.
She was bone thin by 1954
Mar R By 1954 she'd already lost a great deal of weight.
Colbran's voice had a three-octave span which enabled to sing both soprano and mezzo roles. This is the tessitura of the roles written for her veers between both registers.
Great Job. Can you do the same for the 1952 Armida. It is even better than this one!!
I think that every Callas' fan would be happy if you do the same with the whole opera hahaha please do it!! I have an terrible version! even though with the externalisation it gets a better quality.... but it is not better than your version!! please improve the whole opera!!! =(
Ah yes...Maria Callas at the very peak of her powers.
¡ÚNICA! ¡IRREPETIBLE!
Si cabe, la del 52 en el Comunale, todavía es mejor, y su forma de interpretar el último cuarto es diferente y para mí más sorprendente, con ese Re sobreagudo atronadoramente divino.
Of course it is fabulous, BUT the version from the live recording of the opera from 2 years before is even more fabulous with more than one ascent to D6, the last being much more spectacular than the briefly hit note here. 80 pounds made a difference.
An amazing performance, but the D isn't breathtaking like the one in her 1952 recording.
Опера Мадам Ботерфляй Ария Пинкертона и Чио Сан в этом нет моей вины пойми
Исполняет Мария Каллас
Это опера Россини "Армида". Ария "Любовь - блаженное царство".
13 deaf people have listened to this audio
Cute! But that’s the very thing left for the bush league coloraturas who followed her and who shouldn’t be mentioned in any circumstances!
The '52 version is markedly better. What is sadly startling about Callas is how much she lost vocally in such a short time, literally in some parts going from triumph in one year to near disaster the next. The wobble is definitely present here, and I cannot hear a hint of it in ‘52. In fact the purity of the tone is one of the many extraordinary things about the ‘52 performance.
Wobble? I think you're imagining things. Think about the strain on her vocal cords after so many years of virtuoso singing from 1939 to 1954 and beyond (in part because of selfish mentors and in part because of her own desire to scale the heights).
@@jamesnickoloff6692 you just answered why there is an obvious wobble
@@misanthropelife I see your point, but I still don't hear a "wobble" in 1954--or any real fault. But then I myself don't really hear what I would call a "wobble" at any point in Callas' career. Yes, I hear shrill notes, what could be called "screeching," unpleasantly metallic sounds, etc. But not really an oscillation, moving back and forth, on and off a pitch. Perhaps I don't know what a wobble is.
Nice clean sound but contains to much treble very brassy the process seems to have omitted a lot of the natural fullness,wormth and depth of sound which is very important.
The ending sounds flat…
Wow, good job man.