Donizetti’s Anna Bolena is an opera I did not really care about until probably last week. I had only seen it once in a visit of the Vienna State Opera to Tokyo with Edita Gruberová, Sonia Ganassi and Luca Pisaroni. The starry cast did not make me warm to the work back then. I remember I did not find Donizetti at his most melodically inspired until the closing scene, which, yes, it is one of bel canto’s most impressive passages. That is why I was so surprised to realize how much I enjoyed listening to three and a half recordings of it since last Monday.
First of all, when you understand that this is technically not a prima donna vehicle, the story becomes really more interesting. From one side, we do have Anne Boleyn doomed from the start, not only because the King has already decided he wants to get rid of her, but mainly because she wants to get rid of herself. She is really sick of the whole thing and is increasingly living in her own private world, a mix of memories and fantasies. And there is Jane Seymour, confronted with a very big moral issue: what if getting what you want means the ruin of someone else? She fights against her remorse with all her strength – but she cannot win, because her desire of having what Anne has is really stronger than her sense of guilt.
Musically, what makes this opera so effective it is exactly what made it difficult for me to like it in the first place: it just moves forward with little consideration for Bellinian long, elegiac melodies. Characters express their feelings almost objectively and bluntly and it’s all about dramatic confrontations in ensembles richer in texture than what they get credit for. I am not a Callas person, but I decided to start with her La Scala recording, and it would have alone convinced me she was a very great singer. She establishes electric tension from her first note – this is not exquisite sculpted phrasing (Leyla Gencer offers something more classically bel canto-ish, for instance). There is a touch of vinegar now and then and high notes can wobble, but you can sense in her every sound that this woman is reaching her last hour in this planet. I had a friend who found the sequence of trills in Coppia iniqua as sung by Callas an example of superior artistry. Yes, when you listen to the whole performance, the way she manages that formidable phrase proves that the whole score was bound to that gran finale, like something inevitably rolling over to its final destination. The libretto’s Boleyn couldn’t live as a queen anymore, but she was determined to die as one.
Anna Bolena had never been staged in Geneva before, and its première at the Grand Théâtre happens in the context of the complete “trilogy” of Donizetti’s Tudor queens to be staged, conducted and mostly sung by the same team. Director Mariame Clément decided it should not be told as a historic play or even in the context of the discussion about women and power, but simply like the story of one person who happened to be a woman and who lived in very unique circumstances: Queen Elizabeth I, here a silent role appearing as a young girl (older than she actually was when Boleyn died) and as the old monarch thinking about her mother’s fate. A French reviewer considered that Ms. Clément made a soap opera out of Donizetti’s tragedy. Yes – that’s what usually happens when you tell the lives of gods and kings as a family story. And that’s not necessarily bad per se. Ms. Clément’s genius touch is using the child (Elizabeth) to explain many of the libretto’s less believable twists. For instance, here Anne already knows that Jane Seymour is her rival when the latter appears in her apartments to convince the queen to plead guilty, pretending ignorance with the purpose of watching the young woman’s anguish. Only when Elizabeth enters and Anne realizes that her daughter’s welfare will depend on the new queen’s mercy she changes her tone and makes the decision to forgive.
It is true, however, that the director’s Personenregie has a splash of shallowness and strongly depends on Julia Hansen’s stage and costume design to produce any impact. That said, most of Ms. Hansen’s choices seem purely guided by chicness. The revolving sets show cyan boiseries the panels of which removed for us to see backdrops depicting woodland. It is all very beautiful, but what this is supposed to mean eludes me entirely. Costumes are stylized, and we see a blond Anne in green and a brunette Jane in red much as we’ve seen Deneuve and Ardant in the same colors as wife and mistress in François Ozon’s Eight Women.
To say that conductor Stefano Montanari was extremely kind with his singers is an understatement. Whenever anyone was singing, the orchestra was reduced to a dimness of sound that almost made us believe that they were playing from backstage. He also chose tempi that make soloists comfortable with the demands of legato and coloratura, what is good, but his accents were so often flaccid that the opera sounded drained of all dramatic possibility. It all seemed very polite – and the awkward idea of using a fortepiano for effects made it even more Biedermeier. In those circumstances, one could believe that the whole drama depicted there was that the pudding ended up overcooked. And that cannot happen – at all – in Donizetti, a composer whose writing does not do the trick by itself.
I don’t know if the conductor’s decision – I’m not inclined to believe that but anyway… – of making things so coy and cozy have to do with the singers available. Anna Bolena’s first performances in Milan in 1830 had one of the starriest casts in the history of opera – Pasta sang the title role and Rubini appeared as Percy, to start with. French soprano Elsa Dreisig’s blond soprano brings to bel canto her large scale Mozart voice with a Janowitz lisp to remind us that her name is showing us what kind of repertoire she was born to sing: German roles. By saying that I don’t mean she sang poorly this afternoon. On the contrary, her performance was praiseworthy in many levels. The voice itself is healthy, full in all registers, slightly instrumental in quality, very flexible and used with good taste and complete musicianship. She tackled her runs precisely, managed most trills, produced clear vowels and even ventured into one short in alt puntatura. I was surprised by how effectively she handled the filigree in Coppia iniqua – forcefully and in the right flowing tempo. All that said, I can’t say say she truly understands what bel canto means when we refer to the way a singer such as Pasta – and later Callas or Scotto – sang. I mean the art of using dynamic, rhythm, coloring, attack, breathing, diction to give life TO THE TEXT. Exquisitely as Ms. Dreisig sang Al dolce guidami, it sounded ultimately plain in its absence of reverie, nuance, chiaroscuro and, most importantly, float. All those qualities are the boards on the bridge that spans across the chasm between “sad” and “tragic”.
The first Giovanna Seymour was a singer whose death at the age of 23 meant the end of an outstanding career: Elisa Orlandi. Ms. Orlandi first sang contralto roles but ended up singing parts as high as Zenobia in Rossini’s Aureliano in Palmira until she collapsed and passed away on stage during rehearsals of her first Adalgisa in 1834. In other words, a part written for Ms. Orlandi is not really a mezzo part. For instance, Giulia Grisi, the first Adalgisa and Elvira (I Puritani), appeared as Seymour (with Pasta). Even if the discography shows us only mezzos in the part – Simionato and Verrett, most notably – Donizetti requires someone with a really solid high register (as Simionato and Verrett) – sometimes giving the part of Seymour the upper line in ensembles over that of Bolena. Stéphanie d’Oustrac’s voice does not fit that description: her extreme high notes may sound tense or a tiny bit below true pitch. It is also too smoky and her vowels too dark for bel canto. And yet she is a terrific actress and sings with undeniable dramatic commitment and energy. I don’t think someone who could only listen to her performance this afternoon would find it particularly convincing, but the whole package was attractive enough. Even if it’s not a classically “beautiful” voice, it calls attention in its unusual color, she can muster some power for exposed moments and tackles fioriture in an exciting rather than refined way.
In the Rubini role, Uruguayan tenor Edgardo Rocha is better cast that most singers in the discography (Jerry Hadley, for instance). It is a voice built around its high notes (he adds in alts whenever he can, except in the last note of any aria) and sings in Italianate style without exaggeration, clearly with Juan Diego Flórez as a model. This also means that the tone has more than one splash of nasality, what seems to be the rule in this repertoire.
The role of Enrico was first sung by another very special singer, Filippo Galli, who first started as a tenor and then premiered some of Rossini’s most difficult buffo roles, such as the Mustafà in L’Italiana in Algeri. I can only believe that this is why singers in this part seldom are up to the task. To be honest, only Samuel Ramey in Bonynge’s recording sounds as vocally impressive as it requires. Alex Esposito was in double disadvantage here: first, being the shortest man on stage made him everything but commanding and, second, rich and forceful as his voice is, it is also a bit grayish in its upper reaches and some of his former flexibility is now lost. He had to snarl a lot to create some sense of menace, and finally was ill-paired to Ms. d’Oustrac’s intense Seymour.
Mezzo Lena Belkina sang forcefully as Smeton, her high notes rich and warm. She acted really well and looks convincingly boyish. Since I’ve heard Bernadette Manca di Nissa in this part, in Bonynge’s recording, it is difficult to hear anyone else, but that would be an unfair comparison, I guess. Last but not least, Stanislav Vorobyov, a last minute replacement for Michael Mofidian in the role of Rochefort, sang sensitively with a noble, gentle sounding bass voice.
Felicidad! Was hoping you would be able to get over to Genf to see this – thanks so much! Last trip I tried to fit it into my schedule but was unable to do so. Unlike you, I loved it the first time I saw it (going on 50 years ago with Marisa Galvany, Olivia Stapp & Sam Ramey). Yes, it doesn’t have the melodic developments that many of Donizetti’s opera do, but it has as much or more rhythmic-harmonic expansion & confrontation as in any of his other operas. It plays well as a grand opera (not, as you say, as a prima donna vehicle). All the main characters share the audience’s attention equally. Personally, I do not like to see Bolena lumped into the “Tudor Trilogy” since Stuarda & Devereux are very different than Bolena, more primadonna centered – the 2 of them almost chamber-like in their closed construction around the protagonist.
– In recent performances I have noticed what you mention with the conducting. I met Callas twice but never discussed her preferred tempii; knew Scotto better. She claimed to prefer a slower beat so she could display her skills. When you are dealing with an opera like Anna Bolena, a great deal of give and take goes on. Scotto didn’t sing Bolena too often and when she did it was usually (as in those times) cut drastically, like when Callas sang it. Nowadays those cut performances wouldn’t go so well at more sophisticated venues. The art of bel canto singing is sleeping now, waiting to be awakened – you were lucky to get 1st rate singers, about the best we can do now. I know there were several performances of Bolena scheduled at Genf, but every complete performance of Anna Bolena is a special event, like Guillaume Tell or Die Meistersinger. Thanks again.
Hi, Jerold! I’m glad you’ve enjoyed reading about this performance, which was worth the detour. I only wished the conducting were a little bit more positive. Every other aspect of the performance had something to offer, even when it wasn’t exactly what you expected.
How wonderful you could have the opportunity of talking with both Callas and Scotto about their work. I don’t think there is one single right tempo for works like Anna Bolena – it depends of what the singer can do with it. Someone like Scotto, for instance, could really play with a slower tempo because she would really bring a lot in terms of nuance – and she could really find meaning in the coloratura. For someone like, say, Sutherland the faster beat would be more advantageous, for she really could manage fast divisions with absolute naturalness, whereas her handling of the text wasn’t so varied.
This afternoon’s performance was far less cut than I am used to hear. There was still some nipping here and there, but not at all disfiguring. The role of Percy, in particular, gains a lot in a more complete edition (and a singer with the right voice and technique).
It is interesting that you mention Bolena’s difference from Stuarda and Devereux. While Stuarda still has some ping pong between the two queens going on, it mostly centers around the great confrontation scene, the rest of the opera less dramatic, mostly turning around arias, not always really memorable (it is probably my least favorite one in the trio). Devereux is – without any doubt – a prima donna show, but a really good one (again: if you have the right singer for it). I also like its weirdness, it’s a bit all over the place in a good way and it requires that the soprano really step out of her comfort zone in the closing scene, because she really has to look and sound a bit demented there.
As a closing note, it seems I’m seeing another Bolena next month. I hadn’t noticed that it was in the season of the Opernhaus in Zurich until I checked the schedule. Let’s see how it’s going to turn out.
You.’ll become an expert on it!
haha that would be an unexpected development 🙂
Interesting and informative write up of an opera I admittedly don’t care much about haha. Not a Donizetti person generally speaking, but this is IMO easily the best of the Queen operas. It’s certainly the most consistent musically and most evenly constructed dramatically. I don’t know if it’s a question of sensibility or what have you but these operas are almost invariably poorly staged, so at least this production sounded like something was going on onstage. As for cuts, I’m not pro-cuts on principle and of course in the Callas era the cutting is insane. But I don’t think Bolena suffers much from some trimming.
I have to admit, while I see no reason to question your review, Dreisig’s casting seems quite odd. Maybe this is the rep she should be doing for I have never once seen her sing where she didn’t come to grief and have pretty rudimentary pitch and intonation issues. Nor would I have thought she’d have enough power lower down for a role that isn’t really that high.
As for sopranos, I lived through Sills (I’m not a hater) and thought she and Gruberova were weirdly more successful in the other two operas. Sadly never saw Scotto, would have liked to. Vaness was also very good in concert and Netrebko put forth her best bel canto effort ever when she did it at the met (less impressive in Wien IMO). But the *best* I ever saw was, perhaps surprisingly, Stoyanova at her NYC concert performances. She displayed some genuine temperament and there was some very very distinguished singing. Sadly her surroundings were piss poor.
As far as Callas goes, would need to write a novella on my complex feelings about her (and I did see her). But that Bolena is IMO one of the few genuinely astounding documents where her VOICE tells the tale.
1 – Yes, almost every Donizetti tragedy (Lucia excepted) is poorly staged. I have the impression opera houses don’t believe it is worthy to invest in stagings for works supposedly meant for “canary fans” who are there “just to see their favorite singers”.
2 – I agree with you Bolena doesn’t suffer from some trimming because this only reinforces the score’s sense of forward movement.
3 – I guess it is an issue for most lyric sopranos in transition to bigger roles (and I believe this is the case with Dresig) to have some intonation problems. That was the case with early Mattila in her Mozart days, for instance. I had heard Dreisig before in higher and lighter things – and that is when I thought she was not entirely at ease. Since she has been growing into fuller and more central roles, she has really caught my attention. To tell the truth, the medium, lower end of the voice was when we could hear at her richest last Sunday. She managed her high notes all right, but one could feel she had to shift to fourth gear. If you have the opportunity to hear her again, I guess you’d be surprised by the direction her voice is taking. But again – as I wrote, it was a bit puzzlingly to see her name in the cast list when I checked the Grand Théâtre’s website.
4 – Gruberová was – until Sunday – the only Bolena I had seen live. I like her singing of Coppia iniqua and how she uses the brightness in her vice to make the aria increasingly exciting, but in the rest of the opera, in spite of her obvious good ideas, I tend to agree with those who found her to Viennese for bel canto (an opinion I tend to find too simplistic as a rule). I only caught Netrebko in one bel canto role – the Elvira at the Met all reviewers hated. I have to say I liked her performance there and didn’t mind too much one or two smeared runs and some high notes below pitch. On the other hand, I don’t think I have ever seen Stoyanova in bel canto. She is a singer whose performances I tended to enjoy, but from a certain point on she lost her touch in what regards her high register and then my enthusiasm waned a bit.
5 – Haha, when you’re ready for your Callas novella, I’m all ears 🙂 Again I’m not an unconditional fan or maybe not even a fan. It’s more a matter of acknowledgment than of genuine feeling from my side haha But, as you said, that Anna Bolena really made it for me. There are moments when she sounds right on the mark – for instance Giudici? Ad Anna? You can hear exactly what’s going on the character’s mind just by the color in her voice. It’s really awesome.
-Gruberova in Italian rep is it’s own thing. I think the accusations of her stylistic inaccuracy is not as clear cut as it’s made out to be. Accuracy isn’t everything but it’s worth pointing out that she actually is more scrupulous regarding what’s on the written page than a lot of ladies people say are more on point. And her Italian pronunciation is on point. I never cared for her in most of those “assoluta” roles mainly because it’s not the color and timbre I prefer. But her mannerisms are the way she sang and it was always a take it or leave it thing. I certainly found her easier to take in those roles then Sills (again I’m not a hater and Sills put on a good show, but that’s not greatness and to simply listen to her is…).
-Well I hope Dreisig can develop into something a bit better than what I’ve heard from her. The recent Sifare really paled in comparison to literally every other recorded exponent in the role and I’ve found her to be basically anonymous in other things.
-I can’t really speak to Netrebko in Puritani later on. On opening night in NYC she didn’t know the role and was awful. I’ve heard she improved and the bit of the HD I’ve seen, though not really impressive IMO, were comparatively much more accomplished than the opening. She said in a interview she wasn’t as prepared as she should have been and that it was a wake up call not to book so many role debuts back to back (it was something like her fourth of fifth new role within a year). Puritani is a dull opera and that production is terrible. Since she cancelled a follow up Elvira, I take it she felt the same way.
-Stoyanova has kept her voice in pristine condition and has gone further with it than I would have thought. I’ve rarely found her inspired, but I’ve also rarely found her less than very good. I think at this point shes almost overrated in certain corners. It’s seen as something as an insult to some in Germany and Wien that she isn’t first choice for EVERYTHING. She’s valuable and it’s a grade A voice and she can occasionally surprise dramatically (she sold a very odd Guth Luisa Miller that really depended on her). But honestly I think she has the career she deserves, and it is a pretty great one all told.
-Look Callas was special, unique, all things apply. I’ve never been a Callas “freak” and it’s the cult that claims she’s “more than a singer doncha you” that infuriates me. Given that basically the entirety of her career is documented, her evident strengths and her evident weaknesses are obvious to anyone with ears and should be talked about objectively. The claims made for her, usually by people who don’t actually know much about opera or music, and who never saw her live approaches the crazed. I know people who saw her in her prime and have spoken with people who worked with her. Opinions varied *extremely* and some of those people expressed some shock at her canonization. A lot of the thing attributed to her have either been overstated or straight up fictionalized. I saw her in Tosca at the tail end. That’s not a performance that was representative of what she was like at her best. But she was close to inaudible, looked scared out of her mind, and did not have anything to compensate the way Tebaldi (the obvious example) did when her voice was falling apart. Tebaldi could sound like a wreck later on but she had tons of volume and could give a “damn the notes” kind of performance that paid dividends. When Callas’ voice went I don’t think she could do that.
There’s too much to say. I do think she was special. And her best work really does approach the profound. But when people point to that Mexico Aida or the Armida, both when she was young and both of which feature IMO some shocking screaming and carrying on, and proclaim those as the “greatest” that I call foul. Lastly I think the Callas legacy resulted in A LOT of singers who were frequently terrible but were held up as paragons (Behrens is in the category for me, ditto Ewing and Teresa Stratas) because the sheer effort of what they are working for is taken as more worthy than the results of better singers.
1 – Gruberová- I agree with everything you say. As for Sills, I knew nothing about her when I first heard her, and that happened when I had already heard everyone else in the same repertoire. The way her voice used to be recorded always sounded artificial to my ears. So I have no idea of how it actually sounded in the theatre. That said, curiously, I like that studio Norma with Shirley Verrett, all things considered.
2 – Dreisig – I used to have a meh impression of her too, but again – Sifare?! No wonder you were unimpressed. That’s not for her voice at all. I could be wrong, but what I hear there is an Eva/Elisabeth voice blossoming there.
3 Netrebko. I saw her Elvira later in the run. Maybe because she wasn’t really “prepared”, I found she sang it from a fresh perspective – vocally rather from a lyric soprano’s appriach and also dramatically quite original: there was nothing virginal and coy there and I find it makes more sense the way she did it. I don’t think she devised all that – but rather that she has the right instincts. And that’s a good thing too.
4 – Stoyanova – she is a singer whose career I followed from early on. I first saw her as Micaela ages ago in Rio and then in many different roles – Luisa Miller, Donna Anna, the Marschallin, Ariadne etc There was.a moment when everything above a high g seemed to spin backward rather than forward. Then it felt like, I don’t know, a broken watch you still like but no longer reliable for you to know what time is it. I believe that roles to big for her natural voice might have had something to do with that. It was bit sad – not only do I like her natural voice but also she is a musicianly, elegant singer.
5 – Callas – I have to say it was a surprise for me to hear about the limitations of her voice. I’ve heard people who saw her describe it as thin and rather grating in a bad day. And that she could be less than magnetic when not totally into it. I knew the voice was always a bit “eccentric”, but I thought it had to be more imposing if one was to compare it with, say. Tebaldi’s, who was obviously vocally gifted in spite of any reservations one might have. My problem with Callas was rather connected to my first “innocent” reaction to her voice as a child. It didn’t strike me as beautiful or expressive at all. Many of her fans would later lecture me on her abilities and, yes, listening through their ears, I came to realize the ingenuity of her interpretation. But that’s mostly a purely intellectual exercise for me. That La Scala Anna, on the contrary, is one of the examples of her artistry that I could immediately connect to. Of course, I have heard other performances in which I had a similar impression – but I confess it’s not a priority for me to dig into her discography etc.
-That’s kind of the problem with Sills. She wasn’t young when she had her breakthrough and didn’t start recording in earnest until she was already beginning to sound to sound work. She didn’t have the voice for any of the Tudor queens and I never got much of a sense of real artistry. She was very very impressive in terms of what she could with her voice and it definitely was the kind of sound that worked better live. When she didn’t push it projected pretty effortlessly and what sounds like a flutter in the earlier recordings wasn’t as apparent in person. But those bel canto roles IMO weren’t her rep at all. She doesn’t deserve to be written off the way she often is these days and there was maybe a path to greatness, but it didn’t really play out that way. She did some things quite well and while I never *loved* her I do think sometimes in person she could be magical.
-Stoyanova is almost sixty at this point. She had a biggish lyric which she managed to use effectively in heavier rep. I think the very technique itself is what leads to what you talk of with her top. It’s covered and she has to contrive it so eventually it just kind of goes backwards bad becomes diffuse. She’s not a spinto at all, though she gives good chest voice sometimes. These days the voice has a beat and I’ve found her to be a performance to performance sort of singer. The top kind of comes and goes and sometimes the voice is steady, sometimes not. Some more recent roles she’s gotten raves for I have been disappointed by (people seem to love her Ariadne but I thought she was not great the two times I saw her and actually pretty poor the second time). She’s impressive in her way, but I think having a pretty voice and being musical and smart don’t really equal greatness and her prime is past. But I tend to be happy to see her.
-I never loved Callas simply as a sound. I don’t care for her studio work mostly, though I think fault often has to do with the boxy EMI mono. And I think the stuff she did with a gun to her head (the studio Puccini for example) really does show her at a disadvantage that people just like to pretend doesn’t exist. Though I think I’ve heard most everything, I don’t know that I listen to anything frequently. There are some exceptions, Bolena being one of them. But I don’t buy the idea that it was ever some sort of massive sound (people who never heard her act as if when she was fat the voice was of Flagstad proportions!) and like everyone with an unruly voice she had her obvious contrivances. My family who saw everything she did in New York and once at Scala where she was worshiped all came back confused. I just find the myth tiring and the idea that a miracle like Joan Sutherland or Tebaldi (the two who have been put down most in comparison to callas) were somehow lacking in comparison to be awful.
– I kind of get what Sills did. Those days you wouldn’t become famous singing Handel and it seems that fame was an issue for her. She was evidently technically adept and, if we have in mind she was almost always recorded in roles unsuited for her voice, she acquitted herself more than ok. The voice sounded “girlish” and then a bit oldish, which was something bizarre to reconcile in one’s mind. I find it difficult to listen to in recordings, for the microphones make it piercingly metallic with a strange halo around it. One often has to turn the volume down. It’s everything but natural. That said, I wouldn’t dismiss her – even if the Norma – again with all observations- is a recording I sometimes listen to, for various reasons.
2 – Stoyanova, yes, “tend to be happy to see her” is a good way of putting it. It’s difficult for “big” lyric voices – there’s pressure everywhere for heavier roles. And there’s this moment when singers just feel fed up with singing Mozart after a while. It can be a straitjacket, I get it.
3 – I agree that these comparisons with Sutherland or Tebaldi (or whoever) are pointless, especially for someone with a voice as peculiar as Callas.
-I will say that (given the awful editions, odd ornaments, transpositions etc..) Sills’ Cleopatra was really amazing in person. I think part of that is because it was such a surprise and of course very few people knew the opera. But she did sound wonderful and some of what she tossed off was pretty staggering. I loved her Manon in person and that is probably her *best* recording in terms of vocal health. But prior to the Donizetti she’d had a more diverse and interesting rep and sadly very little of that is documented. I saw her do all three Trittico ladies (!) and she was good (!!). Ditto some Mozart.
Sadly she got to the met when she was in real decline and a Thais in particular was something a nadir in my experience of a major singer in a major house. It was something of a circus act by the time she made most of her recordings and that’s what people remember mostly. Recently I did revisit her Traviata and was more impressed than I’d expected to be. The voice is worn but she actually sings it pretty well and is intermittently moving.
-It does a disservice to Callas to make her a fetish object the way many love to do. Whenever I listen there’s always stretches where I’m blown away by her phrasing, her rhythm, and her ingenuity. But as I said, so much of her singing is documented and some of it’s amazing, some not so amazing, and some of is awful. I just think singers get pilloried in comparison to Callas and it speaks to something unmusical about a lot of opera people.
And I just *never* bought the argument for acting when it came to her. Again I saw her late and I’m sure her nerves were pretty shot. But so many singers when they were fading had something. Callas just seemed frail and worn and while she executed stage business like a pro, she was no different that other singers compared negatively to her. People I know who saw her expecting to be blown away came back saying she was closed off, if striking, and that the voice was small sounding and didn’t always project well. So the jury is out.
There’s more to say about the bizarre claims made about her historical importance but I’ve gone on.
You’re not the first person I hear describing Sills’s Cleopatra like that. I only know the recording – it is really technically impressive and kind of quaint in an almost charming way. But are we now talking of PUCCINI’s Trittico? haha I have to say I was curious about the Traviata, but then it’s Traviata and the curiosity doesn’t last more than 40 seconds 🙂
Jerold’s comment makes me think that it must have been exhausting to Callas to correspond to the fantasies of so many people. It has certainly ruined her nerves and ultimately her voice. It’s difficult when you feel like you have to live up to this kind of demands. I always remember Yann Beuron’s interview about people wanting him to sing bigger roles: “I don’t need to ruin my voice to feel loved” or something like that. Great piece of advice.
Yep Puccini. She did actually do a decent amount of Puccini earlier on. I saw her Mimi at NYCO (before the Handel). She actually was pretty solid in Trittico. Didn’t really have the voice for it but I thought she was still basically serious then so it was a *real* performance. The queens had a touch of vaudeville that she subsequently never lost. No reason to seek out that Traviata. It’s not great. But I had expected to HATE it and didn’t, that’s something I guess.
Well that’s the other thing with Callas. And it’s not just Callas, look at Judy Garland. The way they’re very public suffering and crisis are somehow inextricably linked with their artistry is cheap IMO and I doubt either lady felt happy about it. The sacred monster stuff is horribly reductive.
Either way the possible exception of Violetta, Callas isn’t really definitive for me in any one role. There are certain thing I love that surprise me (the Ballo, supposedly when she was on the decline, is exceptionally well sung). But Callas worship isn’t my bag.
Which Violetta would you recommend with her? I once had the one from Lisbon, but the sound is atrocious and I sold it away.
Well my *favorite* is the ROH performance, same year as Lisbon. Decent enough sound for 1958 and a solid cast. That’s late for her and she’s somewhat frail sounding. But she doesn’t ever push of force her voice and actually does some legitimately lovely singing. And I think it’s the apex of what she was after in the role, an unusually complete portrayal. It’s a profoundly moving performance.
Since you really care about sound quality, I guess I can’t recommend either Scala broadcast. Those performances were legendary and kind of ruined the opera for La Scala (they didn’t put on the opera again AT ALL until Freni did it almost a decade later with Karajan and both were pretty viciously booed, ditto almost every post Callas Scala Violetta). The more famous recording is the 1955 premiere, with Di Stefano. I think Callas is a tad precious there and marginally prefer the 1956 revival, which sadly is even worse sound-wise. But she fully and justifiably stops the show bidding Alfredo goodbye in act two. It’s a really iconic reading of that moment that I don’t think anyone has matched, a real explosion of desperate and frustrated feeling.
I think Callas’ sound and manner was apt for the role in a unique way. I can’t stand people who are just “pathetic” or “noble” in the part because it just cheapens the opera. I always go with the darker or more complicated sound when I listen to the opera. Callas really sounds like a courtesan who has seen the seamier side of life. There isn’t anything half baked or pleading about her in the part at all. This is a woman who is totally ruined and is face to face with her demise and it’s brutal.
I also recommend any live 1957 performance. There is a Sonnambula (not the Scala Bernstein) where she is in great shape and is just brazenly showing off in an exhilarating way. Even Votto, usually deadly dull, seems inspired by what she’s offering.
Thanks, Peter! I’ll look for these and see which ones I can find acceptable in terms of recorded sound.
Thanks, it’s so good to have you back
Thank you!
Very interesting, Peter. Thanks! I was never a Callas vocal fan – found her covered, buzzing overtones annoying to listen to – but at her best as you note above, like all great singing musicians “the VOICE tells the tale”. What people don’t often talk about is how very charming, warm & generous she was, one of the most wonderful people I ever met in my life.
She sounds like a fascinating person and I’m sure the awful way the press made her out to be isn’t even a shadow of what she was really like. I think it’s just so so hard to take her on her own terms. I almost always think it’s best to just take her out of her equation when it comes to comparisons.
There are performances of hers that I think are pretty special and often remarkable. But I find the thing accredited to her, that she was the first one to act, that she spearhead movements, is something that I find frustrating. People think she IS opera and the standard all others must measure up to.
Of couse there were singers before her with that special vocal-expressive ability. Beginning with the EMI publicists in the 1950’s, she was crowned and put her on the throne. The sad part of it all is that she was so totally different from the promotional-image put forward by the media. Only human like all of us, she couldn’t sustain such a hype.She would have been the first one to admit it.
Roberto, found a complete public live radio broadcast of this reviewed Anna Bolena from Genf on Espace2. The performance begins at approximately 00.15.40 on this webcast, available for a few weeks longer:
https://www.rts.ch/audio-podcast/2021/audio/a-l-opera-25778281.html
– To my surprise, liked this performance quite a lot. Knew it wasn’t going to be a grand affair, so at first I was hesitant about listening to it. But once I started, Elsa Dreisig as Anna immediately made it worthwhile: 1) she subtlely shines & darkens her bright overtones, like the sun moving across the sky from dawn to dusk; 2) she sings from her supported middle voice thus, as you wrote above, the voice is intact without noticeable breaks in the registers (a rarity nowadays); 3) accordingly, this gives her phrasing an elegant quality.
– A chamber Anna Bolena: the conductor kept everything very intimate, something I am also not used to, but I liked it very much. The slower tempii (with quite a few added pauses) slowed the proceedings down to an almost private, confidential pace, lacking bravura or dazzling effects. Yet it all worked for me because Donizetti’s score is so skillful it is open to myriad interpretations and this one was well-rehearsed & performed.
I’m glad to hear you could hear it; you were so curious about it! Yes, it was something of a Mozartian Donizetti. I am sure in the broadcast the orchestral feels intimate rather than dim as in the theatre. And I’m glad we agree about Dreisig too!
As for the tempi, I don’t think there is a right answer – when you have a more lyric voice, the slower tempi make the soprano sound elegant rather than desperate, but both conductor and singer have to work a bit harder to “fill in the blanks” of the slower tempo. The only moment I felt Dreisig was a bit lacking was in the slower part of the mad scene. It was not bad, but it lacked reverie – the cabaletta was very well done, and the tempo was everything but slow there.