Callas as Medea
You know very well that at the beginning of the [twentieth] century Médée was occasionally sung by Mazzoleni, who had a peach of a voice. Well, yes, they clapped [sic] her, but that was about it. There were not the cultural and historical demands which have enabled us today to say: at last I’ve heard Cherubini’s Médée as I’ve always imagined it should be.
—Rodolfo Celletti
Robert Seletsky and others claim that Callas’s importance for the revival of neglected works has been exaggerated, that Rossini’s Armida was “the only true Callas ‘revival.’”
Mr. Seletsky, with whom I have corresponded, is a scrupulous and exceedingly well-informed writer, and his arguments cannot be dismissed out of hand. Still, I think that this particular assertion is a case of not seeing the forest for the trees, as Celletti’s remarks demonstrate.
(That said, Médée, Schmédée: the mishmash that Callas sang has little to do with Cherubini’s wondrous score!)
On a separate note (as it were): So many people continue to claim that Callas “lost her voice” as a direct result of her weight loss. To which I say: Listen to how she sang—fearlessly, unsparingly—and tell me how she could not have damaged her voice!
This snippet from Medea is from Dallas, 1958. Read more about Callas as Medea in opera and cinema.
In fact, ‘Armida’ *was* the only opera that was revived specifically and exclusively for Callas. Yet I never wrote nor implied that the other revivals, done earlier in small productions that were noted and scooped up for Callas, could possibly have had the transcendence with which Callas infused them. Callas made even standard rep works seem like revivals, with hitherto unknown nuance. Ms. Rosenberg seems to have missed “the forest for the trees” in her reading of my article “The Performance Practice of Maria Callas” (The Opera Quarterly, Autumn 2004): facts and truth are not the same.
As for Callas’ voice, of course it was changed by her weight loss. When one learns to sing with one body and then has another one, it functions differently. Just listen to EMI Puritani 1953 and EMI Norma 1954: two very different voices. As time went on–and she continued to lose weight (once one begins, it can be hard to stop), observers noticed that the voice decreased in size very severely, that high notes were in less plentiful supply, the the unsteadiness became uncontrollable. All of this is documented on studio and live recordings. The Dallas Medea was an exceptional night. Callas always performed fully, even when there was nothing left, as in the 1965 Normas. Elsewhere in 1958, her voice is recalcitrant and wiry, even in the two EMI recitals (Mad Scenes, Verdi Arias). A high-stress performer like Callas needed the actual physical cushion of a bit more weight than the amount with which she left herself. I note another MEDEA: December 1953. She had lost considerable weight, enough so that she was no longer dangerously overweight, and the voice is as great as the EMI Puritani of February 1953. But she couldn’t stop herself. Then there’s matter of premature menopause in 1957, which drugs were ultimately unable to prevent. That also is a possible explanation for the voice taking an especially bad turn after 1957. But I note that even with the cloudy, wobbly voice of the mid 1960s, she could not, and still cannot, be compared to any other musician-singer.
Dear Robert: My apologies if I misrepresented your work. I was thinking of this bit: “While the citation of Callas as a fountainhead for the refamiliarization of various works in not unfounded, Callas did not herself actually restore long-dormant works. Indeed, even without her, there was considerable interest in unearthing early operas in Italy during the 1950s and 1960s. Of the revivals for which she is given credit, (1) nearly none had been absent from the stage for long, (2) they were not operas that Callas herself discovered, and (3) few remained in the regular repertoire without her particular genius.”
While what you write is very persuasive, I remain unconvinced that there was a direct, causal relationship between Callas’s weight loss and her vocal decline. In Will Crutchfield’s beautiful New Yorker article, he gives several instances of faulty, seat-of-the-pants singing in recordings that are widely considered among Callas’s most vocally secure, from her pre-weight-loss days. It is unquestionably true (Callas says this herself with David Frost and elsewhere) that at some point (c. 1957-58) she had lost too much weight as a result of overwork and nervous tension, making her physically weak. And yet… she is in volcanic voice for the Scala “Ballo,” which came after a period of rest and medical care years after the dramatic weight loss.
As for the premature menopause… I know, that’s what Meneghini claimed and what Galatopoulos cited. But how can any of us be sure? Gage has the whole Omero Lengrini yarn; Zeffirelli (in the 1980s) wrote of a possible Callas miscarriage; Stasinopoulos and Stancioff wrote of an abortion… I don’t believe the Lengrini story, but I also don’t believe that I am in possession of unassailable truth.
Dear Marion,
You write: “I remain unconvinced that there was a direct, causal relationship between Callas’ weight loss and her vocal decline.” I should think that listening to the dramatic difference between her 1953 and her 1954 studio work would convince anyone. After a session recording FORZA in 1954, you know that Walter Legge came up to her at lunch, where she was seated with his wife Elisabeth Schwarzkopf, and told Callas that if they released the recording as it was, they would have to include a bottle of sea-sickness pills with every set. Yes, she had a recalcitrant voice before 1954, but the extra cushion allowed her to get it back from the edge if it migrated there (which was not that often). After the cushion was gone, it was impossible. And look at Deborah Voigt: tremendous weight loss surgically, and of course her voice changed. Change the soundpost setting on a violin by 1mm and the results are radically different. The human body is no different. No cushion, more stress: voice starts to become unreliable. Simple logic. And Meneghini has documents from the physicians Callas saw when she went into premature menopause. Why would he make that up? Besides, she reached puberty at eleven, and started singing professionally at fifteen, so it’s not even unusual that other life–and death–events happened early for her. If rest and recuperation were all that were required, why did her voice completely disappear when she spent months lounging on Onassis’ yacht? No, she was finished vocally in 1959. In 1957 and 1958, she was introduced to Onassis, and immediately forgot about him. Even in 1959, Meneghini had to persuade her to take a break and go on the yacht. She was a clever woman: having had a fling with Onassis, she probably thought that not only could he fulfill a need that her husband didn’t, but he could provide camouflage for the fact that she was vocally gone. Unfortunately, it backfired a few years later. Back to the stage, we hear what she she wanted so desperately to conceal. Great art, scary voice.
I have to agree with Marion here. Callas only “actually” reviving Armida is a fact (?) that obscures the truth of how important she was in reevaluating bel canto works.
As to the Callas vocal decline… I think a fact that gets overlooked is that Callas had gained a considerable amount of weight from 1949 onwards. In fact, she might have weighed the same in her 1949 zenith as in her 1954 “decline.” So weight is not everything! Yes the FORZA manifests a wobbly tone, most evident at the end of the second act. But what about the Berlin LUCIA? Even in 1958, the same year as the Verdi LP, the voice in the Los Angeles concert is strong and controlled.
The Callas voice never recovered after 1959, but the point that I, and I think Marion, is trying to make is that it did not have to be that way, and it was not solely caused by weight loss. It was a disastrous confluence of the weight loss, wear on the voice from two decades of singing, stress from “riding the tiger,” and not practicing after joining Onassis’s jet set.
The 73-74 concerts are indeed very, very vocally frayed, but I don’t see them as a disaster. In some concerts, notably in 74, the basic elements of the voice are there enough to deliver and enlighten the music. And the voice she had from the very beginning is laid bare: a sepulchral chest, a weak passagio, and maybe five good notes C5 to G5. What singer hasn’t playing the great game of concealment, stretching the voice to encompass the full range demanded? Goodness knows Sutherland did it with everything lower than D5!
Angelo, just curious: Do you think that the tape of Callas singing “Forza,” supposedly from 1976, is correctly dated? The sound is wretched, but she does seem to be in blazing voice. To my mind, that rather supports what Gobbi said: that Callas never lost her voice, just her nerve. (The recording is supposed to be from a rehearsal or coaching session.)