I admire both Callas and Milanov, Those who oppose Milanov should know that she was admired by a lot of great singers and Conductors, For instance, Rosa Ponselle, Astrid Varnay, Renata Tebaldi, Franco Corelli, Maria Callas, Magda Olivero and Maestro Toscanni so forth and so on . All of them praised Milanov for her singing. Back than when opera was still alive, She was considered as one of the greatest singers who are in the same level with Callas. I suggest her Marvelous Rigoletto recording with Maestro Toscanini and you'll know why Toscanini said that he would choose Milanov as Gilda If he could conduct Rigoletto.
I love Callas, but also admire other sopranos of that time period. I have recordings of many of them. One can have a favorite without hating on the others. And Callas’ VOCAL prime was indeed between 1949 to 1956. In 1957 one could hear the beginning of the problems with her top notes that would only worsen over the years. Except for those very high notes, however, the rest of her range remained intact and her artistry never wavered.
Say Milanov is right, and it was 6 or 7 years of glory. In that miniscule time, every role she sang became the idiomatic standard by which all those roles are held. That is not counting a burgeoning and spectacular Wagner carreer and the roles she sang for, which there is no sound documents. Take that Zinka.
To Zinka's fans aka Callas haters. Go tomorrow on the streets and say "Zinka Milanov". How many will say "I heard of her"??? Then try with Callas' name and let us know!
The notion that Callas only had around six good years with her voice is actually absurd. When she performed I Puritani in 1949 at Venice, she already had nine years of experience and had given more than 56 performances in operatic roles such as Tosca, Beatrice in Boccaccio, Marta in Tiefland, Fidelio, and Santuzza in Cavalleria rusticana. Regarding her portrayal of Marta, a critic said, 'The singer who took the part of Marta, that new star in the Greek firmament, displayed matchless depth of feeling and gave a theatrical interpretation that met the standards of a tragic actress.' Regarding her exceptional voice and its astonishing natural fluency, I do not wish to add anything more to the words of Alexandra Lalaouni: 'Kalogeropoulou is one of those God-given talents that one can only marvel at.' Therefore, it can be concluded that 1949 was indeed her peak year but she exhibited supreme vocal capabilities from late '41 until her performances in Anna Bolena and The Dallas Medea in '58.
I see what you are saying, but that’s inflation. All of them during those days started very early in their late teens and early 20s. Perhaps that’s not as early as Callas, but Callas is an extreme case. (And in any case, singing Tosca, Santuzza, Fidelio, and Suor Angelica at 13 and 14 is just not a good idea, and she probably paid for it.) None of those singers had their early work recorded because they were not singing in big theaters yet and were still in training. That includes Callas. One should also take early reviews of her vocal capabilities as being “supreme” with a large dose of salt. The reviewers were from Greece, and writing during the war. The Italian and American scouts that heard her after the war were much more equivocal (rightly or wrongly), and she presumably would have been a more polished singer by then.
@@ER1CwC Thanks for taking the time to reply. I completely agree with you regarding the idea that it is catastrophic for a very young voice to sing dramatic roles. In the case of Callas, she started taking leading roles at the young age of 19-20, which, as you mentioned, proved to be destructive. However, I strongly believe that she had many years when her voice was in an amazing condition. Even if we disregard her Athenian years, there are still 15 years remaining. Her voice might have started deteriorating in the late 50s, but up until her performances in "La Sonnambula" and "Medea," she was almost otherworldly. ❤
@@evageloskafiris3421 I think we can't really count her Greek years as professional singing years in the eye of the public since she was pretty much still a student though she was getting paid. I do agree though that she had many great nights throughout 57 and 58 including Medea!
Yes I totally agree with you: as you know she recorded quite a number of arias in Paris in the mid 1960's in utterly superb sound quality... the French describe the sound as 'sumptious' They are the best Callas I have ever heard... I am sure you possess them already... Going forward into history, no-one, no-one will ever claim to be her equal.
@@antoineduchamp4931those French arias from the 60s are very beautifully interpreted, refined, very emotional, but her voice was in bad shape, especially climbing upwards…
Milanov said that Callas was only good from '49 to '56, which was wrong imo. It should be from '41 ('42 if you want to start from her debut in a leading role), when she finished studying with Hidalgo and acquired her technique, to '56 (maybe '53/'54?). So, a roughly 15-year long (give or take a few years) period of extremely good singing. Not bad at all. Lots of reasons that can cause the voice to decline, not just technique. Poor health, emotional issues, stress (of all of which Callas was no stranger), and so on. She did begin to spread her mouth horizontally later on, so there's that.
Love it or hate it, her opinion is spot on. Although we can argue were these "scandals" intentional or due to her insecure personality which the press took great advantage of. But I find it quite strange to attribute Callas' decline to developing a strong lower register when Milanov herself had a strong lower register. In fact all the great solid voices had a strong lower register, Ponselle, Tebaldi, and Flagstad. While those who didn't develop it had weak mid range that suffered more with time like Leontyne Price and Joan Sutherland.
I’m obviously reading into what Milanov said now, but one way of interpreting what she said is that Callas dragged the chest upwards to compensate for proper coordination in the so-called primo passaggio. Callas sounds stunning in this performance. Puritani was surely one of her best operas.
@@ER1CwC as a callas fan myself this has also been on my mind. She did stretch her chest voice higher than usual to compensate for the sometimes hollow passagio. When you compare notes that she sang with full chest voice earlier on in her career with the same notes later, you will notice that as she lost her breath support and cannot utilize chest voice that high anymore, her passagio gets more muddled and weaker.
@@-giakhanh--kayden-8337 Absolutely. In Phase 1, she would bring the chest up. It could be very thrilling, but it's dangerous, and even then one can hear that her voice would sometimes just stop resonating once she let up on the breath pressure a bit. (O madre mia from Gioconda and Pace pace from Forza come to my mind here.) In Phase 2, she could no longer the chest up, so she started doing that nasal-muddled-vowel thing more and more. But the root of the problem was imperfect coordination.
@@ER1CwC Even if we said that, do you think dragging the chest voice high was one of the reasons for her decline, or is it the lack of proper coordination to begin with? Because even verismo singers sometimes bring the chest too high for a dramatic effect, especially in Tosca and Santuzza, yet it doesn't seem to harm them. I find the "chest voice is dangerous" to be a quite weird notion that started with sopranos in America as early as Rosa Raisa, and it continous until this day. While Italian sopranos had a much more balanced voices with developed chest.
@@Khalid7a Hm I’m not a woman so unfortunately I can’t speak from personal experience, but my sense is that it is dangerous if the voice isn’t properly coordinated? It’s like how for men, if the voice is aligned, you can bring the darkness and strength of the chest through the passage without carrying up the weight. My sense is that it’s something similar for women: if the lower passaggio is coordinated, then you can bring the chest up more safely. Even so, I think there are probably limits to how often one should do it. I think young Tebaldi actually was very adept at doing it (and she did pick and choose when to do it). Bruna Castagna too. It’s too bad Lina Bruna Rasa had to stop prematurely. I would have loved to have heard whether her voice would had lasted, considering that she dragged the chest up all the way to a B in Cavalleria. EDIT: So maybe the problem with Callas was that she dragged the chest up WITHOUT proper coordination in the lower passaggio.
Milanov is right. After 1956 the Callas voice started to detoriate/change. From my point of you, the voice was not correctly trained from the start. But. She had the ability to sing every note fully. The combination of a slim body and a developing dermatomyositis, made the situation quickly worse. The register breaks became too visible too soon.
Lol.... because it ruined her voice that's why! We would have had her genius much longer if she had sung the correct fach. She was a coloratura soprano and nothing else.... these recordings show this to be true. The big repertoire with horrible wobbling and chest voice taken up way too high is not beautiful or easy to listen to.
So many pitiful people here taking offense. Zika was miraculous and a better singer technically than callas, but in terms of character and artistry Callas was very special indeed. Why must we choose? Pull it together folks and find a better way to spend your time than sounding like sad and aimless opera queens
@@aleksandarstavric2226 Callas had a much wider repertoire, of course Milanov is one of the greatest vocalists ever but she hasn't left such a mark as Callas and not even close to it but this can't take away from her remarkable greatness
Callas before 1953 had a HEAVIER and more metallic and certainly more dramatic voice than Milanov. So, she stating that she sang roles that were too heavy for her in non sense. Callas lost too much weight too soon and that was her downfall aside from many other negative lifestyle choices which include alcohol and drugs.
Forced registration, constant yelling through high notes -- as shown in the excerpts of this very video! -- and the neurological claim is a better one than this weight loss stupidity. Plus being the full and living sense of worst sense of the word "prima donna": she claimed to have high standard for singing, both in the technical aspect and musically, and, for that reason, tried to bury and ostracize Filippeschi and Arrigo Pola -- which the former she succeeded -- and, yet, in this awful display of singing by Di Stefano and others she never uttered a word backstage. Why? She did not like good male counterparts.
@@PedroZamagna Callas put Correlli on stage and taught him the role of Pollione so I don’t know what you are talking about. Also, Callas was paired with Del Monaco many many many times during her entire career. And Callas unlike Milanov could regulate the volume of her super higher notes…successfully delivering: pianissimo, piano, mezzo forte and fortissimo especially in roles like Trovatore and ALL of her Bellini roles. Milanov technically speaking was an amateur in comparison to Callas.
@@beachfanatic2010 Keep repeating the mantra with your group, it doesn't change that almost, if not all, all her high notes she sang in these "prime" clips are yells, and, even in these "prime" recordings, her middle register shows a lack of proper "scuro" and clarity due to her forced registration. Del Monaco and Corelli were partially hams as she was, so, similars attract. Even then, she did throw some fits on both of them.
@@PedroZamagna Have this queen!!! Vocalizations and technique Zinka could not deliver even in her most successful night: ua-cam.com/video/IK-1wQoC-jk/v-deo.html
I am always excited when I listen to the “good” recordings of callas. She gave her all. But…I could always hear that vocal problems would develop because signs were always there to any knowledgeable listener. Definitely one of the greats but not THE greatest.
Milanov's all-consuming jealousy is absolutely obvious. The bitterness of a second-rate artist against an artist who outshines them all. It's human, but not a nice character trait.
The first line Di Stefano sang was completely and fully mouthed, the rest was tolerable; though, it was still a bad display by both, with a good amount of screaming. I would exhort the owner of the channel to keep on the great work as it relates to Milanov and Slavic singers and leave the Callas blind adoration for the UA-cam kids under delusional anonymous pseudonyms.
It is your blind hatred for Kallas that robs you of the remnants of reason and understanding. But if this is your only way to express yourself, let the child have fun.
I admire both Callas and Milanov, Those who oppose Milanov should know that she was admired by a lot of great singers and Conductors, For instance, Rosa Ponselle, Astrid Varnay, Renata Tebaldi, Franco Corelli, Maria Callas, Magda Olivero and Maestro Toscanni so forth and so on . All of them praised Milanov for her singing. Back than when opera was still alive, She was considered as one of the greatest singers who are in the same level with Callas. I suggest her Marvelous Rigoletto recording with Maestro Toscanini and you'll know why Toscanini said that he would choose Milanov as Gilda If he could conduct Rigoletto.
I love Callas, but also admire other sopranos of that time period. I have recordings of many of them. One can have a favorite without hating on the others. And Callas’ VOCAL prime was indeed between 1949 to 1956. In 1957 one could hear the beginning of the problems with her top notes that would only worsen over the years. Except for those very high notes, however, the rest of her range remained intact and her artistry never wavered.
Say Milanov is right, and it was 6 or 7 years of glory. In that miniscule time, every role she sang became the idiomatic standard by which all those roles are held. That is not counting a burgeoning and spectacular Wagner carreer and the roles she sang for, which there is no sound documents.
Take that Zinka.
To Zinka's fans aka Callas haters. Go tomorrow on the streets and say "Zinka Milanov". How many will say "I heard of her"??? Then try with Callas' name and let us know!
Stupid comment. Zinka was great for 30 years. Callas, maybe 7. Why hate Zinka?
ua-cam.com/video/X-SguPkEDwE/v-deo.htmlsi=RL9aWbel2o5zkBrL
Grazie Equinox. La Milano mi sembra eccessivamente severa con Maria. Invidia?
Please provide a translation
Turn on subtitles to get the translation.
I can't get sound
The notion that Callas only had around six good years with her voice is actually absurd. When she performed I Puritani in 1949 at Venice, she already had nine years of experience and had given more than 56 performances in operatic roles such as Tosca, Beatrice in Boccaccio, Marta in Tiefland, Fidelio, and Santuzza in Cavalleria rusticana. Regarding her portrayal of Marta, a critic said, 'The singer who took the part of Marta, that new star in the Greek firmament, displayed matchless depth of feeling and gave a theatrical interpretation that met the standards of a tragic actress.' Regarding her exceptional voice and its astonishing natural fluency, I do not wish to add anything more to the words of Alexandra Lalaouni: 'Kalogeropoulou is one of those God-given talents that one can only marvel at.' Therefore, it can be concluded that 1949 was indeed her peak year but she exhibited supreme vocal capabilities from late '41 until her performances in Anna Bolena and The Dallas Medea in '58.
I see what you are saying, but that’s inflation. All of them during those days started very early in their late teens and early 20s. Perhaps that’s not as early as Callas, but Callas is an extreme case. (And in any case, singing Tosca, Santuzza, Fidelio, and Suor Angelica at 13 and 14 is just not a good idea, and she probably paid for it.) None of those singers had their early work recorded because they were not singing in big theaters yet and were still in training. That includes Callas. One should also take early reviews of her vocal capabilities as being “supreme” with a large dose of salt. The reviewers were from Greece, and writing during the war. The Italian and American scouts that heard her after the war were much more equivocal (rightly or wrongly), and she presumably would have been a more polished singer by then.
@@ER1CwC Thanks for taking the time to reply. I completely agree with you regarding the idea that it is catastrophic for a very young voice to sing dramatic roles. In the case of Callas, she started taking leading roles at the young age of 19-20, which, as you mentioned, proved to be destructive. However, I strongly believe that she had many years when her voice was in an amazing condition. Even if we disregard her Athenian years, there are still 15 years remaining. Her voice might have started deteriorating in the late 50s, but up until her performances in "La Sonnambula" and "Medea," she was almost otherworldly. ❤
@@evageloskafiris3421 I think we can't really count her Greek years as professional singing years in the eye of the public since she was pretty much still a student though she was getting paid. I do agree though that she had many great nights throughout 57 and 58 including Medea!
Yes I totally agree with you: as you know she recorded quite a number of arias in Paris in the mid 1960's in utterly superb sound quality... the French describe the sound as 'sumptious' They are the best Callas I have ever heard... I am sure you possess them already... Going forward into history, no-one, no-one will ever claim to be her equal.
@@antoineduchamp4931those French arias from the 60s are very beautifully interpreted, refined, very emotional, but her voice was in bad shape, especially climbing upwards…
There is no sound on the first part of the video hope you to fix it...
Ca not hear word Milanov says. Is it just me?
Hey Zinca just listen to the Armida . Callas wasn't just spectacular in the extreme she inspired all 6 of her tenors to outperform themselves...
Milanov said that Callas was only good from '49 to '56, which was wrong imo. It should be from '41 ('42 if you want to start from her debut in a leading role), when she finished studying with Hidalgo and acquired her technique, to '56 (maybe '53/'54?). So, a roughly 15-year long (give or take a few years) period of extremely good singing. Not bad at all.
Lots of reasons that can cause the voice to decline, not just technique. Poor health, emotional issues, stress (of all of which Callas was no stranger), and so on. She did begin to spread her mouth horizontally later on, so there's that.
Not good either.
Love it or hate it, her opinion is spot on. Although we can argue were these "scandals" intentional or due to her insecure personality which the press took great advantage of. But I find it quite strange to attribute Callas' decline to developing a strong lower register when Milanov herself had a strong lower register. In fact all the great solid voices had a strong lower register, Ponselle, Tebaldi, and Flagstad. While those who didn't develop it had weak mid range that suffered more with time like Leontyne Price and Joan Sutherland.
I’m obviously reading into what Milanov said now, but one way of interpreting what she said is that Callas dragged the chest upwards to compensate for proper coordination in the so-called primo passaggio.
Callas sounds stunning in this performance. Puritani was surely one of her best operas.
@@ER1CwC as a callas fan myself this has also been on my mind. She did stretch her chest voice higher than usual to compensate for the sometimes hollow passagio. When you compare notes that she sang with full chest voice earlier on in her career with the same notes later, you will notice that as she lost her breath support and cannot utilize chest voice that high anymore, her passagio gets more muddled and weaker.
@@-giakhanh--kayden-8337 Absolutely. In Phase 1, she would bring the chest up. It could be very thrilling, but it's dangerous, and even then one can hear that her voice would sometimes just stop resonating once she let up on the breath pressure a bit. (O madre mia from Gioconda and Pace pace from Forza come to my mind here.) In Phase 2, she could no longer the chest up, so she started doing that nasal-muddled-vowel thing more and more. But the root of the problem was imperfect coordination.
@@ER1CwC Even if we said that, do you think dragging the chest voice high was one of the reasons for her decline, or is it the lack of proper coordination to begin with? Because even verismo singers sometimes bring the chest too high for a dramatic effect, especially in Tosca and Santuzza, yet it doesn't seem to harm them. I find the "chest voice is dangerous" to be a quite weird notion that started with sopranos in America as early as Rosa Raisa, and it continous until this day. While Italian sopranos had a much more balanced voices with developed chest.
@@Khalid7a Hm I’m not a woman so unfortunately I can’t speak from personal experience, but my sense is that it is dangerous if the voice isn’t properly coordinated? It’s like how for men, if the voice is aligned, you can bring the darkness and strength of the chest through the passage without carrying up the weight. My sense is that it’s something similar for women: if the lower passaggio is coordinated, then you can bring the chest up more safely. Even so, I think there are probably limits to how often one should do it. I think young Tebaldi actually was very adept at doing it (and she did pick and choose when to do it). Bruna Castagna too. It’s too bad Lina Bruna Rasa had to stop prematurely. I would have loved to have heard whether her voice would had lasted, considering that she dragged the chest up all the way to a B in Cavalleria.
EDIT: So maybe the problem with Callas was that she dragged the chest up WITHOUT proper coordination in the lower passaggio.
Milanov and Tebaldi sang. Callas Taught.
Milanov is right. After 1956 the Callas voice started to detoriate/change. From my point of you, the voice was not correctly trained from the start. But. She had the ability to sing every note fully. The combination of a slim body and a developing dermatomyositis, made the situation quickly worse. The register breaks became too visible too soon.
Her "Sonnambula" in 1957 are supreme ( with the famous Eflat diminuendo).
@@brunopicaude3092 her 1955 sonnambula is much better though
Even when the voice of la divina was in decline after 1956 she was still so much better than the rest!
A limited view from a limited singer
As the old adage goes: "you can't know what you don't know" and she only knew what SHE knew .
The bold True, she has missed exceptional essence of Callas, and that dose not give her, as to musician, any credit🙃.
The thing is, Callas could sing any soprano role. Why limit her to just coloratora?
Lol.... because it ruined her voice that's why! We would have had her genius much longer if she had sung the correct fach. She was a coloratura soprano and nothing else.... these recordings show this to be true. The big repertoire with horrible wobbling and chest voice taken up way too high is not beautiful or easy to listen to.
So many pitiful people here taking offense. Zika was miraculous and a better singer technically than callas, but in terms of character and artistry Callas was very special indeed. Why must we choose? Pull it together folks and find a better way to spend your time than sounding like sad and aimless opera queens
if LA DIVINA had sung only one week it would have been much more important than miss zinka´s 180 years of "ok "singing
period
"more important" only for ignorant callas fans
@@aleksandarstavric2226 Callas had a much wider repertoire, of course Milanov is one of the greatest vocalists ever but she hasn't left such a mark as Callas and not even close to it but this can't take away from her remarkable greatness
YES!!!!
Callas before 1953 had a HEAVIER and more metallic and certainly more dramatic voice than Milanov. So, she stating that she sang roles that were too heavy for her in non sense. Callas lost too much weight too soon and that was her downfall aside from many other negative lifestyle choices which include alcohol and drugs.
Forced registration, constant yelling through high notes -- as shown in the excerpts of this very video! -- and the neurological claim is a better one than this weight loss stupidity.
Plus being the full and living sense of worst sense of the word "prima donna": she claimed to have high standard for singing, both in the technical aspect and musically, and, for that reason, tried to bury and ostracize Filippeschi and Arrigo Pola -- which the former she succeeded -- and, yet, in this awful display of singing by Di Stefano and others she never uttered a word backstage.
Why? She did not like good male counterparts.
@@PedroZamagna Callas put Correlli on stage and taught him the role of Pollione so I don’t know what you are talking about. Also, Callas was paired with Del Monaco many many many times during her entire career. And Callas unlike Milanov could regulate the volume of her super higher notes…successfully delivering: pianissimo, piano, mezzo forte and fortissimo especially in roles like Trovatore and ALL of her Bellini roles. Milanov technically speaking was an amateur in comparison to Callas.
@@beachfanatic2010 Keep repeating the mantra with your group, it doesn't change that almost, if not all, all her high notes she sang in these "prime" clips are yells, and, even in these "prime" recordings, her middle register shows a lack of proper "scuro" and clarity due to her forced registration.
Del Monaco and Corelli were partially hams as she was, so, similars attract.
Even then, she did throw some fits on both of them.
@@PedroZamagna m.ua-cam.com/video/JshHrzYJYqo/v-deo.html&pp=ygURQ2FsbGFzIGhpZ2ggbm90ZXM%3D
@@PedroZamagna Have this queen!!! Vocalizations and technique Zinka could not deliver even in her most successful night: ua-cam.com/video/IK-1wQoC-jk/v-deo.html
I am always excited when I listen to the “good” recordings of callas. She gave her all. But…I could always hear that vocal problems would develop because signs were always there to any knowledgeable listener. Definitely one of the greats but not THE greatest.
THE greatest.
Milanov's all-consuming jealousy is absolutely obvious. The bitterness of a second-rate artist against an artist who outshines them all. It's human, but not a nice character trait.
The first line Di Stefano sang was completely and fully mouthed, the rest was tolerable; though, it was still a bad display by both, with a good amount of screaming.
I would exhort the owner of the channel to keep on the great work as it relates to Milanov and Slavic singers and leave the Callas blind adoration for the UA-cam kids under delusional anonymous pseudonyms.
Well, from the video above, we can see that not even Milanov agrees with you.
It is your blind hatred for Kallas that robs you of the remnants of reason and understanding. But if this is your only way to express yourself, let the child have fun.
Here comes another opera Judge ! You who are you again ?
A high school music teacher ?
Why don’t you get to the level of Callas and then judge her
To bad Zinka was such a bitter person
Milanov was a second rate singer... Who to her credit worked on her voice .. and got better. She sure as hell wasn't Callas