What Opera Are You Listening to Now?

[Tsaraslondon]

Neblett is disappointlingly under-represented in the catalogue but the 3 main recordings I have with her are all absolutely wonderful;



[not my favourite Boheme by any means but I do like Neblett's Musetta]

I have the Korngold, but not the Bohème. I don't think she made any other operatic recordings, but for a few years at least she was the Minnie of choice, not surprisingly as not only did she sing it so well, but she looked the part to the life.

She started to have vocal problems in the late 1980s, which could be the reason she made so few recordings.

[JBS]

Another entry from Warner's Barbirolli Complete Recordings set


This is a new [2020] remastering.
One superficial comment (I'm only mid Act I atm): sound effects are more readily used here. So we hear lightning at the start of the opera, clashing swords and alarm bells during the fight, etc.

[André]

Another entry from Warner's Barbirolli Complete Recordings set


This is a new [2020] remastering
One superficial comment (I'm only mid Act I atm): sound effects are more readily used here. So we hear lightning at the start of the opera, clashing swords and alarm bells during the fight, etc.

Do you have the actual CD release details Jeffrey ? I've long wanted to hear it. What better pretext than a brand new remastering ? 

[JBS]

Do you have the actual CD release details Jeffrey ? I've long wanted to hear it. What better pretext than a brand new remastering ? 

As a physical CD it seems to be available only as part of the big box.
Amazon US shows this DL version that's probably the new remastering.

But Presto doesn't seem to have it.

I think it's a good performance, so even the older CD issue (2005, I think) is probably worth your while.

[TheGSMoeller]

Haven't listened to much Donzietti before this new double album, but I'm really enjoying it and Sondra Radvanovsky's singing is extraordinary.

[André]

As a physical CD it seems to be available only as part of the big box.
Amazon US shows this DL version that's probably the new remastering.

But Presto doesn't seem to have it.

I think it's a good performance, so even the older CD issue (2005, I think) is probably worth your while.

Duly noted. Thanks !

[Tsaraslondon]

I've spent the last couple of days listening to my recordings of Madama Butterfly. The De Los Angeles/Gavazzeni and Scotto/Barbirolli versions both have a great deal going for them and I like them very much, but the Callas/Karajan is something else entirely; so harrowing, so palpably real that listening to it is actually quite devastating. I'm still reeling from its impact and trying to work out what it is that makse this recording so different from every other Butterfly I've heard. It's not just Callas, though obviously she has a lot to do with it, but how each individual component comes together to create one of the most unified performances of an opera I've ever heard. Incredible to think that Callas had yet to sing the role on stage, and when she did later in 1955, for three performances in Chicago, those were the only performances she ever sang.

This is not one of those performances you can dip into, or listen to with only half an ear. To appreciate all its many revelations from both singers and Karajan, you really need to listen to it with your full attention, preferably with libretto or score in hand.

[Tsaraslondon]

As a complete contrast to yesterday's harrowing Madama Butterfly, I'm comparing two recordings of his short comic opera Gianni Schicchi, both of which feature Tito Gobbi in the title role, though almost twenty years separates them. Both recordings are stereo, but I actually prefer the balance on the earlier one, which puts the voices more in the foreground. I also prefer Santini's unfussy conducting, which draws less attention to itself than Maazel's.

I marginally prefer Santini's supporting cast too. Both have a group of seasoned comprimarii playing the relatives and there is little to choose between them, but I did find the cast in the earlier recording that bit more caharcterful. Ileana Cotrubas on the Maazel is a charming Lauretta, but she is up against the adorable Victoria De Los Angeles, singing a role that could almost have been written for her. Domingo lightens his voice surprisingly well for Rinuccio, but this budding Otello is not reallt the right voice and Carlo Del Monte is more convincing. When it comes to Gobbi, he is remarkably consistent and is brilliant on both recordings. I really find it impossible to decide which Gobbi I prefer, but he is better represented by the earlier performance. Both are very enjoyable.

[Tsaraslondon]

If I'm honest I prefer Massenet's opera, as I think he comes closer to catching the true spirit of L'Abbé Prévost's novel. The Puccini has its problems and its final act can be anticlimactic, after the tension of Act III, though not in this performance, where Callas is at her finest. Her portrayal of the character is absolutely brilliant but it has to be admitted that she has a few uncomfortable moments vocally in the earlier acts. The set waited for three years to be released, so she and Legge must also have had their doubts.

Di Stefano is, well, his usual self, the top of the voice disturbingly tight at times, free and oper at others. However he is a fine Des Grieux, capturing both his youthful ardour and high spirits in the first act and his unhinged desperation in the third. Fioravanti is an excellent Lescaut and we even get Fiorenza Cossotto as the Ballad Singer. Serafin paces the score brilliantly. What a superb conductor he was and how often we take him for granted.

Manon is silly, flighty and undone by her love of luxury, but we should also remember she is a victim. The circumstances of her demise are not so very far from events in our own time. Just think of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, thigh I'm not casting Prince Andrew in the role of Des Grieux! 

[André]

Replaying Sternefeld's only opera, Mater dolorosa. Here's what I wrote 2 years ago :

Sternefeld (1905-1986) was an important musical figure in his country, holding academic and conducting positions (Antwerp, Brussels) as well as being a renowned composer. Booklet notes mention Mahler and Strauss as influences, but I think his music is much closer to that of Schoeck and Schreker. The plot is loosely based on an Andersen story, but it is heavily laced with symbolism à la Maeterlinck. Scenically it must be quite static, as it consists of a series of dialogs between the Mother and other characters (Death, Night, Water Nymphs). The music is powerfully evocative and magnificently orchestrated. Recommended.

I can only add that the production from the Antwerp forces (Royal Flanders Philharmonic, Chorus and excellent soloists) is all one could ask for.

[vandermolen]

Replaying Sternefeld's only opera, Mater dolorosa. Here's what I wrote 2 years ago :




I can only add that the production from the Antwerp forces (Royal Flanders Philharmonic, Chorus and excellent soloists) is all one could ask for.

Right! I must listen to it. I have the CD.

[Tsaraslondon]

There had been two pretty good recordings of this once not very popular opera, before this one was made, but this set, which received a plethora of awards and paved the way for several stage productions with its two stars in the leading roles, is a very classy affair. One of its principal assets is the fabulous playing of the LSO under Antonio Pappano and the two leads, then in the middle of their joint fame, give superb performances, more involved I think than Te Kanawa and Domingo and more sheerly beautiful than Moffo and Barioni. I'm not so fond of Inva Mula and William Mateuzzi in the secondary roles, but they don't mar my enjoyment of the set.

The sound is superb, and we get some nice bonuses too in the shape of some excerpts from Le Villi and Alagna singing Puccini's song Morire?. A great recording.

[Tsaraslondon]

Continuing my Puccini listening with three very fine recordings of Suor Angelica, not really a favourite of mine as I can find its sentimental reliigiosity just a bit too cloying.

The De Los Angeles and Ricciarelli are both, I suppose, more conventional renditions. They take the opera at face value and both sopranos are wonderfully sympathetic Angelicas. De Los Angeles' warmth and musical senistivity comes through in every bar, and though there may be a flicker of strain noticeable in the very highest passages she is still fully in command of the role. She is helped of course by Serafin and Barbieri makes a formidable Principessa.

This is early for Ricciarelli and the beauty of her youthful voice is well caught. She too sings a sympathetic Angelica, not quite so individual as De Los Angeles perhaps, but well inside the role and she floats some wonderful top notes. Cossotto is also a superb Principessa and it would be hard to choose between her and Barbieri.

However, of these three recordings, the Scotto seems to me on an altogether different level. For a start the sound is much better than the mono De Los Angeles and the slightly muddy Ricciarelli, and Maazel shapes the score with a real feel for the drama. It also scores for having Ileana Cotrubas singing the minor role of Sister Genovieva. Surprisingly perhaps considering her usual repertoire, Horne takes the palm as the Prinicpessa; imperious, cold and implacably hard. Her very restraint is what makes her even more formidable than her rivals.

As for Scotto, I think this might be the best thing she ever did for the gramophone. Every note, every line is alive with meaning. Her Angelica is slightly hysterical from the outset. You feel that this Angelica doesn't fit in the sexually repressed atmosphere of a closed nunnery. More than once I was reminded of the pervadingly claustrophobic mood of Powell and Pressburger's superb film Black Narcissus. For once I was more involved in the naively religious "vision" at the end. In this version it seems to me less of a vision and more like the drug-fueled hallucinations of a hysterical and repressed young woman. Whatever your feelings, there is no doubt that Scotto's intensity and blazing commitment carry you through. Vocally she has some uncomfortable moments up on high, but I hardly noticed them, so thoroughly caught up was I by the performance.

All three recordings have a lot to commend them, but the Maazel is the most dramatic. Those for whom vocal beauty is paramount will no doubt prefer De Los Angeles or Ricciarelli, both of whom are also very affecting.

[Tsaraslondon]

The first part of Puccini's Il Trittico, though I didn't listen to them in order this time, taking each opera and recording on its own merits.

Swings and roundabouts here. The Maazel has much better sound, wonderfully atmospheric in the opening scene setting. He also has two much starrier leads in the shape of Scotto and Domingo. Scotto, intelligent artis that she is, creates a completely different character from her Angelica, but she is a bit strained in the upper reaches and her top notes don't fall particularly easily on the ear. Domingo makes a more pleasing sound than Prandelli on the Bellezza but you could argue that they both sound a bit too classy for these essentially low class folks. You could say the same about Wixell, but in any case he makes much less of an impression on Gobbi, who dominates the Bellezza.

On that recording the two lovers are played by the much less starry Margaret Mas and Giacinto Prandelli. Mas was a French soprano, who appears to have made no other recordings. She was active in France and Italy in the 1950s and sang in the La Scala premiere of Les Dialogues des Carmélites. Prandelli is slightly better known on record and is the Rodolfo to Tebaldi's first Mimi on disc. They neither have particularly glamorous voices, but they do sound apt for their characters and Mas's top notes are a good deal more secure than Scotto's. However what raises the Bellezza above the Maazel is the extrordinary and terrifying Michele of Tito Gobbi. This is a performance to set beside his Scarpia, the plebeian cousin, if you like, to his more aristocratic Roman baron. Utterly convincing, Gobbi makes one feel Michele's despair, his hopeless love for his wife and the pain that drives him to commit his final horrific act. One listens to the performance with a mixture of revulsion and pity.

Both performances are worth hearing, but it is Gobbi who stays in the memory.

[Tsaraslondon]

I'm still working my way through my Puccini collection and have listened to three Callas recordings over the last few days,







The 1953 studio recording, justly regarded one of the greatest opera recordings ever made is of course self recommending. De Sabata's conducting puts it in a class quite above and apart from the other two, but what of Callas and Gobbi, who are common to all three?

Both are in superb voice in 1953 and, vocally, could hardly be bettered, but they had yet to sing their roles together on stage and the two later performances are the result of intensive rehearsal prior to the London prima of the Zeffirelli production at Covent Garden in 1964. Gobbi's voice has thinned out a bit, but he still has enormous authority. If there is a better Scarpia on record, I have yet to hear him. As for Callas, the voice is considerably trimmed down and some of he top notes little better than shrieks, but ... well I find her Tosca even more convincing in these two recordings, utterly feminine, her volatility somehow even more loveable. The 1965 studio recording enjoys better (indeed very good) sound, but ultimately I'd prefer the immediacy of the live performance, which is, in any case, the best sound on any of Callas's live performances. You can almost feel the excitement in the house as the first chords start. I can only imagine what it must have been like to have been in the audience. There is no argument that the voice is in much better shape in 1953, but in these later performances, she reveals a myriad of detail maybe not available to her before she had appeared in the Zeffirelli production.

Inevitably, with Callas and Gobbi as Tosca and Scarpia, Cavaradossi is less of a deciding factor. Di Stefano is my favourite, in superb voice in 1953, ardent and passionate, turning the love duets into the erotic things they should be. Bergonzi comes next, his singing perhaps more beautiful and refined, but Cioni isn't totally out of the picture either.

Anyone wanting a single representation of Callas's Tosca will no doubt be happy with the 1953 recording, but I wouldn't want to be without any of them.

[Tsaraslondon]

She's the only person I know of that you can hear smile: as she sings 'Cosi' at the end of the last act (in the de Sabata recording, at least), as they cheerfully part, off to the 'fake' execution. An extraordinary performance. I have the famous video of the last act with her and Gobbi, too: when she stabs him, my mouth is always dropped open, for she is utterly terrifying. As she yells 'Muori!' at him several times, you know she actually wants him dead! It's chilling to watch.

That second act video is everything opera should be, but rarely is. But why of why did they not film the whole thing? What an opportunity missed, but I suppose we should be grateful for what we have.

[Tsaraslondon]

+1, multiple times.
There's a reason she and her autograph are front and centre on my study's wall, wedged between Gladstone and Richard Nixon (apologies!)
I hasten to add, I wasn't there in 1958 and I didn't obtain the signature personally!!

You're exonerated with those of Britten and Pears.

[Mirror Image]

+1, multiple times.
There's a reason she and her autograph are front and centre on my study's wall, wedged between Gladstone and Richard Nixon (apologies!)
I hasten to add, I wasn't there in 1958 and I didn't obtain the signature personally!!

Well...someone is the Britten fan, aren't they? No worries. I love this composer's music, too.

[Mirror Image]

Definitely my number 1, since first singing Rejoice in the Lamb at school
Once Peter Pears told me, "If you really love his music, make sure you let people know about it", I'm afraid I've been a bit a bore about it ever since!

Well, there's definitely nothing wrong with that and Pears was right of course. What work would you say encapsulates Britten more than any other?

[Tsaraslondon]

I've been working my way through my Puccini recordings and have now come to Turandot.





For some people Turandot is Nilsson, but recent competitions featuring the voices of previous generations have shown us there are other ways of singing the role, and not much liking the sound of Nilsson's voice (in anything) I do not have one of her recordings in my collection.

The Mehta is justly famous and is no doubt a first choice for many. Sutherland's diction, though not perfect, is a lot better than it usually is and she has the necessary ease and power at the top of her register. Her softer grained voice has a much more alluring presence than Nilsson's too. We also have Pavarotti in one of his best roles and Caballé singing divinely as Liu. The sound is superb analogue stereo and is is beautifully conducted by Mehta. This is certainly a very beautiful Turandot.

However, listening to it and the Serafin back to back, I found the Serafin a much more thrillingly dramatic experience, and, if it had been recorded in stereo, I think maybe this set would be more highly regarded than it is. Chief among its virtues is the conducting of Serafin himself, who conducts with an urgency that has you on the edge of your seat at key moments. I just wish Legge had capitulated to stereo earlier. If only this recording had been accorded the much better stereo sound of Callas's La Scala sets of La Gioconda and Norma, but, although he had recorded Callas in stereo earlier that year in London for Il Barbiere di Siviglia, the Italian recordings were still recorded in mono only.

The cast has had its detractors too (Callas captured too late, Schwarzkopf out of her element and Fernandi a non-entity) but I'm not sure those criticisms hold water. Fernandi isn't bad at all actually. OK, maybe he's no Corelli, but he is no mere cipher and he often phrases his music with distinction. Scwharzkopf may not be an Italianate Liu but she belongs to a long tradition of German lyric sopranos who have sung the role. It is a performance of veiled sighs and tears and I actually prefer her to Caballé on the Mehta, who admittedly sings divinely, but, if Schwarzkopf sounds too much the Princess Werdenberg, then Caballé is too much the grande dame. I don't really believe in her Liu, however beautifuly she sings. I also prefer Zaccaria's Timur to Ghiaurov's.

As for Callas, it is true that she had no business singing Turandot at this stage of her career, but in the studio she manages the role better than you might have expected. Indeed we've heard the role sung by much more wobbly sopranos with much wider vibratos since, and Callas is a good deal more interesting than any other Turandot I've heard. She turns In questa reggia into a mini psychodrama in which she reveals not only the ice, but the fire burning beneath. This Turandot is not just a mythical creature with splendid top notes, she is a real person. We understand that it is Turandot's insecurity and fear that make her so cruel. We also understand why so many princes could have fallen under her spell. She makes more of the anti-climactic closing scene than anyone else too. Yes there are moments of shrillness and insecurity at the very top of her register but, oddly enough, she is in more control of those top notes here than she is on the Manon Lescuat, which followed, and on which she sometimes sounds too exhausted to be able to support the voice. In short, she is in better voice here than she is usually given credit for.

The opera cries out for better sound and I feel that, if it were even as good as the 1959 La Gioconda, it would be a far stronger contender. As it is, on this occasion, I found it a far more involving and engrosiing experience than the beautiful Mehta set.