Customer Reviews

Donizetti: Lucia Di Lammermoor with Maria Callas, Ferruccio Tagliavini, Tullio Serafin, Philharmonia Orchestra & Chorus

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

How different two separate interpretations can be! Joan Sutherland (who I heard sing this role at the Met) was a very lyrical Lucia. In the mad scene she was sweet and pathetic as she lost contact with reality. Callas, on the other hand showed a dark side. She truly was insane .. she was scary .. she was great but in such a different way than Sutherland. Where Sutherland did coloratura trills, Callas did dramatic shrieks. Sutherland was riveting by the sheer beauty of her voice. Callas was riveting by the intensity and theatrics of her voice. Sutherland serenely crosses the line into unreality, Callas wildly goes stark raving mad. They were both fantastic in entirely different ways and this recording is a fine example of Callas in this great role.

This EMI recording was done in 1959, a time when Callas' days as Lucia were numbered. In fact, her final performances of this role came only a matter of months after the completion of this recording. She is by no means as in secure voice as she was in her previous EMI "Lucia" recordings. Embellishments and cadenzas in the Mad Scene are kept to a bare minimum, due in great part to the fact that Callas's extreme top notes are precarious and not at all attractive. But this is still a great Lucia, and there are some great moments. The Fountain aria in Act I is still effective in it's brooding and foreboding way, and the Mad Scene (even with abbreviated cadenzas and strident top E flats) is a panorama of vocal colorings and shadings. Still a very powerful piece of singing, from beginning to end.Callas's tenor partner here, Ferrucio Tagliavini, was somewhat past his best singing days at the time of this recording, does his best singing in the Tomb Scene, while Piero Cappuccilli, then at the beginning of his career, sings a really fine Enrico. Serafin's pacing is appropriately dramatic and tense, and the sound of the 1959 stereo stands up well. But no matter. This is a Callas performance, and is in many ways truly representative of her genius, even at a time when her voice was giving her the problems that resulted in her tragic and premature withdrawal from the opera stage in 1965.

I read several reviews that refer to this as the 1953 recording with di Stefano, Gobbi et al. It is NOT! It is her last recording of Lucia, and made when she was already past her prime, in 1959. As mentioned in some of the reviews her 1955 live recording with Karajan is her best, followed by her 1953 recording. It would be unfair to compare her singing at this stage (or even when she's at her best!) with Sutherland as the latter is primarily a coloratura whereas Callas is a dramatic soprano. To compare them is to entirely miss the point and is entirely dependent on our expectations of the music and the singing vs acting. In spite of her flaws I prefer Callas to Sutherland, even in 1959 when her high notes aren't what they should be, because her singing/acting moves me. But if you prefer flawless, serenely, heavenly singing, go for Sutherland. I will refrain from using the word 'canary-like'.

Callas' voice sounds so soft and truly pretty here. It seems that I like her late recordings better, hee hee. But the cast around her is great, Callas sings well and the conducting is good too. I reccommend this!

This Lucia presents Callas' last thoughts on the character plus it features her as more fragile, innocent and beautiful. The only problem are the top-notes which have become thin and unstable. But what are a few topnotes if the rest is so sublime?

Callas is the only singer I know who has a different sound for each role she sings... The interpretation is at its blazing best! She's NOT a canary but a human being and that is required to make great art! SUPERBLY DONE!

I find nothing bad in this Lucia. It's deep, full of emotions and beautiful. I'm glad I bought it, I'll try Callas' other Lucias too. Just my two cents.

Sometimes I wonder at those who listen to Lucia di Lammermoor merely to collect vocal tricks, gimmicks and use- as well as senseless fireworks. I hear Sills and repeat a critic: "Full of notes, empty of sense!". Sutherland's matronly sound never quite fit this delirious maiden either. Callas' voice in 1959 was fragile, yet surprisingly accurate and brilliant. However stupid must one be not to notice it? When has the phrase "Alfin son tua, alfin sei mio!" been sung with such meaning and longing, a moment all other Lucias wreck with their tweeting? And actually I find more beauties here than in all other Lucias. Her voice has an airy, soft quality here, reducing all other Lucias to lifeless, bloodless unfeeling robots in my opinion. This is a REVELATION by a genius, an artist who knew better than tweeting. And her trills? Pitch-perfect! Get yourself a pitch-pipe and try! And the cadenza? Beautifully done! I also love young Cappuccilli as Enrico, what an amazing voice! Serafin is, well, Serafin. The greatest Belcanto conductor, reducing all others to pupils. Do yourself a favour and buy this Lucia, for Callas, Serafin, the amazing sound and the TRUEST meaning of Lucia. We are indebted to La Divina who gave us everything she had! Long may she reign!

I have played this recording three times since I got it two days ago and I am absolutely thrilled with it. I have had the 1953 mono Callas Lucia for a few years now plus I have a couple live Callas Lucias. This one is wonderful for the great sound, plus Callas' co-workers on this recording are the best bunch.

I do really enjoy di Stefano on the 1953 set, but Tagliavini is just as great of a singer in my opinion - the voice is sweet enough, the focus is tight and the high notes are thrilling. He seems to hold back a little in the first act, possibly to let Callas shine, but in the sextet and the last act, he is dripping with enthusiasm and pathos.

Capuccilli is a better sounding Enrico - Gobbi sounds ugly and wooden in the older recording. Either the Bel Canto demands or perhaps the mono recording emphasize the negative aspects of Gobbi's voice in the older recording. Capuccilli has a pleasant, but still somewhat sinister sound.

The bass - Bernard Ladysz had an unusually beautiful voice and is one more lovely aspect to sweeten this already terrific recording.

Callas herself, sounds more appropriate to the role in this recording. Her voice is much less dark and more frail - not frail compared to other sopranos but compared to her earlier voice, she sounds lighter and more agile. Her coloratura is a bit more accurate in this recording. I love it. Don't be put off by it being a somewhat 'late' recording of Callas. She made the most of the studio setting and brought astounding drama to her studio recordings, plus, even when her voice was giving her some trouble, she was able to command it well in the studio setting. This is a wonderful Lucia. I am sorry I did not buy it earlier, however, I would not consider parting with the old mono. They are both an indispensable part of a Callas lover's collection, but generally, this is the one I play.

I've always had a soft spot for this recording as it was the first (along with the 1957 "Il Barbiere di Siviglia") Callas opera sets that I acquired. My original lp's are now more than 20 years old and I still love this recording. True, Lucia is one of Callas' most controversial roles but also one that she helped to restore to its proper place as a work of true musical drama by showing that it was far more than just a piece for coloratura fireworks.

From 1959 onward, Callas began to remake a number of her key roles in stereo for Angel/EMI, this Lucia being the first of those remakes ("La Gioconda", "Norma" and "Tosca" would follow.) Like the other remakes (with the possible excetion of the 1964 "Tosca"), the earlier mono versions that Callas recorded need to be heard in conjuntion with the stereo remakes. In each of the earlier versions, Callas is more secure of voice though interpretively she is finer in the remakes.

That being said, there are a number of things I should mention where this recording is concerned. Firstly, I find the leading man to be a big letdown in this recording. Although Tagliavini was a great lyric tenor in his day and had partnered Callas in stage performances of this opera earlier in the decade, by 1959 he was past his prime and at times sounds grumpy. His high notes sound dry and forced which doesn't help Callas who was not vocally at her very best in this recording. I can't help but think how much better this set would have been if Callas had been partnered by Bergonzi, young, ardent and dashing as Edgardo. Bergonzi had performed the role opposite Callas 2 years previously and would have made a perfect partner for the diva. Imagine the young, impetuous Bergonzi opposite the Callas Lucia on the edge of madness from her very first appearance. Secondly, the inclusion of a young Cappucilli at the very outset of his career is a bonus as a suave Enrico. Thirdly, Serafin is his usual splendid self and draws a stunning performance from the Philharmonia. Finally, the stereo sound from 1959 is fine and atmospheric, worthy of capturing Callas in her final thoughts on one of her greatest roles.

And Callas? I unashamedly admit that I love just about everything the diva recorded and this set is no exception. It's true that the top notes are not what they once were and there are a few wobbles that even I can't countenance (the worst one for me is in the reprise of "Quando rapito in estasi.") While it is true that her voice is not as full as in her earlier recordings I find that the fragile quality of her singing here works well in interpreting Lucia who is in a fragile mental and emotional state from the moment she appears. I also love the vocal colours that Callas brings to the role especially in the mad scene where she presents a dazed heroine in a world of her own where spectres alternate with loving memories of the past. In all it's a wonderful assumption of a great role. I also find that the 1959 interpretation is deeper than in the 1953 recording which I find more straightforward. But I love the 1953 for the steadiness of the voice and hearing the high E flats full, strong and secure. That being said, the two in this recording aren't that bad, the first lightly sung and dead on pitch, the second sung with more force resulting in a little spreading. However, the wobbles are minimal in this recording and are outweighed by such a great characterisation.

Where recorded Lucia's are concerned, my favourite is Callas (and I'm not backward in saying that I'm biased.) I have the Sills Lucia which I enjoy for the high notes and effortless coloratura but I feel Callas is more Lucia than Sills. I've heard Sutherland's second Lucia which I enjoyed for hearing her in wonderful, free and strong voice and for the great Edgardo of Pavarotti. But, I find Sutherland's matronly sound a stumbling block with Callas sounding younger and more fragile as the heroine. However, all three singers have done Lucia great service over the years and none should be ignored.

My recommendation: for lovers of Lucia and Callas, this is a must. To hear Callas' final thoughts on the role prior to renouncing it by the end of 1959, this is it. True, there are moments of insecurity but in this recording you will hear Lucia beautifully vocalised by one of her greatest champions.