Milanov gives her sincere opinion on Tebaldi and Callas [English subtitles]
Vložit
- čas přidán 19. 09. 2019
- "Milanov always said, "Well, you see, Mr. Bing needed me." She told frequent colleague, Robert Merrill, "When I returned to the Met during the 1950-1951 season, I felt like a queen." Indeed, Milanov had no rivals in the Italian wing - Rigal and Nelli, although competent and adequate, didn't come close either in voice or temperament to the Croatian diva, who chalked up over 130 performances between 01/17/51 and 01/29/55, evidence that Mr. Bing did, in fact, need her. Then, on 01/31/55 the first serious "rival" to Milanov's regal status debuted: Renata Tebaldi. On 10/29/56 a second "challenger" arrived at the Met, Maria Callas. In actuality, though, the only role all three had in common at the Met was Tosca.
According to Wikipedia's Tebaldi bio: "The alleged rivalry aside, Callas made remarks appreciative of Tebaldi, and vice versa ... Francis Robinson of the Met wrote of an incident in which Tebaldi asked him to recommend a recording of La Gioconda in order to help her learn the role. Being fully aware of the alleged [Callas-Tebaldi] rivalry, he recommended Zinka Milanov's version. A few days later, he went to visit Tebaldi, only to find her sitting by the speakers, listening intently to Callas's recording. She then looked up at him and asked, "Why didn't you tell me Maria's was the best?"
Although candid in the interview,
remarkably, Zinka is highly respectful of Tebaldi and Callas. Tebaldi, by the way, sent a beautiful bouquet of lovely red roses to the first Milanov Memorial Service, expressing condolences and noting Zinka's exceptional career.
Comparative career stats:
Milanov - 1,049 appearances in opera; 260 verified concerts
Tebaldi - Tebaldi, 1,048 appearances in opera; 214 concerts.
Callas - according to the website, 4,000 performances"
Milanov is fairer in her criticism and more generous in her praise than I expected
She’s honest
I respect Milanov's talent. Her's was a rich opulent. gorgeous instrument! She was one of the most beautiful voices of her generation. I
This is excerpt from her interview for Croatian radio from 1975. She also talked about other singers: Chaliapin, Gobbi, Caruso, Price, Bumbry, Caballe, Warren, Di Stefano, Del Monaco, Corelli, Bjorling, Pinza, Tucker... and of course, her teacher Milka Ternina!
mmmm que pena oir esto.
Please tell me what she said about Price! I'd pay for that information. :-)
@@liedersanger1 ::
Bumbry, even better !
Por qué...Milanov era tan grande como esas que nombra
@@cliffgaither Price's recordings are still selling. Are Milanov's too?
She was amazing. Very right about Callas and the Bel Canto repertory in which she was truly Divine.
Yes, Callas was sublime in the bel canto repertoire, but when Milanov says that Callas tried to "develop low notes", that was absolute nonsense. Callas was a dramatic soprano with an extraordinary top who had received a traditional bel canto training during her student days in Greece, thus enabling her to sing the bel canto repertoire. In Greece she had sung dramatic parts such as Tosca, Santuzza, Martha and Leonore, so she didn't "try to develop low notes" when she arrived in Italy later.
@@kbhprinsesse is her wobble part of proper bel canto technique?
@@terrance7220 No, but singing a diminuendo on E6 live is. Singing a reverse messa di voce trill live is. A diminuendo on C#6 also. Singing a crescuito live too.
But i guess la stupida having 6 potatoes in her mouth plus the balls of her husband to the point nobody could understand what was coming out of her mouth, that i guess is very good bel canto. Get good boi.
@@Tdvc What queenly beechiniss. Let people like whom they like.
@@terrance7220 The "wobble" wasn't until much later in her career, and she herself was well aware of it and worked on correcting it. No one should think that this "wobble" was characteristic of her entire career.
Well, I love Tebaldi, Callas AND Milanov for their voices and artistry.
Yes it’s possible!
The more the merrier…
Yes it is possible that you will troll others again, you hypocrite.
Wow, such bullshit about Callas, she must’ve been very jealous. Poor zinka
You must be very delusional and unmovable in your quickly acquired opinions. Poor you !
It's surprising to hear Zinka Milanov speak so frankly about two of her colleagues. Interesting points and I mostly agree with her.
how do you mostly agree with her? she literally says that tebaldi was not much of an actress at 0:13
I don't really agree with her on many things she says here
@judygarland7186 she says Tebaldi acted with her voice and I agree. On stage Tebaldi was Tebaldi, not an actress in the modern sense but she convinced me this is how e.g. Tosca was supposed to be. You probably don't like the Callas comments but notice that she also says the bel canto was best for Callas.
@@Orfeus80 she also implies that Callas became famous only because of her " scandals " with Onassis and whatever which is very wrong. Callas was already incredibly famous before meeting and before divorcing with Onassis. Also what does having great low chest notes have to do with her singing roles that were unsuited to her voice? and she implies that this harmed her voice?? really?? haing great, developed chest voice and low notes is a necessity and it has nothing to do with Callas' severe vocal decline. This has to do with her disease called dermatomyositis which affected the diaphragm and the muscles.
@judygarland7186 the disease theory is Callas widow fiction. Two fans came up with it to excuse her decline and it has been proven wrong. The dates they give don't even correspond to the decline. I'm guessing Milanov is not only thinking about Onassis, Callas used publicity stunts before the Onassis story. Anyway Milanov is a singer, she knows what she's talking about regarding the vocal condition.
@@Orfeus80 and what is the cause of Callas' extreme vocal decline in such a short period of time? her bad vocal technique? as most Tebaldians say? I don't know why it's still a topic of controversy and I don't know why people still say that prime Callas (1949-1953) had bad vocal technique and not GREAT GREAT vocal technique then
It's easy to comment for Milano but she doesn't know that Callas was already singing in Athens in 1942 roles that Zinka had in her repertory such as Tosca plus Leonora in Fidelio among other in the Dramatic repertory and Anna Bolenas and Medeas in the late 50's hadn't been unsurpassed, Callas 1959 Gioconda recording is an example on how to sing this role Tebaldi used it to learn this role and said why her manager didn't recommend to her instead of Zinka's, Callas recording of Carmen in early 60's is perfect. Tebaldi with a perfect technique did have some vocal problems late 50's and she became very insecure when going to the right register, so the problems with the voice isn't just a matter of wearing it out is emotional and poor health issues. Not easy to stay in top shape for 20 years and have perfect performances every time
Je suis complètement d'accord avec vous !
Callas’s Carmen perfect??? Oh dear. Let’s agree to disagree on that one. There is NO HUMOR in it. That’s a fatal approach.
Milanov is sadly correct in saying Callas had 6 truly great years. Milanov is not saying Callas had a 6 year career, but we all know after 1955 it was “fair weather” at best. She was too often obviously trying to overcome vocal shortcomings. Some of the performances on her 1959-1962 records should never have been released-Depuis le jour, Juliette’s Vals, and D’amour l’ardente flamme among them. I love Callas, but I do not look at her career through rose colored glasses. Her earliest recordings-Violetta and Gioconda for Cetra, and Elvira, Lucia, Tosca and Santuzza for EMI, plus the Puccini Heroines and Coloratura/Lyric album are among the best recordings of any soprano in history, and all were made between 1949-1955.
@@jeffreymiller4814 it's very clear from what you wrote that the most important quality of singing for you is the vocal aproch, where perfect notes and beautiful sounds must be produced by the singer and Callas was able to sing a perfect Carmen because she didn't focus on the voice but she gave us the real woman that she thought Carmen should be, riding the musical challenges but not lingering in single notes for these were not the most important for her, she did this all the time if you really take the time and listen when she sings even her late recordings those that you mentioned, are a great example of her artistry and we would be the poorer if we didn't have them for we can learn so much from the details in them, the public likes long beautiful notes for they are impressive to hear but artistry is much more than that and singers can do sing like that for only a few years so we should not expect that to last forever
Yes, Callas was a dramatic soprano with wonderful agility and a great upper extension before the weight loss. She was able to sing both the bel canto repertoire as well as the dramatic. Listen to some of her Mexico City performances from the late '40s and early '50s. After the weight loss, she focused more (but not exclusively) on the bel canto repertoire. Milanov had an exceptional and exciting voice ( if a bit wild and occasionally uncontrolled) with a free and easy top in the late '30s and into the '40s. By the '50 the voice lost that sparkle. Unfortunately, most of the recordings we remember of her were made after the voice was in decline (Tosca, Gioconda, Forza). Here is an excerpt from act 2 of "La Gioconda" from 1946 with Richard Tucker.
czcams.com/video/ur9be38Jvj8/video.html
@@jeffreymiller4814 No humor in her Carmen? Maybe it depends on the sophistication of your SENSE of humor. Hers is the only one I found myself actual bursting out in spontaneous mirth. The scene where she gets arrested.
I cannot live without her d'amour l'ardente it is one her greatest achievements to my ears. And The Vals is Thrilling and detailed like no other. And that wild last high note is amazing. Perfection no Greatness YES
Though she is known to be a tough lady, some of the saying are a bit harsh and not fully true and one senses a bit of jealousy and hostility in what she is saying, immediately qualified by a more vague generic type of appreciation. But she is still "cutting them down" while at the same time trying to sound objective. To say that Callas was a good singer whose career benefited from minor and major scandal is a perfect example. The mentioning of the scandal is on purpose to diminish the talent and accomplishment of the singer. To say "Tebaldi benefited from the beautiful Italian blue skies" and so on and so forth, another example. She was not a generous colleague for sure.
I agree, it's not pretty. The great singers should never say those kind of things about their colleagues.
It's tough to be the prima donna of the Met for few decades, only to be completely eclipsed in a short time by two young sopranos.
This woman obviously knows nothing about the voice, technique and career of Maria Callas. She makes certain to point out that when Callas debuted at the Met (in 1956), her voice wasn't what the public expected. Yet Milanov felt sufficiently threatened by her arrival to make a late entrance for Callas' "Norma", a role in which Milanov herself hadn't been particularly successful, to attract attention.
Trećim riječima, ja (Zinka) sam najbolja, ali neću da kažem:)
Masterclass in delivering a backhanded compliment! A+ 🥇
Hey there, it surprised to see a familiar face around here -- I recall your channel for your video of a live recording of Myrna Lake.
Say, Eric, I'm not sure how close you were to her, but I assume you never heard her speaking about her voice teacher, right? He was quite a peculiar man, associated to the subject of a research I'm working in, and was the teacher of Andy Williams.
Pedro.
@@PedroZamagna Hi Pedro, I don't remember her mentioning anything about her voice teacher. Sorry to disappoint and I hope you find the information you need for your research.
@@EricAkif Yeah, I figured as much, thank you, nonetheless, Eric.
I think Myrna mentioned her voice teacher, and his association to Andy Williams, in the bio-notes on one of her albuns. I spoke with Carol Suldhalter, but apparently neither she nor other friends ever heard her speaking about the man either.
Just on a side note, since you're around here you might also be mildly familiar with the topic; Myrna's voice teacher was a pupil of Douglas Stanley, "in"famous voice teacher.
Mmmm. Just a little bit uncompromising in here comments. In the end it is her opinion and it is just that. I personally prefer Callas and Price and not a big fan of Milanov but that again is personal preference.
Would love to hear more of this interview! Is it possible you might post more of it?
I might, but it will take some time; it's almost 40 minutes long. Glad you like it!
@@equinox6651 What she said about Di Stefano?
@@equinox6651 Please do if you can! I'm sure many people would enjoy hearing it all!
@@equinox6651 hi .i had some comments in french with Michel deLioncoeur , which i don't find anymore.They have disappeared.
@@alexanderzaphir721
I didn't delete the comments. I really don't know what it was about since I can't speak French. If you were replying to his comment, he might have deleted it and thus the entire discussion.
@Galanis38
I hope I'll find enough time to do it.
If I had to rank my affection for these three great singers, I would put Callas at number one, Tebaldi and number two, and Milanov at number three. But that does not detract from the fact that Milanov’s judgments here are fundamentally correct. Her point about Callas’s voice is that it was better suited to a higher tessitura. That is correct. Callas’s voice was dark enough that it didn’t sound too out of place in dramatic soprano repertory, and of course she always conveyed dramatic intuitions and insights that were foreign to Tebaldi and Milanov. Still, Callas was always better suited for dramatic bel canto, early-mid Verdi, and perhaps more classic repertory like Gluck, Spontini, and Cherubini. Both Tebaldi and Milanov were better suited vocally for later Verdi; Milanov, for dramatic repertory like Gioconda (yes, even if Callas’s recordings might be the best overall!); and Tebaldi, for Puccini and verismo. Yes, Callas did sing a lot of the Tebaldi and Milanov repertory, but would she have had she had the choice? I think not. She wouldn’t have touched Puccini at all - not even Tosca - were Puccini not so popular. She would have gladly sacrificed all of her Puccini and verismo recordings for a recording of either Anna Bolena or Il Pirata - not even of both! Callas’s insistence that ‘sopranos should be able to sing everything’ was just post-hoc justification for probably unsound repertory choices, and for the fact that there simply was not much demand for the repertory that she preferred, particularly in America. She would not have been top billing had she stuck to her preferred roles.
Milanov’s point about Callas’s becoming famous due to image and scandal is also correct. Milanov might have overstated that Callas purposefully leveraged scandal to get ahead. But Callas’s vocal output was simply more consistent and at a higher standard earlier on when her fame had not gone beyond the boundaries of the opera world. That is Milanov’s point. It doesn’t matter if Callas had some monumental successes in the late 1950s. She was better from a vocal standpoint earlier on. To deny the decline is to deny that the earth is round, and to not do justice to just how amazing Callas was vocally early on.
The fact is that of the three, Milanov had the most consistent technique and career by far. She debuted at the Met in 1937 and ended in 1966. Yes, she had her issues and mannerisms, but her consistency was remarkable. In contrast, both Callas and Tebaldi emerged around the same time (the late 1940s), and both were basically done by 1960. Callas’s decline was more obvious, but Tebaldi was already starting to have major vocal issues by 1961 which she never resolved, even if she would carry on for another ten years. This doesn’t mean that Milanov is the greatest. ( I think Callas is for reasons I won’t get into here.) But clearly she had the keenest understanding of how to sing from a technical standpoint. After her retirement, many singers went to her for advice. No one went to Callas or Tebaldi after theirs.
You're Spot on. In many interviews Callas stated that she would rather not sing any Puccini as she believed it was bad for the voice. But after WW2, there were no dramatic sopranos in Italy, so when Callas appeared, they had to exploit her voice with dozens of Turandots, Isoldas, and Brünnhildas. And she had to sing as they were the only roles offered for her but she stopped singing these roles as soons as she could as she said. The next problem was with opera house and record directors, back then bel canto roles (except Norma) were a high risk of being a flop as most famously Lucia and Elvira fell from favor and were performed by second tier light singers like Pons and Carosio. So from a business standpoint, directors were rightfully hesitant to give her these roles, let alone Callas's revivals like Armida as Serafin highly recommended (while ironically he didn't recommend Manon, but they did the opposite). Although I believe Milanov's opinion to be honest, and her remark on "scandals" to be partially true, she didn't do justice to Callas. It could be a matter of different style, but no one can deny the fact that technically, Milanov can never sing Norma or Leonora in Trovatore like Callas in a million years, a role they shared. And no one can deny the fact that Callas's signature roles were never sung half as good as her, while Tebaldi and Caballé eclipsed Milanov. Callas's vocal arsenal was unequalled but she abused it, Milanov was smart to know her limits and respected her voice.
Another thing is I think Callas's statement that a singer should be able to sing everything is misunderstood. If I remember well, she followed that statement with "have you seen a flute without a trill or acciaccatura" her point was all singers should be able to do a trill, Gruppetto, or any written vocal ornament, unlike what all Wagnerian and verismo singer who can't do any. There're written trills in Walküre, Manon Puccini, Nedda, leonora in Trovatore etc. they're almost never sung, the composer didn't write it to be neglected.
A lot of hit and miss in your comment.
Callas never said a soprano had to sing everything. What she advocated was that a soprano must have all 3 registers developed well enough to take on roles that require the voice in its integrity like Norma, but also be proficient enough to take on roles such as Amina or Gioconda simply because the voice was complete and not underdeveloped. She didnt agree to the new idea that "this role is only for this soprano and that role is only for that soprano and bla bla"
There are many singer who have the voice to sing really vast repertoire yet they were told not to and they never develop their voices completely.
About the scandals just ignore what Milanov said, she was envious to death. Callas was the most famous and highest paid opera singer by 1955 before any scandals. Milanov was senile when she said this hahha. Callas became famous overnight because of her unparalled vocal technique that allowed her to take on the role of Elvira alternating with Brunhilde in the same week.
That was unheard of by the italians who instantly recongnized the miracle it was.
She became so huge by 1950 that La Scala director could not avoid Callas anymore and HAD TO put her under contract. Its the famous story that Ghiringhelli disliked Callas and said he would never have her as a leading singer in La Scala. He had to eat his words in the next year.
Also it was the Belcanto repertoire that made her famous, and not Wagner or Puccini. So theres no sense at all when you said She would not have been top billing had she stuck to her preferred roles. On the contrary, she was just one more Puccini singer until she started the Bel Canto revival and became famous for that. Thats precisely what made her famous.
No one went to Callas for advices? Another huge mistake...I could make a list but I will simply end with one name: Montserrat Caballé.
@@Tdvc Just saw your comment. I think we are just interpreting what she said differently.
1. I agree that she was in favour of developing all three registers, and I know what you are referring to (“They say that she has no high notes, so she must be a mezzo,” “A soprano must have chest tones,” “Light sopranos once upon a time had very big chest tones,” etc.). But she also clearly questioned the wisdom of the fach system during her Masterclasses, citing how Malibran (I think) sang Fidelio and Sonnambula in the same day. I don’t think what she was insinuating there was wise at all. At the very least, it could be easily misinterpreted, especially in light of her rep choices.
2. I agree that the alternation of Puritani/Walkure made her an overnight sensation. That doesn’t detract from the fact that “her” operas were not taken seriously, that she had to fight for them, and that she had to continue singing what I’d call the Tebaldi rep. There is no other reason why she would have recorded operas like Boheme, Manon Lescaut, and Butterfly, and, actually, no other reason why she sang Tosca at the Met. (She never sang it at La Scala, or Italy in general.) Legge closed the door on her desire (or requests?) to record Anna Bolena, Pirata, even Macbeth, and the like. And she had to get another company to record her Medea. Her operas were simply not the popular operas, particularly in America and Britain.
(Having wrote this, let me acknowledge that there was probably a difference between Italy and Anglo-America. Italy was probably more hospitable to her rep.)
3. I was referring to vocal advice; I doubt that people like went to her for vocal advice. The advice she gave people like Caballe, I am confident, was primarily about interpretation and rep. Caballe would have been nuts to have gone to her for technical advice. Milanov actually taught/vocal coached people like Christa Ludwig.
To size down Callas's talent to scandals. And Tebaldi's to benefiting from blue skies and sun is nothing short of jealousy. Milanov had the most consistent career because she was a boring, yielding person. She took what was offered by the Met, no matter how cheap and repetitive the production was. That's why she was loved. Her career was basically made of 4 roles, and she had no basement outside the Met. Unlike Callas or Tebaldi who were demanding artists, and enjoyed international success. Finally, no matter how long or short they sang, all of her recordings were replaced by Callas's and Tebaldi's. While Milanov's recordings are collecting dust.
Envious on Callas that took her place because better singer!
Callas never took her place. Milanov was (even 17 years older) primadona of the MET. Callas sang there just Norma in 1956 and two performances of Tosca in1965 (prety lausy) . Zinka sang in MET for the last time in 1966, when she was 60.
Milanovs legacy lived also in her pupils (Grace Bumbry, Christa Ludwig...)
@@spevoljubof course Callas took her place. Callas more popular than her
@@NanonKorapat-kk8gf So?
Where Milanova couldn't sing anymore or where she lost her because Calas took her place?
In which opera house did Callas oust Milanova? What her roles did she take on?
I never liked the way Milanov referred to his colleagues. Certainly Tebaldi was not as good an actress as Callas, but she was far from being a bad actress, quite the contrary, her stage presence was convincing and imposing. And, furthermore, she was a far superior actress to Milanov, whose mannerisms and acting were often ridiculous (for example, while vocally incredible, her acting approach in Aida with Perlea is embarrassing)
@@violamateoIt wasn’t inaccurate.
I agree. Tebaldi was not a particularly good actress but she's not bad. I think her performance and rendition of Vissi d'arte are pretty good actually.
Me habría gustado oir su opinión acerca de Victoria de los Ángeles, para muchos, la mejor soprano del siglo XX; además, una gran dama que no supo o no quiso usar la influencia mediática, como sí los hicieron y lo siguen haciendo otros cantantes.
Victoria de Los Angeles estaba uno o dos escalones abajo de Callas y Tebaldi, su voz era hermosa pero no tanto como la de Tebaldi, era flexible pero no tanto como la Callas, a Nivel dramatico nunca compitio con las enormes voces de Tebaldi y Callas. a mi ´parecer fue una soprano lirica pura que evoluciono a una Spinto pero solo eso
De los Ángeles no fue una mala cantante, pero tampoco era extraordinaria. Es absurdo pretender que fue la mejor cantante del siglo XX. Cantaba calante con gran frecuencia.
@@FranzBlumVan1890 Victoria De Los Angeles tiene una tecnica incompleta, es una cantante limitada en la dinamica, en el legato y en el volumen
Agreed
Who cares about her resentful opinion anyway ?
Ignorants?
Well i don't.
I come here when I want to see what it's like to be extremely successful but also filled with so much jealousy you begin to say rubbish. Always good for a laugh.
maria callas career was short but noting is short as Cerquitti's career hahhaha (but deym, with those years, both of them became a figure in the world of opera)
I think Milanov is quite fair, even generous in her evaluation of these two greats, Tebaldi and Callas. They were to some extent her rivals and might have aroused jealousy in a less secure person than Milanov. Her judgment of Callas's prime, six, or seven years, might seem harsh to one who wasn't familiar with Maris's career but sadly that was the situation in reality.
That was absolutely not the situation. Milanov is blinded by her jealousy! Go listen to Callas' Anna Bolena. Milanov, not even in her heyday, sang something like that. Not to mention her Lisbon Traviata, Dallas Medea or Pirata, all of which came after 1956.
Completely agreed. Giuseppe di Stefano said of Milanov that "she didn't have competitors. She had rivals." Even Tebaldi and Callas don't really qualify as her rivals because, technically, they should be her heirs. Milanov is 16 years older than both of them, and was in year 29 of her general career (year 19 of the Met career) when they made their debuts.
@@alioffe4321 Agree, absolutely.
By 1955 before any "scandals" Callas was already the most famous and highest paid opera singer in history according to the account books of her ex husband and La Scala. Zinka is so envious that she became deluded apparently. Go figure. But not to blame, Callas crushed them all, they all fell into oblivion after "The Callas Era". That can generate a huge amount of hate comming from every direction.
Callas was not the highest paid opera singer in history. Not even adjusting for inflation, Caruso made 3- 4 times what Callas was paid for an operatic performance.
@@williammaddox3339 Thats certainly not what La Scala historian said while showing the numbers in the contracts. Its proof on video from La Scala, unlike your comment.
@@Tdvc During the depression opera singers fees dropped drastically and really did not rebound. Even today when adjusting for inflation, they are not the equal of Caruso and Ponselle. BTW what proof do you have? Callas did have a one off outdoor performance in a large arena( I think in Medea) in Athens and she was paid about 10X her normal fee.
@@williammaddox3339 There is a documentary about her life and La Scala era and they showed her contracts from beginning to end and how she demanded higher and higher fees to the point she was the highest paid opera singer ever by 1955. They also pointed how her ex husband was brilliant as her manager since he had all the opera houses under his will and was able to charge insane fees. Her Norma debut at the MET was the highest grossing night in the METs history at that time.
@@williammaddox3339 Callas herself said about the hate she received because of the price she charged for performances “oh that Callas asking so much money, so capricious” (her words)
I get no subtitles. Can someone say what her remarks were on Tebaldi, who she had the most reason to resent.
why Milanov had the most reason to resent about Tebaldi ? I wait your answer. (Because Tebaldi was better than Milanov in all sense)
@@ginopietracupa4305 Tebaldi usurped Milanov's signature parts except 'Gioconda', which she did not sing until '66.
@@ransomcoates546 They shared in the same stage (The Met) the roles of: Tosca, Andrea Chenier, Aida, La Forza del destino, Simon Boccanegra and Otello between 1955 and 1966, but I would say "usurpe" they both were the two most loved sopranos of that house
@@ginopietracupa4305 To be clear, Tebaldi is the singer to whom I have been most attached my whole life. It's just that I might expect Milanov to say something catty. I finally got the subtitles, and it turns out that Zinka is unusually nice in this interview. Her remarks about Callas, however, while harsh, are an absolutely true analysis of her career.
@@ransomcoates546 Fans friends of Tebaldi say some of them sometimes were in Tebaldi dressing-room with Renata before the performance and at that time at the MET there were speakers in the dressing room and the sounds of the house was heard, when applause was heard Tebaldi said to her friends : "Is Zinka, the performance must be about to begin" (because each rume Tebaldi sang one of Milanov's roles, Milanov she went to the theater to listen to her and walked in the theater stalls gretting the public to receive an applause, before Tebaldi performance started
All these great singers were gifted in their in their own special right. There is no jealousy of rivalry here. Milanov is just stating the obvious. Their culture their way of life were all major factors in regards to their incredible talent Etc. It all comes down to this. We cannot compare greatness all we can do is simply enjoy it. Each one at their own time. A time for Milanov, A time for Tebaldi, Callas, Caballe, Price, Sunderland etc. Arnold Bourbon Amaral
EXCELLENT response, as usual! 😁👍
@@artdanks4846 An subjective opinion, as usual.
Oh please do upload the entire interview if you can...What was here was quite interesting.
Not good comment about Calas, Calas was a genius and unique, Zinka Milanov good singr, Zinka Milanov diction was not good in Italian and she can't speak Italian, Calas was speaking italian perfect. All are envious to Calas, because Calas was the enormous artist. I love you Calas
Say whatever you want but after I listen to Callas there’s no one else I can listen to she was something else had that it factor that can’t be described
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!
Milanov: dry lady singing equally dry, matronly with strong manierism = theatrical, artificial. Good technique though, consistent and long career, but never the one who would give you shivers.
She needed to learn humility, as well as how to convey a character. I hope she learned humility, because she never learned the latter even at her final concert.
Considering how many years it took her just to learn to sing in tune, that's no surprise.
Which "she"? Humility is something that all of us need to strive for, and always seem to fall short.
@@artdanks4846 Indeed, honest humility about others as well as oneself are often lacking.
@@kbhprinsesse There is more to good opera performance than healthy technique, dynamics and declamation - even Callas knew and understood that. Milanov did not, sadly to her loss.
@@EmilyGloeggler7984 I agree with you, I was referring to Milanov, not Callas.
This petty woman was clearly jealous of the greatest soprano in history, Maria Callas.
MilaNOv's voice was too common, too average and had huge flaws, hence why she could never sing the vast repertoire that Callas sung.
Callas could sing any role because she had one of the most solid techniques ever, no matter what uneducated teachers and critics said.
Callas didn't become Callas because of what this jealous woman said but because of her amazing vocal skills and for bringing life to every single role she sang.
She made a huge impact when in less than a week she learned I Puritani and sung it while singing Walkure and Isolda. She didn't need any scandal either when she made her debut in Mexico and was an immense success that made a huge impact worldwide.
Her voice was great until 1960 when she sung Poliuto at La Scala. She sung amazingly during 1957, 1958 and 1959.
This MilaNOv was just a crazy, jealous woman who didnt know anything about Callas. She also didn't know anything about singing. She was the most boring singer ever.
Nobody will ever remember this woman. Callas, on the other hand, will be remembered for eternity because she made a huge impact with her voice and amazing skills. Her "scandals," that were purposedly done by jealous, angry, bitter people like MilaNOv didn't make her the celebrity that she was but her voice and passion. Period.
The comment section of this video (as well as almost every other opera video) show just how fanatic the Callas fanbase really is. They can't accept that Callas was a human, so she was brilliant and flawed.
Goodness gracious, the Callas Queen have really got therir panties all in a bunch. A bit silly, actually, when you consider Callas rarely said anything nice about any of her colleagues. But who cares, these were enormous personalities - on and off the stage. Always entertainlig - on and off the stage. Don't we wish we had anything even remotely them nowadays... ??
Anyone who writes about Tebaldi in this way doesn't know much about her, I'll name a few examples, Tosca Studio 1952 under Erede vocal the best vocal recording of Tosca that puts you in the shade of Callas and Milanov, next example Aida Studio 1952 also under Erede vocal in Top form Callas and Milanov don't come close either, Andrea Chenier Studio 1957 Gavazzeni is considered the best studio recording Finale Tebaldi del Monaco, La forza del destino live 1953 with Mitropoulos Callas and Milanov don't look so good either, Callas has the La Forza sung only in small opera houses. Tebaldi in large opera houses.
Who of the three sells recordings year after year to the new listeners, wanting to hear the best
version of an opera? Not Tebaldi.....not Milanov...but only Callas.
the truth is that i don't even know who this Milanov is... whilst i perfectly know and love Tebaldi and Callas! And now that I heard what she said... i don't really feel i should listen for once at anything she did...
I sort of agree. I generally think Callas just sang too many different things. Any voice would have been destroyed singing the range of things she sang with the same level of mastery. I guess I would have expected Milanov to pick up on the fact that one can indeed have a long career singing mimi, aida, tosca and adrianna but not while singing norma, lucia, gioconda, medea and violetta. Tebaldi made a success of good tone and fairly easy repertoire. Callas made a success out of musicianship and a solid, though not perfect, technique earlier on that enabled her to negotiate a more difficult repertoire; a repertoire for which a naturally beautiful voice simply was not sufficient. Then again, Milanov was not really an exponent of bel canto so what really can one expect?
Did the scandals really earn Callas success? It seemed like one of the many aspects that led to her decline but I may be misremembering a few facts.
About scandals, I think Milanov was reffering to Callas' fame in non-operatic circles. She was a real celebrity.
@@equinox6651 Yeah but that did not advance her career. She became a celebrity after she'd already been an accomplished singer. Milanov wants us to believe the fame and scandal made her operatic career a success which is simply untrue. I would say, after listening to the interview again, that she is right that Tebaldi was diigent and hardworking and but she misses the mark completely when it comes to Callas. Sounds really like she didn't care for her at all. Such is life.
Commentaire très juste ,bravo !
@@babydrane Totally agree with you!
You are exactly right as far as Callas achievement is concerned measured against the damage that it did to her vocal capacity in the long run and to pick up on Milanov lack of serious expertise within the Bel Canto repertoire. Sadly Milanov comes across as a middle ranker critiquing her betters.
I appreciate Milanov voice very much. She was a great technician but the only BUT that I have regarding her opinion of Callas is that Calla wasn’t a lyric soprano. In fact, I know for a fact that Callas never pushed and barely even projected her low register even with half the strength that she vocally had. I know for a fact that Callas was a dramatic soprano(this os course ONLY as a fat woman). I also know for a fact that Milanov wasn’t a dramatic soprano - she was a large lyric voice. Maybe even a lirico Spinto but lyric in nature. Tebaldi had a much larger instrument than Milanov.
Charlie Handelmann's favorite singer is Milanov but he also loves Tebaldi , Handelmann listened both at the Metropolitan in the 50s, he says Milanov voice was big, but he says Tebaldi voice was a jet plane in the theater, according to Handelmann not even Nilsson had the column of sound like tEBALDI. (PD. Handelmann plays joke about Leontyne Price, he says Price disappeared on top, Price's voice threadlike the higher Price goes the narrower her voice becomes)
@@ginopietracupa4305 Price is a real soubrette and one with a VERY stiff voice which is shameful. The excuse that Milanov and Tebaldi have for having both SUPREMELY stiff voice is a vocal big vocal size but Price ascend to operatic fame is the PERSONIFICATION, manifestation and DETERIORATION of the operatic genre of Verismo. Price with her tiny voice is responsible for the decline and collapse of true verismo voices.
@@beachfanatic2010 I am not a great Price fan, but to say her voice was tiny just ain't so. I was at her debut and many, many performances and she certainly had a good sized voice in the old Met.
I'd prefer her..a little bit tougher.
Even ,i find her..too gentle.
Perhaps ,among her closest friends ,she could let herself, say more..truths
She didn't want to judge their techniques
Go figure, I guess she was just jealous of Callas all around. Callas pulled off vocal stunts that Zinka could never dream of though, and she knew it. Not to mention the historical impotance of Callas in opera which shades the others.
Who's she to judge their techniques when she barely could sing in tune or have a proper legato? 🤣
@@Distefano5who says that ? Certainly not Di Stefano's opinion about her..
Or L.Price's...Look for that..
@@alexanderzaphir721 I don't care for anyone's opinions, I have mine. Also it's a fact that she was rarely on pitch. She swings between sharp and flat which shows her modest vocal technique. She was a provincial soprano at most who rarely sang outside the Met.
@@Distefano5 certainly..
But don't be so proud ,because judging by what you're defending ,you have absolutely nothing to do ,with operatic knowledge about singers.
Don't worry...ignorance has always been very powerfull around the world
Milanov’s comments reveal a bitter woman who would have loved to have had the success and admiration that both Callas and Tebaldi enjoyed.
Who should be bitter, the soprano with the long wonderful career, who retired at 60 with a beautiful voice and lived to be over 80 or the soprano with the short career, who had to stop at 40 with a ruined voice, abandoned by her lover for another woman and who died with 53?
@@Duncan456 Definitely the soprano with half a century of a career (who sang 3-4 roles) because she was immediately forgotten as soon as she retired and her records are collecting dust. Not the same thing can be said about Callas and Tebaldi.
@@Duncan456 , e' andata peggio alla Milanov, non se la ricorda e non ne parla nessuno. Non ha lasciato tracce luminose nella storia della Musica. L'ALTRA" si.
@@Duncan456Milanov was a second rate singer that made her career at the Met because of WWII. She happened to be stateside while the real singers (Callas , Tebaldi) were stuck in Europe. The moment the war was over, Milanov started her journey into oblivion. She was an envious, bitter old bitch who is only remembered by you, two other old opera queens, and a distant cousin in Croatia.
@@Duncan456 Exactly
И Миланова и Тебальди превосходные певицы и к тому же красавицы! Но никто из них не сравнится с божественной Марией Каллас, которая отдала искусству всю себя, даже жизнь
I never understood Milanov's popularity! I could never stand even listening to her. I even like Tebaldi better than Milanov! (And believe me...I am NOT a Tebaldi fan either! But I'd much rather listen to her!)
"In matters of taste, there can be no disputes"
People just adored Milanov , same others Adored Callas, Tebaldi, Sutherland etc... there was room for everyone 1940-1970 , Nowdays where talent barely exists , don't you think we need Milanov to sing Aida , Both Leonoras, Amelia and Gioconda ? Because no one nowadays can even match 50% of what Milanov was, Imagine Having back singers like Sutherland , Caballe and even Beverly Sills and many Others , I think of Leyla Gencer, Antonieta Stella and many others not as Famous as Callas or Tebaldi were , They All would be welcomed in the Great Arenas all over the World like Goddesses coming down from Heaven to Bless us all , people would surrender their criticism and would be way more appreciative of the amount of Talent these Divas once Had
If you cannot enjoy Milanov and Tebaldi, sir, I think your cannot enjoy opera truly. With all due respect.
@@meto2854 You don't understand what I was trying to say. I was not criticizing Milanov's voice. She obviously was a great artist and singer. I was simply stating that myself personally never "got it" about her voice. And it certainly doesn't mean I know nothing about opera. There are several great voices I DO "get", and thoroughly admire (I.e. Claudia Muzio, Rosa Ponselle, Bidu Sayao, Dorothy Kirsten, Kirsten Flagstad, Helen Traubel, Eileen Farrell, Maria Callas, Leonie Rysanek, Joan Sutherland, Leontyne Price, and on and on). So because I haven't learned to appreciate ONE particular singer, I hardly think that gives any support to your ignorant comment about my not being able to enjoy opera. With all due respect.
@@aclassicaltrove Thank you for your very helpful comment. Very much appreciated. I will give Milanov another try, because I actually DO want to like her singing. I know she was a great artist, and want to appreciate and enjoy that.
I did the same thing with Callas. I couldn't stand listening to her the first several times I listened. But the more I listened and understood, the more I came to love her, till eventually she became my favorite singer, and has been for nearly 50 years now. So I would love to learn to appreciate Milanov too. (And there actually is much of Tebaldi I admire and appreciate.)
Thank you again for your kindness and suggestion.
I've been saying EXACTLY the same things about Callas for years. She was a great singer, an amazing actress, but she wouldn't be half as popular if not for the scandals and her being active in the media.
She wouldn't be half as popular to the mass, yes. She would still be the number one to opera lovers though because none of us opera lovers ever gave a damn about her private life. Her wonderous instrument, her artistic intelligence, her unsurpassed interpretation, her attention to diction, her legato, her trills, her fraseggio, her use of dynamics, her coloratura di forza etc. This is why she is and will always be endlessly more popular than any other singer in recorded history. Whether one is a fan or not, this is a fact. No one in opera can approach the holy divinity that Callas was and still is decades after her death.
Luckily what you've been saying for years is insignificant. Callas was being called Divina before she lost the weight and turned into a fashion icon, also before the so called scandals. Even without the scandals, she would still be the only authentic Abigaile, Armida, Medea...
Who cares what you say? Milanov merely manages to display her own ignorance by make these comments.
@@gianerajohn436 Actually, there are solid opera singers who surpassed Callas. Even Callas herself mentioned one of them - Rosa Ponselle.
@@EmilyGloeggler7984 sure Ponselle fantastic instrument and technique but not the greatest service to the composers.
Anyway, since you imply there are many, who else and in which way the surpassed Callas?
Anche le grandissime cantanti come la Milanov possono dire delle sonore cagate
Eh già.
Voce grande cervello piccolo.... Sembra essere una costante nel mondo della lirica
Zinka who? We don't know her. However, we do know the great Maria Callas. She will forever be remembered. This Zinka was clearly a very jealous woman. Callas was the greatest because of her UNDENIABLE talent, her art. That's why she became famous. Who remembers this Zinka thing nowadays? My point exactly.
Come on!! Milanov was magnificent and un-touchable on her 'good nights'.
In fack- unfukingbelievable. Her comments here are absolutely correct.
Don't these Callas queens "ever" stop??
Lol at this comment. It could've been written about the feuds in pop music - "Madonna who?" hahahaha.
But that's the way it is. Some opera fans are more concerned with stupid soprano rivalries that with the music.
Eoselan 7, si hubiese escuchado a Milanov , sabrìa lo que es legato, filados sul fiato y el mismo color de voz de la primera a la ùltima nota, técnicamente es muy superior a Callas y Tebaldi con una voz inmensa y broncínea, hoy harían faltas muchas Milanov y si quiere hablar de grandes voces tiene que ir hacia atras Ponselle, Turner etc. etc
@@unclelouie3828 Well, her recordings were definitely touched and thrown to the garbage. How many of her recordings are still widely appreciated like Callas, Tebaldi or even Caballé? none.
Your only point is n your head!
Milanov who?!
@Noack Somewhere 4 decades, yet she's completely forgotten now unlike Callas and Tebaldi? Ouch 🤕
@Noack Somewhere She was well recorded. Yet all of her recordings are forgotten and collecting dust, and replaced by other. Makes one think.
Milanov had a beautiful voice, at least as far as the middle and upper registers were concerned, but was as dependent on pianissimi for effect as Caballe was. The registers were not blended, any more than Callas' were, and her coloratura technique was pedestrian compared to Callas'. It was a spinto voice, and at her best she could be affecting vocally, but this was so frequently underlined by the obvious lack of real legato, which is central to the classical technique of the 19th century. Lamperti would not have allowed her to sing in the chorus.
Her interpretations relied on a sort of diva posturing Tosca and she frequently resorted to the fractured yapping of a tiresome Pekingese. Callas' 'offstage antics' have nothing to do with the fact that she could sing a trill!!!! And integrate it into the musical line. That Milanov is forgotten, on the whole, is sad not surprising.
Zinka Molotov was an erratic singer, often singing flat. A glorious instrument. She was no great actress. In this interview Molotov is full of crap.
@Noack Somewhere Zinka Molotov was an erratic singer, often singing flat. A glorious instrument. She was no great actress. In this interview Molotov is full of crap.
Molotov am out LMAO
@@armandosanchez4978 Pues así le decían en su época.
I don t now for Zinka Molotov. Zinka Milanov never was flat.
@omarsomehow69 thank you Karen!
Tebaldi was a bad vocal actress, she just had beautiful tone and range and scale. Callas singing bel canto was not good and her high notes were shrill. But acting wise, physically and vocally, she is better than Renata. Shame one can’t combine the two. That’s what opera needs - not just one over the other three.
@John Michael Rodriguez Well maybe Mimì is the one a bit lower but all the other Puccini soprano roles are full of high notes, as far as I know :)
Callas's high notes were easy, round and powerful, everything but shrill! There's no doubt that her voice (but the whole range, not just high notes) lost a lot of quality and power when she started declining, but Tebaldi, on the other hand, always had problems with pitch on high notes and often they sounded screamy, not as beautiful as her glorious middle register, and that was even in her prime
Stop demonstrating your ignorance.
@@kbhprinsesse Use your ears rather than falsely accusing.
@opera revenger Your comment, not to mention your nickname, clearly demonstrates that you cant be taken seriously.