Maria Callas sings Violetta's first aria at Mexico (1951)

This performance was actually televised in Mexico, what happened to those videotapes is a mystery to me, but I read somewhere that they were probably destroyed in a fire.

[@eberlinpascal2837]

Dans cette air là ,elle met à terre toutes les autres. La puissance vocale ,la virtuosité et la vélocité dans les vocalises et la précisions des coloratures .Enfin un contre mi bémol gigantesque! Les spectateurs ont dû être sous le choc !

[@wallshootout5616]

❤❤❤Unwahrscheinlich,mystisch, herrlich,göttliche unsterbliche Schönheit der Stimme!!!!😊😊😊😊,tiefer Ausdruck des Herzens ❤️ und der Seele!!Heller Morgenstern der Oper!!!Ewig unerklärbar!!!!Sensationell bis in den letzten Winkel des Himmels!!!❤❤❤❤❤😊😊😊Größtes Wunder aller Zeiten!!!

[@shodanart]

She was still an attractive Greek diva at this weight! ❤

[@telorceploks]

I know, right? She had always been beautiful, even before her weight loss. If only she didn't lose weight in such an unhealthy way, she might've had a longer career. 😢

[@ER1CwC]

There is no such thing as diminishing returns as far as this performance is concerned. The Sempre libera always astounds. But the Ah for'se lui here too is wonderful -- and underrated. I am reminded, listening to it this time around, that she didn't need to be vocally frail to be introspective and refined.

[@Nobilangelo]

The tragic irony is that love, 'croce e delizia al core', became the story of her life. What she sang inimitably from her heart became its painful experience.

[@jazzychazzy007]

Stupendous ! Mind boggling! Unbelievable - but thank god the tapes still exist.

[@mcsquared3152]

Callas is truly superhuman. Let's set aside for a moment her incredible musicianship and, as a direct result of that, her unique phrasing. Just try to manage that Niagara Falls volume voice with the precision to a millimeter, and not even simply manage, which she did, but create art of highest beauty! And she did it regularly (in her younger years, at least). Some vicious detractors of hers (in some of the comments below) could be very uncomfortable with what they hear from Maria, others spew their venom because they are a total and unqualified failure in their lives, and not only in their careers in music, but in every aspect of life , and an envy of someone uniquely accomplished, surely boils over.......Some are indulgent in a 'vocal consumerism', so to speak, and so on and so forth. But let them bleat what they may................. The art of Maria Callas speaks volumes to those, who is willing to hear, and to those who are capable of distinguishing between an instrument (voice) and its' player (a singer). Bravissima, Maria!

[@pammyjones1151]

Divine and sublime!!! My god can you imagine actually being able to see it.... The mind boggles!!!.

[@scataplaft]

Absolutely bonkers. ❤

[@terrance7220]

I’m really impressed there’s some Ponselle-ism and Muzio-ism here and there

[@SymphonyBrahms]

Callas admired Ponselle. When she heard a recording of Ponselle singing "Casta Diva" she remarked. "At last. Someone who knows what she's doing".

[@Gabriel-hs9mv]

@@SymphonyBrahms can you back up that claim? It sounds uncharacteristically arrogant and offensive, knowing Maria’s character.

[@SilverSingingMethod]

But she refused to go to her to coach.

[@Shahrdad]

Neither Ponselle nor Muzio could have ever sung sempre libera with the speed and the phenomenal agility that Callas displays here, and neither one could have produced that gigantic high E-flat at the end. Ponselle's version is transposed down by a half tone, since she was terrified of the high C, and the coloratura is mess, taken at a far faster speed than she could manage well.

[@ЛюдмилаШилова-к8и]

Bellissimo!!!!!Mille grazie!!!!!!👏🌹🙇❤

[@babydrane]

Absolutely beautiful woman here. If only the body positivity movement had started much earlier and she had the good fortune to avoid all those negative people in her life.

[@samisamsam4104]

That movement is built on quicksand. THEY ONLY SEMI CONVINCE SELVES. YOU CANNOT legislate apprehnsions of beauty and health with a movement

[@elenawinellcomposer]

The tapes were lost in an earthquake...easily the most tragic casualty

[@judygarland7186]

how do you know that?

[@mikegalvin9801]

@@judygarland7186 Of course not just Mexico but US, UK, Europe early TV tapes rarely survived. The broadcasters, many on shoestring budgets in those very early days, just didn't see them as valuable and thus proper storage was an afterthought.

[@chantalbeckmann8022]

dommage pour les videotapes mais l´essentiel est là : la voix !!!

[@joseluisbarros-re9mm]

Two comments being a Mexican who worked 15 years in Mexico's television. The broadcast could not be a videotape since videotape arrived in Mexico in 1962. Whatever record must have been in film. Second, I have heard opera for more than 60 years. I do not believe managers Rudolf Bing, of the NY Met (1950.1972), or Antonio Ghiringhelli (many years at La Scala), nor conductors like Etich Kleiber, Tulio Serafin, Antonino Votto, Herbert von Karajan, Leonard Bernstein, sound engineers like Walter Legge, and singers like Giuseppe Di Stefano, Franco Corelli, Alfredo Krauss, Tito Gobbi, Christa Ludwig, Ebe Stagnani, Giuletta Simionati, etc. could, all, and thousands of admirers, be wrong in appreciating Maria Callas talent. The world and history are wrong. Only Mr. Joseph Collins is right. And to prove it, he reflects on English fluency no matter that we are talking mainly about Italian and French operas. I hope I make myself understood.

[@philipc67]

You are so right. Her live Mexico recordings are priceless treasures. Think the 1950 Norma and Trovatore, that magnificent 1951 Aida and this Traviata, the 1952 Puritani, Rigoletto (her only staged Gildas) and first Lucia. Ignorant idiots like JC below who claim she was a bad singer can go hide in their garbage piles. This is superhuman singing and peerless musicianship. Tebaldi? There can be no comparison. Yes, Tebaldi was an admirable artist with a beautiful, well-managed instrument But lacked the versatility and coloratura technique, her high C almost always flat and she was a stiff actress. Tebaldi never sang Lucia, Amina, Elvira, Anna Bolena, Norma, Medea, Lady Macbeth, Abigaille, Armida. No comparison whatsoever. Viva Mexico!

[@antben8992]

Ma, scusi, chi è questo Joseph Collins ? Non so nulla di lui !

[@andyhorstmanshoff4233]

Unbelievable!!!!!!

[@CarlaEugenia1955]

Nell'interpretazione di Violetta come di tante altre eroine del melodramma la Callas ha posto l'asticella troppo in alto. Le altre interpreti possono solo passarci sotto

[@eiriniseltsika8697]

Συμφωνώ απόλυτα

[@GoranVONKarkin]

Tenor is ARRIGO POLA - 30. Decembre 1951' PARMA

[@СабираАязбай]

❤😢😢😮

[@soulisoikonomou5798]

Superhuman Callas !!!

[@OLIVCHEN77]

Not in ghe fire..in the 1985 earthquake. Also there was a problem to conserv TV in the early 50s...

[@romearomeo]

Unica

[@Mini_Min_]

Shouldn't the title say "Violetta's first aria"?

[@josephcollins6033]

Although I have heard recordings from '48 (not much difference from '58) I was hoping that maybe...but no. Some nice phrasing. She wanted to sing so badly...and did. Hideous sound and no techniques. She always sounds as if she has a good brain and much desire but a greatly flawed instrument and no knowledge of how to sing; like raw nerve and talent with no skill.

[@andity1]

Are you deaf.. well if you think she is bad, tell me who do you like most in that aria?

[@josephcollins6033]

@@andity1 Fascinates me that you people are so cruel. Yes, I think she was a horrible singer. Read what I wrote, slowly. Almost any world-class soprano is better than Callas. Perhaps as Lady Macbeth her tone suited what Verdi wanted, and that is a good thing. She didn't know how to sing. If you don't know singing then it would take so very long to explain what I mean. Callas had this incredible brain and seemed to just fly at it; sometimes that worked, and sometimes it did not; it was almost always an ugly sound. But, beauty is so personal, isn't it? I like Moffo ( before the accident) as Violetta. Fleming had great moments in that role. Rosa Ponselle was a miracle in the role most of the time if you accept the fact that a woman's top was approached quite differently in those days. Sills had some great moments, but she never really supported well; she, like Callas, always pushed and stressed the vocal folds and tended to go with a balls out performance; and that can produce some thrilling results. I am a person who appreciates technique. We know so much about the science of the voice now; difficult for me to hear bad singing. If you love Callas, as millions do, then listen and enjoy.

[@andity1]

@@josephcollins6033 well I know a lot about singing, I am a singer myself and I have a many years practice behind me, and lots of studies about the voice. What Callas did,no one ever did! And probably won't be repeated. That's why she is so praised as a singer. You say her voice is ugly, she might not be Renata Tebaldi, yes, but her voice is what every great singer needs - to be instantly recognised. And yes I listen a lot of her recordings. She is simply magnificent, the technique, well the Bel Canto is really the best you can rely of, isn't it? She could sing anything and she did that, leaving us a perfect example how a piece should be sung. She wasn't the best in all roles she sung, but she was great in all of them.

[@josephcollins6033]

t@@andity1 Oh my, Honey, you just told me all I need to know. Firstly, you need to have a much better command of English if you want to spar with me. When one's writing appears as a second language one has no credibility. You cannot possibly know anything about singing if you think that "years of practice" indicate knowledge. There are about four people in the world who know more than anyone about olympic singing; I am one of them. The very fact that you mention Tebaldi in the same sentence with Callas tells me a lot. You probably are what I call an "opera buff". You have read about the "feud" and the junk about Tebaldi being the lovely-voiced, boring one and Callas being the great actress, etc., etc. You also follow that with the term "bel canto". Oh, my. Callas is certainly touted as the great interpreter of the Bel Canto style; I realize that. But, actually the only knowledge we have about the 18th, 19th C style is from the operas and the vocal requirements demanded in the scores; also primary sources are a great help.We cannot know how they sounded. Callas had a natural ability to scream (sometimes she was lucky and sounded almost secure) that repertoire for a few years, becoming gradually more hideous in sound. Callas may have sung the repertoire, even bringing it to light after a decline, but she was NOT a true Bel Canto representative. I can sing Wagner all day, but I am not a Wagnerian. You and so many others like the crashing and banging drama of Callas; I do not. I can hear what is happening in her throat, and it is painful. She never, ever supported. She never, ever was able to rely on her instrument to do what she wanted it to do; simply listen! She could NOT "sing anything". Yes, she tried to sing everything. But, listen to it! Listen to Joan Sutherland sing those roles. THAT is Bel Canto. It is difficult for me to hear strained, pushed, technique-less singing.You prefer to hear pain in the voice. As for Tebaldi, you used her in the same old way dilettantes speak of her. I must assure you that Tebaldi was also a wretched technician. The voice was gorgeous most of the time, but listen to her sing high notes!!! They are so often flat and spread and "nervous". Tebaldi was so variable in her art; sometimes incredible and often horrible. I have recordings of Tebaldi singing Boheme and Tosca--brilliant! But, she was always unreliable. When I hear her I want to say, "Honey, come on in here for about an hour; I can fix that for you." She and Callas BOTH had something because audiences adored them, and yes, surely, one recognized the sound in two seconds. I can recognize the sound of a hog in one second. I am speaking of great singing, not fan-love. I can help you if you want, by giving you some recordings to listen to with a little teaching along the way. However, I am rather expensive.

[@mcsquared3152]

Oh..........Mr.Collins.......... I'm under strong impression you're just crying (sobbing) for attention.......... That's why you present yourself so pompously as an ultimate authority on voice and technique. Firstly, please learn that 'no techniques' in your post above is incorrect, - the noun should NOT be pluralized in that context........Is English your 100th language???... Secondly, all your claims of having studied singing and vocal technique make your statements even more ridiculous if not ludicrous, and I'll tell you why: you have fallen into a primitive trap, where you will find a huge company of others (that may console you), and that trap is not distinguishing between a singer and their voice. Voice is an instrument, and a singer in that sense is an instrument player..... A vocalist cannot change their instrument, unlike a pianist or any other instrumentalist....... Maria Callas is the ultimate example of that distinction: her voice, as many good researchers and critics have concluded from the very beginning of her career, is such that she was called a singer with not 3 registers, but with 3 voices......... Yes, her voice was flawed. But she more, way more, than made up for that flaw through her innate, finest Musicianship and her tireless work on Expressiveness of her voice (just an example could be recording of "Tosca" in 1953, when she was re-recording, with Tito Gobbi, one excerpt for over half-an-hour, having used few kilometers of tape, just to get the right tonal expression; another one would be the account from the late John Vickers, may he rest in peace, of their rehearsal of "Medea" in Dallas in November of 1958, when they were rehearsing until 2 a.m.....). Also it was precisely that characteristic of her voice that gave her the rich possibilities for employing the right 'vocal colours', so to speak, to do the justice to the characters she was portraying, and in that, she was supreme, unsurpassed master. So, your narrative clearly states that if you don't like the timbre of singers voice, you jump to the conclusion they have no technique, piling up everything together, with no slightest distinction......no more, no less (?!!)..... Everyone has the right to their opinion, of course. But that, by no means, implies that their opinion is consistent with reality...... Callas (especially young Callas) had most obviously rock solid technique. Listen to "Ombra leggiera" from "Dinorah", "Dov'e l'Indiana Bruna" from "Lakme", "D'amore al Dolce Impero" from "Armida" (and better yet, to the entire recording of "Armida" in 1952), "Al Dolce Guidami" from "Anna Bolena" (La Scala, 1957) to name just minimally few selections. Then you might surprise your own self, if you are unbiased (good luck with that!). But if you don't understand the distinction between a voice and a singer, then you will make statements of the above kind, in addition to totally laughable statement that Callas did not support her voice(????????????????), at which not only people, but even birds, if they could, would be laughing at you.....................

[@ben-hurjudha3648]

I see many comments about her voice,her limit,her decision to sing her own way ..I don't know what is her size of voice in real but I think her voice was gigantic and here she try to control her singing with great technics, fluidity, agility,even last high note it was perfect for my ears but for the taste of voice-role I think not suit for her voice. Who....is/are great in this role with very large voice , real dramatic but still be feminine and high agility, and great high note also??? I don't know but in my eyes is Edda Moser , anyone else?