norma with nazis

[lennygoran]

I wouldn`t go to this production even if callas showed up-this is really sad imo. Len



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opera/what-t ... a-furious/

[jbuck919]

This is how I met my great friend Ted, whom you met in New York, all those many years ago at college.

What is your favorite music? Bel canto opera.

Well, that's about as specific as you can get without naming a single composer Bellini.

And that's about how specific as you can get without naming an opera. Norma.

And that's about as specific as you can get without naming an aria. Casta Diva, and he had a minor personal correspondence with Joan Sutherland, whom he adored. It is still the only reason I know this work.

[jbuck919]

This is how I met my great friend Ted, whom you met in New York, all those many years ago at college.

What is your favorite music? Bel canto opera.

Well, that's about as specific as you can get without naming a single composer Bellini.

And that's about how specific as you can get without naming an opera. Norma.

And that's about as specific as you can get without naming an aria. Casta Diva, and he had a minor personal correspondence with Joan Sutherland, whom he adored. It is still the only reason I know this work.

[lennygoran]

Sutherland-that was my first and main recording of Norma-that remains my favorite bellini! Len

[barney]

A very entertaining review. And i suspect I would agree. Bartoli has got a small voice, though that need not matter.

[maestrob]

All of us know and love Callas's Norma, but was that really what Bellini had in mind when he wrote the opera? I'll admit readily that I'm not sure, especially since Callas is so imprinted in my memory, but I wonder. Bartoli is an extremely intelligent, sensitive singer, a true intellectual, and she makes Norma work in the studio recording with Sumi Jo as her Adalgisa. If you listen with fresh ears, and ignore the Callas/Sutherland comparison, I think Bartoli's concept works really well on disc, if not in the hall. Think of Bjoerling's Trovatore recording, or Tucker's 1948 Rhadames with Toscanini in studio 8H.

My 2 cents......

[barney]

Hard to listen with fresh ears, especially here, but I am happy to try. What in particular did you admire - can you give examples?

[maestrob]

Hi, barney!

Examples of differences that are apparent to the ear:

1) Orchestral textures with original instruments, especially the flute/recorder in "Casta diva..."

2) Strings are much more "gutsy" and aggressive

3) Tempos tend to be faster, cutting out the dreamy soft pillowy moments of the Callas version, especially in the "Mira o Norma..." duet. The variations are exciting in the repeat as well.

4) Bartoli has just as much of a long line as you would expect Callas to have, and she uses it very effectively to delineate ornaments, which are much more interesting than in 1955.

5) Sumi jo is VERY interesting as Adalgisa, producing some fascinating timbres in the duet with Norma, for example.

Off the top of my head, that's what I remember for the moment........

[arepo]

All of us know and love Callas's Norma, but was that really what Bellini had in mind when he wrote the opera? I'll admit readily that I'm not sure, especially since Callas is so imprinted in my memory, but I wonder. Bartoli is an extremely intelligent, sensitive singer, a true intellectual, and she makes Norma work in the studio recording with Sumi Jo as her Adalgisa. If you listen with fresh ears, and ignore the Callas/Sutherland comparison, I think Bartoli's concept works really well on disc, if not in the hall. Think of Bjoerling's Trovatore recording, or Tucker's 1948 Rhadames with Toscanini in studio 8H.

My 2 cents......

Maestrob,

I'm with you on this one. I absolutely loved this recording of Norma and Bartoli does a fabulous job of bringing this most difficult opera role in the most extraordinary way.

There's more than one way to skin this cat and Bellini would be pleased, I'm sure at how this recording brings the work so beautifully to reality.

regards,


cliftwood

[John F]

All of us know and love Callas's Norma, but was that really what Bellini had in mind when he wrote the opera?

Probably yes. The original Norma, Giuditta Pasta, for whom the opera was written, was an unusual soprano of extraordinary expressive and dramatic power:

In 1829 named "cantante delle passioni" by Carlo Ritorni, one of the most erudite critics of the period, he described her as such because her voice was directed "towards expressing the most intense passions, accompanying it with expressions of physical action, unknown before her in the lyric theatre".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuditta_Pasta

Even in the 19th century, the title role was not taken by typical bel canto sopranos. Wagner was a fan of the opera, conducting it in his youth and composing some numbers for insertion in it; his ideal dramatic soprano, Wilhelmine Schroeder-Devrient, had Norma in her repertory. Mahler conducted 11 performances of "Norma" at the Vienna Court Opera in 1898, with Anna von Mildenburg (a Brünnhilde and Kundry) in the title role. The Met's first Norma, in 1890, was Lilli Lehmann, who likewise sang the heroic soprano roles. Maria Callas's voice and temperament were just about ideal for this role, not just in our own time but in the historical context all the way back to Bellini; why should we ignore her?

I haven't heard Cecilia Bartoli's recording, but from what I know of her and of the opera, it's a major vocal mismatch. This is a role for a big dramatic voice, and whatever her other virtues, and I don't underestimate them, Bartoli just doesn't have it.

[arepo]

John Francis..

I wish you could hear this recording and see if your comments remain the same.

best,

cliftwood

[maestrob]

All of us know and love Callas's Norma, but was that really what Bellini had in mind when he wrote the opera?

Probably yes. The original Norma, Giuditta Pasta, for whom the opera was written, was an unusual soprano of extraordinary expressive and dramatic power:

In 1829 named "cantante delle passioni" by Carlo Ritorni, one of the most erudite critics of the period, he described her as such because her voice was directed "towards expressing the most intense passions, accompanying it with expressions of physical action, unknown before her in the lyric theatre".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuditta_Pasta

Even in the 19th century, the title role was not taken by typical bel canto sopranos. Wagner was a fan of the opera, conducting it in his youth and composing some numbers for insertion in it; his ideal dramatic soprano, Wilhelmine Schroeder-Devrient, had Norma in her repertory. Mahler conducted 11 performances of "Norma" at the Vienna Court Opera in 1898, with Anna von Mildenburg (a Brünnhilde and Kundry) in the title role. The Met's first Norma, in 1890, was Lilli Lehmann, who likewise sang the heroic soprano roles. Maria Callas's voice and temperament were just about ideal for this role, not just in our own time but in the historical context all the way back to Bellini; why should we ignore her?

I haven't heard Cecilia Bartoli's recording, but from what I know of her and of the opera, it's a major vocal mismatch. This is a role for a big dramatic voice, and whatever her other virtues, and I don't underestimate them, Bartoli just doesn't have it.

"Why should we ignore her?"

Good grief, John, who said anything about ignoring her? Not I, says I.

Notice that I stayed away from the idea of Bartoli's live performance, even in a small theater, and focused on the recording itself, which I find outstanding. Miracles can happen in the studio, and before you criticize something so deeply, I do think you ought at least to give it a hearing. (Think of Bjoerling's Trovatore.)

Callas was a great Norma, no one is disputing that. All those singers you mention above were from the distant past, when modern recording techniques were not available. Bellini, I think, would have been intrigued by this recording and the orchestra is, I'm quite sure, more what he had in mind than the modern players found on Callas's 1955 discs.

Sorry to be so blunt, but your argument simply doesn't hold water unless you take the time to actually sit down and listen. If you still don't like it, well then de gustibus and so on....

[John F]

Good grief, John, who said anything about ignoring her? Not I, says I.

Yes you did, in so many words: "If you listen with fresh ears, and ignore the Callas/Sutherland comparison..."

Notice that I stayed away from the idea of Bartoli's live performance, even in a small theater, and focused on the recording itself, which I find outstanding. Miracles can happen in the studio, and before you criticize something so deeply, I do think you ought at least to give it a hearing. (Think of Bjoerling's Trovatore.)

Jussi Björling sang Manrico at the Met in 1938, 1940, and 1948, and nobody complained that his voice was inadequate. Similarly Carlo Bergonzi in our time. They would have if Cesare Valletti had taken on the role, but he had the good sense not to.

When a singer patently doesn't have the voice for a role - and the real test is not in the recording studio, where all kinds of electronic tricks can be played (I don't call them "miracles"), but live in the theatre - I won't spend the money and the time to acquire and listen to her recording just to satisfy you. I can be blunt too.

All those singers you mention above were from the distant past, when modern recording techniques were not available. Bellini, I think, would have been intrigued by this recording and the orchestra is, I'm quite sure, more what he had in mind than the modern players found on Callas's 1955 discs.

It's you who asked whether Maria Callas was "really what Bellini had in mind when he wrote the opera." And I answered your question yes, in detail. Since Bellini composed the opera specifically for a Maria Callas-type soprano, there's no good reason to believe that he would have been "intrigued" by a light-voiced mezzo-soprano daring to take on this challenging dramatic soprano role.

As for the orchestra, Bellini made do with the orchestras in the opera houses where his operas were first performed, but again there's no good reason to suppose that he was fastidious about subtle differences in timbre between one orchestra and the next. His own orchestration is competent and functional but no more, entirely subordinate to the singers and capable of being played by a very ordinary opera orchestra of his day or ours without much rehearsal. "By cutting down the orchestration to a minimum Bellini earned black marks that have followed him ever since." (John Rosselli, "Life of Bellini") He was no Mozart.

Sorry to be so blunt, but your argument simply doesn't hold water unless you take the time to actually sit down and listen.

Your argument, with its dubious guesses about the past, doesn't hold. If you now want to change the subject, fine, but please don't blame me for responding seriously to your original comments. Setting them aside, it seems to me that you're saying only that you like the recording - it's to your taste. That too is fine, but there's no arguing about tastes.

[lennygoran]

Hi, barney!

Examples of differences that are apparent to the ear:

Brian fwiw I just read this review from her Norma from Hugh Canning:

Here's Hugh Canning's review: Regards, Len

Bartoli’s Norma made Edinburgh feel a bit like the old days, when Maria Callas sang four performances of Bellini’s La sonnambula at the King’s Theatre. Bartoli is emphatically not Callas; indeed, her Norma could justly be described as the anti-Callas version. Her voice now lies most comfortably in the mezzo-soprano register with which she began her career 30 years ago as Rossini’s Rosina and La Cenerentola. The plush, juicy tone is long gone, and it sounds distinctly less well oiled than on her justly admired early recordings. By rights, she shouldn’t be able to get away with such a formidable role, which Callas modelled in her own image and made into an operatic legend.

Yet with her more modest vocal resources, Bartoli triumphs in Patrice Caurier and Moshe Leiser’s Second World War updating, which transforms the Druid priestess into a schoolteacher, the pillar of a close-knit community resisting the fascist intruders. It works because the musical performance is tailored to Bartoli’s strengths: her immaculate mezza-voce cantilena turns the famous Casta diva into a spellbinding reverie; and thanks to the period instruments of I Barocchisti, briskly and dynamically conducted at short notice by Gianluca Capuano, and a supporting cast of much lighter — and more stylish — voices than those who sang with Callas, Bartoli can project Norma’s dilemma, as the unmarried mother of Pollione’s child, with fierce and devastating intensity.

She is one of the few Normas I have seen who might plausibly kill her children out of revenge. She gets Bellini’s notes across the footlights by sheer effort of will, and you see the emotional cost of dispatching them. I have rarely, if ever, been as moved by this opera. Bartoli is literally incandescent here, as she joins her faithless Pollione (the excellent John Osborn) on a blazing pyre. Indoor fireworks and a personal triumph.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/edinb ... -t9lxzzgd7

[maestrob]

Thanks for that, Len!

John, as usual you stick with the past. Your argument that you can judge a situation without hearing it or having been there leaves me speechless.

On the one hand, you bring out multiple examples of Shostakovich V (in another thread) to justify that differing interpretations of a piece can be effective, yet here you seem stuck on Maria Callas (or a similar voice) as being the only proponent of the role of Norma.

And you use your extensive and very interesting knowledge and library resources to back up your point of view, which I do not have access to.

Ah well, yes, I like the recording very much, and am sad to hear that you have simply closed your ears to other possibilities, while I keep mine open. So much wonderful music-making is going on these days!

Pace, amigo.

[barney]

Hi, barney!

Examples of differences that are apparent to the ear:

1) Orchestral textures with original instruments, especially the flute/recorder in "Casta diva..."

2) Strings are much more "gutsy" and aggressive

3) Tempos tend to be faster, cutting out the dreamy soft pillowy moments of the Callas version, especially in the "Mira o Norma..." duet. The variations are exciting in the repeat as well.

4) Bartoli has just as much of a long line as you would expect Callas to have, and she uses it very effectively to delineate ornaments, which are much more interesting than in 1955.

5) Sumi jo is VERY interesting as Adalgisa, producing some fascinating timbres in the duet with Norma, for example.

Off the top of my head, that's what I remember for the moment........

Well, that's a very interesting list. Thanks for going to the trouble. I have the set, and will try to listen soon. Been consumed with Tannhauser this week - reviewed it last night, third concert/opera in 3 days.
Nice to have musical riches, is it not?

[lennygoran]

Thanks for that, Len!

Brian I love the opera Norma--for me the problem is not that Bartoli has shown up in it-I'd gladly go to see her-for me the problem is that the Nazis have put in an appearance. Regards, Len

[John F]

John, as usual you stick with the past.

How often must I say it? You yourself brought up the past by invoking what you imagine to have been Bellini's intentions and preferences. You can hardly blame me for responding in kind, yet that is exactly what you now appear to be doing.

Your argument that you can judge a situation without hearing it or having been there leaves me speechless.

No it doesn't - you aren't speechless at all. But surely you yourself would do the same under like circumstances. If, say, Natalie Dessay made a recording as Brünnhilde, would you really need to hear it before judging that situation misbegotten and unworthy of your time and attention? Or if Birgit Nilsson sang Rosina or Norina? Maybe so, but I value my time a bit more highly than that.

On the one hand, you bring out multiple examples of Shostakovich V (in another thread) to justify that differing interpretations of a piece can be effective, yet here you seem stuck on Maria Callas (or a similar voice) as being the only proponent of the role of Norma.

A false analogy. I am indeed open to a wide range of interpretive ideas, but I have never justified a performance of Shostakovich's symphony by a chamber ensemble like Orpheus or the Academy of St. Martin in the Fields.

As for the role of Norma, my view is not as you say. I have never implied that Joan Sutherland or Montserrat Caballé were miscast in the role, though their voices could hardly be more different from Maria Callas's. Though they lacked her fiery temperament, their voices and techniques were entirely suitable for the role. I've known Bellini's "Norma" for decades, and I know Cecilia Bartoli's capabilities well from having seen her in three operas and two concerts, and several recordings as well. I know what I'm talking about.

Ah well, yes, I like the recording very much, and am sad to hear that you have simply closed your ears to other possibilities...

No, I've only closed them to impossibilities.

We've pretty well worn out the topic of Bartoli's recording of "Norma," but there's a broader and more important topic that would be worth discussing, if anybody is interested. That is, whether any music has any requirements of its performers that should ward off any who don't meet those requirements.

With your practical experience in musical performance, I imagine you've advised some singers in this line, or perhaps wanted to but refrained against your better judgment. After all, singers can ruin their voices with bad choices of repertoire or an unwise change of Fach. And an opera manager at the Met or La Scala occasionally has to decide whether to give a singer a debut in a new role, balancing the singer's wishes, his/her abilities, and the reputation of the house.

When Giuseppe di Stefano decided in 1966 that he wanted to sing Otello, no major opera house would indulge him, despite his fame and popularity, because everybody knew it was a disaster in the making and advised him against it. The manager of the Pasadena Opera was willing, and hired Tito Gobbi both as a supreme Iago and as stage director, to hold di Stefano's hand. It was indeed a disaster, and though he was only 45, his career went downhill from then on.

On the other hand, when Placido Domingo said he was going to sing Otello, there were a lot of doomsayers who believed his voice was wrong for the role and it would shorten his career. I was not one of them, though I couldn't imagine that it would become his signature role with more than 100 performances, and that he would still be singing major roles at major opera houses at 75.

[John F]

Somewhat off topic, but elsewhere I mentioned that Lilli Lehmann, an Isolde and Brünnhilde, was also a famous Norma at the Met and elsewhere. She recorded "Casta diva" and "Mira, o Norma" in Berlin in 1907, when she was 59 and had been singing professionally for 40 years. She once said that singing one performance of "Norma" was more stressful than singing the three Brünnhildes - in one day! That notwithstanding, Andrew Porter writes of "Casta diva":

Lehmann's recordings are justly famous. She was 59. She sings here with strong, sure tone, noble phrasing, and astounding flexibility.. All the runs and ornaments are accurate; she adds two (perfectly formed) trills to the two sustained Cs of the second florid melisma on "senza vel."

Here it is:



The style is a bit old-fashioned but not very, and she aces the high C# with a slight diminuendo near the end. How is Bartoli with that, by the way? Occasionally a Brünnhilde will sing Norma nowadays - Jane Eaglen did it at the Met in 2001, to pretty faint praise. It's recordings like these that provide a longer and perhaps more critical perspective on our present-day musical life. Though I may be just about the only one here who thinks so.

[maestrob]

Sorry to say, JohnF, but your youtube link doesn't show up on my screen, but I'd love to hear it.......

The Domingo of the 1960's & 1970's was not the Domingo of today. I have a recording of Domingo singing Rodolfo to Tebaldi's Mimi led by La Selva that makes him as far from Otello as early Bergonzi, or perhaps even more so. Levine's decision to advise Domingo against the role initially was sound: Domingo sounds great in the studio, but IMHO could not live up to the role live: I heard him live at least twice and was disappointed at each performance, including a telecast. That he had success in the role with the public (and you, apparently) doesn't change my opinion one bit. Yet, I love the CD set he recorded with Levine and Scotto, even if she does sound a bit frayed.

Domingo's musicianship has led him to dare roles that a more careful singer in his fach would avoid (Tannhauser, Lohengin, Samson for ex.). Each has been successful on disc, but his Samson sounded strained to my ears live, yet again was a success in the studio; I treasure his recording. The Lohengin sounded fine, however in a live MET performance, but I never heard Tannhauser live (did he sing that role at the MET?).

As you know already, Bergonzi hired Carnegie Hall to sing Otello as his swan song, and that ended in disaster. He just couldn't get through the role. Very sad.

[lennygoran]

Domingo's musicianship has led him to dare roles that a more careful singer in his fach would avoid.

Brian I saw him at the Met in Ernani-Ernani is a Verdi opera I just love-he played the King and sang it sounding more like a tenor than a baritone-still I can't tell you how much I enjoyed it-he knows how to command the stage! Regards, Len

[maestrob]

Domingo's musicianship has led him to dare roles that a more careful singer in his fach would avoid.

Brian I saw him at the Met in Ernani-Ernani is a Verdi opera I just love-he played the King and sang it sounding more like a tenor than a baritone-still I can't tell you how much I enjoyed it-he knows how to command the stage! Regards, Len

I agree that Domingo has a great stage presence. I'll bet it's on youtube, but have you seen his portrayal of Rigoletto filmed in the historical locations where the opera takes place? It was broadcast by Channel 13 a few years back, and if you like him in baritone roles, I think you'd enjoy it if you haven't already seen it....The tenor (DUKE) was quite good also!

I must say that Domingo singing baritone roles is a curiosity, but as long as he can pull in an audience, who cares?

[lennygoran]

have you seen his portrayal of Rigoletto filmed in the historical locations where the opera takes place?

Brian yes I saw most of it-ironically there was something about it I didn't like-not Placido's fault but the concept of seeing it as a movie-something rubbed me the wrong way --guess I'm just too use to seeing operas on a stage? Regards, Len

[John F]

Sorry to say, JohnF, but your youtube link doesn't show up on my screen, but I'd love to hear it.......

Hope this works. If not, search in YouTube for Lilli Lehmann Casta Diva:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glTygSu2ON4

Domingo sounds great in the studio, but IMHO could not live up to the role live: I heard him live at least twice and was disappointed at each performance, including a telecast.

We do disagree, then. Since we saw different performances during the 20 years (!) in which Domingo sang Otello at the Met, and of course we have different ears and evidently different standards, best to leave our disagreement at that. But taking the broader view, evidently we agree that singers do take on roles for which their voices are not suited, and that such judgments can be made without having heard the singer try the role (as James Levine did with Domingo, with your approval). And I don't see why this shouldn't apply to Norma as to Otello.

As for Bergonzi, of course I wasn't referring to his abortive effort at Otello, which I'd forgotten about, but specifically his Manrico, in the context of your reference to Bjoerling's Manrico. Neither was an artificial creation of the recording studio, which I believe you were saying, but was tested time and again live in the opera house.

Speaking generally, I'm not sure just what it means to say that a voice sounds strained as a matter of technique, as opposed to interpretation. Some repertoire is not meant to sound effortless: Siegfried, the tenor songs in "Das Lied von der Erde," Otello for that matter. The most exciting Otello I've ever heard was not Mario Del Monaco, who could sing anything louder than anyone else, but the 51-year-old Giovanni Martinelli, whose voice production was often effortful (and not just in "Esultate"). The evident strain fits the character's situation and his music. Though you may not think so. Nonetheless he continued to sing demanding tenor roles well into his 60s, and actually sang a cameo performance as the emperor in "Turandot" in Seattle when he was 80.

The Domingo of the 1960's & 1970's was not the Domingo of today.

Of course not. The John Francis of the 1960s and 1970s was not the John Francis of today.

[maestrob]

Somewhat off topic, but elsewhere I mentioned that Lilli Lehmann, an Isolde and Brünnhilde, was also a famous Norma at the Met and elsewhere. She recorded "Casta diva" and "Mira, o Norma" in Berlin in 1907, when she was 59 and had been singing professionally for 40 years. She once said that singing one performance of "Norma" was more stressful than singing the three Brünnhildes - in one day! That notwithstanding, Andrew Porter writes of "Casta diva":

Lehmann's recordings are justly famous. She was 59. She sings here with strong, sure tone, noble phrasing, and astounding flexibility.. All the runs and ornaments are accurate; she adds two (perfectly formed) trills to the two sustained Cs of the second florid melisma on "senza vel."

Here it is:



The style is a bit old-fashioned but not very, and she aces the high C# with a slight diminuendo near the end. How is Bartoli with that, by the way? Occasionally a Brünnhilde will sing Norma nowadays - Jane Eaglen did it at the Met in 2001, to pretty faint praise. It's recordings like these that provide a longer and perhaps more critical perspective on our present-day musical life. Though I may be just about the only one here who thinks so.

I'll have to relisten to the Bartoli recording to answer your question, but surely Lilli Lehmann is an example of a LIGHTER voice singing Casta Diva: she sang Mozart (Susanna) and Verdi's Traviata, along with many other lighter roles, although she did record Du bist der Lenz, which is the easiest of Wagner's arias for soprano.

A small point: with modern tuning, the C# is slightly higher than in Bellini's time, and I suspect that Bartoli benefits from that in her recording.

Furthermore, your youtube postings are educational and add depth to our discussion. Keep 'em coming!

As for Martinelli's Otello, while the voice is light for the role, he sings intelligently and I hear no hint of strain. It is, in fact, a miracle of good vocal technique.

[John F]

Lilli Lehmann was not a lighter-voiced soprano, though the acoustic recording process may give that impression. She sang Isolde and Brunnhilde at the Met - indeed, she said that one performance as Norma was harder than singing all three Brunnhildes in a day! Which of course she never did, nobody ever has, but she often sang them within a week, as is normal in a Ring cycle. Lehmann was extraordinarily versatile, with the power for the heavy Wagner roles and the agility for Constanze's "Martern aller Arten" from "Entfuhrung aus dem Serail." (She was also Geraldine Farrar's teacher.)

As for Cecilia Bartoli and "Casta diva," I confess that I sneaked a listen to one of her recordings on YouTube. She ducks the high note. No shame in that; Flagstad usually ducked the high Cs in "Gotterdammerung" and "Tristan und Isolde."

[maestrob]

Lilli Lehmann was not a lighter-voiced soprano, though the acoustic recording process may give that impression. She sang Isolde and Brunnhilde at the Met - indeed, she said that one performance as Norma was harder than singing all three Brunnhildes in a day! Which of course she never did, nobody ever has, but she often sang them within a week, as is normal in a Ring cycle. Lehmann was extraordinarily versatile, with the power for the heavy Wagner roles and the agility for Constanze's "Martern aller Arten" from "Entfuhrung aus dem Serail." (She was also Geraldine Farrar's teacher.)

As for Cecilia Bartoli and "Casta diva," I confess that I sneaked a listen to one of her recordings on YouTube. She ducks the high note. No shame in that; Flagstad usually ducked the high Cs in "Gotterdammerung" and "Tristan und Isolde."

That's interesting about Lehmann: the commercial recordings I have of her are all lighter roles, topped off with "Du bist der Lenz," which is the easiest of Wagner's arias for soprano. She obviously had a very secure technique. As for Flagstad's high C's, I do remember that her high C in her recording of Isolde belongs to Elizabeth Schwarzkopf.

Interesting tidbit on Schwarzkopf.....

During the early 1980's, Schwarzkopf, whose voice was uncommonly even from top to bottom, with not a hint of "hole in the middle" (a la Leontyne Price) throughout her career, sat in on a day's worth of lessons with my voice teacher. When the day was over, she asked "What is this "chest voice?" and never came back. Now my teacher had a very accurate ear and knew how to put a voice together (he fixed up Judith Raskin, who became the head of the vocal department at Manhattan School teaching his technique around that time). It would appear that Schwarzkopf, who was exploring various techniques to enhance her teaching, had a natural voice that had been polished by her teachers, but she didn't know how to work with dysfunctional voices.

[John F]

Other sopranos besides Lilli Lehmann were as versatile. One was Maria Callas herself, a Wagner soprano before Tullio Serafin brought her to the bel canto repertoire. Another was/is Anja Silja, whose audition for Georg Solti in Frankfurt was the most extraordinary he ever heard: Isolde's Liebestod and the Queen of the Night aria.

Unlike Callas but like Lehmann, Silja pursued both lines. Under the direction of Wieland Wagner, she sang all the Wagner soprano roles except Kundry and Sieglinde, but retained the range and agility for Lulu. Of course there was a lot of tut-tutting in the '60s that those Isoldes and Brünnhildes were going to ruin her voice, but she was still singing Kostelnicka at the Met and Emilia Marty at Glyndebourne in her 60s; according to Wikipedia, she sang in a production of Prokofiev's "Gambler" in 2013 when she was 73. She may still be singing, for all I know.

Lilli Lehmann's recorded repertoire, all dating from 1906-7, was shaped among other things by what would sell and what was within the capability of the recording technology of the times, with 78 rpm sides limited to 4 minutes - hardly friendly to the Ring. Her Met repertoire in the 1880s and '90s was quite different, as you can see for yourself in the Met annals:

http://archives.metoperafamily.org/archives/frame.htm

Lehmann also wrote a textbook on singing, and I've found a YouTube recording of the section on "velocity" (meaning essentially agility and ornaments) and the trill. What she says at the beginning might arouse a chorus of protests from today's singers and their teachers, but who's to say she is wrong?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrpQq66BWV0

Singers of her generation, of both sexes and in all ranges from soprano to bass, were able to sing a real trill. Nowadays what we mostly hear is a vibrato put under pressure to spread into something like a wobble, or the singer may not even try. Samuel Ramey brought uncommon agility to his singing, uncommon for today, until he changed to a dramatic bass repertoire and lost it. But even he sounds like an amateur next to Hippolyte Belhomme, a robust bass who sang minor roles at the Opéra-Comique (not the Opéra) and who practices what Lehmann preaches, including a genuine trill with a diminuendo.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV6MkDdg0ys

We've come quite a distance from "Norma" and even further from Nazis, so I'll stop here. See what you get when you encourage me?