Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

This review has been revised after over two years of listening, analyzing, and re-evaluating. Initially, I wasn't sure if I would weigh in at all. To begin, I should identify myself. I am Robert E. Seletsky, author of 'Callas at EMI: Remastering an Perception' (The Opera Quarterly, Spring 2000), 'A Callas Recording Update', and 'A Callas Recording Update--updated (TOQ, Spring & Summer 2005). In those pieces, I revealed why the 1997 EMI Callas Edition and subsequent 2002-5 Great Recordings of the Century masterings were inadequate and pointed to new editing and pitch errors--some of which EMI actually corrected in subsequent pressing batches at my urging. All of those were merely inferior experimental tweaks of the initial digital transfers made by EMI's chief engineer Keith Hardwick from 1984-9; these were pressed again with slightly different sonic results as 'EMI Classics' from 1991-4, but not enough to warrant changing the catalog numbers. When it was announced that Warner Classics--which had acquired the bankrupt EMI and Fonit Cetra--was to do a new transfer of all studio Callas material from the original tapes at 24/96 in 2014, I was very hopeful. I became less hopeful when it was announced that the engineers were same Abbey Road crew who had produced the poor 1997-2005 EMI versions. At the outset, I was happy to observe that all the unpleasant errors of pitch and re-editing introduced in the 1997-2005 versions had been corrected: I gather they finally knew better than to be cavalier with the original tapes in these areas. I am also pleased that Callas' stereo efforts (1958-69) generally sound improved from before (BARBIERE DI SIVIGLIA of 1957, compared to its 1986 CD incarnation, however, is less improved than just different and more distant sounding) and that ingenious new methods were used to correct problems documented by the original producers. So, those who want stereo Callas recordings should have no hesitation about those entries in the new mastering. Sadly, the same cannot be said for the mono recordings--the core of Callas' legacy--many of which are troubled. Head engineer Allan Ramsay notes in the accompanying book that he was 'interested in the high frequencies'. What he apparently meant was that he was not interested in taming moments of overload distortion nor working on the ubiquitous problem of 'digital glare' that occurs when old analog recordings--especially mono--are transferred to a new medium. When the mono recordings were made, the producers and artists depended on subsequent LP mastering techniques and its RIAA curve to complete the process of creating an accurate sound not really contained in the raw tapes. Without the analog means available any longer, digital engineers are hamstrung. The first transfer (1984-9) attempted to solve the problems by filtering the upper frequencies of the raw tapes, often leading to a muffled sound and overly pronounced mid-range presence. The 1997 revision attempt at modification, although some were successful, usually recessed and thinned Callas' voice. In 2014, with no attention paid to the upper frequency issue, most of the mono recordings are often unlistenably harsh, with such accentuated distortion--even at moderate volume levels in the music--that they are physically painful, despite sometimes restoring the kind of balance heard on the LPs. A few came out all right: ironically, TOSCA (1953) always the most problematic digital transfer, is among the best here; AIDA, RIGOLETTO, UN BALLO IN MASCHERA, LA SONNAMBULA, and TURANDOT work relatively well also. The other monos are really too harsh for consideration; Callas recordings have never been painfully distorted and ugly. Others also have the the strange characteristic of over-present bass; such unmusical treatment further ruins recordings like I PURITANI, LA FORZA DEL DESTINO, LA BOHEME, and MANON LESCAUT. It's also unclear that original tapes were used for everything: many discs time in the same as the 1997 edition--to the second (when one subtracts the more copious silences at beginnings and endings of discs): a physical impossibility if one is making a new transfer from 60-year-old analog tapes. Cosmetically, the 2014 Warner versions present reproductions of the original EMI-Columbia (UK) cardboard covers but the discs are housed in thin paper sleeves with scant, often unintelligible notes and libretti on a CD-ROM provided only if one buys the whole set. Gone are the probing essays by writers like John Steane and respectful presentation of a great artist. They're considerably less expensive than before, but they are unworthy of Callas. The book that comes with the full set has some good, if overly familiar, photos and many textual errors: in general, it seems more like hype for a set already purchased. I also note that engineer Ramsay boasts about adding noise between tracks in the recital discs (of which the three mono entries have never sounded worse) to 'duplicate' LP noise. This bizarre feature also afflicts the beginnings and endings of discs and acts in the complete operas. What Ramsay doesn't say is that this silliness had already been perpetrated upon the 1997 tweaks. Apparently these engineers either never lived through the LP era or never heard a good LP, which has no such noise; in the LP era, such noise would cause any astute buyer to exchange or return the disc as defective. With all their flaws, at least the 1997 versions were neither painful nor boomy. On CD, the best versions still seem to be those 1984-9 transfers (sometimes better in the 1991-4 pressings) and a few 1997-2005 entries, which can be had used for peanuts. But even here, digitization presents Callas' voice inaccurately. In comparing *any* Callas on CD to LP, the LP (not Warner's digital masters presented on vinyl) wins every time because it is the finished product created in a cohesive analog system.