Confused by statement by Beverly Sills

[James]

Some time back I saw an interview with Beverly Sills. She said something I
didn't really understand. "I'm not so naive to not realize that I wouldn't
have been able to have the career I had if my husband hadn't been a man of
means..."

I was under the impression she made pretty decent dough. Is it conceivable
that the world's most famous soprano didn't make enough to make ends meet?
Can anyone elaborate on what she might have meant by this?

[La Donna Mobile]

Post by James
the world's most famous soprano

More famous than Maria Callas?????

[James]

Post by La Donna Mobile

Post by James
the world's most famous soprano

More famous than Maria Callas?????

Well, I know that as a kid living in the NYC vicinity, I had never heard of
Callas but I had certainly heard of Sills and I was no opera buff. It seems
that would be a pretty good litmus test of whose name got mentioned more in
the media. I could be wrong.

[La Donna Mobile]

New York isn't the world...!

I'm really really surprised you had never heard of New York-born Maria
Callas. No, really surprised. I mentioned her at work a few weeks back, and
not one person said 'Who's Maria Callas?' whereas I am sure that if I had
mentioned Beverly Sills all but maybe two or three people would have said
"Who?" And that would have included people who have been known to go to
Covent Garden.

I mean the whole celebrity thing with Onassis etc, quite apart from the
singing. I don't see any Beverly Sills records in the record shops, whereas
I see Callas CDs in a high street newsagent.

And I absolutely could not imagine the BBC showing (for the third time) a 50
minute documentary on Beverly Sills. Which is absolutely not to denigrate Ms
Sills at all. Just to say that IMO Callas's legend transcends opera.

Out of curiosity, may I ask how old you are (I'm mid thirties...)

Post by James

Post by La Donna Mobile

Post by James
the world's most famous soprano

More famous than Maria Callas?????

Well, I know that as a kid living in the NYC vicinity, I had never heard of
Callas but I had certainly heard of Sills and I was no opera buff. It seems
that would be a pretty good litmus test of whose name got mentioned more in
the media. I could be wrong.

[James]

Post by La Donna Mobile
New York isn't the world...!
I'm really really surprised you had never heard of New York-born Maria
Callas. No, really surprised.

I was a kid. I really wasn't into opera as such, but had seen Sills on t.v.,
heard her on radio, etc. If I'm not mistaken she was on both Sesame Street
and The Muppet Show. She was probably the ONLY opera singer I could name at
one time. I don't have any stats to quote but I wonder if that wouldn't be
true for a large portion of the general populous, whether opera devotees or
not. (I don't think fame means only opera buffs count) I'm pretty sure she
got much more mass-media exposure than Callas ever did. Whether she was the
most well-known among the entire world populous than any other, maybe not.
I know for myself, I'd much rather listen to Sills (or any number of others)
than Callas any day. I've never quite understood *why* Callas became so well
known. Truly not trying to annoy Callas devotees, but while I can hear the
power and technical facility in her voice, the overall timbre strikes me as
grating and harsh - it seems her voice was characterized by an emphasis of
an odd part of the sonic spectrum. At least to me just not pleasing to
listen to.

[AnMeinKlav]

<<I've never quite understood *why* Callas became so well
known.>>

Besides her virtues as a musician there was the little matter of her being the
third corner of an internationally celebrated love triangle.

[PAB]

".....I've never quite understood "why" Callas became quite so well
known..."....

Are you kidding me or what???
Listening and watching Maria Callas
was a true visceral experience....
Watching Beverly Sills perform was just
down right annoying!!!!

[James]

Post by PAB
".....I've never quite understood "why" Callas became quite so well
known..."....
Are you kidding me or what???

Neither kidding, nor "what".

Post by PAB
Listening and watching Maria Callas
was a true visceral experience....
Watching Beverly Sills perform was just
down right annoying!!!!

To each their own. Maybe she came across different in a live setting, but
I've never particularly liked any Callas recording I've ever heard, while I
don't think I've heard a Sills performance I didn't like, never heard her
live either.

However, your response here is inconsistent with your later comment about
liking Sills, so I assume you're just engaging in hyperbole.

[EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)]

Post by James
To each their own. Maybe she came across different in a live setting, but
I've never particularly liked any Callas recording I've ever heard, while I
don't think I've heard a Sills performance I didn't like, never heard her
live either.

Have you ever seen her on TV or video? I never understood what all the
exitement was about, either, until I saw a PBS rebroadcast of a live
concert. (IIRC it was outdoors in London.) But, with neither costumes
nor sets, the woman seemed to actually BECOME the character she was
singing. The voice was no longer in its prime, but the performance was
nevertheless stunning. (Even though I was an ardent Thebaldi fan.)

Post by James
However, your response here is inconsistent with your later comment about
liking Sills, so I assume you're just engaging in hyperbole.

One can't like both? They were entirely different artists, must one
take sides?

[James]

Post by EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
Have you ever seen her on TV or video? I never understood what all the
exitement was about, either, until I saw a PBS rebroadcast of a live
concert. (IIRC it was outdoors in London.) But, with neither costumes
nor sets, the woman seemed to actually BECOME the character she was
singing. The voice was no longer in its prime, but the performance was
nevertheless stunning. (Even though I was an ardent Thebaldi fan.)

By "her" you mean Callas? Great, she was pretty and she had stage presence.
I still don't like the sound of her voice.

Post by EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)

Post by James
However, your response here is inconsistent with your later comment about
liking Sills, so I assume you're just engaging in hyperbole.

One can't like both? They were entirely different artists, must one
take sides?

Your previous quote:

"Watching Beverly Sills perform was just
down right annoying!!!!"

Which seems to indicate disfavor.

[EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)]

Post by James

Post by EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
One can't like both? They were entirely different artists, must one
take sides?

"Watching Beverly Sills perform was just
down right annoying!!!!"

Not MY "previous quote"! I never saw her in live performance, and have
never claimed to have done so. (Watch your attributions, before you
start making accusations!)

Post by James
Which seems to indicate disfavor.

[James]

Post by EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
Not MY "previous quote"! I never saw her in live performance, and have
never claimed to have done so. (Watch your attributions, before you
start making accusations!)

Ooops. In the words of the late Gilda Radner "...nevermind!!..."

[PAB]

Oh James. Oh James...
such insipid nonsense you speak.......
GROW UP.

[PAB]

"...New York isn't the world...!"

What kinda wise crack is that to
make....? No one here ever said anything
about New York...!!

[La Donna Mobile]

Post by La Donna Mobile

Post by James
the world's most famous soprano

More famous than Maria Callas?????

Well, I know that as a kid living in the NYC vicinity, I had never heard of
Callas but I had certainly heard of Sills and I was no opera buff.

ie - 'world' followed by 'NYC vicinity.'

If NYC does not mean New York City, could somebody please explain what it
means. Just a hunch, but I'm guessing that NY is world-famous as being short
for New York.

Post by La Donna Mobile
"...New York isn't the world...!"
What kinda wise crack is that to
make....? No one here ever said anything
about New York...!!

[Leonard Tillman]

Post by La Donna Mobile
If NYC does not mean New York City, could
somebody please explain what it means. Just
a hunch, but I'm guessing that NY is
world-famous as being short for New York.

It's exactly as you said. Most specifically, New York City (NYC) refers
to Manhattan; More-broadly, it means in addition to Manhattan, - the
counties of Brooklyn, Bronx, Queens, and Staten Island.

As to Sills or Callas being the more-famed diva, it's largely a matter
of locale. Personally, I'd consider Callas the better-known on a
world-wide scale, with Sutherland and Sills closely following. Love 'em
all.

Leonard Tillman =A0

[Jim OlsEn]

Post by La Donna Mobile
If NYC does not mean New York City, could
somebody please explain what it means. Just
a hunch, but I'm guessing that NY is
world-famous as being short for New York.

<<It's exactly as you said. Most specifically, New York City (NYC) refers
to Manhattan; More-broadly, it means in addition to Manhattan, - the
counties of Brooklyn, Bronx, Queens, and Staten Island. >>


You've garbled it, Booger. Study the following. There'll be a pop quiz next
week.

The City of New York is composed of five boroughs, each a county of New York
State:

Manhattan - New York County, population 1,546,856

The Bronx - Bronx County, population 1,354,068

Brooklyn - Kings County, population 2,488,194

Queens - Queens County, population 2,237,815

Staten Island - Richmond County, population 457,383

(Population figures from July 1, 2002 Census)

The boroughs are coterminous with their respective counties, but the
counties do not have actual county governments. Each borough elects a
Borough President, but under the current city charter, the Borough
President's powers are limited-he or she has a small discretionary budget to
spend on projects within the borough. (The last significant power of the
borough presidents-to appoint a member of the Board of Education -was
abolished, with the board, on June 30, 2002.) Currently, borough presidents
serve as ex officio members of various boards and committees.

Residents of the city often refer to the city itself as "the Five Boroughs,"
reserving the phrase "the City" to refer to Manhattan. Those less familiar
with the city often (incorrectly) think Manhattan is synonymous with New
York City. The boroughs other than Manhattan are also referred to as "the
Outer Boroughs."

[La Donna Mobile]

OK, abuse aside, as someone who loves New York (please repeal those
anti-smoking laws!!!) I would, as an ousider, if pushed, say that NYC refers
to the five Boroughs, but NY generally would probably include the entire
travel-to-work area of the three States... (Eg, when referring to my Aunts
who used to live out on Long Island, - now Florida, natch - I would say New
York, but my cousin in Alfred is Upstate New York)

OTOH, NY also means to outsiders, specifically Manhattan - it is assumed if
you are going to NY, it would be to the major tourist attractions - Empire
State, Liberty, Central Park and the Museums - but not really above
whatever where it eerily stops being that pulsating exciting urban
conglomeration and starts having trees.

Personal opinion, of course, based entirely on being an ignorant
tourist...And staying in a wonderful geust house on Staten Island where I
could see Liberty - and, sadly the Twin Towers - actually from my bed.

Post by Jim OlsEn

Post by La Donna Mobile
If NYC does not mean New York City, could
somebody please explain what it means. Just
a hunch, but I'm guessing that NY is
world-famous as being short for New York.

<<It's exactly as you said. Most specifically, New York City (NYC) refers
to Manhattan; More-broadly, it means in addition to Manhattan, - the
counties of Brooklyn, Bronx, Queens, and Staten Island. >>
You've garbled it, Booger. Study the following. There'll be a pop quiz next
week.
The City of New York is composed of five boroughs, each a county of New York
Manhattan - New York County, population 1,546,856
The Bronx - Bronx County, population 1,354,068
Brooklyn - Kings County, population 2,488,194
Queens - Queens County, population 2,237,815
Staten Island - Richmond County, population 457,383
(Population figures from July 1, 2002 Census)
The boroughs are coterminous with their respective counties, but the
counties do not have actual county governments. Each borough elects a
Borough President, but under the current city charter, the Borough
President's powers are limited-he or she has a small discretionary budget to
spend on projects within the borough. (The last significant power of the
borough presidents-to appoint a member of the Board of Education -was
abolished, with the board, on June 30, 2002.) Currently, borough presidents
serve as ex officio members of various boards and committees.
Residents of the city often refer to the city itself as "the Five Boroughs,"
reserving the phrase "the City" to refer to Manhattan. Those less familiar
with the city often (incorrectly) think Manhattan is synonymous with New
York City. The boroughs other than Manhattan are also referred to as "the
Outer Boroughs."

[Leonard Tillman]

Post by La Donna Mobile
OK, abuse aside, as someone who loves New
York (please repeal those anti-smoking
laws!!!) I would, as an ousider, if pushed, say
that NYC refers to the five Boroughs,

You're correct as to the term's common usage which is what matters here,
-- *and* you may confidently disregard the silly editorializings of the
smug little troll, "Jimmie S.Shorts", whose only purpose here is nothing
of any human or mammalian value. :)))

Post by La Donna Mobile
but NY
generally would probably include the entire >travel-to-work area of

the three States...

The Tri-State Area, aka, the Greater NY area.

The references are loose, - inexact, and are understood as being so.
-- In conversing about and planning trips, one would always have to
specify the locations/points of destinations, anyway.

Post by La Donna Mobile
(Eg, when referring to my Aunts who used to
live out on Long Island, - now Florida, natch -

Natch! :)

Post by La Donna Mobile
I would say New York, but my cousin in Alfred
is Upstate New York)

Right. That gets the different reference, though it's still all part of
NY, as in the overall New York State.

Post by La Donna Mobile
OTOH, NY also means to outsiders,
specifically Manhattan - it is assumed if you
are going to NY, it would be to the major
tourist attractions - Empire State, Liberty,
Central Park and the Museums - but not
really above whatever where it eerily stops
being that pulsating exciting urban
conglomeration and starts having trees.

Correct, although *technically* of course, all of that is included in
"NY".

Post by La Donna Mobile
Personal opinion, of course, based entirely on
being an ignorant tourist...And staying in a
wonderful geust house on Staten Island
where I could see Liberty - and, sadly the
Twin Towers - actually from my bed.

Sadly, indeed.

-------------------------

Post by La Donna Mobile
"Jim OlsEn" wrote garbahje.

Leonard Tillman =A0

[Leonard Tillman]

StinkyShorts Bolman googled - but it's conclusion are dead wrong, and
it's still an ass.

So, again, Shut your blowhole, Bole.

Leonard Tillman =A0

[PAB]

"....the worlds most famous soprano".

Really? Much as I liked her, I never
would have put in that category........

[EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)]

Post by PAB
"....the worlds most famous soprano".
Really? Much as I liked her, I never
would have put in that category........

But qualify the statement with "one of" and it's probably correct -
certainly a great many of the non-opera-going general public knew her
name, who had never heard of most opera singers. (I'm sure her
appearances on Sesame Street with Miss Piggy contributed to that.)

[Leonard Tillman]

Post by PAB
"....the worlds most famous soprano".
Really? Much as I liked her, I never
would have put in that category........

-------

Post by PAB
But qualify the statement with "one of" and it's
probably correct - certainly a great many of
the non-opera-going general public knew her
name, who had never heard of most opera
singers. (I'm sure her appearances on
Sesame Street with Miss Piggy contributed to
that.)

The one appearance I recall was "Pigoletto", with refs to
Goat-erdammerung (don't get yourself excited, now, SS!), Low-n'-Green
(Kermit's nephew, Robin), and of course, the comments of the beloved
Messrs. Statler and Waldorf.

Leonard Tillman =A0

[Richard Loeb]

What she meant was that her husbands wealth allowed her to pursue and foster
her career without having to worry about putting food on the table - kind of
like the Callas - Meneghini situation Richard

Post by James
Some time back I saw an interview with Beverly Sills. She said something I
didn't really understand. "I'm not so naive to not realize that I wouldn't
have been able to have the career I had if my husband hadn't been a man of
means..."
I was under the impression she made pretty decent dough. Is it conceivable
that the world's most famous soprano didn't make enough to make ends meet?
Can anyone elaborate on what she might have meant by this?

[Parterrebox]

Post by James
I was under the impression she made pretty decent dough.

Sills made very good money beginning around the time of her La Scala debut
(1969), when she was at least 40 years old. For the 20 years of career before
that, she took what gigs she could get, and generally not for very much money
at all.
Being married to a wealthy man meant that Sills had the freedom to pick and
choose which engagements were most likely to advance her career, and the free
time to prepare the roles thoroughly so she could make the best possible
impression in a tricky part (e.g., the Queen in COQ D'OR) she was only to sing
a few times. In those days (1950s-early 1960s), the NYCO paid *very* little,
and I wonder if Sarah Caldwell paid anything at all.
=============

parterre box
www.parterre.com

[James]

Post by Parterrebox

Post by James
I was under the impression she made pretty decent dough.

Sills made very good money beginning around the time of her La Scala debut
(1969), when she was at least 40 years old. For the 20 years of career before
that, she took what gigs she could get, and generally not for very much money
at all.

That's interesting. I've heard she was something of a child star, I would
have thought she had a head start on garnering fame. I would have thought
those who knew of her as a kid would be interested in her career as a young
adult, especially having seen some pics of her at that age. She blossomed
into quite a babe in her teens.

[EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)]

Post by James
That's interesting. I've heard she was something of a child star, I would
have thought she had a head start on garnering fame. I would have thought
those who knew of her as a kid would be interested in her career as a young
adult, especially having seen some pics of her at that age. She blossomed
into quite a babe in her teens.

"Child star"? SFAIK, she mostly made radio commercials! (She was the
"Rinso white" girl, if you're old enough to remember that far back - I
understand that's where her nickname of "Bubbles" originated). Former
child stars often have to overcome a lot of bad vocal habits, if they
are to be successful singers as adults. Singing radio commercials as a
child doesn't really provide the connections to make an operatic career
any easier - nor were the royalties that good, especially for some
otherwise unknown little girl. (Not quite the same pay rate as when a
big name star endorses a product.)

[James]

Post by EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
"Child star"? SFAIK, she mostly made radio commercials! (She was the
"Rinso white" girl, if you're old enough to remember that far back - I
understand that's where her nickname of "Bubbles" originated).

No, I'm not nearly of the vintage to remember her child performer days, but
here's part of a bio I found at:

http://www.school.eb.com/women/articles/Sills_Beverly.html

Born in Brooklyn, New York, on May 25, 1929, Belle Silverman was early
destined by her mother for a career in the performing arts. At age three, as
"Bubbles" Silverman, she began a four-year stint as a regular singer on
Uncle Bob's Rainbow House, a Saturday morning radio program. She won a prize
on Major Bowes' Original Amateur Hour at age six, made a couple of
motion-picture shorts, and became a regular on Major Bowes' Capitol Family
Hour and later on the soap opera Our Gal Sunday, on which she played a
"nightingirl of the mountains."

A bit more than just soap commercials!

[EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)]

Post by James

Post by EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
"Child star"? SFAIK, she mostly made radio commercials! (She was the
"Rinso white" girl, if you're old enough to remember that far back - I
understand that's where her nickname of "Bubbles" originated).

No, I'm not nearly of the vintage to remember her child performer days, but
http://www.school.eb.com/women/articles/Sills_Beverly.html
Born in Brooklyn, New York, on May 25, 1929, Belle Silverman was early
destined by her mother for a career in the performing arts. At age three, as
"Bubbles" Silverman, she began a four-year stint as a regular singer on
Uncle Bob's Rainbow House, a Saturday morning radio program. She won a prize
on Major Bowes' Original Amateur Hour at age six, made a couple of
motion-picture shorts, and became a regular on Major Bowes' Capitol Family
Hour and later on the soap opera Our Gal Sunday, on which she played a
"nightingirl of the mountains."
A bit more than just soap commercials!

But not MUCH more - take it from one who remembers the shows you name!
"Major Bowes" also featured amateurs who played such things as "musical
saws", and a great many of his performers were absolutely DREADFUL.
(Most people with any musical taste at all avoided the show whenever
possible - even Lawrence Welk was preferable.) Certainly none of the
venues you mention was likely to bring her to the attention of anyone
who mattered, musically speaking. (Or to pay her anything like "star"
wages to finance a serious career later, for that matter.)

Understand, I'm not faulting Ms. Sills as an opera singer, simply
pointing out that her childhood performances were more those of an
unsuccessful Charlotte Church, making little contribution (artistically
or financially) toward her adult career.

[Alcindoro]

Post by EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
making little contribution (artistically

or financially) toward her adult career.<

I would bet that the experience and confidence she gained as a child performer
almost certainly contributed to her becoming the exceptionally stage-savvy
artist she became in adulthood. In fact, when she retired and so many said it
seemed so early, she replied that she had been performing since she was a
child, and it didn't seem early to her at all.

[EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)]

Post by Alcindoro

Post by EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
making little contribution (artistically

or financially) toward her adult career.<
I would bet that the experience and confidence she gained as a child performer
almost certainly contributed to her becoming the exceptionally stage-savvy
artist she became in adulthood.

Well yes, I'll grant you that. (Although the same might be said of
almost any child who had music and dancing lessons and performed in
student recitals - at least of those who possessed any aptitude for the
stage.) It's more the experience of regular public performance,
whatever the circumstances - few kids experience "stage fright", so
presumably her childhood appearances would have innoculated her against
suffering from it, later on.

[Alcindoro]

Post by James
I was under the impression she made pretty decent dough. Is it conceivable

that the world's most famous soprano didn't make enough to make ends meet?<

I think at a certain point Sills' marriage to Greenough allowed her to pick and
choose among assignments without worrying so much about putting bread on the
table. Before she became a star she had to sing a fair amount of roles that
really weren't right for her voice type. A financially advantageous marriage
allowed her the luxury to turn some of these things down, and to concentrate
her energies on doing things that were more congenial.

[Leonard Tillman]

Post by James
Some time back I saw an interview with
Beverly Sills. She said something I didn't
really understand. "I'm not so naive to not
realize that I wouldn't have been able to have
the career I had if my husband hadn't been a
man of means..."
I was under the impression she made pretty
decent dough. Is it conceivable that the
world's most famous soprano didn't make
enough to make ends meet? Can anyone
elaborate on what she might have meant by
this?

She may have meant that her husband's wealth helped her career move
along in its *early* stages, when it wasn't so financially-rewarding as
would be the case, later on.

Leonard Tillman =A0

[Sergio H. da Silva]

First she was never the world's most famous soprano. I think her statement
may mean she had the financial support to pursue a career which many people
do not have the luxury to do. But it may also mean she could make recordings
(I believe her husband owned the recording company which produced her
recordings) and then have a career.
Who knows ?

Post by James
Some time back I saw an interview with Beverly Sills. She said something I
didn't really understand. "I'm not so naive to not realize that I wouldn't
have been able to have the career I had if my husband hadn't been a man of
means..."
I was under the impression she made pretty decent dough. Is it conceivable
that the world's most famous soprano didn't make enough to make ends meet?
Can anyone elaborate on what she might have meant by this?