I have to beg Robert Peters's pardon but he wrote:

>Yes, Maria Callas.  Her voice is not always ugly but to me it is never
>beautiful.  And she is not afraid to sound ugly: listen to her Lady
>Macbeth.  This is a great artist to me.

Never beautiful? May I suggest any of her recordings of "Qui la voce"
(I Puritani) will settle that extraordinary comment once and for all
and with a single aria? The beauty is truly exquisite.  Then try the La
Scala/Giulini "Traviata".  After that the exploration for more revelations
should continue unimpeded.  And I agree, the Macbeth scenes are a
sensation.

Dave Lampson wrote regarding Lloyd-Webber:

>>Millions disagree, including me, though I know that's de rigueur in
>>classical music circles.  His music is exactly what it needs to be for
>>what it is, and that's why it's so successful.

And Robert commented:

>I think his music is shallow because it contains nothing of our dissonant
>world.  (And popularity was never a good measure for artistic success...)

ALW writes music which, for me, is like watching paint dry.  Friends keep
telling me to try to listen more carefully - and I have done - but after
about 15 minutes I can find no reason to continue.  And surely if there
were beauty to be found in it there would be even just a little of the
"tingle factor"? Whereas, for me, there is none.

When I was in my late 20s, a senior executive at EMI told me, pompously at
a meeting, that "The Sound of Music" *is* the greatest musical achievement
of the 20thC *because* the public have said so (in record sales and theatre
takings - film and stage).

To this day I am appalled by the remark.  On top of which I find it
musically one of the weakest of the many R&H masterpieces; indeed the
Broadway reviews at the time were less than enthusiastic.

John G. Deacon
Home page: www.ctv.es/USERS/j.deacon