I'm not sure this is true, and, personally, I've come to think of it as the De Sabata Tosca
, possibly because he seems to me to be the most important element in its success, and maybe because I don't think Tosca was that important to Callas as an artist. It's mostly because of this recording, and because she sang the role quite a lot at the end of her career, that she is so much associated with it. She didn't much like the role or the opera, and, apart from the unadverturous Met, didn't sing it at all between 1953 (the year of the De Sabata recording) and 1964. Despite the excellence of its cast, it is De Sabata's conducting that has elevated the recording to classic status.
On the other hand, Callas's participation in any recording means that most of the operas she particpated in are referred to by her name, even the Callas Parsifal
We talk of the Callas Butterfly
when referring to the 1955 recording, but the Karajan Butterfly
, when referring to the one with Freni and Pavarotti, though Karajan conducted both.
Actually, now that I think of it, there are quite a few other Italian opera recordings that are generally referred to by their conductor's name, Don Carlo
for one. The Giulini, the Solti, the Karajan or the Abbado, and so on. Also the Bohème
with De Los Angeles and Björling is usually referred to as the Beecham, so is his Carmen
with her, and, as far as I can remember, all other recordings of that opera are usually referred to by their conductors, other than of course the Callas Carmen
Maybe it is Callas who is the exception to the rule. There are others too. Most of Sutherland's complete recordings are referred to by her name, not her husband's.