Orpheus 2 (Monteverdi)

Before I write about the performance of L’Orfeo I saw the other day, I think I need to provide some background on vocal techniques. If you are already familiar with the differing sound of what are classed as “authentic performance practice” vs the modern operatic sound, feel free to skip straight to the main review section. Otherwise, keep reading.

Just to refresh, this is the sort of voice we think of in opera

Jessye Norman singing Dido's lament

You might think of this as a “bel canto” sound. Basically, this is a style of singing designed to carry over a large orchestra, in large theatres. A singer sounding like this has trained to maximise the size of the sound they produce, by working to increase the resonance they can produce.  This also requires using the abdominal muscles and diaphragm to provide airflow under pressure through the throat and out. Paradoxically, training in this way is often about learning to “get out of the way of the sound” rather than learning what to do to produce the best sound. 

The biggest difference between how a classical singer and the average "normal" singer produce sound is in how they control the airflow. When you sing, do you think of pulling the air up through your throat? Or does the air get pushed up by the pressure from below? If you don't know, you probably have a sensation of pulling it up most of the time. It's just one of the reasons why opera singers sound different. Opera singers by relying on pressure from below, free up mechanisms that enable a more resonant sound to develop.

This produces a sound with lots of resonance, or harmonic overtones, if you will. This provides the additional ping that enables operatic voices to cut through the wall of sound of an orchestra (or a chorus) and be heard as a distinct recognisable sound, carrying over the other sounds. How is this achieved? By training, based on long recognised practices developed over past centuries. Also, more recently, the why this works has become understood better as a result of improving medical diagnostic equipment providing a better understanding of how singers function, by enabling us to see into throats as people sing.

Now, with opera singers, we have a pretty good idea of what they sounded like from the 1800's on. We can draw lines and compare with recorded voices and get a reliable sense of how the performers many composers were writing for sounded like. And we have written descriptions, and teaching manuals written from this time to compare, including some that we still refer to. And, it is close enough in memory that we can tell the changes in technique have been more about a lifting of the lower standards, than changes at the high end. So, we have more singers who can sing well, than we had in the past.

However, when we deal in the baroque or earlier, we lose all sense of immediacy and connection. We know that the training was not as thorough for most people, we know that music performance was usually in much smaller numbers, we know that opera was not something that just anyone went to. And yet, when it comes to what the sounds were like, we are reduced to relying on eyewitness descriptions, with no common starting point to compare it to. None of the singers described of course, were ever recorded. 

One of the most common beliefs is that the level of additional harmonics in early vocal practice was much less. The orchestras they were singing against were not as large, so they did not have the need to produce as focused and loud a sound to be heard. So, in many ways, the sound we hear today is more a result of increasing orchestra numbers, than any  aesthetic ideal, though the result became an ideal as well, if you follow. 

But, the modern developing technique did not just increase the sound produced, it also enabled notes to be sung over a bigger range. There is a noticeable increase in the range required to sing music when you go from the the baroque and earlier to more recent music. The improving techniques which were passed on allowed the extremes of a singer's voice to be used easier, and with more pleasing results. The additional resonance allowed vocal imperfections to be hidden, and allowed the singers more flexibility, as well as beautify the sound. 

Another thing that happened with the changing techniques was the increase in the use of vibrato. We can assume this partly because vibrato comes with a free healthy vocal technique. A good voice technique is usually thought of as one that brings freedom to the voice production, with reduced tension. And, of course, as tension goes, and the voice becomes free, you will get vibrato. It's one of the things a voice teacher will be pleased as it happens, not as an end in itself, but because it is a sign of reduced tension. 

But vibrato also is useful for singers because it hides pitch imperfections and helps to even the sound across a singer’s range. If you are slightly off the required frequency for a note, the vibrato masks that, by adding momentary changes on pitch and volume. It is commonly accepted that early music singers did not sing with strong vibrato, in part because of its association with modern voice production. So, if it is something that develops during the development of a modern technique, many assume automatically, it does not belong in an early music vocal sound, forgetting that some people have one naturally, simply because that is the way they always sound. It's not like we can check the recordings, is it? 

So, if you were listening to a baroque or pre baroque vocal performance, what should you be hearing? Well, part of it is inevitably a matter of taste. There is a school of thought that says you should always try to replicate the experience the music was created for, to best appreciate it, a position I do hold some sympathy for. After all, hearing Handel and Bach performed on the type of instruments they wrote for, not modern ones, has revolutionised how we hear their music. We now hear the lightness and dance rhythms that frequently were lost amidst the richness of a modern orchestra's textures. This is what we call the "authentic performance" or period instrument movement.

Emma Kirkby singing the same aria with a more "authentic" sound

At the same time, we also have seen the problems of performing on those same instruments. Modern violin strings made from metal hold their tune longer, and provide a richer sound. Most of the modern wind and brass instruments are easier to play, and easier to hit on tune notes, ensuring the notes played are what the composer wrote, even if they do not sound the way he expected. As a result, many feel we should stick to using modern instruments. Surely Bach would have written for modern violins if he knew about them, would be how they might think.

Of course, with instruments, its fairly clear cut, we know what was being written for, we know what instruments were being made by whom, and often, for whom. With voices, it gets harder. We have no way for sure of saying what people sounded like. We can make educated guesses about performance styles and techniques based on what we know of musical history and the like, but they do remain guesses. We know that early operas were usually performed in large rooms in royal palaces, not in theatres, and we know in many cases who performed them, but we are guessing what they sounded like.

So, if we know that the spaces were smaller, and the number of performers used were smaller, it stands to reason that the techniques which enable those things to happen would not have been used. There was no need for them, so those they had not been developed. So, the high level of harmonic overtones would not have been used, with their piercing abilities, and probably the vibrato that comes along. We don't know for sure, but it seems a valid conclusion.

We also know that there were vastly fewer singers of high ability. Only limited numbers of singers would have been formally trained, and travel was not something that happened for many, so knowledge was not passed around quickly. But, at the same time, there is no reason to assume singers had not learnt about controlling breath flow via the abs and diaphragm, rather than trying to sing from the throat, as it were. 

So, we could assume, most singers who sang in early performances, like those given by Monteverdi at Mantua, would have been people lucky enough to have a naturally pleasing sound to their voice who were musical and thus gained employment, or else trained for performing in local church choirs. The idea of someone training to get their "ah" sound just so, like happens today, would not have happened. 

So, knowing that, we could guess the singers were pleasant sounding, but not highly resonant voices, probably with only light vibrato (or none), who were loud enough to be heard over a small band of instruments that most likely required regular breaks to retune. And sang in a room that held less than 100 people. A far cry from pretty much any modern production. 

So, now that you have that overview, simplistic as it is, its time to start looking at the performance I heard.

 So first of all, I need to set the scene a little. As I said earlier L'Orfeo was written by Monteverdi to be performed in the palace of the Dukes of Mantua, the Gonzaga family (Im sure you have heard of them). The audience probably totalled about 100 people. For this performance we were in the City Recital Hall, at Angel Place, a modern 1200 seating concert hall. We had seats in the front row, at the middle of the top balcony, so an excellent view and good sound, in a venue vastly larger than what Monteverdi had envisioned for his first true opera (and the oldest opera that we still have the score of)

When Monteverdi wrote L'Orfeo, he specified the instruments he wanted, and when he wanted them, but unlike modern operas (or even some of his later ones) he did not specify what he wanted to play what notes. This was common in the music of the era, to not set out the exact scoring, but rather the music and let the performers improvise around the music given. He specifies that he did wanted the players to perform with accuracy and taste, clearly indicating that he wanted the singers to be to the forefront, after all, their music is set out clearly. As a result, no 2 performances of Orfeo (even allowing for the different versions of the score that Monteverdi wrote) will ever be the same.

He also gave the singers in some cases two versions of their music, an ornamented aria, and a plain version of that same aria, to make it clear, where he wanted them to ornament and improvise, and where not to. He also made it clear that some performers should be expected to double up on roles, singing say La Musica and Eurydice, or similar. Bearing in mind there are 11 named characters, and a significant number of other solo performers who are not listed by name, this totally makes sense. In the production we saw every named soloist got a costume for his named role. If doing a solo as say a nymph or shepherd, they were in the costume of that. So, all up we had 13 singers, most of whom doubled as chorus when not soloing. Accompanying them was an orchestra of 23 performers on period instruments, several swapping between instruments as was traditional when first performed.

So, yes, as described earlier, we are in very much in the "authentic performance" style for this production. Although, as I mentioned, this venue is much larger than would have been contemplated for performing in by Monteverdi. Other things that will help to set the scene in this production. All the performers were dressed very much in modern dress, that in various ways reflected the nature of their role. I am not sure that white pants, shirts and waistcoats are appropriate for shepherds in the fields, but it did make then clearly not the infernal spirits they became later (in all black, with sunglasses) The singers themselves have a walkway behind the strings and harpsichords, with a big area out the front of the orchestra as well, in which to perform. There was no sets however, but the performers all acted out their roles fully, bringing to life the emotions of the characters of the story.

Our first performer we meet is La Musica to sing the introduction to the story and set the scene for what is about to happen. Sara Macliver was both La Musica and Eurydice, and she sang with her bright high soprano, clearly trying to reduce the resonance in her voice to bring it to an appropriate authentic sound. While she did not cut the vibrato out, it did become something that was only allowed to happen on occasion, and her voice was definitely missing some of the full sound it can have. Having said that, Sara does tend to sing a lot of baroque music, so clearly she is comfortable doing this, and she sang both roles with aplomb, her high bright sound only a little less bright than normal. She also never once sounded less than at ease and in charge of her music, making it her own.

As Orfeo (and the only singer to not double a role,) Markus Brutscher was new to me. He brings a big voice to this role, and inhabits it with considerable histrionic ability. He sang like I would expect an early music voice to sound, with reduced resonance and no vibrato, and with a substantial variation in sound through the range of his voice. It was not how I would choose to cast this role, but his is an impressive voice, and left me curious how he would sound in some of the big roles in say Verdi or Wagner. Would he be able to work his technique to sing in a true bel canto style still? If so, I would love to hear it, but as Orfeo, his voice left me wishing for more beauty and sweetness. This is after all a man who was supposed to be able to charm gods, men and beasts with the beauty of his music, yet I was left impressed but not in love with the sound. Yes, that could just be me, but as I said earlier, it is also partly a matter of taste. Having said that, it was an impressive performance, in a role that dominates this opera, much as say Siegfried does in the opera of the same name.

As the Messenger and Persephone, Fiona Campbell brought her big voice in to good use. As the Messenger, her voice did literally bring the music to a standstill as she revealed the bad news. This was a perfect piece of casting. Have a big voice come in that can cut across the celebratory mood and kill it with a blast of emotion as you bring bad news. Unfortunately, as an authentic performer, Fiona is less successful. Yes, she has a fabulous big voice, that is rich and full of emotion. But, her efforts to reduce her vibrato and reduce the resonance were less successful. Most of the time the vibrato was achieved and there was less sound coming out than she can bring, but it did tend to create a slight hootiness to her sound, and the straight tones also showed up some pitch waywardness on occasion. It was not often, but I noticed it, when I have never heard such from her before. It was certainly not enough to detract from what was a great performance, but I did notice it, which surprised me.

As both Plutone and Caronte, Wolf Matthias Friedrich brought a big dark bass sound to the roles. His was a more traditional voice, resonant and strong, but troubled in the lower notes for Caronte, leaving me to suspect that this role was just a touch too low for him. I did not notice this happening as Plutone. He brought distinct characterisations to each, which considering they were in scenes that followed each other, was quite impressive.

Other voices I need to comment on as great were obviously Tobias Cole as La Speranza (Hope) bringing a clear countertenor sound to what was sung at the original by a castrato, and Richard Butler, who as frequently the only bass singing in the ensemble had seemed to often be completely lost amongst the other voices, yet when he got his chance to shine as a soloist, proved he had a bass voice of considerable power and beauty, so I could only assume he had been told to keep the sound down in the ensemble scenes as a musical decision by Paul Dyer, the Musical Director.

Robert Macfarlane was impressive in his solo moments too. He brought a traditional bel canto tenor sound to his roles. Having said that, he brought a great deal of musical sensitivity with him, and I certainly expect to hear big things from him in the future, as he is clearly a young singer, with a big future.

Likewise Morgan Pearse impressed as Apollo, who as the god of music and also the father of Orfeo in this story, who brought the action to a close. His bright baritone seemed more than a little out of place, as he sang with a traditional bel canto style, full of resonance and vibrato. However, there was no disputing that having the two gods with the most resonant voices (Apollo and Plutone) would work as a casting device and also as a dramatic one, although, considering that, why not Orfeo as well, seeing as his voice is supposed to be supreme?

 From the non vocal standpoint, the orchestra were great. All playing period instruments (or facsimiles), there was very little of the dreaded "period intonation" and a great sense of ensemble. Paul Dyer directed from the harpsichord (and organ), but the level of rehearsal and comfort was such that he rarely bothered to conduct his players, mostly just indicating his pleasure, or indicating specific stylistic touches he wanted.

So, what else to say? Well, artistically, this was an impressive production. Not a production to my taste, maybe, but a good performance of a work that is of great historic significance to music in general and opera specifically. It was given a performance that allowed it to speak to those who attended. And yes, I was pleased to go, and I can see the appeal behind it. It is also not something I would rush out to see again, simply because much of the music did not grab me as appealing. I admit it, I am more a fan of the big bold and spectacular, and I happily admit it. But, I also have to say, the chance to go see one of the seminal works of an artform I love was not something I could walk away from, and I did enjoy it. I just did not enjoy it the way I could have enjoyed, say Aida or Meistersinger. That in itself is not a criticism, just a reflection of taste.

I enjoyed a work not to my taste, and had plenty to think about and enjoy from the memory. I think that in itself, speaks volumes about the musical strength of what we heard.

Orpheus Experience 1

(Can Can from a professional French production)

So, a student production of "Orphée aux enters" last night… It was lots of fun. No, make that FUN.

Because, really, isn't that what Offenbach really about? Fun music and laughs, hopefully sung well. And, on the whole, this was not sung badly, with some stand out performers. And to be sure, I know this was a student production, so I was not expecting big polished voices. In fact, to be honest, I was not sure what sort of standard to expect. I certainly was not expecting it to be this good

First of all, this production stands and delivers with a fine Pluton. Of course, that was no surprise to me, as Pascal Herrington was Pluton the night I saw it. Having sung on stage with him in the past, I knew his abilities. But, that was a number of years ago. Last night, he delivered. His Pluton was a masterly performance that worked multiple accents (which he held while needed) and a secure singing voice, while still providing clear diction. He also was one of the better dancers. Those years of music theatre showed!

Also, good was Daniel Macey as Jupiter. Definitely not as secure as Pascal in his dialogue, but he shows signs of developing a very nice voice indeed. Though he is still very clearly early in his development.

Daniel Tambasco as Orpheus was also pleasing. He took the role of Orpheus as rock god and worked it. He worked hard and got plenty of laughs. He also sang quite well, but his is again, a voice I expect to improve with time.

Amy Corkery was probably the standout of the women, showing a big flexible voice with a pleasing comic sense, and quite good acting skills. I did find her voice became less secure as the show progressed, but it is a big role to sing when you are still working out your technique, so all I will say is, I look forward to seeing how she develops in the future. Spinto territory I suspect.

As Venus, Bridget Patterson was probably the most secure vocal technique. A pleasing voice, but not one that jumped out as fantastic. I may be showing bias against lyris sopranos of course.

On the other hand, the voice that did stand out and wow was that of Alexander Knight as John Styx. Why the best voice in the cast goes to the small character part I am unsure, it seemed such a waste. However, this was a truly impressive tenor voice, a big voice signing a character tenor role. He really left me wishing there was more to the role, he was that good.

I also can't go past the Mercury of Thomas Birch. Not the best voice I have heard by any means, but anyone who can sing Mercury AND tap-dance, has to be applauded. That he did both quite well, and looked cute? Bonus points from me!

The direction as a whole was played for laughs, as it should. Dialogue was in English and the arias were in French (with subtitles). The cast were singing both their roles and chorus, not just when written, as the ensemble was quite small. That said, the amount of sound produced by such a small cast was impressive. The fact that the chorus is made up of the second cast, possibly has something to do with it…

As does, no doubt, the music direction of Stephen Mould. Such tight ensemble work is a credit to him, and the work done by the performers. The fact that many of them had to dance at the same time? I was very impressed!

So, to sum up? Great fun, worth seeing if you can. Yes, it is a student work, but then, I have heard worse singing on stage in professional performances. Yes, the voices are smaller, but the theatre is too. And I had no problem hearing any of the soloists from the back of the theatre, nor were they ever drowned by the orchestra.

But most of all, go because it is fun and you will have a good giggle.

So, last night, I saw Aida again....

Leontyne Price shows us how it is done (O Patria Mia)

 And Ritorno vincitor from the same night, (her last night at The Met)


First of all, for those that do not know, Jacqueline Mabardi is no Latonia Moore (or Leontyne Price). This was no surprise to me. However, I was relieved at her not being anywhere near as bad as I was led to believe. Not as big a voice as Moore (obviously) she still sang the role credibly, with that mix of control and abandon that we need to hear. However, my criticism would be that her voice lacks the clean focus that Moore (and for that matter Leontyne Price) has. This is a voice which seems too much core, not enough focus. Which makes me worry about the long term use of it, as well as explains (when I think about it) why the floated high notes near the end were not soft and floating, but hit with too much power.

Against Mabardi, Rosario La Spina and Milijana Nikolic came across as much stronger than previously. At the start, I suspected La Spina was having troubles, as he seemed a bit hesitant in the recit before Celeste Aida, but the aria itself was fine. However, I do think as the evening went on, I could hear him off the peak of the previous performance. Possibly a cold? Or hay fever? Either way, he still sang with power and ease throughout his range. And yes, his voice is not the prettiest tenor, but the power and security of his line of sound, means that quite frankly, I don't care. We need singers who can do the job, and he does it well. Nikolic sang better than I remember, but again, possibly a comparison situation?

Having said that, I can say that Warwick Fyfe and David Parkin were definitely an improvement on Michael Honeyman and Paul Whelan. Both much bigger voices, though I still feel both seem too small in these roles. But, they were more secure and larger voices than before, and were both convincing in their roles.


Now, having said all that, I also have to say, we need some new good Verdi conductors in the pit. Our conductor Andrea Licata seemed unable to get the fire of Verdi in the belly of our orchestra, at times they seemed rather tepid. If you cannot bring the fire and passion to Aida, you do not deserve to be conducting it. Also, there were a couple of times where things started to get a little bit out of synch between the stage and pit. Not train wreck badly, but I spotted it, so it was noticeable.

As for the production, once again, while I love the many clever touches of this production, I again was wishing at times people would just stand still and sing! That the director was a dancer is very obvious. Yes, the dances were witty and fun, but we do not need a chorus to move around on the stage in the temple scene, its meant to be static.

Oh, and some of you know that we took an opera virgin to this production. He loved it, and was moved by it in a good way. In some ways I think that is the best compliment we can give. Someone who did not know the story before, got the story, and felt for the characters. Its not rocket science folks, it should just work!


Previous performance review here

Cunning Little Vixen.. Indeed

So, Cunning Little Vixen, hey? An opera I knew of, but had never seen. So thanks to the generosity of ABC Classic FM and the wonders of cinema, I got to see the Glyndebourne production.

And what a production it is. Truly sumptuous and beautiful, yet playful and bringing a fanciful story to life..

 

 

So, first off, let me say, I have never seen a production of this before. And, well, I had no idea it was going to be so funny! Like belly laughs in the theatre funny. But it was. And it is. Funny.

But, the music you say? Well, Janacek would have been pleased, I am sure. The orchestra sounded both lush and brash, with spiky alternating with lyricism as seems to be Janacek's way. Vladimir Jurowski lead them with a very sure hand. Melly Still has directed a gorgeous production with amazing costuming and sets.

Now, about the performers…

As the Vixen, Lucy Crowe was a lot of fun. She had the feisty minx down pat. Was she as successful with the love scene? Possibly not, but that really is a small part of the story, not dominant, so it does not matter as much. She sang beautifully throughout and appeared to be having a ball. We certainly had a ball watching her.

Sergei Leiferkus as the Forester at first seemed to be a bit out of sorts, but he grew into the role as the evening progressed, which is just as well as his biggest vocal demands are at the end. You ended believing in him as someone who loved this forest, even as he was also clumsily rustic earlier.

But for me, the biggest vocal treats were two of the minor players. I loved the voice of William Dazeley as Harasta the poacher and Mischa Schelomianski as the Parson and Badger, both deep rich voices full of resonance. Yes, I know, how surprising! I particularly wished that Harasta was a bigger part, simply to hear more of that voice.

Of course, this production is very much about the animals.  My favourites were definitely the hens. A chorus of hens, who get attacked by a fox. What could go wrong? (smirk) They really were hilariously funny. All preening desperately for the attention of the rooster, but most ending up dead thanks to our heroine.

But ultimately, this production stands or falls by the effect. Do the animals tell you something? Do you get a sense of having seen something life affirming? Are you reminded of a world out there, beyond your immediate surrounds? And for me, the answer, resoundingly, was yes. This was a production both funny, and with heart, that truly rare beast. And left me saying "more please"