So I go to see Company in the cinema, with an amazing cast with the NY philharmonic yesterday. If you don't know, it is one of Sondheim's glittering musicals full of dazzling songs and rapier wit. It revolves around Robert, a perennially single man, and 5 married couples who are his close friends. Robert basically is a self absorbed man who is not married because, well, he is not ready to be that emotionally close and vulnerable with someone.
Now, before we go any further, this was true luxury casting. Neil Patrick Harris proving once again, that he is slumming it on TV. Im sorry, but he is. He really works so much better in live theatre. As Robert, he brings the slightly sleazy charm needed to make the role believable, and of course he can sing (Oh man he can sing!!!) He is the heart and soul this show revolves around, and it work brilliantly. His singing of "Being Alive" at the end of the show left me feeling raw and emotional. in a good way.
Stephen Colbert (!) played one of the married couples, the one who had a drinking problem. He was, as expected, hilarious, but also believable. He was not playing the Colbert Show character at all, but was rather immersed in a genuine character. His interaction with his wife with the karate was also hilarious.
Another TV surprise was Jon Cryer as another of the husbands. He played someone a bit of a drip like his 2.5 men character, but someone you actually wanted to like. He more just seemed like someone caught living a life he wanted, but it isn't what he expected.
As the kooky girlfriend we had everyone's favourite curvy secretary Christina Hendricks. Yes, she can sing too. To be sure, her big number, a duet with Robert, called Barcelona, is not a big challenge to a singer, but she was able to perform it convincingly, in character, and with humour. Really, you could not ask for much more. She was able to keep her character just the lifelike side of caricature, positively revelling in her kookiness.
Then, there is Patti Lupone as Joanne. Yes, Patti Lupone, getting to sing one of the icon songs of Sondheim, probably the one that people forever link to Sondheim and New York, "Here's to the ladies who lunch" This comes in a scene in a bar, where she and her husband have taken Robert and they all have tied one on. To be blunt, she is more than a little under the weather before she proposes the toast that is the song. No one is going to sing this like La Lupone, I frankly think i have now seen the definitive version of it. She just lets rip with that glorious big voice, while still using it to portray the bitterness, the jadeness, the ennui behind the song.
And then there was Anika Noni Rose, who as well as being another of Robert's women gets to sing the hellish "Another hundred people" - if you do not know the song, it is like singing one of the G&S patter songs, constantly spitting out words while making it musical at the same time. To be able to do that in itself is a skill, but being Sondheim, you also have to remain in character and reveal your inner thoughts at the same time. She did it, and how.
Now, I could go on about the other performers, like the truly demented bride to be, or the southern belle who has divorced her husband but still lives together with him, but really, why? They were all brilliantly cast and all just right for their roles. these were people who knew their roles and sang them well, inhabiting them convincingly.
But ultimately, this show stands or falls on two things, whether we care about Robert, and whether the finely written vignettes of couples and their flaws, come across as contrived or real. This production succeeds on both counts. Robert played by Neil Patrick Harris is the sort of person you want to know, which enables the whole set up to work. And allows for the conclusion to work. We want Robert to find "someone to hold me too close" to make him feel he is alive. The fact that we don't know if he does, is beside the point, we know he is ready to now.
Sunday, April 08, 2012
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Ernani, from the Met, or, meet my new diva
Ok, first up. This was my first experience of Ernani. Sure, I knew a couple of the arias, and the basic story, and it was early-ish Verdi, but that was it. I had thus expected the strong choruses, florid vocal lines that require big voices, with a plot that belonged in a South American soap opera.
Well, that pretty much sums up the basics, I guess, so now, down to business. First, the sets in this production are stunning. The opening scene looked like the ruins of some old castle, with just some walls and a staircase up the side left. The next scene inside Silva's castle, featured a massive painting on one wall with a huge couch in front of it, massive doors at the back, with about ten steps up to it. The next act was outside at Silva's castle, again, on a massive staircase. Then the last two acts featured the same staircase with different things around it, the tomb of Charlemagne in act 3, which was then hidden by a wall, to make it Ernani's castle at the end.
You notice something common there? Yes, all huge sets, all featuring stairs used extensively throughout the opera. In fact, it was normal to have people singing on the stairs in each act. Now, I do not know about you, but I do not normally make it a habit of stopping and discussing the days events on stairs normally, but it does at least allow for a chorus to be spread so you can see them all, and they did look effective. It also made for attractive groupings of the leads, in ways that also helped disguise big height differences.
Now, I have to say, Marcello Giordani did leave me a bit underwhelmed in this role. As Ernani, or, Don Juan of Aragon, his is a serviceable tenor but not really great. A couple of times I noticed some hoarseness suggesting maybe he was just tired, but he really did not sound like he belonged on the same stage as some of the others performing.
Likewise, I found Dmitri Hvorostovsky somewhat underwhelming. Somehow he lacks the power and forcefulness I would expect of this role. The odd thing about that though, is he seemed much freer and more powerful vocally during his recites, as if he was trying to hold back in the arias and ensembles to produce a more beautiful tone. If so, it was not working, it just left me annoyed..
Now, on the other hand, Ferruccio Furlanetto proved once again, he is one of the best basses singing Verdi at the moment. His is a big dark bass voice that he uses expressively to good effect. If he sang the cabaletta after his act 1 aria slower than I expected or wanted, I tend to suspect it was our conductor Marco Amilliato, not the singer, who was responsible. I am not saying he is a bad conductor, just not a great one. Having said that, the current Met conductor problems are well known, and tonight's conductor is one of the ones who has been adding more duties because of it.
Now, to the undoubted star tonight, Angela Meade. The first thing that needs to be said here, is she has only been singing professionally for a handful of years. Indeed, her professional debut, was when she jumped in to this production, replacing an ailing Elvira, in 2008. Her singing was quite frankly amazing for someone with so few productions under her belt. I did not get any sense at any time she was ever under stress as she powered her way through Verdi's tangled lines. This is not a role you give to a performer for their debut, it is a role for a soprano at the height of her powers. That Angela can rise to the ocaision so well says something about her abilities, and then for her to outshine her colleagues at the same time says even more.
For make no mistake, there was no doubt who was tonight's star. She proved that not only does she belongs amongst such starry company, she vocally leaves them for dead. Once she grows as an actor to match her singing abilities, she will dominate the opera world like the singer who many already compare her to, Dame Joan Sutherland.
Thursday, March 08, 2012
Marriage of Figaro - Benedict Andrews production
I often think that Figaro is one of those operas that is hard to kill. It is set in a time that is different enough from ours, that the behaviour and motivations of the characters can seem a bit odd, but yet it is full of universal truths that we can all relate to. Love, lust, jealousy, revenge and fidelity are things that we can all relate to, even if some of the situations seems frankly a bit out of our experience. Not to mention that the whole opera is so full of humour, it is almost like you can't make it not funny. Though, I am sure some directors have managed it.
Which brings me to the new production of Figaro for Opera Australia, by Benedict Andrews. My understanding is that this is his second opera he has worked on. I would definitely argue that this showed. Not that I think that fresh eyes are a bad thing with an well known and loved opera, but at the same time, experience with opera will show through in a great production.
Now, I am going to be harsh here. This Figaro is one where the comedy is played up, but the soul is missing. Anyone who thinks that the Mozart Da Ponte operas are not works of genius probably are not going to understand why I am ambivalent about this production. Frequently the finely drawn characters were lost in the constant efforts to milk every laugh possible out. Yes, it should be funny. But, not to the point that characters lose their essential humanity, which I felt at times happened.
To be sure, setting the opera in current times, makes a certain logic. If you want to make it accessible to those who do not go to the opera, making it seem normal, or something they can relate to, does work. But if you want to capture the heart and soul of Figaro, modernising it usually fails. Yes, it lets you see things you may not have noticed, but the problem is, the behaviour of the characters of the opera does reflect their time. Droit du seigneur is not something that happens today, and would never even be contemplated. In the time of Figaro, it is supposed to be something that happens, even if not as often as it has been referred to. This fact alone will always make a modernised version awkward. A traditional version always has this as believable, so the scheming to avoid it, does not seem so crazy and silly as a modern one does.
Having said that, if you could get past that fact, as a production there was a lot to like about this one. The set allowed for rapid and easy switches between scenes. Not having to take the time to switch between Figaro's room and The Countess's worked, although having Susanna present while The Countess sang Porgi amor seemed awkward, breaking the servant/lady divide, even if their relationship always needs to be more than just servant/mistress. It just sat wrong, as if it was a step too far.. The costumes mostly matched what those sort of characters would wear in modern times, though I felt the act 2 dress for The Countess should have been more showy. A minor thing sure, but she IS a countess, not some 20something girl off for a night on the town.
Speaking of the Countess, I thought in many respects she was the weakest performer, both vocally and dramatically. She was the one performer who frequently was hard to understand. Having said that, I doubt my Russian diction is acceptable, so you could say that was being petty, except she is doing this professionally, and I do not.
On the other hand Taryn Fiebig as Susanna is an old pro at this role. Her diction was always understandable, and her comfort in the role, having played it frequently before, shows in her assurance on the stage. This is a Susanna that would stand up in companies overseas with higher reputations than OperaAustralia.
As her husband, Joshua Bloom seemed to grow into the role as the evening progressed. His is not a big voice, but well used. And his increasing confusion as the day progressed was totally believable.
As the Count, we had Michael Lewis, for once given a major lead role that enables him to shine, both vocally and dramatically. His is a count sure of his entitlements, and eager to claim what he sees as his. He seems unable to see that his behaviour is what is causing the whole mess, rather railing against everyone for preventing him getting what he feels he deserves.
Then of course, there was the comic relief. Bartolo and Marcellina in the hands of Conal Coad and Jacqui Dark ensures that every time they walk on stage they basically take over the scene. Their confident singing and love of any joke and mischief meant that if they could steal a scene, whether with Bartolo's oxygen tank, or their general foolery, they took it. And of course, they made the whole thing funny, every time they appeared. Possibly too much, I would argue, because the characters they were portraying tended to get lost under all the physical comedy. They do both have some very distinct motivations through out the opera, but those were hard to tell in this production, as they were too busy keeping the gags running thick and fast.
Likewise, Kanen Breen as Basillio was also hilarious, but I do not think anyone can ever take Basilio serious. He is there purely as a gossip and to be a figure of fun. Kanen of course, is always happy to be a source of hilarity in a production, and he gets plenty of chances in this one, whether his lechery towards Cherubino, or attacked by the dead deer or, well, you get the picture.
On the night I was there, Domenica Matthews was unwell, and her understudy went on. I won't say too much about Anna Yuen as a result, except to say this production requires a fearless Cherubino, which she pulled off fine. Her voice may not be the match of some others I have seen in the role, but she was certainly not bad, or the weakest lead.
So I guess really, my description of this production was, it was fun. It is a production for young non opera goers, who have no idea of the story. They will come away loving it.
On the other hand, those of us who know and love Figaro, are likely to be less thrilled. This is not a production that enables the essential truths of the story to come forth. This is played purely for laughs. If that is how you see Figaro, go and enjoy yourself. Me, I expect more than just a barrel of laughs. I expect to see an understanding of the humanity of these people, a sense of something other and a concern for the characters and their plight. The fact that I did not, I think says all I need to.
Which brings me to the new production of Figaro for Opera Australia, by Benedict Andrews. My understanding is that this is his second opera he has worked on. I would definitely argue that this showed. Not that I think that fresh eyes are a bad thing with an well known and loved opera, but at the same time, experience with opera will show through in a great production.
Now, I am going to be harsh here. This Figaro is one where the comedy is played up, but the soul is missing. Anyone who thinks that the Mozart Da Ponte operas are not works of genius probably are not going to understand why I am ambivalent about this production. Frequently the finely drawn characters were lost in the constant efforts to milk every laugh possible out. Yes, it should be funny. But, not to the point that characters lose their essential humanity, which I felt at times happened.
To be sure, setting the opera in current times, makes a certain logic. If you want to make it accessible to those who do not go to the opera, making it seem normal, or something they can relate to, does work. But if you want to capture the heart and soul of Figaro, modernising it usually fails. Yes, it lets you see things you may not have noticed, but the problem is, the behaviour of the characters of the opera does reflect their time. Droit du seigneur is not something that happens today, and would never even be contemplated. In the time of Figaro, it is supposed to be something that happens, even if not as often as it has been referred to. This fact alone will always make a modernised version awkward. A traditional version always has this as believable, so the scheming to avoid it, does not seem so crazy and silly as a modern one does.
Having said that, if you could get past that fact, as a production there was a lot to like about this one. The set allowed for rapid and easy switches between scenes. Not having to take the time to switch between Figaro's room and The Countess's worked, although having Susanna present while The Countess sang Porgi amor seemed awkward, breaking the servant/lady divide, even if their relationship always needs to be more than just servant/mistress. It just sat wrong, as if it was a step too far.. The costumes mostly matched what those sort of characters would wear in modern times, though I felt the act 2 dress for The Countess should have been more showy. A minor thing sure, but she IS a countess, not some 20something girl off for a night on the town.
Speaking of the Countess, I thought in many respects she was the weakest performer, both vocally and dramatically. She was the one performer who frequently was hard to understand. Having said that, I doubt my Russian diction is acceptable, so you could say that was being petty, except she is doing this professionally, and I do not.
On the other hand Taryn Fiebig as Susanna is an old pro at this role. Her diction was always understandable, and her comfort in the role, having played it frequently before, shows in her assurance on the stage. This is a Susanna that would stand up in companies overseas with higher reputations than OperaAustralia.
As her husband, Joshua Bloom seemed to grow into the role as the evening progressed. His is not a big voice, but well used. And his increasing confusion as the day progressed was totally believable.
As the Count, we had Michael Lewis, for once given a major lead role that enables him to shine, both vocally and dramatically. His is a count sure of his entitlements, and eager to claim what he sees as his. He seems unable to see that his behaviour is what is causing the whole mess, rather railing against everyone for preventing him getting what he feels he deserves.
Then of course, there was the comic relief. Bartolo and Marcellina in the hands of Conal Coad and Jacqui Dark ensures that every time they walk on stage they basically take over the scene. Their confident singing and love of any joke and mischief meant that if they could steal a scene, whether with Bartolo's oxygen tank, or their general foolery, they took it. And of course, they made the whole thing funny, every time they appeared. Possibly too much, I would argue, because the characters they were portraying tended to get lost under all the physical comedy. They do both have some very distinct motivations through out the opera, but those were hard to tell in this production, as they were too busy keeping the gags running thick and fast.
Likewise, Kanen Breen as Basillio was also hilarious, but I do not think anyone can ever take Basilio serious. He is there purely as a gossip and to be a figure of fun. Kanen of course, is always happy to be a source of hilarity in a production, and he gets plenty of chances in this one, whether his lechery towards Cherubino, or attacked by the dead deer or, well, you get the picture.
On the night I was there, Domenica Matthews was unwell, and her understudy went on. I won't say too much about Anna Yuen as a result, except to say this production requires a fearless Cherubino, which she pulled off fine. Her voice may not be the match of some others I have seen in the role, but she was certainly not bad, or the weakest lead.
So I guess really, my description of this production was, it was fun. It is a production for young non opera goers, who have no idea of the story. They will come away loving it.
On the other hand, those of us who know and love Figaro, are likely to be less thrilled. This is not a production that enables the essential truths of the story to come forth. This is played purely for laughs. If that is how you see Figaro, go and enjoy yourself. Me, I expect more than just a barrel of laughs. I expect to see an understanding of the humanity of these people, a sense of something other and a concern for the characters and their plight. The fact that I did not, I think says all I need to.
Sunday, March 04, 2012
Gotterdammerung in HD
I admit to approaching this review in 2 minds. Do I write my normal review, or do I write a love letter to Deb Voigt's immolation scene? I am not being silly. Her immolation scene IS that good. The rest of the performance that we saw in the cinema was mostly fantastic, but that huge final sing that Deb did was truly something else again. Just so that you know what I am talking about, here is one of the better sounding immolation scenes available on line:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2581375664047517259
This was Eva Marton singing Brunnhilde, I have no idea where, but it gives you an idea what I am talking about if you do not know the piece.
This is sung at the end of a 6 hour opera! This is what brings it to a close. Tonight, listening to Debbie Voigt sing this music, whatever hesitations, what ever doubts I had about her as a successful Brunnhilde were swept away. She took charge and sang her heart out in a way we wish we got all the time, but rarely get. This was singing (and acting) of the highest order that left me shocked. Do not get me wrong, Debbie Voigt is a very good singer, and one of the few who can successfully negotiate the demands of Brunnhilde at The Met, with its barn of a theatre. But I was not expecting to be shocked out of my seat with brilliant singing at the end of the opera. The only conclusion is she was holding back enough to really let rip at the end and stun us all insensible. It worked!!!
But as for the rest? Well, really, there were no weak links. The Norns at the start all sang beautifully, even if their costuming and makeup was quite unflattering (occupational hazard in Wagner unfortunately)
Jay Hunter Morris continues to grow in his Siegfried performances. Give him another ten years, and he will either be truly fabulous, or his voice will be shot. I am not sure which but I am hoping for fabulous. As it is, he is really bringing the character to life beautifully. If his voice is a bit small for the role, well, that is something we have to live with. Siegfried Jerusalem was a freak of nature, and those tend to be few and far between.
Also stunning was Hans-Peter Konig as Hagen. Seriously, his is a voice born to play villains, big dark and beautifully expressive. Eric Owens in the cameo as his father was also his usual great self, continuing his outstanding success in the role.
And of course, the chorus were their normal amazing self. Seriously, that number of singers all working brilliantly together is amazing, and they did it well..
Which brings me to the production…
The Machine continues to be its mix of wonderful and infuriating. Wonderful in that so much of it works so well. Infuriating for those times when they seem to be doing things, just for the sake of doing it. Yes, it is great to have so much flexibility. But, that does not mean you have to use it all the time!!! Going through about three different stages each time the scene changes begins to get a bit old very quickly. And yes, I get that water features prominently in this opera. But do you have to constantly have it featured in the projections on the machine? It probably explains why regular toilet breaks are a must in this opera!!!
Something I have not mentioned much in my previous comments is the costumes. Part of that reason is that most of the previous operas are full of supernatural characters, gods and demigods and the like, so you do expect them to have out there costumes, rather than something normal. But most of this opera the characters are fully human, normal people in a medieval world. Their costumes worked in with that well, and it was the first time I noticed how well.
Oh, the other thing that Gotterdammitslong (as I call it) stands and falls on, is how well the staging of the ending is. Does it tie up the loose ends, does the burning work convincingly, is it believable? Well, to be honest, yes and no. It was not believable for the cataclysmic ending of the world with hope for renewal that we are led to expect. Yes, the important bits (Siegfried, Brunnhilde and Grane) burnt up, the subtitles indicated that Valhalla was going to be burnt (not that we saw it ever in any of the operas) and then the Rhine came up at the end and everything was brought to a calm serene ending. Yes, cathartic. Cataclysmic? No, and with everything at their disposal, I frankly expected more. But, considering the performance I had just sat through, I was happy with that. Not a perfect ending to a perfect Ring Cycle (is that even possible?), but one that got the important bits right, and left you knowing you had just witnessed something extraordinary. Really, should you ask for more?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2581375664047517259
This was Eva Marton singing Brunnhilde, I have no idea where, but it gives you an idea what I am talking about if you do not know the piece.
This is sung at the end of a 6 hour opera! This is what brings it to a close. Tonight, listening to Debbie Voigt sing this music, whatever hesitations, what ever doubts I had about her as a successful Brunnhilde were swept away. She took charge and sang her heart out in a way we wish we got all the time, but rarely get. This was singing (and acting) of the highest order that left me shocked. Do not get me wrong, Debbie Voigt is a very good singer, and one of the few who can successfully negotiate the demands of Brunnhilde at The Met, with its barn of a theatre. But I was not expecting to be shocked out of my seat with brilliant singing at the end of the opera. The only conclusion is she was holding back enough to really let rip at the end and stun us all insensible. It worked!!!
But as for the rest? Well, really, there were no weak links. The Norns at the start all sang beautifully, even if their costuming and makeup was quite unflattering (occupational hazard in Wagner unfortunately)
Jay Hunter Morris continues to grow in his Siegfried performances. Give him another ten years, and he will either be truly fabulous, or his voice will be shot. I am not sure which but I am hoping for fabulous. As it is, he is really bringing the character to life beautifully. If his voice is a bit small for the role, well, that is something we have to live with. Siegfried Jerusalem was a freak of nature, and those tend to be few and far between.
Also stunning was Hans-Peter Konig as Hagen. Seriously, his is a voice born to play villains, big dark and beautifully expressive. Eric Owens in the cameo as his father was also his usual great self, continuing his outstanding success in the role.
And of course, the chorus were their normal amazing self. Seriously, that number of singers all working brilliantly together is amazing, and they did it well..
Which brings me to the production…
The Machine continues to be its mix of wonderful and infuriating. Wonderful in that so much of it works so well. Infuriating for those times when they seem to be doing things, just for the sake of doing it. Yes, it is great to have so much flexibility. But, that does not mean you have to use it all the time!!! Going through about three different stages each time the scene changes begins to get a bit old very quickly. And yes, I get that water features prominently in this opera. But do you have to constantly have it featured in the projections on the machine? It probably explains why regular toilet breaks are a must in this opera!!!
Something I have not mentioned much in my previous comments is the costumes. Part of that reason is that most of the previous operas are full of supernatural characters, gods and demigods and the like, so you do expect them to have out there costumes, rather than something normal. But most of this opera the characters are fully human, normal people in a medieval world. Their costumes worked in with that well, and it was the first time I noticed how well.
Oh, the other thing that Gotterdammitslong (as I call it) stands and falls on, is how well the staging of the ending is. Does it tie up the loose ends, does the burning work convincingly, is it believable? Well, to be honest, yes and no. It was not believable for the cataclysmic ending of the world with hope for renewal that we are led to expect. Yes, the important bits (Siegfried, Brunnhilde and Grane) burnt up, the subtitles indicated that Valhalla was going to be burnt (not that we saw it ever in any of the operas) and then the Rhine came up at the end and everything was brought to a calm serene ending. Yes, cathartic. Cataclysmic? No, and with everything at their disposal, I frankly expected more. But, considering the performance I had just sat through, I was happy with that. Not a perfect ending to a perfect Ring Cycle (is that even possible?), but one that got the important bits right, and left you knowing you had just witnessed something extraordinary. Really, should you ask for more?
Sunday, February 05, 2012
Turandot - 4/2/2012
Hmm… Turandot. What really can you say about an opera when all three leads suffer from different mental illnesses? I mean, seriously, Calaf develops an instant infatuation with Turandot on first laying eyes on her, to the point he allows others who he is supposed to love and care for to die so he can win her. Turandot refuses to allow herself to love anyone and lives out her life seeking revenge on men in general for their treatment of her ancestor who was raped. And Liu? Well, she out of love, chooses to die, than reveal the name of the man she loves, despite the fact that he does not return it, and has no intention of doing so. That is three seriously fucked up individuals right there.
But, for all that, Puccini wrote some amazing music when writing for Turandot. Maybe suffering really does bring out the best art? Who knows, but Turandot is a superb piece of opera writing, and we all owe a thanks to Puccini for it…
So, onto this performance… What was it like you say?
Well, funny you should ask that…. Allow me to state from the start, this was the production of any in Australia that I was probably looking forward to the most this year. I saw this production many years ago when the ABC used to show opera and other performing arts on sunday nights on TV. This production was one of the standouts, even on a black and white TV (Yes, we got colour really late)
When Graeme Murphy and Kristian Fredrikson put this production together all those years ago, they did it very much as an act of love. This was an opera they had been eager to work on, and it shows in their gorgeous sets, costumes and staging. This is never a simple park and bark production, but rather one where people constantly move, where the chorus is used not just to fill the stage, but to inform relationships by their actions and to provide visual interest. They also sounded great, by the way.
Now, about the soloists, first, a comment. This is an opera where the difference between stunning and competent is phenomenally expensive. Both Turandots and Calafs who can sing the roles well can pretty much write their own check. There is really only ever a couple of people singing Turandot at any time, who can do it true justice. Turandot is like the Everest of roles for Italianate dramatic sopranos. Now Susan Foster is no Ghena Demitriova or Eva Marton, but she is pretty damn fine in this role for Sydney, which is a small house. Granted, in her first big sing, I was thinking she was going to run out of voice and possibly high notes, as she seemed to be already at her limit. However, I am pleased to say, there was something in reserve, and she did hit the top notes with out the splat or cracks I was expecting. After the first part of the Riddle Song, I never felt that nervous about her again. I did however notice a tendency of when she quietened her voice of becoming inaudible, which I suspect was more due to a lack of familiarity with the house she was singing in, than anything, or a lack of advice from the musical staff. She certainly had the necessary loudness when needed, being able to soar over the chorus in full voice when needed. Did she display the subtlety of others in this role? Did she really melt and become the warm fully human loving woman the role calls for at the end? Well, there was definitely a softening, but I was not convinced fully, though sitting at the back of the opera does make such things hard to judge.
As the next mad person, Rosario La Spina was something I was looking forward to. His first act seemed a little disappointing, as if he was having an off night, or if he was just not warmed up enough. I suspect the later, because by the second act, he was the thrilling Italian tenor I was expecting. Considering some of the tenor voices I have heard used by OperaAustralia and others, his is a real thrill, powerful, pingy and consistent of line. To be sure, I have heard more beautiful voices, but those are going to remain beyond the price of OperaAustralia sadly. In the meantime, we have Rosario, and I for one am much happier with him than with some of the tenors they used in the past (Here I refuse to name another Aussie who they used repeatedly in the past, who badly needed to relearn his technique) To be honest, his is a role to be the reckless person risking all for love, and he was believable as that. To be sure, that sounds like most tenor roles, but he did do it very well.
As Liu, I was a little disappointed at first that we had Daria Masiero and not Hyeseoung Kwon. As anyone who has heard her knows, Hyeseoung OWNS this role. I heard her do it at opera in the domain 2 years ago, and she moved me to tears, even over the PA and all. With her beautiful voice in the theatre there would be no dry eyes when she kills herself. Now, Daria did nothing wrong, just her voice is not as stunning as Hyeseoung. Not bad, far from it, just no one comes close to Hyeseoung at the moment, though I would imagine Rachelle Durkin could probably give her a good run for her money in the role. Hyeseoung is probably worth going again for when she takes over the role at the end of February.
As the trio of P's, we had Andrew Moran, David Corcoran and Graeme Macfarlane providing a strong trio of performers, and making me wonder how I missed hearing about Andrew Moran. He is clearly a performer to watch out for with a rich baritone voice, possibly the strongest of the three, although David Corcoran's pingy tenor came close. The trio scene in this production remains a beautiful rest from the dramas of the opera, and is full of visual interest, unlike what happens in some productions.
I also have to make mention of the Emperor of Warren Fisher. While I dislike this role going to a young singer, I have to say, well sung Warren. It is also great to see you making an impression in OperaAustralia, after singing with you in amateur productions in the past.
So, ultimately, my thoughts? If you get the chance, go see this production. It is that rare thing, a night at the opera when you do not have any real criticism to make, when everything works together to bring a story to life. And really, what more could you hope for?
But, for all that, Puccini wrote some amazing music when writing for Turandot. Maybe suffering really does bring out the best art? Who knows, but Turandot is a superb piece of opera writing, and we all owe a thanks to Puccini for it…
So, onto this performance… What was it like you say?
Well, funny you should ask that…. Allow me to state from the start, this was the production of any in Australia that I was probably looking forward to the most this year. I saw this production many years ago when the ABC used to show opera and other performing arts on sunday nights on TV. This production was one of the standouts, even on a black and white TV (Yes, we got colour really late)
When Graeme Murphy and Kristian Fredrikson put this production together all those years ago, they did it very much as an act of love. This was an opera they had been eager to work on, and it shows in their gorgeous sets, costumes and staging. This is never a simple park and bark production, but rather one where people constantly move, where the chorus is used not just to fill the stage, but to inform relationships by their actions and to provide visual interest. They also sounded great, by the way.
Now, about the soloists, first, a comment. This is an opera where the difference between stunning and competent is phenomenally expensive. Both Turandots and Calafs who can sing the roles well can pretty much write their own check. There is really only ever a couple of people singing Turandot at any time, who can do it true justice. Turandot is like the Everest of roles for Italianate dramatic sopranos. Now Susan Foster is no Ghena Demitriova or Eva Marton, but she is pretty damn fine in this role for Sydney, which is a small house. Granted, in her first big sing, I was thinking she was going to run out of voice and possibly high notes, as she seemed to be already at her limit. However, I am pleased to say, there was something in reserve, and she did hit the top notes with out the splat or cracks I was expecting. After the first part of the Riddle Song, I never felt that nervous about her again. I did however notice a tendency of when she quietened her voice of becoming inaudible, which I suspect was more due to a lack of familiarity with the house she was singing in, than anything, or a lack of advice from the musical staff. She certainly had the necessary loudness when needed, being able to soar over the chorus in full voice when needed. Did she display the subtlety of others in this role? Did she really melt and become the warm fully human loving woman the role calls for at the end? Well, there was definitely a softening, but I was not convinced fully, though sitting at the back of the opera does make such things hard to judge.
As the next mad person, Rosario La Spina was something I was looking forward to. His first act seemed a little disappointing, as if he was having an off night, or if he was just not warmed up enough. I suspect the later, because by the second act, he was the thrilling Italian tenor I was expecting. Considering some of the tenor voices I have heard used by OperaAustralia and others, his is a real thrill, powerful, pingy and consistent of line. To be sure, I have heard more beautiful voices, but those are going to remain beyond the price of OperaAustralia sadly. In the meantime, we have Rosario, and I for one am much happier with him than with some of the tenors they used in the past (Here I refuse to name another Aussie who they used repeatedly in the past, who badly needed to relearn his technique) To be honest, his is a role to be the reckless person risking all for love, and he was believable as that. To be sure, that sounds like most tenor roles, but he did do it very well.
As Liu, I was a little disappointed at first that we had Daria Masiero and not Hyeseoung Kwon. As anyone who has heard her knows, Hyeseoung OWNS this role. I heard her do it at opera in the domain 2 years ago, and she moved me to tears, even over the PA and all. With her beautiful voice in the theatre there would be no dry eyes when she kills herself. Now, Daria did nothing wrong, just her voice is not as stunning as Hyeseoung. Not bad, far from it, just no one comes close to Hyeseoung at the moment, though I would imagine Rachelle Durkin could probably give her a good run for her money in the role. Hyeseoung is probably worth going again for when she takes over the role at the end of February.
As the trio of P's, we had Andrew Moran, David Corcoran and Graeme Macfarlane providing a strong trio of performers, and making me wonder how I missed hearing about Andrew Moran. He is clearly a performer to watch out for with a rich baritone voice, possibly the strongest of the three, although David Corcoran's pingy tenor came close. The trio scene in this production remains a beautiful rest from the dramas of the opera, and is full of visual interest, unlike what happens in some productions.
I also have to make mention of the Emperor of Warren Fisher. While I dislike this role going to a young singer, I have to say, well sung Warren. It is also great to see you making an impression in OperaAustralia, after singing with you in amateur productions in the past.
So, ultimately, my thoughts? If you get the chance, go see this production. It is that rare thing, a night at the opera when you do not have any real criticism to make, when everything works together to bring a story to life. And really, what more could you hope for?
Monday, January 23, 2012
Faust, or what could have been…..
Right, before I start, a confession. This is the first time I have seen a complete production of Faust. Any version of Faust, let alone Gounod's opera. I mean, sure, we all know the basic story. Old guy does deal with devil (or facsimile there of), gets youth, money, girl, loses girl and loses soul to devil by end. Its an old story, and, to be frank, the old stories usually are pretty good for operas, because the reason they are still remembered is they speak to us in ways that are meaningful Often, they speak to us in ways that change as we do. And of course, it is an opera that we all know bits of, as well as how the story goes.
So, Faust from The Met, in cinema release, with three outstanding singers in the leads and that new Canadian whizz kid conductor, in a new production, should be fabulous right?
Yeah, that was my thought too. Sadly, the director (Des McAnuff) has somehow failed to make this work. I suspect if I knew the opera better, I could give a better explanation, but all you really need to know is he failed to tell the story in a way that made it really live.
But first, back to the performers. As Faust himself, we had Jonas Kaufmann proving himself everything we have come to expect from him. Committed, with that beautiful well produced tone. He has the strength to carry through this long role, without tiring, despite the demanding music he sings. The fact that he can act as well, is a bonus, as is the fact he is very pleasing to the eye as well! As a performer to carry this opera, he would be one of my first choices, if I were in that position.
As Mephistopheles, Rene Pape too, was sensational. Really, these two seem rarely able to do wrong. They are both at, or approaching the peak of their performance abilities and on stage prove that their reputations are well deserved, unlike some performers, who seem unable to perform as well outside the recording studio.
On the other hand, Marina Poplavskaya, to me, while a great singer, sounds lost in this role. Vocally, she sounded too much like she was singing in her native Russian a lot of the time. I mean, in the right role she is stunning. But this role, is not hers vocally. The role needs a brighter cleaner sound than she seems able to produce. Having said that, her Jewel Song was fabulous, and I could well imagine her being cast on the strength of that alone. But, as many people will tell you, that aria is not typical of the role as a whole. On the other hand, she really did live the role. She was Marguerite, just a shame she does not sound right as her.
Of the others, Valentin definitely deserves praise. He was totally believable as the brother who was conflicted but could not forgive his sister her sins, even on his deathbed. Russell Braun sang with a powerful baritone, suggesting a big future ahead of him.
In the pit, Yannick Nézet-Séguin proved once again he is a young conductor with a big future ahead of him. He was able to keep the large forces of the orchestra and chorus well controlled, while maintaining a strong sense of mood from the atmospheric writing of Gounod.
Which leaves me with the director. Now, before anyone calls me reactionary, let me say that an updated setting of an opera can work, and often work very well… Indeed, in some cases they can make a work accessible, bring new life to a story and make it relevant to a modern audience. This is not one of those times.
I mean to my mind, Faust is about wish fulfilment, a fable if you like, about how you should be very careful what you wish for, because what you want is rarely what you need, and the consequences are often too much to handle. Fine, in theory, and it sounds like something that could be translated to a modern era without a problem.
There is one slight problem with that. Faust is very much a product of an era long gone. One where christianity was more what defined the world we lived in than science. Where a scientist was always a bit suspicious, not a trusted and valued part of our society.
So, in his wisdom, (because a director always knows better than the original creators, right?) the director decided to set it at the time of the second world war. Faust became an atomic physicist working on the atomic bomb (I do not recall the French having the bomb till long after that!) So, after moaning about his life and being about to drink the poison, Mephistopheles appears in a very snazzy cream suit and hat, and proceeds to seduce Faust in to the idea of having what ever he wants. Faust chooses youth, but of course, Mephistopheles gives him so much more. The story from then on takes off on its normal trajectory, more or less, though there were a couple of very odd things that stood out like sore thumbs, as if the director had no idea how to make them fit. (Including an atom bomb going off!)
Having said that, there were some good ideas, mostly badly executed, in the production.
The set was designed with two circular staircases going up out of sight at the front of the stage, one on either side. These were frequently used by Faust and Mephistopheles to go from one place to another, as if they were part of Mephistopheles powers, enabling him to easily travel where ever he wanted. Except sometimes he did not use them when he clearly should have, to fit the idea….
And the chorus. Such an integral part of Faust. Frequently so badly handled. Whose idea was it to put one door (!) on stage at the front, then to have all the chorus go in and out thru that for the soldiers' chorus scene when they returned? Really? It LOOKED awkward, and of course, the chorus had to all pile in before they could start to sing. And the ending? If you are going to have your angelic chorus on stage (Normally they would be offstage I would assume), and you have a set with a cat walk on either side of it, surely your angelic chorus (or those the audience see) should be up high on that cat walk, singing down to Marguerite, that she has been redeemed? Not on the stage floor with her? Oh, and making her walk up all those stairs to ascend into heaven? Surely you could have done something better than that?
But then, after all that? It all turns out to be a dream, from between when Faust actually did drink the poison at the start, and him dying. Because, right after Marguerite goes to heaven, there is a quick change and there is Faust looking old again like at the start, holding the beaker of poison, right before he collapses to the ground at the end. To me, that was the real insult. I mean, sure the story is quite unbelievable to many, but if you have to change the ending (and weaken its only happiness), surely you should just start with a different opera? Maybe get someone to write a Faust opera that fits with your ideas? Because, sadly, this ending was far too clumsy to work.
And really, I guess that is my big complaint with this production. It was clumsy. Things failed, not for lack of good intentions, but in their execution. And with the resources he had available to him, and the performers on hand, that is simply not good enough.
So, Faust from The Met, in cinema release, with three outstanding singers in the leads and that new Canadian whizz kid conductor, in a new production, should be fabulous right?
Yeah, that was my thought too. Sadly, the director (Des McAnuff) has somehow failed to make this work. I suspect if I knew the opera better, I could give a better explanation, but all you really need to know is he failed to tell the story in a way that made it really live.
But first, back to the performers. As Faust himself, we had Jonas Kaufmann proving himself everything we have come to expect from him. Committed, with that beautiful well produced tone. He has the strength to carry through this long role, without tiring, despite the demanding music he sings. The fact that he can act as well, is a bonus, as is the fact he is very pleasing to the eye as well! As a performer to carry this opera, he would be one of my first choices, if I were in that position.
As Mephistopheles, Rene Pape too, was sensational. Really, these two seem rarely able to do wrong. They are both at, or approaching the peak of their performance abilities and on stage prove that their reputations are well deserved, unlike some performers, who seem unable to perform as well outside the recording studio.
On the other hand, Marina Poplavskaya, to me, while a great singer, sounds lost in this role. Vocally, she sounded too much like she was singing in her native Russian a lot of the time. I mean, in the right role she is stunning. But this role, is not hers vocally. The role needs a brighter cleaner sound than she seems able to produce. Having said that, her Jewel Song was fabulous, and I could well imagine her being cast on the strength of that alone. But, as many people will tell you, that aria is not typical of the role as a whole. On the other hand, she really did live the role. She was Marguerite, just a shame she does not sound right as her.
Of the others, Valentin definitely deserves praise. He was totally believable as the brother who was conflicted but could not forgive his sister her sins, even on his deathbed. Russell Braun sang with a powerful baritone, suggesting a big future ahead of him.
In the pit, Yannick Nézet-Séguin proved once again he is a young conductor with a big future ahead of him. He was able to keep the large forces of the orchestra and chorus well controlled, while maintaining a strong sense of mood from the atmospheric writing of Gounod.
Which leaves me with the director. Now, before anyone calls me reactionary, let me say that an updated setting of an opera can work, and often work very well… Indeed, in some cases they can make a work accessible, bring new life to a story and make it relevant to a modern audience. This is not one of those times.
I mean to my mind, Faust is about wish fulfilment, a fable if you like, about how you should be very careful what you wish for, because what you want is rarely what you need, and the consequences are often too much to handle. Fine, in theory, and it sounds like something that could be translated to a modern era without a problem.
There is one slight problem with that. Faust is very much a product of an era long gone. One where christianity was more what defined the world we lived in than science. Where a scientist was always a bit suspicious, not a trusted and valued part of our society.
So, in his wisdom, (because a director always knows better than the original creators, right?) the director decided to set it at the time of the second world war. Faust became an atomic physicist working on the atomic bomb (I do not recall the French having the bomb till long after that!) So, after moaning about his life and being about to drink the poison, Mephistopheles appears in a very snazzy cream suit and hat, and proceeds to seduce Faust in to the idea of having what ever he wants. Faust chooses youth, but of course, Mephistopheles gives him so much more. The story from then on takes off on its normal trajectory, more or less, though there were a couple of very odd things that stood out like sore thumbs, as if the director had no idea how to make them fit. (Including an atom bomb going off!)
Having said that, there were some good ideas, mostly badly executed, in the production.
The set was designed with two circular staircases going up out of sight at the front of the stage, one on either side. These were frequently used by Faust and Mephistopheles to go from one place to another, as if they were part of Mephistopheles powers, enabling him to easily travel where ever he wanted. Except sometimes he did not use them when he clearly should have, to fit the idea….
And the chorus. Such an integral part of Faust. Frequently so badly handled. Whose idea was it to put one door (!) on stage at the front, then to have all the chorus go in and out thru that for the soldiers' chorus scene when they returned? Really? It LOOKED awkward, and of course, the chorus had to all pile in before they could start to sing. And the ending? If you are going to have your angelic chorus on stage (Normally they would be offstage I would assume), and you have a set with a cat walk on either side of it, surely your angelic chorus (or those the audience see) should be up high on that cat walk, singing down to Marguerite, that she has been redeemed? Not on the stage floor with her? Oh, and making her walk up all those stairs to ascend into heaven? Surely you could have done something better than that?
But then, after all that? It all turns out to be a dream, from between when Faust actually did drink the poison at the start, and him dying. Because, right after Marguerite goes to heaven, there is a quick change and there is Faust looking old again like at the start, holding the beaker of poison, right before he collapses to the ground at the end. To me, that was the real insult. I mean, sure the story is quite unbelievable to many, but if you have to change the ending (and weaken its only happiness), surely you should just start with a different opera? Maybe get someone to write a Faust opera that fits with your ideas? Because, sadly, this ending was far too clumsy to work.
And really, I guess that is my big complaint with this production. It was clumsy. Things failed, not for lack of good intentions, but in their execution. And with the resources he had available to him, and the performers on hand, that is simply not good enough.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
The year ahead
Right… So… New year, new thrills, new experiences…
This year is going to be the year of much opera for me…
As well as the usual Live from The Met in HD opera at the cinema experiences, I am going to be seeing more opera live than ever before. 7 operas at the Sydney Opera House. A full ring cycle at The Met (!), in the theatre, rather than via cinema, as well as probably a couple of others while I am there…
Its going to be quite a year for me!!!
So, what am I looking forward to you ask? Well, apart from THE RING (more later), this year's operas at the Sydney Opera House for me are: Turandot, Marriage of Figaro, Die tote Stadt, Aida, Madama Butterfly, Lucia di Lammermoor and Salome. Of these, three I have sung in as chorus in the past, so I know them REALLY well. (Lucia, Butterfly & Aida) But, Die tote Stadt I have loved ever since I first saw it on SBS one afternoon, in one of their world opera series. It did not make a lot of sense, but since then, I have heard more of it, and am totally looking forward to drowning myself in Korngold's glorious music.
Turandot. What more can I say? It is Graeme Murphy's glorious production, with Rosario La Spina as Calaf and Susan Foster as the big T. I have seen this production on TV in the past, and it is visually gorgeous, but never in the theatre. And never with this cast either.
Lucia with the glorious Emma Matthews as Lucia. Quite frankly, I am not a big Lucia fan, but with Emma, it is very hard to go past. Truly there are very few singers who are as consistently as amazing as Emma. I have watched her from her early days in Perth (doing Yum Yum and various other smaller roles) through to her current stature as arguably our greatest currently working soprano. Tough call, yes, but she really is that good. While personally I prefer a larger voiced Lucia, her interpretation promises to be stunning and worth making the time to see…
And of course, Salome? Well, that is one of those operas that works much better on stage, than recorded. I do have a bit of a love/hate relationship with Richard Strauss. Most of the time he comes across to me as a less talented Wagner, then he floors you with a truly drop dead gorgeous couple of minutes, and you forgive him all the dross you sat through to get there. Yes, I know, it is sort of heresy, but that is exactly how I feel about him. I also recognise that seeing his works rather than just hearing them is also changing that for me…
And of course, Aida? Who can ignore Verdi at his bombastic best, demonstrating the challenges of the personal caught up in events affecting a country's future?
But of course, what I expect to be the real highlight of the year opera wise? Going to New York to The Met, to see Wagner's Ring Cycle, in their new production. If you have not seen any of the video of this production, do a search on youtube, or go to The Met's website to look. It is a visually shocking (in a good way) production, providing an effective way of staging the unstageable. And with Deb Voigt (who is possibly the best Brunnhilde around at the moment) and Bryn Terfel, along with the usual cast of hundreds, it promises to be an amazing experience. We will probably also get to see a couple of other things at the same time (Makropolous case and Billy Budd are on at The Met while we are there as well), as well as a Broadway show or 2…
So, roll on the 4th of February when we start this opera odyssey!!!
This year is going to be the year of much opera for me…
As well as the usual Live from The Met in HD opera at the cinema experiences, I am going to be seeing more opera live than ever before. 7 operas at the Sydney Opera House. A full ring cycle at The Met (!), in the theatre, rather than via cinema, as well as probably a couple of others while I am there…
Its going to be quite a year for me!!!
So, what am I looking forward to you ask? Well, apart from THE RING (more later), this year's operas at the Sydney Opera House for me are: Turandot, Marriage of Figaro, Die tote Stadt, Aida, Madama Butterfly, Lucia di Lammermoor and Salome. Of these, three I have sung in as chorus in the past, so I know them REALLY well. (Lucia, Butterfly & Aida) But, Die tote Stadt I have loved ever since I first saw it on SBS one afternoon, in one of their world opera series. It did not make a lot of sense, but since then, I have heard more of it, and am totally looking forward to drowning myself in Korngold's glorious music.
Turandot. What more can I say? It is Graeme Murphy's glorious production, with Rosario La Spina as Calaf and Susan Foster as the big T. I have seen this production on TV in the past, and it is visually gorgeous, but never in the theatre. And never with this cast either.
Lucia with the glorious Emma Matthews as Lucia. Quite frankly, I am not a big Lucia fan, but with Emma, it is very hard to go past. Truly there are very few singers who are as consistently as amazing as Emma. I have watched her from her early days in Perth (doing Yum Yum and various other smaller roles) through to her current stature as arguably our greatest currently working soprano. Tough call, yes, but she really is that good. While personally I prefer a larger voiced Lucia, her interpretation promises to be stunning and worth making the time to see…
And of course, Salome? Well, that is one of those operas that works much better on stage, than recorded. I do have a bit of a love/hate relationship with Richard Strauss. Most of the time he comes across to me as a less talented Wagner, then he floors you with a truly drop dead gorgeous couple of minutes, and you forgive him all the dross you sat through to get there. Yes, I know, it is sort of heresy, but that is exactly how I feel about him. I also recognise that seeing his works rather than just hearing them is also changing that for me…
And of course, Aida? Who can ignore Verdi at his bombastic best, demonstrating the challenges of the personal caught up in events affecting a country's future?
But of course, what I expect to be the real highlight of the year opera wise? Going to New York to The Met, to see Wagner's Ring Cycle, in their new production. If you have not seen any of the video of this production, do a search on youtube, or go to The Met's website to look. It is a visually shocking (in a good way) production, providing an effective way of staging the unstageable. And with Deb Voigt (who is possibly the best Brunnhilde around at the moment) and Bryn Terfel, along with the usual cast of hundreds, it promises to be an amazing experience. We will probably also get to see a couple of other things at the same time (Makropolous case and Billy Budd are on at The Met while we are there as well), as well as a Broadway show or 2…
So, roll on the 4th of February when we start this opera odyssey!!!
Sunday, January 08, 2012
A short Don Giovanni post....
This is not going to be long…
I was just thinking I should write about what I am looking forward to this year, when I realised that somehow, I managed to miss writing about Don Giovanni, that we saw last year…..
Oops.
So, Don G. At Sydney Opera House. With Teddy Tahu Rhodes as Don G, Conal Coad as Leporello, and the usual production that has been doing the rounds there for years. You know, with the collapsing pillars at the end and the leather shorts and the stunning bod and…..
Oh, and Jacquie Dark as Elvira.
Hang on, that's not a mezzo role?
Well, of course, Mozart wrote when the terms soprano, mezzo, etc, were not really used. He wrote for individual singers, which makes it interesting that his roles are often used to define fachs (voice types, for those who were wondering)
Jacquie is a big meaty mezzo (dramatic mezzo, okay) and her voice actually fits Donna Elvira really well. She takes the shrieking harridan and turns her into well, a rounded character, whose coloratura turns become a part of her personality, freak outs that are explaining her inner torment, rather than just exercises in vocal technique and "look at me, aren't I an amazing singer" outbursts. In short, she built her performance around what the music showed, which is how it should be, rather than the usual, somewhat understandable "park and Bark" role it often is (its bloody hard music)
Teddy as Don Giovanni? Well, I admit, I have often thought that TTR is a bit bloodless vocally. As in, its a pretty voice, but his recordings (I have rarely seen him live) seemed to be lacking a bit of commitment, or engagement with the role or something. I will never say that again!!! The man is clearly a stage animal, sinking his teeth into DG, making him a believable lecher in the first act, then turning the later parts of the opera with its supernatural elements into a mad scene. The intervention of the statue became more like the results of hallucination than supernatural events, but it made sense because of his totally committed and demented performance. All sung in his beautiful (and surprisingly expressive) voice. Did I mention he ends shirtless?
And of course, there is Conal Coad, a comic bass of many years experience and huge talent. This was the second time I saw him live last year, and each time he has brought a stunning performance, hilarious, yet also real and true to life. He really does make these roles his own, applying his beautiful rich voice to these complex roles with seeming ease, yet working them for the inherent humour. We really forget just how amazing he is most of the time, having seen him so often taking a back seat role, then, give him a moment to shine and he is still stunning. (He was amazing in Capriccio too)
Anyway, just a few thoughts, because I figured, I needed to clear the decks before I started writing about the huge amount (for me) of opera that I am going to be seeing this year. That will probably be my next post, unless I do one on Rodelinda this afternoon (not sure if we are going…)
I also did not write about Siegfried, which was fab. But, as I am seeing that this year in the flesh… That can wait..
I was just thinking I should write about what I am looking forward to this year, when I realised that somehow, I managed to miss writing about Don Giovanni, that we saw last year…..
Oops.
So, Don G. At Sydney Opera House. With Teddy Tahu Rhodes as Don G, Conal Coad as Leporello, and the usual production that has been doing the rounds there for years. You know, with the collapsing pillars at the end and the leather shorts and the stunning bod and…..
Oh, and Jacquie Dark as Elvira.
Hang on, that's not a mezzo role?
Well, of course, Mozart wrote when the terms soprano, mezzo, etc, were not really used. He wrote for individual singers, which makes it interesting that his roles are often used to define fachs (voice types, for those who were wondering)
Jacquie is a big meaty mezzo (dramatic mezzo, okay) and her voice actually fits Donna Elvira really well. She takes the shrieking harridan and turns her into well, a rounded character, whose coloratura turns become a part of her personality, freak outs that are explaining her inner torment, rather than just exercises in vocal technique and "look at me, aren't I an amazing singer" outbursts. In short, she built her performance around what the music showed, which is how it should be, rather than the usual, somewhat understandable "park and Bark" role it often is (its bloody hard music)
Teddy as Don Giovanni? Well, I admit, I have often thought that TTR is a bit bloodless vocally. As in, its a pretty voice, but his recordings (I have rarely seen him live) seemed to be lacking a bit of commitment, or engagement with the role or something. I will never say that again!!! The man is clearly a stage animal, sinking his teeth into DG, making him a believable lecher in the first act, then turning the later parts of the opera with its supernatural elements into a mad scene. The intervention of the statue became more like the results of hallucination than supernatural events, but it made sense because of his totally committed and demented performance. All sung in his beautiful (and surprisingly expressive) voice. Did I mention he ends shirtless?
And of course, there is Conal Coad, a comic bass of many years experience and huge talent. This was the second time I saw him live last year, and each time he has brought a stunning performance, hilarious, yet also real and true to life. He really does make these roles his own, applying his beautiful rich voice to these complex roles with seeming ease, yet working them for the inherent humour. We really forget just how amazing he is most of the time, having seen him so often taking a back seat role, then, give him a moment to shine and he is still stunning. (He was amazing in Capriccio too)
Anyway, just a few thoughts, because I figured, I needed to clear the decks before I started writing about the huge amount (for me) of opera that I am going to be seeing this year. That will probably be my next post, unless I do one on Rodelinda this afternoon (not sure if we are going…)
I also did not write about Siegfried, which was fab. But, as I am seeing that this year in the flesh… That can wait..
Sunday, October 30, 2011
There are no words - Love of the Nightgale
There are no words.
Seriously, there are no words. Just like the Thracian women repeatedly tell both Procne, and later Philomele, there are no words, to describe how a new theatrical piece invokes responses in you, and to try to describe the performance, there are no words to adequately describe what you have seen. And yet, we must. We must get out the truths of what we have seen and ensure that others want to see them also.
For those that have missed the whole "Love of the Nightingale" story and are wondering what I am talking about, OperaAustralia have just mounted the glorious Richard Mills opera, based on the story by Ovid in his Metamorphoses concerning the sisters Procne and Philomele and the Thracian king Tereus, whom Procne marries, and who then, while collecting Philomele to bring her to spend time in Thrace with her sister Procne, rapes and brutalises her.
That is the basics of the story. And, I will be honest, it does sound like a pretty grim night at the opera. Modern opera, based on a bloodthirsty tale of outrageous behaviour. And yes, it does live up to being a confronting night of theatre. Seeing someone have their tongue cut out is pretty gruesome, even if you know that it is not real. Especially when it is presented in such a way that you imagine it more than you see it.
But this is also a production with a lot of humour. I frequently was laughing out loud in the first act, which I was not expecting. Granted there was less humour in the second act, but then the plot does turn very ugly, so that was no surprise.
And, with the humour and the vivid characterisations, you did care about these characters. Most of them in fact, although I do not recommend getting to attached to lead tenor roles in this opera.
As the sisters, Emma Matthews and Anke Hoeppner have the sort of roles that singers dream about. And, fill them well they do. Emma is probably the finest singer we have in Australia at the moment, and once again, she showed us why. Her sweet coloratura filled the theatre throughout the night, with no risk of being overwhelmed, and always in control. Now, granted, this is her second time singing this role (she created the role in its first production) but this is one of those cases of a role that seem a gift to the singer. In fact, I am pretty sure that Richard Mills wrote the role around her originally. What a gift for her!
Anke was something of a surprise for me. I admit, the times before I have heard her, I have been underwhelmed. I would never have thought of her voice as beautiful. Powerful yes, but a tendency to be wayward, and harsh, not one I would rush off to hear again. As Procne, she held her own, as Philomele's older, though not wiser, sister, who marries the brutish Tereus. She left me realising that I need to reconsider her as a singer to investigate further, as she never fell into Emma's shadow, despite being on stage together for a large chunk of her role. I guess this is what happens when you only know performers from recorded performances.
As Tereus, Richard Anderson was the hulking brute he needed to be. He was the sort of man you could believe would do the things he did, if he did not get his own way. His voice was similar, powerful and intimidating, if not making beautiful sounds. This was of course, more a reflection on the music and the character he was portraying, rather than any lack on his part. He remains a singer I often wonder why he does not get better roles that show off his voice, but then maybe this is his choice too.
Elizabeth Campbell in her multiple roles, showed us why she remains one of Australia's pre-eminent oratorio singers. Her big mezzo voice was a model of clarity, making singing in English seem so easy. She was the only singer I could consistently understand, without ever needing the surtitles. Yes, she may have come across a bit less in character at times, but, with her roles I was not going to complain when every word was so clear.
David Corcoran sang with his usual ringy tenor voice. He seemed more confident than I have heard him before, but at the same time, I really do not think English is a good language for him. To my ear, he is all ping, with not enough body to his voice. This could be just me, but I like a fuller tenor voice than his. However, he was impressive as the captain of the ship that Philomele falls for, causing Tereus fits of jealousy.
Also, Taryn Fiebig sang a suitably radiant (if surprisingly vindictive) Aphrodite. Much of the blame for what happened gets sheeted home to her, yet, at best, she could only be said to be encouraging others to act out on their desires, rather than making those desires happen.
The music you ask? Well, I would probably describe it as fitting into a Britten-ish sound world. So, mostly tonal, with melody more likely to happen in snatches than full out arias. At the same time, there are exerptable solo moments of considerable beauty, and some quite powerful ensemble sections, making for a score that really demands multiple listenings to get a deeper appreciation for it. (Not to mention, the showstopping "Song of the Nightingale" at the end) It also reflects a keen ear for how to set words for voices, which considering the composer's long involvement with WA Opera, is not unsurprising.
The staging was initially annoying, till I adjusted to it. Having a series of platforms that roll around on stage to indicate different locations seems annoying at first, but it was made to work. You forgot it was just staging, and it became the locations, be they the palace at Athens, the boat, the beach or the palace in Thrace. It also enabled some quite difficult scenes of violence and outrageous behaviour to take place, without loss of believability, which was quite something.
Now, I have to say, for some, the moralising of some of the characters towards the end was annoying. For me, it was not, mainly because it fitted in with the whole Greek chorus thing that was happening. After all, ancient Greek theatre relied on the chorus to moralise, and ask the hard questions. Having said that it did go on for quite some time, to drum the point home, that we must ask questions, and we must never be afraid to speak out, lest we too lose the ability to do so.
But ultimately, the ending, with the gloriously over the top vocalise sung by Emma as the nightingale of the title was a fitting ending. It was an indication that we all had to find the way to say what we had no words for, to express the inexpressible. After all, what else is opera for?
Seriously, there are no words. Just like the Thracian women repeatedly tell both Procne, and later Philomele, there are no words, to describe how a new theatrical piece invokes responses in you, and to try to describe the performance, there are no words to adequately describe what you have seen. And yet, we must. We must get out the truths of what we have seen and ensure that others want to see them also.
For those that have missed the whole "Love of the Nightingale" story and are wondering what I am talking about, OperaAustralia have just mounted the glorious Richard Mills opera, based on the story by Ovid in his Metamorphoses concerning the sisters Procne and Philomele and the Thracian king Tereus, whom Procne marries, and who then, while collecting Philomele to bring her to spend time in Thrace with her sister Procne, rapes and brutalises her.
That is the basics of the story. And, I will be honest, it does sound like a pretty grim night at the opera. Modern opera, based on a bloodthirsty tale of outrageous behaviour. And yes, it does live up to being a confronting night of theatre. Seeing someone have their tongue cut out is pretty gruesome, even if you know that it is not real. Especially when it is presented in such a way that you imagine it more than you see it.
But this is also a production with a lot of humour. I frequently was laughing out loud in the first act, which I was not expecting. Granted there was less humour in the second act, but then the plot does turn very ugly, so that was no surprise.
And, with the humour and the vivid characterisations, you did care about these characters. Most of them in fact, although I do not recommend getting to attached to lead tenor roles in this opera.
As the sisters, Emma Matthews and Anke Hoeppner have the sort of roles that singers dream about. And, fill them well they do. Emma is probably the finest singer we have in Australia at the moment, and once again, she showed us why. Her sweet coloratura filled the theatre throughout the night, with no risk of being overwhelmed, and always in control. Now, granted, this is her second time singing this role (she created the role in its first production) but this is one of those cases of a role that seem a gift to the singer. In fact, I am pretty sure that Richard Mills wrote the role around her originally. What a gift for her!
Anke was something of a surprise for me. I admit, the times before I have heard her, I have been underwhelmed. I would never have thought of her voice as beautiful. Powerful yes, but a tendency to be wayward, and harsh, not one I would rush off to hear again. As Procne, she held her own, as Philomele's older, though not wiser, sister, who marries the brutish Tereus. She left me realising that I need to reconsider her as a singer to investigate further, as she never fell into Emma's shadow, despite being on stage together for a large chunk of her role. I guess this is what happens when you only know performers from recorded performances.
As Tereus, Richard Anderson was the hulking brute he needed to be. He was the sort of man you could believe would do the things he did, if he did not get his own way. His voice was similar, powerful and intimidating, if not making beautiful sounds. This was of course, more a reflection on the music and the character he was portraying, rather than any lack on his part. He remains a singer I often wonder why he does not get better roles that show off his voice, but then maybe this is his choice too.
Elizabeth Campbell in her multiple roles, showed us why she remains one of Australia's pre-eminent oratorio singers. Her big mezzo voice was a model of clarity, making singing in English seem so easy. She was the only singer I could consistently understand, without ever needing the surtitles. Yes, she may have come across a bit less in character at times, but, with her roles I was not going to complain when every word was so clear.
David Corcoran sang with his usual ringy tenor voice. He seemed more confident than I have heard him before, but at the same time, I really do not think English is a good language for him. To my ear, he is all ping, with not enough body to his voice. This could be just me, but I like a fuller tenor voice than his. However, he was impressive as the captain of the ship that Philomele falls for, causing Tereus fits of jealousy.
Also, Taryn Fiebig sang a suitably radiant (if surprisingly vindictive) Aphrodite. Much of the blame for what happened gets sheeted home to her, yet, at best, she could only be said to be encouraging others to act out on their desires, rather than making those desires happen.
The music you ask? Well, I would probably describe it as fitting into a Britten-ish sound world. So, mostly tonal, with melody more likely to happen in snatches than full out arias. At the same time, there are exerptable solo moments of considerable beauty, and some quite powerful ensemble sections, making for a score that really demands multiple listenings to get a deeper appreciation for it. (Not to mention, the showstopping "Song of the Nightingale" at the end) It also reflects a keen ear for how to set words for voices, which considering the composer's long involvement with WA Opera, is not unsurprising.
The staging was initially annoying, till I adjusted to it. Having a series of platforms that roll around on stage to indicate different locations seems annoying at first, but it was made to work. You forgot it was just staging, and it became the locations, be they the palace at Athens, the boat, the beach or the palace in Thrace. It also enabled some quite difficult scenes of violence and outrageous behaviour to take place, without loss of believability, which was quite something.
Now, I have to say, for some, the moralising of some of the characters towards the end was annoying. For me, it was not, mainly because it fitted in with the whole Greek chorus thing that was happening. After all, ancient Greek theatre relied on the chorus to moralise, and ask the hard questions. Having said that it did go on for quite some time, to drum the point home, that we must ask questions, and we must never be afraid to speak out, lest we too lose the ability to do so.
But ultimately, the ending, with the gloriously over the top vocalise sung by Emma as the nightingale of the title was a fitting ending. It was an indication that we all had to find the way to say what we had no words for, to express the inexpressible. After all, what else is opera for?
Sunday, October 09, 2011
The Scottish Opera
Well, I finally got to see "The Scottish Opera" yesterday - you know, the one based on a play by Shakespeare that you are not allowed to say the name of, lest some of the witches' curse comes to haunt you. Live at the Sydney Opera House, with an impressive cast of singers that could do justice to Verdi's music.
And what a show it is! Sometimes, it really does take seeing a staged performance to really love and understand the music of an opera. That definitely applies here. Some of the things that may seem weak in the music on CD, really come to life when you understand what is happening, and can see it played out on stage. But ultimately, it demonstrates yet again, just what a master Verdi is at writing music to for dramatic purposes. No one wrote for chorus quite like he did, though ask me how he makes it work every time, and I scratch my head, it just does. And of course, the tunes!!! He instinctively had an ear for the tuneful, but was not afraid to write ugly music when the story called for it, its just his ugly makes many other composers seem like crows next to his nightingale.
So, what was today's performance (the last) like you say? Well, funny you should ask that…
Personally, I found a lot to love, and a little to dislike.
I am going to start with the dislike first. With a caveat. I rarely ever like Peter Coleman-Wright as a singer. There is something about his voice that irritates me. I think it is something weird he is doing technically, that I can't work out, but he never sounds vocally "all there" to me. It is as if he is swallowing his vowels or something, it just never sounds as forward and as ringy as it should, especially if you are sitting towards the back of the theatre. This day, I have to say, he was worse than normal vocally. Now, don't get me wrong, as a performer, he is quite absorbing to watch, but I would never buy a CD of his, and normally would avoid going to something he is in, but this was a production I have been eagerly awaiting, so he was not stopping me.
So, as Macbeth he was the consummate performer, tearing up the scenery as required, as the ambitious scheming Macbeth whose grip on reality begins to slip as the story progresses. The scene where he sees the ghost of Banquo demonstrates just what a powerful actor he is, with a performance that would not be out of place in a performance of the play.
As his wife, Elizabeth Whitehouse was the rock that the production revolved around. Her magnificent voice shone throughout the performance, tossing off Verdi's difficult music, if not with ease, certainly with confidence and flair, showing while she may be known more for Germanic roles, she certainly can sing Verdi Spinto/dramatic roles well. This is a singer in command of a big voice, who knows how to use it to great effect. Frequently while listening to her voice, I realised I would love to hear her sing Abigaille from Nabucco, as the vocal demands seem similar when you listen to them. Having said that, early in the opera, I was worried listening to some of her high notes. They sounded wayward, not in pitch, but tonally, as if she was struggling to get them out, not singing with the ease and clarity of her lower and middle range. Thankfully this cleared up as the opera continued, which makes me suspect she was feeling less than 100% at the start, or was not warmed up fully.
But of course, any Lady Macbeth stands or falls on her Sleepwalking scene, that mad scene for dramatic voices. Verdi himself was more concerned about believability than beautiful tones in his original Lady Macbeth, and you can sort of see why, she really is not a nice character, but a manipulative, amoral cold blooded killer, who thinks nothing of goading Macbeth into other murders.While I would never call Elizabeth's voice harsh, or ugly, there were definitely times when she sounded ugly and harsh, making her beautiful voice serve the drama, demonstrating the ugliness at the heart of Lady Macbeth.
As Banquo, Daniel Sumegi was mostly what you expected. Solid voice (seemed to be less full and rich than I remembered in the lower register, but that could just have been the day) with a big dark sound that carried well. He portrayed the solid friend who becomes progressively fearful of his friend as well as he is able in the limited time he had before he succumbed to Macbeth's murderous behaviour.
The big surprise for me was Rosario La Spina as Macduff. It is not a big role, but wow, that is a real tenor!!! When someone in a small role gets such a huge applause, you know either the rest of the cast are hopeless (which they were not!!) or that the small role was ideal for the performer and they really shone. In his aria just before the sleepwalking scene, La Spina showed how to sing Verdi's passionate, heart on sleeve music, and the audience went nuts with applause. As they should.
Everyone else sang well, but few stood out, except maybe Richard Anderson, wasted as the Doctor, as indeed, he is so often, with his powerful voice reduced to being a commentator as Lady Macbeth did her sleepwalking routine. I was also very impressed with the chorus, I have not heard them sounding so good in a long time.
Now, having said all that, I do have to take my hat off to the lighting designer. Etienne Boucher (restudied for the Sydney Opera House stage by Nigel Levings) worked wonders with lighting. He made us forget that we were dealing with a unitary set, and instead see different places, be it the witches scenes, the castle, or the forest. The lighting took the scene and made you see different things. Even after the forest scene, when there was snow falling on the rebels, I was thinking how were they going to clean it up, without closing the curtain before the next scene. With the change of lighting from outside, into the nighttime castle scene for the sleepwalking, the lighting changed such that the "snow" disappeared altogether. He both picked up mood changes and environmental factors, weaving them into a cohesive whole, in a way few lighting directors seem to be able to.
As to the production generally, while I do not like as a rule unitary sets, this one was made to work. As I said, this had a lot to do with the lighting, but also by the range of places on the set, that were all utilised at different times, in different ways.
On the other hand, the costumes were less successful. I started out annoyed at the twentieth century dress styles and lack of kilts (the men all started in great coats that looked more Germanic than anything), by the end I was not really concerned about how the various people were dressed. I assumed that there was some message intended by the modern dress, but it was not clear to me. Personally, I just thought of it as someone attempting to keep something accessible by making the costumes seem like what you might see in the streets today, but at some points the clothing looked definitely early twentieth century not current, which does tend to defeat the purpose…
But ultimately, this was a fairly traditional production of a standard opera, albeit one we rarely see in Australia. It was mostly beautifully sung, and only one person sounded out of place or miscast. Many sounded like luxury casting. And really, in the end, opera is about the singing, to my mind. And in this performance, I knew I had got my money's worth, and then some, with moments of pure magic. Can we really ask for more?
And what a show it is! Sometimes, it really does take seeing a staged performance to really love and understand the music of an opera. That definitely applies here. Some of the things that may seem weak in the music on CD, really come to life when you understand what is happening, and can see it played out on stage. But ultimately, it demonstrates yet again, just what a master Verdi is at writing music to for dramatic purposes. No one wrote for chorus quite like he did, though ask me how he makes it work every time, and I scratch my head, it just does. And of course, the tunes!!! He instinctively had an ear for the tuneful, but was not afraid to write ugly music when the story called for it, its just his ugly makes many other composers seem like crows next to his nightingale.
So, what was today's performance (the last) like you say? Well, funny you should ask that…
Personally, I found a lot to love, and a little to dislike.
I am going to start with the dislike first. With a caveat. I rarely ever like Peter Coleman-Wright as a singer. There is something about his voice that irritates me. I think it is something weird he is doing technically, that I can't work out, but he never sounds vocally "all there" to me. It is as if he is swallowing his vowels or something, it just never sounds as forward and as ringy as it should, especially if you are sitting towards the back of the theatre. This day, I have to say, he was worse than normal vocally. Now, don't get me wrong, as a performer, he is quite absorbing to watch, but I would never buy a CD of his, and normally would avoid going to something he is in, but this was a production I have been eagerly awaiting, so he was not stopping me.
So, as Macbeth he was the consummate performer, tearing up the scenery as required, as the ambitious scheming Macbeth whose grip on reality begins to slip as the story progresses. The scene where he sees the ghost of Banquo demonstrates just what a powerful actor he is, with a performance that would not be out of place in a performance of the play.
As his wife, Elizabeth Whitehouse was the rock that the production revolved around. Her magnificent voice shone throughout the performance, tossing off Verdi's difficult music, if not with ease, certainly with confidence and flair, showing while she may be known more for Germanic roles, she certainly can sing Verdi Spinto/dramatic roles well. This is a singer in command of a big voice, who knows how to use it to great effect. Frequently while listening to her voice, I realised I would love to hear her sing Abigaille from Nabucco, as the vocal demands seem similar when you listen to them. Having said that, early in the opera, I was worried listening to some of her high notes. They sounded wayward, not in pitch, but tonally, as if she was struggling to get them out, not singing with the ease and clarity of her lower and middle range. Thankfully this cleared up as the opera continued, which makes me suspect she was feeling less than 100% at the start, or was not warmed up fully.
But of course, any Lady Macbeth stands or falls on her Sleepwalking scene, that mad scene for dramatic voices. Verdi himself was more concerned about believability than beautiful tones in his original Lady Macbeth, and you can sort of see why, she really is not a nice character, but a manipulative, amoral cold blooded killer, who thinks nothing of goading Macbeth into other murders.While I would never call Elizabeth's voice harsh, or ugly, there were definitely times when she sounded ugly and harsh, making her beautiful voice serve the drama, demonstrating the ugliness at the heart of Lady Macbeth.
As Banquo, Daniel Sumegi was mostly what you expected. Solid voice (seemed to be less full and rich than I remembered in the lower register, but that could just have been the day) with a big dark sound that carried well. He portrayed the solid friend who becomes progressively fearful of his friend as well as he is able in the limited time he had before he succumbed to Macbeth's murderous behaviour.
The big surprise for me was Rosario La Spina as Macduff. It is not a big role, but wow, that is a real tenor!!! When someone in a small role gets such a huge applause, you know either the rest of the cast are hopeless (which they were not!!) or that the small role was ideal for the performer and they really shone. In his aria just before the sleepwalking scene, La Spina showed how to sing Verdi's passionate, heart on sleeve music, and the audience went nuts with applause. As they should.
Everyone else sang well, but few stood out, except maybe Richard Anderson, wasted as the Doctor, as indeed, he is so often, with his powerful voice reduced to being a commentator as Lady Macbeth did her sleepwalking routine. I was also very impressed with the chorus, I have not heard them sounding so good in a long time.
Now, having said all that, I do have to take my hat off to the lighting designer. Etienne Boucher (restudied for the Sydney Opera House stage by Nigel Levings) worked wonders with lighting. He made us forget that we were dealing with a unitary set, and instead see different places, be it the witches scenes, the castle, or the forest. The lighting took the scene and made you see different things. Even after the forest scene, when there was snow falling on the rebels, I was thinking how were they going to clean it up, without closing the curtain before the next scene. With the change of lighting from outside, into the nighttime castle scene for the sleepwalking, the lighting changed such that the "snow" disappeared altogether. He both picked up mood changes and environmental factors, weaving them into a cohesive whole, in a way few lighting directors seem to be able to.
As to the production generally, while I do not like as a rule unitary sets, this one was made to work. As I said, this had a lot to do with the lighting, but also by the range of places on the set, that were all utilised at different times, in different ways.
On the other hand, the costumes were less successful. I started out annoyed at the twentieth century dress styles and lack of kilts (the men all started in great coats that looked more Germanic than anything), by the end I was not really concerned about how the various people were dressed. I assumed that there was some message intended by the modern dress, but it was not clear to me. Personally, I just thought of it as someone attempting to keep something accessible by making the costumes seem like what you might see in the streets today, but at some points the clothing looked definitely early twentieth century not current, which does tend to defeat the purpose…
But ultimately, this was a fairly traditional production of a standard opera, albeit one we rarely see in Australia. It was mostly beautifully sung, and only one person sounded out of place or miscast. Many sounded like luxury casting. And really, in the end, opera is about the singing, to my mind. And in this performance, I knew I had got my money's worth, and then some, with moments of pure magic. Can we really ask for more?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)