On-Demand - "Un Ballo in Maschera" from Brussells

     This Brussels “Ballo in Maschera” was posted a couple weeks ago and I think a couple folks may have posted that they started to watch it but did not finish.  So I was curious and I watched the entire production.  In light of a certain conversation about another “Ballo” maybe folks are a bit reticent but I have to say that on the whole I found it to be an interesting performance and this production is nothing like that other production – there was not a naked person in the whole opera! 

     Musically the performance is strong.  The singers are, for the most part, singers I am not familiar with – except for Kathleen Kim as Oscar, who I think we all know from her multiple HD performances (including as Oscar).  She was, as always, terrific, and, in my view, was the strongest member of the cast.  The other really outstanding performance was Nichole Lemieux as Ulrica.  She has a strong voice with a solid low register and a soaring top, and she is a great actress. She imbued the character with a bit of arrogance that I found interesting and, frankly, refreshing.  Maria José Siri was a good and sympathetic as the victimized Amelia and Stefano Secco as the dictator Gustavo was also strong, though he came off as too nice a guy to be guilty of being such a heinous oppressor.  The Renato of George Petean was very strong, and his acting was really top notch, I truly could feel his pain and anguish in “Eri tu.”  I also really liked the more threatening and harsh presentation of the Ribbing and Horn of Tijl Faveyt and Carlo Cigni – these guys were truly creepy in this production.  Carlo Rizzi conducted – from memory without a score – and musically the performance was very strong.  He is a great conductor.  The chorus and the orchestra also were outstanding.  A special shout-out to the English Horn and principal Cello for really gorgeous playing in Ameilia’s two arias.

     Now, I have to make an observation about this opera before talking about the production.  “Un Ballo in Maschera” is principally about relationships.  That is the primary focus of the plot – in my opinion.  There is this political conspiracy within which the interpersonal conflict is set like a picture frame.  But the primary focus is the interpersonal issues: the forbidden love of Gustavo and Amelia and the betrayal of Renato by his wife and best friend.  Even the two conspirators, we learn in Act 3, are driven to this conspiracy by personal slights – confiscation of property and the murder (death) of a brother.  None of it is really political in the same way as is, for example, Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar.”  In JC the conspiracy and the political issues are the primary issue driving the plot.  There are, of course personal issues – the friendship and ultimate betrayal of Brutus and even the petition to grant amnesty to Casca’s brother, but they are all set within the context of the overriding political issue.  Even Marc Antony is ultimately focused on politics.  He uses the personal to effect the political failure of the conspiracy.  Now, why do I bring up this play?  There are obvious similarities of the plot, but the main difference is the principal focus – politics and conspiracy in JC and interpersonal relationships in “Ballo.” Thus it follows that Renato is no Brutus for he is driven to join the conspiracy only by his own anger, hurt, jealousy and desire of revenge (as are Horn and Ribbing BTW); and Gustavo himself is no Julius Caesar.  JC was a great general and a brilliant politician.  We get no sense that Gustavo in this opera has any such abilities.  In fact, one wonders how Gustavo has time to rule a realm at all since he spends his time pursuing this illicit affair with Amelia and going to see fortune-tellers.  His one and only official act is to write up the letter of appointment to the ambassadorship to England for Renato, which itself is driven by personal reasons – that is, to get Amelia out of Sweden.

     Consequently, “Ballo” works if the director keeps the primary focus on the inter-personal relationships and the conflicts within them.  “Ballo” does not work so well when the conspiracy is elevated to the primary focus of the production.  This is the problem with this production.  We start off with a projection that suggests that Gustavo is ruler over a land in which there is much oppression, misery, hunger and deprivation.  When the curtain rises we discover that Gustavo is some kind of Orwellian dictator and he presides over the realm as an oppressive dictator.  Also, there is no individuality in this realm (probably not Sweden) as everyone is masked, and everyone has numbers on their costumes (so how is it that Renato didn’t recognize his wife’s number as it is clearly marked on her outfit?)  Now as worthy as the focus may be the problem is that this libretto simply won’t sustain it.  The director is constantly trying to pull us into the realm of “1984” politics, but the personal stuff keeps getting in the way.  I found those head mask things to be superfluous and irrelevant and downright irritating and I am sure the singers hated them.  Act 2, however, was truly creepy and the conspirator’s entrance near the end of the act is the best and most effective scene in the production. This was the moment when this production worked the best.  But then the interpersonal stuff gets in the way again. 

     I have to say something about the ending, and I will try to do so without giving very much of it away.  I have always found the ending to this opera to be rather unsatisfying.  The conspirators manage to assassinate the King and then he forgives them and then everyone is sorry.  Right!  There is a twist in this production that I found initially shocking and disturbing, but in reflection I thought was effective, and made the ending much more profound.  I will not give it away except to say that it is one of the great lessons of history that one dictator is overthrown and the liberator then becomes the next dictator!  And so, on the ground nothing ever changes.

     I encourage you to watch this.  It is thought-provoking and interesting.  It is not offensive.  It encouraged me to spend a fair amount of time today pondering the connection between “Ballo” and “Julius Caesar” which is a connection I would not have thought of were it not for watching this production.  Ultimately I think “Ballo” is not one of Verdi’s best libretti.  This production in fact kind of reveals the holes in the plot.  But the music is glorious.  I finished Act 2 and wanted to go back and watch it again because the music is so glorious.  So, enjoy and see what you think.

http://www.lamonnaie.be/fr/mymm/related/event/431/media/2275/Un%20Ballo%20in%20maschera/

A Night At the Symphony... ah... I mean Opera...

The St. Louis Symphony Performs Aida

   From time to time major orchestras perform full operas in semi-staged productions. Last year - November 2013 - the St. Louis Symphony performed a semi-staged production of "Peter Grimes."  It is simply terrific.  So, I was interested and excited to see that Music Director had chosen "Aida" to conclude the orchestra's 2014/2015 season. The first performance was last night and it was a decidedly mixed event.  The orchestra and the chorus were simply outstanding. The orchestra had engaged a video artist to provide background projections which engulfed the orchestra throughout. These I thought were pretty successful (I did tire of the winking eye, however). Overall the lead singers were good, some better than others however.
   For me the stand outs of the evening were Solomon Howard as the King and Ekaterina Semenchuk as Amneris.  The King is a secondary role, but yet Solomon Howard's powerful bass voice blew me away.  He was for me the star of the evening.  He is the only one of the singers who has sung at the Met, and I can see why. I want to hear more of this young bass!  I liked Semenchuk very much.  She had power across her range and gave us an intense Amneris. I would have a liked a little more subtlety in places, but she certainly gave us an strong performance of the role.  The tenor Antonello Palombi was a bit uneven but overall good and did seem to be one of the few cast members who actually attempted to act. Gordan Hawkins was a strong Amonasro and Alexander Vinocradov was fine, though a little underpowered as the High Priest Ramfis.  I am sorry to say that I felt that Lucretia Garcia as Aida was the weakest member of the cast.  Vocally she had bursts but overall she was overpowered by the rest of the cast and her acting was simply nonexistent.  Two local singers as the Messenger and the High Priestess did a nice job.  It was nice to actually have the High Priestess and the Harp onstage for a change.
   The first two acts were the strongest of the evening, largely because of the chorus.  Timing was good and the orchestra and chorus and soloists were well paced, though balance between the singers and the orchestra was an annoying problem throughout.  The triumphal scene was simply thrilling. But after the intermission this all seemed to disappear.  Act 3 simply did not hang together.  Tempi were odd in places and the act just didn't hang together.  Largely I think this is because act 3 is Aida's act and her weaknesses were particularly on display.  It did not help her, or Amonasro, that the decision was made to put her on a platform behind the orchestra for her aria and the subsequent scene with her father.  Both singers had trouble being heard over the orchestra. Hawkins was completely covered during his major outburst. Had they been downstage I think this would have helped.
   The major misstep though took place during the judgment scene however.  During acts 1 and 2 the entire chorus were in seats behind the orchestra.  All of the chorus parts were taken by the one chorus (the score divides the chorus into groups: Priests, Priestesses, Attendants on Amneris, Soldiers, Crowd, Prisoners, etc.). Given the venue, that was fine with me.  But for acts 3 and 4 the chorus is largely unseen so they positioned them in the foyer behind the audience.  It worked well for most of the 2nd half - until the judgment scene.  The score calls for the priests to return to the stage at the conclusion for the last bit which includes Amneris' cursing of the priests.  For me, this is the highlight of the opera and musically the most exciting and dramatic moment. For what I am sure were logistical reasons the priests never appeared on stage but remained offstage. Consequently the finale of that scene basically turned into a monologue by Amneris since one could not hear the chorus or Ramfis over the orchestra.  It was a huge disappointment. I understand the problem, but it seems to me they could have brought the priests into the hall at least.  Also, it might be worth noting that when done on stage the entire chorus is not used as priests, it is usually a small subset.  Obviously it would have made it easier to bring a smaller group of strong basses and baritones on stage for that finale.  I believe there was a way to do it, but they didn't and it kind of ruined the ending.
   On the other hand, the final tomb scene had the chorus in the hall on either side of the auditorium.  This was lovely.  This chorus has a beautiful sound.  Amy Kaiser, the chorusmaster, obviously spends time shaping the sound and it shows.
   A couple other observations: It is a major pet peeve of mine when professional musicians practice their challenging parts during the intermission or before the concert.  Come on, St Louis symphony musicians you are better than this.  I do not want to hear the principal oboe practice "Patria mia" or the tuba practice his hard parts.  It is distracting and unprofessional.
   The St. Louis Symphony has a new Bass Clarinet player - Tzuying Huang - she is terrific!  I love her playing.  She is a wonderful musician.  Even in the relatively short bass clarinet solo in act 4 she distinguished herself!  Brava!
   Amy Kaiser is obviously a wonderful chorusmaster.  Everything I have heard from the chorus over the 6 years I have been attending StLSO concerts has been top notch.  However, as the pre-concert lecturer she was terrible.  She seemed unprepared and was making it up as she went.  The trumpets for the Triumphal March, for example, are NOT called "Aida Trumpets" they are called Heralding Trumpets and they are not unique to Aida, in fact the US Military has an ensemble of them for ceremonial use.  (ok - I stand corrected - these trumpets copy historical Egyptian trumpets and are modeled on Fanfare or Heralding Trumpets but only have one valve in order to play one tune - here is an article: http://www.21stcenturybrass.com/giuseppe-verdi-aida-trumpet/ ). And her comment about the ballet was downright insulting.  We will have the opportunity, she told us, to hear the ballets without the distraction of dancers.  What? Isn't that was a ballet is for?  And who says dancers are distracting.  Some of us like dancers.  I think she was trying to pay a compliment to the orchestra but it was not necessary to put down dancers in order to do it. Her pre-concert talk was an embarrassment, frankly.
   As wonderful as the projections were one wonders why the solo singers were not similarly costumed.  The only one whose dress added to the overall production was, not surprisingly, Palombi as Rhadames.  He was the only one of the cast (except for the King) who was really engaged in his role.  Ramfis looked like a stock-broker or a Mormon missionary.  Surely some kind of minimal costuming could have done done to add to the feel created by the projections.  As it was the singers lack of acting and lack of costuming detracted from the projections and from the production.  One is left to wonder why bother?
   I came away thinking that perhaps Aida does not work in a concert production.  Certainly there were some thrilling moments.  But the overall experience was very mixed and it was almost that the piece was too much for the context.  David Robinson is a wonderful conductor and his work at the Met has been top notch.  But it has all been in contemporary opera.  After last night I wonder if he really is able to do romantic opera.  His tempi were odd in places, some of the transitions were disjunct, his overall dramatic sense did not seem to prevent the problems listed above, and the orchestra consistently overpowered the singers, even the chorus.  He did not seem to be able to bring them into balance.  Perhaps Aida needs to remain as a stage work.

The stage at Powell Hall at intermission with some of the projections.

St. Louis Shakespeare - Henry VI - all in one! A Wonderful Evening of Shakespeare!

30 years of Shakespeare!  And if that were not enough, St. Louis Shakespeare this year has completed the canon, including the questionable and hardly ever performed Edward III.  And the last play to complete the cycle - Henry VI, parts 1, 2 and 3! This series of 3 plays is also not often performed in the US.  This is not too terribly surprising considering that the history that is covered is very foreign to most Americans, not to mention the length.  A company like St. Louis Shakespeare only does 3 to 4 plays a year and to mount all three parts would not be very prudent.  So, what do to?  Well, combine the plays into a single evening of theater, of course!  And so I had the great pleasure of experiencing this version of Henry VI, all 3 parts combined into one play.  Frankly it made for a long evening, 3 and a half hours with two intermissions.  It also turns out to be a bit of a slog through the 50 years of the reign of Henry VI in which there are endless battles, political posturing and betrayal all while the kindly, peace-loving and religious Henry VI completely looses control and falls apart.  I cannot criticize the company for deciding to do these 3 plays as one, but I think it would have been better to make it into two plays, as many scenes had to be very shortened and important characters dropped completely (like John of Bedford, Henry V’s practical and competent brother who was the regent of France).  It made it a little hard to follow the myriad historical events, and I have an advantage as I have spent a lot of time studying all of that.  (Note - The "Hollow Crown" series of the BBC has announced they will in fact be filming Henry VI as two parts.  The cast will include Benedict Cumberbach as Richard III).

However, better one play than none.  Perhaps listing the cast of characters in order of appearance (and thus in historical order) or including a list of events covered in the program might have helped.  But be that as it may, despite the operatic scope of this version it was a delight and a joy to get to see this work performed on the stage.  I had seen it once before in a live stream from the Barnet battlefield where the Globe Theater on tour was performing all three plays back to back – a 7 hour marathon in the pouring rain!  Watching last night I was reminded that this (these?) play(s) include some of Shakespeare’s most powerful and beautiful scenes and also some most interesting characters.  The “paper crown” scene is an incredibly powerful scene, Young Clifford’s murder of Edmund Rutland, the trial and punishment of the Duchess of Gloucester and then the amazing scene where Shakespeare juxtaposes a son who has killed his father and a father who has killed his son in the idiotic violence of the War of Roses are scenes that are unique and emotionally gripping.  And not only that but how often do we hear actresses complain (justifiably) about the dearth of good female roles in Shakespeare.  Well, they should immediately start advocating for more performances of the Henry VI cycle which contains several incredible women: Joan of Arc (Joan la Pucelle), Eleanor, The Duchess of Gloucester and the tour de force role of Margaret of Anjou along with several interesting smaller roles: Elizabeth Woodville (here known as Lady Gray) and Margret Jourdain the Medium.

Three and a half hours of Shakespeare history could have easily become interminable if it weren’t for the inventive and fast paced production and the excellent acting.  I really enjoyed this performance and thought the cast did a great job, across the board.  They are, I believe, a mixture of students, amateurs and semi-pros (if I am wrong about that I apologize) – but there was nothing amateurish about this performance.  The fighting was well practiced and effective and the characterizations very profound from the leading characters even extending to some of the smaller roles.  Shannon Lampkin, for example, was very effective as the medium Margret Jourdain, quite beguiling as Lady Gray and then pathetic as the palsied Lord Say.  I cannot possibly name everyone, but I hate to leave anyone out so let me say that I felt that there was nary a weak link in the cast.  There were standouts though and at the top of the list has to be Jeff Lloyd who took on the role of King Henry VI, a man who was as unsuited for kingship as any in the history of England.  By the end, when Henry has unraveled and witnesses the above mentioned scene between the son and father Jeff’s emotional engagement was very moving.  Maggie Winniger was quite effective as the almost equally unhinged Margaret of Anjou - her complete lack of empathy at the bloody evidence of the murder of the child Rutland, her pathological delight in cruelly taunting York in the paper crown scene and then her bitter despair as she is forced to watch her own son murdered before her eyes were some of the most powerful scenes in this production.

I also really enjoyed the work of Tim Callahan as Talbot and the boys Alex Bollini and Dan Haller who played several different roles. The drive for vengeance of the Young Clifford of Michael Pierce and the unreasonable hate and power lust of Maxwell Knocke were also notable.  Katie Warnusz-Steckel was outstanding as Joan la Pucelle as Shakespeare gives us a rather questionable character of dubious motivation and morality – of course, considering who he was writing for.  It is in this character that Shakespeare drifts far afield of actual historical fact.  Oh, along with his depiction of Richard, Duke of Gloucester – the future Richard III – who becomes a complete villain in this play and the following Richard III – also not supported by historical fact.  But who cares, it makes for great theater.  Andrew Bayer almost made me wish they had continued into Richard III - ah, almost – it was 11:30 PM by then and I had an hour and a half drive home.  But he captured wonderfully the evil of this Shakespearean creation.  And I enjoyed his delivering the opening sentence of the Richard III – “Now is the winter of our discontent.”  It worked well to wrap up the long evening and point us ahead.

I have to mention the creative casting of Teresa Doggett as the Earl of Warwick, the Kingmaker.   At first, before the play began I wondered if they were going to make the character a woman, which I don’t think would have worked.  No, she played the character as male and she was outstanding.  I noticed at first because of the pitch of her voice, but after about 3 minutes I completely forgot and it no longer mattered.  She was very effective in this role.

One little quibble – I am not sure why the director chose to keep the Bishop of Winchester (played very effectively by Charles Heuvelman) in his liturgical robes for the duration of his extensive role.  But I found that distracting.  It was certainly appropriate for scene 1 at the funeral of Henry V, but he should have changed to a cardinal’s cassock.  No cleric goes around wearing liturgical vestments all the time, they are only worn during worship and liturgical functions.  I should also mention the object of the good Bishop's hate: Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, the youngest son of Henry Bolingbrook and brother to Henry Monmouth, played wonderfully by Jared Sanz-Agero.  I loved his scenes with Margeau Baue Steinau, they were very moving and beautifully performed.

To conclude I want to say that I really enjoyed this performance.  Well done to all the cast and I will be anxious to see where you go now in the next 30 years!

Tannhauser at Lyric

Well, I never thought I would turn 60, but the time has finally come and to celebrate I took a week’s vacation and my wife and I travelled to Chicago to attend a performance of Tannhauser at Lyric Opera.  This is the first time this opera has been performed at Lyric since the 1980’s and only the 3^rd time in the history of the company.  Tannhauser has always been a favorite of mine.  I became familiar with it when I was much younger and have always enjoyed the music.  There was a time I might have said this was my favorite Wagner opera, but as I have gotten older I’m afraid Tannhasuer has been pushed aside in favor of the Ring, but also Meistersinger and Tristan.  Even so, I do love Tannhauser and it has some wonderful music.  Unlike a lot of Wagner’s other operas it actually has set pieces – an overture, arias, ensembles and the like.  It also  has a really cool onstage English Horn part which I always lusted after, not as glorious as the one from the 3^rd act of Tristan, but still a lovely solo.  So I was very excited to get to see this opera which is produced so infrequently.

A little background: without going into great detail let me just say that Wagner created several different versions of this opera.  The Paris version, which is what Lyric performed and the one that is most popular, is the later version and was expanded to includ the Venusberg ballet music in particular for a series of performances in Paris, where ballet in opera was ubiquitous. For a variety of reasons it was a disaster and Wagner never felt that Tannhasuer was complete or finished.

So, after all this anticipation I have to say the experience was a mixed bag. Musically it was mostly strong, the production however was really odd.  Let’s start with the musical performance.  The key role in this opera is, no surprise, Tannhauser himself.  This taxing heldentenor part is a very difficult role. One reason the opera is performed so infrequently is the difficulty in casting this main role.  Luckily for Lyric, South African heldentenor Johan Botha is available and I am certain that he is glorious in the role.  Unfortunately, he was sick for the Thursday performance I attended.  What a disappointment!  This was made all the more acute by the fact that the cover or understudy, Richard Decker, was really not quite up to the task.  While he had his moments (most notably the Rome Narrative in Act 3 where he was wonderful) mostly his just didn’t have enough power for the role.  Act 2 was especially weak I'm sorry to say.  His interjections in act 2 should soar, and they just didn’t.  I had the feeling at times that the wonderful Amber Wagner, who played Elizabeth, was pulling her very large voice back to keep from overpowering him. Musically act 2 was also not as tight as it should be. Having said that, I understand that singers are humans and they get sick.  I am sorry that Mr. Botha was sick, so Lyric did what they had to do.  But for me it was a big disappointment, especially since out of 3 operas I attended this year at Lyric the leads were replaced in two of them (the other one being Don Giovanni where Marius Kwiecien was replaced by a fine young bass baritone – but still!) 

That said the star of the evening for me was by far the Wolfram von Eschenbach of Gerald Finley.  He has some of the most beautiful music in the score and was amazing.  I loved absolutely every note he sang.  His “Hymn the Evening Star” in act 3 was glorious.  Amber Wagner as Elizabeth and Michaela Schuste sang Venus and they were both excellent.  John Relyea sang the Landgraf Hermann and he was outstanding, as always – has has always been a favorite of mine.  The chorus was one of the stars of the evening – they were glorious, especially the men in all of the men’s choruses.  The orchestra was good.  The English Horn was flat though when he first started, I’m not sure if the orchestra had drifted sharp or if he was just flat, but the first phrase was flat. I would say that act 3 was the strongest and best performed.  Act 2 was the weakest and act 1 in between.

This leads to the staging and what a odd production!  Why did Lyric engage this odd production from Covet Garden?  The oddest thing is that part of the set is the stage and curtain of the Royal Opera House, Covet Garden.  It is in tact for the Venusberg scenes and in ruins for act 2.  I am sure this setting had some kind of special resonance in London, but it did not work in Chicago, IMHO.  It just came across as weird.  What exactly was the point?  By act 3 the rubble was covered in snow so the setting became pretty much irrelevant.  I am not one that automatically dismisses updated productions and I am willing to give these Regietheater productions a chance, but this one just did not work.

However, some of the elements were more successful – the opening Venusburg ballet was terrific.  It was erotic and extremely physical.  The use of the chairs and the large table were very effective and the choreographer used all of this to stunning effect. I was sorry there was no curtain call for the dancers.  They deserved one.

Quibbles: Why did Venus initially enter dressed as Elizabeth?  2 dimensions of the same woman?  Ho hum, yes, ok… boring - nothing like being hit over the head with the obvious!  Usually the pilgrims walk across the stage in act 1 singing that glorious chorus.  Not here – it was all back stage, too bad.  At least they walked on in act 3 and sang the Pilgrim’s chorus from onstage.  Why did the hunters shoot the shepherd?  Why were there two shepherds - a child along with the singer?  Why did all the hunters and the chorus in act 2 look like they just got back from a deployment in Afganistan?  The costumes were at odds with the libretto. Why was the singing contest in act 2 set amidst the rubble of a bombed out ROH Covet Garden?  I understand that Wagner was making a lot of pronouncements about the feudal society in which he lived and there is much that is relevant to today, but I found this production just muddled.

If you are interested in learning more about this wonderful opera I highly recommend this series of articles by my friend and former colleague Dr. Karl Seigfried: http://www.norsemyth.org/2015/02/myth-legend-in-wagners-tannhauser-part.html

Lastly, I want to mention that if you scroll down you will find my reflections on my fall trips to LOC to see Don Giovanni and Capriccio.  I had tickets on the floor and near the back and I hated it! Mostly I hated it because I found the people on the floor to be very, very rude and obnoxious.  The leaving throughout the last hour was particularly galling for me.  I am happy to report however that my experience in the Dress Circle (3^rd Floor) was very, very different.  I seemed to be surrounded by other opera lovers who, except for the odd crinkly candy wrapper now and then were quiet and respectful.  In the future, this is where I will sit and I am sorry I didn’t experience those other operas from this vantage point last fall.

In closing, I am very glad I got to see Tannhauser.  It wasn’t quite as glorious as I had hoped it would be, but it was a fine performance and I enjoyed it very much.

Finally - here is the wonderful overture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTM7E4-DN0o

In Defense of "Cosi fan Tutte."

   Many years ago now when I was still a student at New England Conservatory and my then fiancé was a student at Boston University School of Theology I attended a worship service at BU's Marsh Chapel. This service turned out to be a very unusual service.  It began with a group of female seminarians processing into the chapel and taking their place in the front.  What was odd about this was how they were dressed.  Half were dressed as nuns and half as prostitutes. As the service progressed the point became clear: in our western society, in the 70's, in America woman are categorized and viewed either as virgin or whore - instead it is time to start seeing women as human beings, equal with men.  No more pedestals and no more objectifying.  And to drive this point home at the close of the service they shed their nun and prostitute costumes and recessed dressed in normal clothes.  At the time - 1975 or so - I found this shocking and confusing.  But now, many years later I look back on this and see that I think they are right.  And it is questionable whether or not we have progressed very far from those days, quite frankly.

   This service and its message came back into my memory the other day as I was reading an excellent if rather uncontroversial article recommending the best youtube performances of operatic comedies by Tim Ashley - Tim Ashley's Opera Guide: Comedies.  In the article he recommend's Mozart's "Cosi fan Tutte."  One of his readers took issue with this recommendation: "Cosi fan Tutte is the most sexist plot ever written for an opera... it is horrible." This criticism is not new however to this particular commenter.  I have heard it before.  In fact it comes up every time the opera is performed. In fact even folks in the 19th century had problems with the plot as the opera was altered to change the plot to make it less offensive in 19th century Europe.  Only within the 20th century has the opera been restored to its original form.  But it still makes folks uneasy.  Even stage directors and singers try to find a way to mitigate what seems on its face to be the harsh sexism of the piece.  Which is not helped by the title itself - loosely translated as "All Women are Like That."

   So what is so objectionable?  Let me quickly outline the plot:  The opera begins in a tavern with two young soldiers, Ferrando and Guglielmo bragging about what wonderful girlfriends (fiancé's) they have.  These are the most perfect goddesses who have ever existed, they are beautiful, perfect and completely faithful.  Finally their older friend Don Alfonso has had enough - "What kind of creatures are these?" he asks, "Are they women or some other being?"  So they place a bet to test the girl's fidelity.  They stage a fake deployment and leave on assignment, leaving behind their grief stricken lovers - Fiordiligi and Dorabella.  No sooner than they have gone then they turn up disguised as Albanian friends of Don Alfonso and begin to woo the girls, however making sure that Ferrando goes after Guglielmo's Fiordiligi and vice versa.  But the girls want nothing to do with these guys.  ("Like a Rock," sings Fiordigili in one of the most brilliant arias in the opera - "Come scolio!") But then the boys pretend to poison themselves out of heart break.  Alfonso sends for a doctor who is really the girl's maid, Despina, in disguise.  Using a "magnetic" therapy the boys recover, and act 1 ends with the girls as staunch as ever.  But act 2 sees them beginning to weaken. "What if our boyfriends die in war, we will be left alone forever," expresses Dorabella.  So they slowly succumb to the seductions and eventually agree to marry the "Albanians."  The boys are brokenhearted. A wedding is scheduled, a notary arrives (Despina again), but after signing the fake contract a commotion is heard.  The boys are back from war.  They discover the fake contract, the girls ask for forgiveness.  Ferrando promises that he will never test a woman's fidelity again.  Guglielmo is angry and despite the "happy ending" does not appear to reconcile. In fact, for all the glorious music the opera ends under a cloud.  It is important to remember that.

   On the face of it, according to 21st century standards this is very sexist.  The women appear to be victimized and tricked.  But perhaps we should set aside our 21st century attitudes for a moment and look at this from an 18th century perspective.  These two women are not peasants - they are aristocrats of some sort (after all they employ a servant girl who serves them chocolate in the morning!) Aristocratic women in the 18th century were expected to marry, in fact their entire livelihoods were dependent on marriage.  To be married and have children was in fact a key element of the enlightenment - this was the pinnacle of what it meant to live a good life, especially for women, but also for men (This is an attitude that Mozart bought into completely).  When Dorabella voices in a 2nd act recitative her fear that she and her sister could end up being left completely alone she was voicing what was one of the great fears of the time for men and for women (for men, note Papageno's desperate need to find his Papagena in "Magic Flute".)  The women succumb to these new suitors in part because of this fear of being left alone forever.  But that is not all.  Fidelity was also an issue because of inheritance issues.  It was absolutely important at the time for women to be faithful because otherwise how would you know whether the children were really the heirs of the father (see how this plays out in Beaumarchais' 3rd Figaro play "The Guilty Mother.")  The result of this was increased suspicion and the tendency to categorize women as faithful or unfaithful (or Virgin/Whore - see above).  We may not like this, it may not go with our enlightened values, but this is the world of Lorenzo da Ponte and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and Cosi makes no sense outside of this world.  And it is da Ponte who sets out to challenge this, more so than Mozart.

   In fact, Cosi would have been seen as expounding progressive views on women's place in society, marriage and relationships.  Da Ponte is making a statement about the way society looks at women, and this statement is not dissimilar from the statement I started this article with and from the theme of the service at Marsh Chapel: Women are human beings, not goddesses, not perfect - they are human beings and should not be put up on pedestals.  When the men is the penultimate scene declare "cosi fan tutte" this is not a put down, as it is often assumed to be.  Rather, I think this is an acknowledgement of just this fact: Women are like all of us - human beings with feelings and fears and joys and sorrows, they are not perfect, but neither are men.  This scene represents the symbolic removal of the pedestal.  And this removal of the girls from their status as perfect has shaken the boys to the core.

   But there is more - let us look at the boys for a moment.  In scene 1 as they are bragging about their girlfriends they seem to be love with a fantasy.  They obviously do not know these girls at all.  The parting scene is a case in point, it is all surface and superficial even on the part of the girls (despite the fact that the scene concludes with one of the most beautiful pieces that Mozart ever composed - the trio "Soave sia il vento").  I would go so far as to say the entire relationship for both couples is pretty superficial at the beginning of the opera.  It is only when the boys start actually courting the girls that they all come to know each other and start to develop affection for each other.  And one wonders what kind of courtship occurred before the opera began.  By the end we are left with this question - can they return to their original lovers?  By 21st century standards, probably not.  It is an open question I think. Certainly the boys have had their worlds and all their pre-conceptions about women and relationship called into question.  It will not be possible to return to the status quo ante.

   And what of Don Alfonso and Despina?  I have heard Don Alfonso described as the most evil character in all of opera.  I find that comment ridiculous.  Opera as a lot of horrible, evil characters - including the devil himself - it is hard to believe that Don Alfonso out paces them all.  But still, I suppose if you see him as purposefully and willfully setting out to destroy these relationships then that is pretty evil.  But is that truly his motivation?  It seems to me that anyone who makes us, or encourages us to see things differently, and who calls our cherished attitudes into question is seen as disruptive and evil.  It is that of which I think he is guilty I believe.  He calls all of us to recognize our shared humanity, and since we (even now) don't want to we can more easily disregard him if we see him as evil.  As for Despina, I suspect she will need to find new employment, but in the Met's wonderful recent production the Despina, Danielle de Niesse reacts angrily to the moment of revealing.  In this way I think the director was trying to redeem the opera for 21st century audiences. But I think it is misplaced.  I think she knew all along and agreed with Alfonso at least in principal.

   We have come a long way from these 18th century attitudes about women, relationships, courtship and marriage.  Part of that is because of the shift in the socio-economic status of many, but we still have a problem with categorizing people.  We do it all the time, we still have our pedestals and prejudices about women and women's roles in the world, and to that we now add lots of other categories - socio-economic standing, race, sexual orientation, religion and so forth.  The message I take away from this opera is that none of those categories are valid.  We need to see each other as human beings.  Flawed human beings, yes - but human all the same.  It is not this group or that group or those people or any other ways we humans have devised to separate ourselves into in and out groups.  This message lay at the heart of this opera, and it is a message we would all do well to take to heart.

Listen:  "Soave sia il vento" - Rene Fleming, Susan Graham, Thomas Hampson

"Come scoglio" - Kiri Te Kanewa

The complete opera - From Glyndebourne

And here is the complete libretto: Cosi fan tutte libretto English/Italian

Terrific Zauberflöte - Aix-en-Provence

I just finished watching one of the most interesting productions of Magic Flute I have ever seen. It is not a traditional fantasy production, but I have never seen a more creative use of projections than this production. The outstanding cast is unknown (to me) and all European. The orchestra is a period orchestra from Freiburg. It is a really remarkable production. If you like completely traditional productions you won't like it - but I found this to be a really interesting and creative and revelatory production. Enjoy!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFDyfPV9eDQ

Winter Opera - Le Nozze di Figaro

    Well, this has been a Mozart fall - I have had the opportunity to see 3 different productions of Nozze, 4 of Don Giovanni and 2 of Cosi - not to mention one each of Abduction, Idomeneo and Clemenza.  The 3 productions of Nozze were from the ROH, the Met's wonderful new production which was broadcast in HD to movie theaters in October and the Winter Opera production which I saw this past weekend.  I do not bring this up in order to compare the productions, that would not be fair - the Met's budget for Nozze is probably much more than Winter Opera's entire yearly budget. But it raises an important point - that is this - it is possible to do great opera and not spend hundreds of thousands of  dollars.  Yes, I know, opera is expensive - but, if ever there was a company who has perfected the art of doing great opera without a huge budget and who - it appears to me - know how to work with what they have and make the best of it - it is Winter Opera.  Their "Marriage of Figaro" was a triumph.  I really enjoyed it.  Not that I don't have any quibbles (I always do) - but overall this was a terrific production performed by wonderful young singers.  The pacing was good, the acting was good, the voices lovely.  I hate to lift up one singer over another, but I have to say that Chad Armstrong as the Count really was a stand out in every way - acting and singing.  I loved his act 3 aria it was exceptionally well done.  This is not to say that the other members of the cast were not also quite excellent - because they were.  So, again - fine job Winter Opera - thank you for a wonderful afternoon at what in my view is one of the greatest accomplishments in the history of opera - "Le Nozze di Figaro" by Mozart.

     As promised I do need to list a couple quibbles - most of them are minor and really didn't detract from the production.  I'll get this out of the way - the wigs really didn't work (especially the Count's, though the Countess' wig was pretty good).  I have a few musical issues - why re-order the 3rd act?  Why did this production choose to exchange the sextet and "Dove sono?"  I found that disorienting.  Mozart and da Ponte knew what they were doing - Act 3: duet - crudel, Hai gia vinta la causa, recit with Cherubino and Barbarina and then Dove Sono followed by the scene with the sextet.  The re-ordering made no sense to me.  I was pleased that over all there were no cuts - except for the finale of Act 3 and some recits here and there (not counting the usual cuts in act4 of the Marcelina and Basilio arias).  I have to say, I don't get the cuts made to the Act 3 finale - they didn't save much time - maybe a couple minutes and they were jarring.  But still, they were minor.  Also in Act 3 - what happened to Cherubino at the end and why was he excluded from the party?  And why was Antonio, the dirty drunk included in the dancing?  This is supposed to be a triple wedding - but the groom from one of the couples was missing from the reception?  Huh?

    Those are minor - here is my major complaint.  I know that this company needs to use a reduced orchestra - and this is fine and works without trouble for most operas.  But to do a Mozart opera like Nozze without full woodwinds is almost heresy.  This was the only thing that distracted and bothered me throughout the performance.  I got used to the electronic harpsichord with reverb, I wasn't terribly bothered by a couple coordination problems between pit and stage and singers making a couple mistakes - that happens - but no oboe 2 and no bassoon 2 was really distracting - and at times when the music is at its most gorgeous.  Example - "Porgi amor," without 2 bassoons (with a clarinet playing one of the bassoon parts (yuck - I love the clarinet, and the WO clarinets are outstanding, but as wonderful as they are they simply do not sound like bassoons!); "Dove sono" and "Hai gia vinta la causa without two oboes." Mozart was a brilliant orchestrator and his orchestrations should never be messed with.  And we are talking about 2 players - I do not believe that Winter Opera, even with they noted and highly respected efforts to stay within their means could not have found a way to have afforded another oboe and bassoon.  Heck I would have paid for one of those players myself.  Please Winter Opera - the next time you do Mozart - 2 Flutes (maybe if the score calls for them); 2 oboes, 2 clarinets and 2 bassoons!

     Lastly a complaint that is not directed at Winter Opera - but at productions of this opera in general.  Why is it that two arias area almost always cut from act 4: Marcelina's "Il capro e la capretta" and Basilio's "In quegli anni..."  Now as much as I like the Basilio aria - it is fun and funny - I have to admit it adds absolutely nothing to the plot.  In fact the text is so odd that even after having sung it as a young voice student I have to admit I still don't quite understand what in the world he is talking about.  It is a time out and I do understand why stage directors at that point in the opera see this aria as getting the way of the momentum.  But Marcelina's aria is another story. Mozart as set two arias in opposition to each other - Figaro's "Aprite un po..."  (sung wonderfully by WO'sTodd William Donovan - BTW Katy Lindhart was a wonderful Susanna) in which Figaro spends the aria complaining about women, how he doesn't understand them and how there is so much that is confusion about women he can't even begin to list everything.  This aria is set up in opposition to Marcelina's "Il capro..." where she complains about men!  It is a wonderful juxtaposition.  Too often I hear complaints that opera and theater take the male perspective - but in this case Mozart and Da Ponte have provided a balanced look at how men and women, though drawn to each other, have such a hard time understanding each other.  The net result is that the balance is shifted in the direction of the male view.  BTW "Il capro..." takes 3 minutes and 11 seconds.  This is not a criticism - the Met didn't include it either - in fact I have only seen two productions with these arias included and both were productions from England - an ROH production and the John Eliot Gardiner production from the 90's.  There was a moment during the WO act 4 when Marcelina was on stage that I almost thought we were going to have the treat of hearing the wonderful Erin Haupt sing us this aria - but alas, she left the stage.  I think we need a movement to restore at least this aria to performances of this opera.

     In closing, this was a terrific performance - Winter Opera has done a great job.  I also want to mention that one of things I really love about this company is their set designs.  They create sets that can be quickly re-shaped for different scenes.  Falstaff was the same.  The set designer deserves an award!  Thank you WO for a wonderful afternoon at the opera.